New EU data protection law to be considered

[timbo343]

Just heard this on the radio whilst half awake Teenagers under 16 face being banned from social media and email under EU laws - Telegraph.

 

Could case a bit of a headache but i do think they might be shooting themselves in the foot, especially with email but i guess things wont really change, parents unless educated will still be obilvious to actually what goes on on these sites.

Edited December 15, 2015 by timbo343

[elsiegee40]

It won't work. End of.

[DrCheese]

Stupid, facebook will just have a sudden spurt of users registering as age 16. Just like they already do for age 13.

[X-13]

It won't work. End of.

 

What?

 

But, the "you must be over 18 to view this site" age gates ALWAYS work!

[Garacesh]

It won't work. End of.

 

Neither will the alternative.

A) Honour system. "ples let me in im defo sixten"*, which obviously doesn't work. We have plenty of evidence, anecdotal and otherwise, to show this.

B) Proof system. Prove via legal means that you're over 16. Most places do this with adults and credit cards even if they're not going to charge you, but obviously registrations suffer as not everyone has a credit card, people are concerned about giving away that information, and in this scenario it won't work anyway as 16 year olds aren't allowed them.

 

Either way it doesn't work. What we need is better digital education, in school and at home. None of this 'A few posters on the wall of the IT rooms' thing, proper e-safety now. And not just with the internet. Electronic safety branches much further than that now. Electronic devices are already so ingrained into our lifestyle I think it would be prudent to have primary-school e-safety classes.

 

* A purposeful grammatical error has just caused it to dawned on me the possible etymology of 'Teen'..

[jmak]

Neither will the alternative.

A) Honour system. "ples let me in im defo sixten"*, which obviously doesn't work. We have plenty of evidence, anecdotal and otherwise, to show this.

B) Proof system. Prove via legal means that you're over 16. Most places do this with adults and credit cards even if they're not going to charge you, but obviously registrations suffer as not everyone has a credit card, people are concerned about giving away that information, and in this scenario it won't work anyway as 16 year olds aren't allowed them.

 

Either way it doesn't work. What we need is better digital education, in school and at home. None of this 'A few posters on the wall of the IT rooms' thing, proper e-safety now. And not just with the internet. Electronic safety branches much further than that now. Electronic devices are already so ingrained into our lifestyle I think it would be prudent to have primary-school e-safety classes.

 

* A purposeful grammatical error has just caused it to dawned on me the possible etymology of 'Teen'..

 

Plenty of e-safety classes in primaries - not convinced the key messages get through, judging by the stories that my secondary age kids bring home about their classmates.

 

The key would be getting the message through to parents. Without reinforcement at home - and modeling of correct use - there's not much hope. Just as with healthy eating, swearing, washing, smoking (in no particular order ), kids will copy what they see their parents doing.

 

Changing the law will make very little difference.

[Garacesh]

Plenty of e-safety classes in primaries - not convinced the key messages get through, judging by the stories that my secondary age kids bring home about their classmates.

I wouldn't know, my only experience with primaries was for 6 months, which was decent enough to get an idea of how they're managed, but not any idea about the classes. But it's nice that they're attempted it, even if it seemingly isn't working. There's clearly more to be done here.

 

The key would be getting the message through to parents. Without reinforcement at home - and modeling of correct use - there's not much hope. Just as with healthy eating, swearing, washing, smoking (in no particular order ), kids will copy what they see their parents doing.

Kids are complacent, which I personally see is the bigger issue.

 

I have been involved in a Child Protection issue here which I managed to ascertain was related to a video of one of our students performing oral sex on another. I of course did not review the files, merely facilitated the gathering of evidence from pupil devices, but you pick up on these things. At the time this was taken the girl in question obviously wasn't bothered. She was complacent. Probably believed her (assumed now to be ex-)partner wouldn't share it. In a scenario like this, a pupil might not want to say "No, I don't want to, because you might share it." for fear of sounding like they don't trust their partner and causing friction. Or maybe they're blackmailed. Or simply just coerced. Or maybe they just genuinely think they don't care until the excrement hits the air circulation unit. The issue isn't so much that they don't know, it's that they don't care, or don't properly assess the situation.

 

Edit: Another example is meeting strangers online. Children are often too trusting and it's relatively easy to gather information on people, given how prevalent social networking is and how easy it is to socially engineer somebody without their knowledge.

 

Changing the law will make very little difference.

Agree 100%.

Edited December 15, 2015 by Garacesh

[mikeprice]

Yup - won't make any difference

 

I teach e-safety in a primary and they all listen very carefully and do all the work I set them

 

Then go home and play on the age 18 games that their parents gave them for Christmas

 

But it's OK - cos everyone does it

 

although to be fair I have had some positive comments about how they have changed their habits a bit - based on what we have done - mostly from girls

 

 

 

and if a few parents try to enforce things they are seen as being totally unreasonable as 'everyone else's parents' allow them to do it

 

maybe I am missing something but I can't see any way to enforce any restrictions, especially if parents just circumvent stuff to get an easy life - or through lack of understanding

[pcstru]

Yup - won't make any difference

Well if the law changes, then surely they have made a difference - the law is different. The furious lobbying by social media companies suggests this will make a difference to them and the way they have to do business. The fact that teenagers could lie to bypass the law does not mean there should not be such a law; all of our laws can be broken.

[Garacesh]

What difference will changing the law make? All that'll happen is Social Media will update their T's&C's to say "By signing up to this service you agree you are over 16 years of age, or have parental permission" and carry on siphoning data off as normal.

 

Are we going to prosecute 14-year-old little Sally that says her mum said she could when she didn't? What's the point of a law if nobody takes the flak when it's broken?

Edited December 15, 2015 by Garacesh

[jmak]

Well if the law changes, then surely they have made a difference - the law is different. The furious lobbying by social media companies suggests this will make a difference to them and the way they have to do business. The fact that teenagers could lie to bypass the law does not mean there should not be such a law; all of our laws can be broken.

 

Fair point - I just think this one will be almost universally broken. My son was the last in his class to join Facebook, not sure exactly what I achieved by enforcing that, apart from feeling that I'd "done the right thing". I also don't know any parents who stop their kids playing 18 rated games - although few of them would let their kids watch an 18 rated movie.

 

I think parents don't get it, so there's not much hope with their kids.

[pcstru]

What difference will changing the law make? All that'll happen is Social Media will update their T's&C's to say "By signing up to this service you agree you are over 16 years of age, or have parental permission" and carry on siphoning data off as normal.

 

Are we going to prosecute 14-year-old little Sally that says her mum said she could when she didn't? What's the point of a law if nobody takes the flak when it's broken?

 

I think the point is simply to change the age of 'digital consent' from 13 to 16. The point is not to prosecute children but to place an obligation on service providers who handle and process their data.

 

If you think there is no point in it because it is easily circumvented by users, then presumably you think they should just scrub the age 13 constraint and allow anyone of any age to sign up and the providers to then process their data in any way they like? If not, then why 13 and not 8, 11, 14 or 16?

[Garacesh]

The point is not to prosecute children but to place an obligation on service providers who handle and process their data.

It places nothing upon them but a 5 minute modification of their terms and conditions.

 

If you think there is no point in it because it is easily circumvented by users, then presumably you think they should just scrub the age 13 constraint and allow anyone of any age to sign up and the providers to then process their data in any way they like? If not, then why 13 and not 8, 11, 14 or 16?

Honestly, I don't know. I agree on the idea of a 'digital age of consent' but when it's not enforceable, what's the point? I'm not saying we shouldn't have it, what I'm saying is there would be no difference if we didn't, and there will be no difference if it changes.

 

We say "No under 13's!" and facebook says "Okay, if you're under 13, don't sign up please." and hold it to the honour system, which obviously doesn't work. According to this 2012 study, 38% of children on Facebook are under 13 years of age. 40 of those were under the age of six.

If we change that to "No under 16's!" then facebook-et-al will just say "Okay, if you're under 16, don't sign up, unless your parent has said it's okay." and again it's held to the honour system, which won't work just as much.

 

Data harvesters don't give a toss if they're illegally taking data. All they care about is that they can cover their own backsides and that they can make a profit.

Edited December 15, 2015 by Garacesh

[mikeprice]

Just been looking at some of the details - it seems that they have to have express consent from their parents if they are under 16

 

No idea why people assume that

a) parents won't just consent anyway

b) kids will find a simple way of creating a phantom parent who can then consent

 

just more rules that kids can bend - thus teaching them that you don't need to obey rules

[Sephiroth]

I don't believe that this law will work, mostly for reasons already stated. Whilst I shun social media, my partner loves it as she keeps in contact with her distant family and friends through it and so it's rarely left alone. Our children have therefore are growing up with the understanding of what social media is and what it can be used for, but also with the knowledge of the dangers of what can happen and the power of information. With that, when they're old enough (not for a few years yet), they can make their own informed decision about whether or not to share particular information.

 

In the same vain, I don't believe that e-safety should be something that is a School lesson. It's something that needs to come from the home; that needs to be shown to each child based on something that they can relate to. I'm not saying that schools aren't capable of doing this. As someone else said, technology has become ingrained into everyday life, as such we as parents should teach our children how to interact with it in the same way that we do everything else.

 

Unfortunately, the current generation of parents, myself included, had technology and the internet grow around them. this means that if people don't pro-actively seek knowledge, they'll be left to figure it out or to guess. I count myself very fortunate that I chose to try to keep up with it as I grew up but I know plenty of people that didn't, and either don't know what can happen or don't care. It's here that the teaching needs to happen so that there is no knowledge gap. If this gap persists, what's to stop the next generation from falling into the same pitfalls?

