Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

That seems ethically like a slippery slope explanation. Good thing the legal system doesn't behave this way when one is arrested (in most places).


In the case of COPPA, the slippery slope guidelines of being deliberately opaque come straight from the FTC:

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/com...

"If you choose to block children under 13 on your general audience site or service, you should take care to design your age screen in a manner that does not encourage children to falsify their ages to gain access to your site or service. Ask age information in a neutral manner at the point at which you invite visitors to provide personal information or to create a user ID."


I see your point, but I don't read it the same way you do. This is referring to the age screen test (similar to Steam's on PG 13 or R games). But the poster above was spurned by Google support.

I think the real reason he was spurned is that Google support isn't that effective or responsive in a lot of cases, full stop.


Doubly not relevant for a paid g-suite organization. It’s not like his daughter can just go sign up for an account and lie about her age, the admin has to add users.


The admin is not asked for a birthday. IIRC, it's largely optional - YouTube will require it to watch a violent/sexually suggestive video, at which point you may get locked out if you give a sub-13 one.

For example: https://sunpig.com/martin/2011/07/03/google-made-my-son-cry/


Right, so

>you should take care to design your age screen in a manner that does not encourage children to falsify their ages to gain access to your site or service. Ask age information in a neutral manner at the point at which you invite visitors to provide personal information or to create a user ID

doesn't have anything to do with this. There's definitely no age screen for the kid to lie on, and it sounds like the admin doesn't even provide an age either


It does, at times.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/fbi-would-rather...

> In order to ensure that such wireless collection equipment/technology continues to be available for use by the law enforcement community, the equipment/technology and any information related to its functions, operation and use shall be protected from potential compromise by precluding disclosure of this information to the public in any manner including but not limited to: press releases, in court documents, during judicial hearings, or during other public forums or proceedings.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: