• Welcome
    Sponsors
  • Director
    Members
    Advisory Board
    International Advisory Council
    Research Affiliates
    IPilogue Editors
    Alumni
  • IPilogue
    Events
    Publications
  • JD
    Graduate Program
    Clinical
    Prizes & Awards
  • The IPIGRAM Archive
    Events Archive
    IP in the News
    IP Poll of the Week
    IP Pick of the Week
    Gowlings IPilogue Prize
  • Legislation
    Journals
    Government
  • Contact Us
    Subscribe

Do Not Track Kids’ Bill Introduced in US Congress

May 19, 2011 by Taylor Vanderhelm (IPilogue Editor)

Taylor Vanderhelm is a JD candidate at the University of Alberta

Online tracking of children has become an increasingly hot topic as concerned parents and privacy advocates push for greater protection of children’s online information, particularly amid revelations that popular kids’ sites install 30% more tracking tools than those targeting adults and Disney’s $3 million settlement over children’s online privacy.

Increasing concern on the issue has resulted in Edward J. Markey (Democratic Representative of Massachusetts) and Joe Barton (Republican Representative of Texas) releasing a draft of the Do Not Track Kids Act of 2011, which in its current form goes far beyond current federal requirements.

The bill’s stated goal is “[t]o amend the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act [COPPA] of 1998 to extend, enhance, and revise the provisions relating to collection, use, and disclosure of personal information of children and to establish certain other protections for personal information of children and minors.” Currently, websites targeting children under the age of 13 are only required to obtain parental permission before collecting personal information. It should be noted that this bill is different from the Do Not Track bill proposed by Senator Jay Rockefeller (Democratic Representative of West Virginia) which seeks to allow all users the option of opting out of being tracked through their web browser. This functionality is already available through browsers by Google, Mozilla, Apple, and Microsoft.

Some of the key proposals of the bill are to limit companies from sharing non-core (e.g. site functionality) information with third parties, update COPPA to address new technology and call on the Federal Trade Commission to update COPPA rules. The bill also provides for the creation of a controversial “Eraser Button” which would call for the removal of all of the child’s information to the extent that is technologically feasible.

While there are arguments both for and against the development of an “Eraser Button,” there are still significant questions regarding the practicality of such a provision given the sheer volume of data and difficulty in controlling information once it becomes public.

The growing influence of social networks has also contributed to the debate as a recent Pew Research Center Study found 46% of 12 year olds and 62% of 13 year olds use social network sites. Many of the sites, such as Facebook, prohibit children under 13 from using their services but have difficulty adequately enforcing the policy as they rely on information provided by the user. Facebook in particular has drawn attention after a Consumer Reports study revealed that the social network has approximately 7.5 million users under the age of 13 and 5 million users 10 and under.

There is no easy solution to the regulation of social networks as an interview with the director of the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, David Vladeck, illustrates. California is also considering its own bill to restrict how social networks handle the personal information of those under the age of 18. The bill would set baseline requirements for privacy settings, make privacy settings available at signup, and allow parents to have their children’s information removed within 48 hours.

Despite much support from consumer privacy groups, there has been significant concern and resistance from internet companies who claim it will seriously harm their ability to operate their business. It remains to be seen how such bills will evolve in order to strike a balance between effectively protecting children without unnecessarily damaging the ability of internet companies to do business.

Posted in Internet, Privacy, Regulatory Policy, Technology

Leave a Reply

All replies and responses are moderated and will not appear on the site immediately. Please see our response policy.

« Same Bat Marks, Same Batmobile – And That’s the Problem | How Private Information Became “News of the World” »