 

In short, making an unenforceable law is pointless as people already ignore the rules enforced by the likes of Facebook as pointed out by Garacesh. What good will upping the limit do beyond making that statistic rise? The key is parental education.

 

Obviously this is just my opinion, and isn't to say that if this law is passed, that it won't work. I would, however, be very surprised if it does.

 

**

Apologies for minor rant

**

[pcstru]

Honestly, I don't know. I agree on the idea of a 'digital age of consent' but when it's not enforceable, what's the point?

Another thing it may do is give teenagers leverage over the service providers in removal of data - perhaps stuff they posted in the heat of the moment that really don't want tarnishing their employment prospects later. Providers cannot argue that they ticked the box because they would be arguing against an established fact - the actual age of the complainant. So changing the age from 13 to 16 effectively gives anyone between those ages additional protections they do not currently have.

[jmak]

Another thing it may do is give teenagers leverage over the service providers in removal of data - perhaps stuff they posted in the heat of the moment that really don't want tarnishing their employment prospects later. Providers cannot argue that they ticked the box because they would be arguing against an established fact - the actual age of the complainant. So changing the age from 13 to 16 effectively gives anyone between those ages additional protections they do not currently have.

 

That would make it useful - most of us learn either from our own mistakes or watching others make them. A second chance would be beneficial for young teenagers.

[Sephiroth]

Another thing it may do is give teenagers leverage over the service providers in removal of data - perhaps stuff they posted in the heat of the moment that really don't want tarnishing their employment prospects later. Providers cannot argue that they ticked the box because they would be arguing against an established fact - the actual age of the complainant. So changing the age from 13 to 16 effectively gives anyone between those ages additional protections they do not currently have.

 

That's actually a good point, and I think in and of itself merits this change happening. I don't believe it solves the issues that the law was sanctioned for though.

Edited December 15, 2015 by Sephiroth

[Garacesh]

Another thing it may do is give teenagers leverage over the service providers in removal of data - perhaps stuff they posted in the heat of the moment that really don't want tarnishing their employment prospects later. Providers cannot argue that they ticked the box because they would be arguing against an established fact - the actual age of the complainant. So changing the age from 13 to 16 effectively gives anyone between those ages additional protections they do not currently have.

 

A valid point, but then again, the this scenario would only work in a "It turns out you're not old enough to use this service" way. Under this new law, 13 year olds can still use a service if (they say that) their parent/guardian says it's OK. Which muddies the situation to a much greater degree.

 

Now it's more of a "Remove this pls". "No." "Mum and Dad didn't say I could use this service." "You said they did." "But they didn't." "Can you empirically prove that?" "Not really..."

Edited December 15, 2015 by Garacesh

[pcstru]

A valid point, but then again, the this scenario would only work in a "It turns out you're not old enough to use this service" way. Under this new law, 13 year olds can still use a service if (they say that) their parent/guardian says it's OK. Which muddies the situation to a much greater degree.

 

Now it's more of a "Remove this pls". "No." "Mum and Dad didn't say I could use this service." "You said they did." "But they didn't." "Can you empirically prove that?" "Not really..."

 

I do not believe there would be any debate about consent since the onus would be on the provider to prove they have consent (not that they once thought they had consent). The fact that someone is complaining is ample evidence that they do not currently consent.

[Garacesh]

I do not believe there would be any debate about consent since the onus would be on the provider to prove they have consent (not that they once thought they had consent). The fact that someone is complaining is ample evidence that they do not currently consent.

 

Would, it, though?

 

The provider asks "Do you have consent?". The user replies "Yes, I have consent."

If the user then, somewhere down the line, states "I did not have consent." is the burden of proof not on the user to prove it?

 

Legit question here. Not sure how the law works. It's not something like age where there is empirical evidence that can be independently verified (and thus, more importantly, not argued against.)

[pcstru]

Would, it, though?

 

The provider asks "Do you have consent?". The user replies "Yes, I have consent."

If the user then, somewhere down the line, states "I did not have consent." is the burden of proof not on the user to prove it?

 

Legit question here. Not sure how the law works. It's not something like age where there is empirical evidence that can be independently verified (and thus, more importantly, not argued against.)

 

As I understand it, it would be entirely irrelevant that the user gave consent fraudulently, when the user is standing before the judge saying "I do not consent".

[Garacesh]

But that's not how consent law works, is it? You can't give consent and then withdraw it after-the-fact once you've entered into a legally binding contract?

[pcstru]

But that's not how consent law works, is it? You can't give consent and then withdraw it after-the-fact once you've entered into a legally binding contract?

Fraudulent consent is not consent.

[Garacesh]

Isn't the onus on the person claiming the consent was fraudulent to prove it was fraudulent? Burden of proof and all?