Career Opportunities
Osgoode IP Club
Writing Competitions
IP Research Guide

Follow @IPilogue

RSS Follow Comments via RSS
  • Denise Brunsdon on The Living Daylights (…Scents, Tastes, and Sounds): Bill C-56 Forebodes Drastic Trade-mark Reform
  • Denise Brunsdon on Must Every Canadian Patent Application Include the Inventor’s Best Mode of Working the Invention?
  • Matt on Mario Bouchard: Copyright Quintet opus 1. no.1, by McLachlin et al
  • Danny Titolo on The ‘Myriad’ with the Golden ‘Gene’: Australia Upholds Breast Cancer Gene Patents
  • Tracy Ayodele on Exceptions which Circumvent Logic
  • Nancy Situ on Military Tactics and Rock Star Patent Lawyers; the Patent System under Stress
  • Laura on The Rise and Fall [and Rise Again?] of BlackBerry
  • Howard Knopf on How Music Can Help You, And You Can Help Music – An Interview With Graham Henderson
  • Paul Atkinson on Bill C-56 Remedies: Rights Holders Can All Feel a Little Safer
  • Bart Cormier on The Living Daylights (…Scents, Tastes, and Sounds): Bill C-56 Forebodes Drastic Trade-mark Reform
RSS Follow Posts via RSS
  • Law, Culture, Critique
  • EU Moving Toward New Trade-Mark Regime
  • A Cautionary Kudos: Canada Moves Up on USTR IP Watch List
  • New Step for the Modernization of Copyright Law in the US – Progress or Regress?
  • Reminder: Canada’s IP Writing Challenge 2013
  • Property in Brands
  • Strike Three, Viacom
  • New Book – The Copyright Pentalogy: How the Supreme Court of Canada Shook the Foundations of Canadian Copyright Law
  • The Curious Case of Fake Beijing Olympics Merchandise
  • About the Boundaries of Fairness in Fair Use
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • Advisory Board (9)
  • Announcements (31)
  • Blogs (24)
  • Book Review (5)
  • Broadcasting Regulatory Policy (8)
  • Cloud Services (11)
  • Commercialization (90)
  • Competition (19)
  • Competition Law (14)
  • Contracts (69)
  • copyright reform (159)
  • defamation (19)
  • Design (16)
  • Development (6)
  • European Union (56)
  • events (89)
  • Fashion Industry (23)
  • Feature Post (207)
  • Freedom of Speech (22)
  • Freedom of the Press (17)
  • Gaming (9)
  • General (151)
  • Human Rights (10)
  • Image (6)
  • Innovation (156)
  • Internet (274)
  • IP (1245)
    • Copyright (619)
      • CD Levy (10)
      • Digital Downloads (78)
      • Digital Libraries (7)
      • Digital Locks (34)
      • Fair Dealing (80)
        • Parody (2)
        • Satire (1)
      • Infringement (158)
      • Internet Sharing (96)
      • Literary Works (65)
      • Moral Rights (16)
      • Movies (53)
      • Music Industry (105)
      • Originality (34)
      • Ownership (107)
        • Licensees (39)
      • Secondary (ISP) Liability (18)
      • Subsidiary Rights (5)
    • IP Reform (38)
    • Patents (382)
      • Access to Medicines (21)
      • Cross Border Issues (50)
      • Electronic Processes (20)
      • Infringement (72)
      • Patent Practice (27)
      • Patent Trolls (21)
      • Patentability (109)
      • Pharmaceutical Drugs (76)
    • Trademarks (245)
      • Domain Names (44)
      • Famous Marks (20)
      • Official Marks (11)
      • Parallel Importation (4)
      • Personality Rights (12)
  • IP Course Topic (13)
  • IP Intensive (26)
  • IP Litigation Practice (17)
  • Jurisdiction (179)
    • Canada (82)
    • Indonesia (1)
    • Japan (2)
    • UK (41)
    • US (75)
  • Law & Music Course Topic (21)
  • Links (3)
  • MediaLaws (17)
  • Music Industry (86)
  • Open-Source (18)
  • Osgoode Alumnus (14)
  • Patents Course Topic (28)
  • Privacy (188)
    • Electronic Databases (42)
    • Human Rights Issues (31)
    • Identity Theft (14)
  • Regulatory Policy (65)
  • Reputation Management (4)
  • Smartphones (14)
  • Social Justice (4)
    • United Nations Development Programme (2)
  • Social Media (30)
  • Supreme Court of Canada (35)
  • Tech Transfer (31)
  • Technology (245)
  • Telecommunications (89)
  • Trade Secrets (9)
  • UK (19)
  • Uncategorized (102)
  • US-Canada Relations (5)
  • WIPO (18)
  • Log in

Home   |   Contact Us   |   Feedback  |   Privacy   

© 2008 Osgoode Hall Law School York University
4700 Keele Street Toronto, Canada M3J 1P3
T:416.736.5030   F:416.736.5736