California Bill To Give Parents Access To Kids’ Facebook Pages

http://techcrunch.com/2011/05/16/california-bill-to-give-parents-access-to-kids-facebook-pages/

by ssclafani • 15 years ago

41 52 15 years ago

cabalamat3• 15 years ago

This doesn't seem very practical to me. How is Facebook meant to decide whether (a) one fb user is a parent of another fb user, and (b) that the 2nd fb user is under 18?

hvs• 15 years ago

Lawmakers have no need for practicality and common sense.

cabalamat3• 15 years ago

Very true. Sadly.

chacha102• 15 years ago

If not checked correctly, the abuse that could be created with this could really become a problem.

kinghajj• 15 years ago

How would this have any jurisdiction over social networking sites outside of California? If not, then it seems this will just push them out of the state.

marcusbooster2• 15 years ago

It doesn't. And it would.

nwmt• 15 years ago

I think it's a bit premature to suggest that either a) Facebook would move out of California or b) a new social network would start up outside of California and eat Facebook's lunch because it didn't have draconian laws. Surely there are easier ways to solve the problem at hand.

anigbrowl4• 15 years ago

Why would you think that?

henrikschroder• 15 years ago

Back in the late nineties I worked for a gay dating site, and when we had discussions on how to handle minors and their parents, we always sided with the (gay) kids, preserving their right to keep secrets from their parents.

I doubt anyone involved in this bill even considered that perspective, but in this age of diminishing privacy rights, I shouldn't be surprised that children have even less rights than adults. :-/

ioa442• 15 years ago

Admirable.

younata• 15 years ago

children have always had less rights than adults.

One of the things I've learned in the year I've been a legal adult is the amount of rights I suddenly was granted. It took a while for me to adjust to both the freedom, and the idea that I can actually screw up my entire life with just one/a few bad decision(s).

cheez• 15 years ago

Example?

fiblye• 15 years ago

When you consider many of the people that write such bills, they'd probably say the problem lies with the child. They probably didn't even think of such a consequence, but I doubt they'd care if you told them.

olalonde2• 15 years ago

Do people really need government assistance to take care of their own kids?

jmathai• 15 years ago

You'd be surprised.

ioa442• 15 years ago

Republican in the house ^^^

cft• 15 years ago

e.g. welfare?

selectnull• 15 years ago

And while they're at it, they can set the value of pi to 3.

MichaelApproved2• 15 years ago

I'd be just as interested in their email actives. Does that mean another bill is passed to force ISPs to give me access? This is a joke.

The free market already created a solution for this, and as a parent, you have all the power needed. put monitoring software on the pc and get the passwords from the child. No new micro managing laws needed.

States should focus on figuring out how to pay their bills, not creating business stifling laws that already have solutions in place.

cookiecaper2• 15 years ago

I agree. I think that I have a tendency to give parents access to this type of information much more than many on HN, but you have to do it at the right endpoint: the computer and network a child uses to access the internet. Parents need to install a network appliance that can analyze and present all of the activity that occurs on their network (i.e., a good router). I'm surprised that these are not yet widespread. I would be interested in creating one if someone wants to invest money.

whatwhatwhat2• 15 years ago

I'm sure there are plenty of kids that can circumvent this and access facebook from friends' computers, from school, cafes, etc. This is especially true if the kid knows they are being watched or if they have a laptop. Kids are smart. You suggest that a parent out-tech their child. I don't imagine thats so easy to do for some parents that aren't great with computers when they are up against a tech-savvy teenager.

drdaeman• 15 years ago

> put monitoring software on the pc and get the passwords from the child

This.

Can't think of more elegant way to teach a kid about privacy, basics of cryptography, some hacking etc. :)

shareme• 15 years ago

Hmm, I think California lawmakers flunked constitutional law..

As I understand it that is no US Constitutional distinction between rights of parents or rights of children..ie when you are born in the US you have full rights under the constitution despite not being able to enter contracts a non-minor. That would mean that a parent getting private access to a private other FB member account of a child would fall under the right be to be secure form search and seizure ..among other constitutional issues

anamax• 15 years ago

> As I understand it that is no US Constitutional distinction between rights of parents or rights of children..ie when you are born in the US you have full rights under the constitution despite not being able to enter contracts a non-minor.

You need to re-read the US Constititution. It has several prohibitions based on age. And the Supremes have been more than happy to accept several others.

> That would mean that a parent getting private access to a private other FB member account of a child would fall under the right be to be secure form search and seizure ..among other constitutional issues

In almost all circumstances, parents can consent to have their children's physical property searched. (This is very settled law.) Given that, what makes you that "virtual property" would be treated any differently?

BTW - Even if you're an adult, other people can consent to have your property searched in many circumstances.

To my reading, 4th amendment law doesn't much follow the 4th amendment, but the Supremes have gone a different direction for decades.

olalonde2• 15 years ago

Seems like California legislators take Silicon Valley's "capital of innovation" status a bit too much for granted.[1][2][3]

[1] http://www.quora.com/Aaron-Greenspan/In-Fifty-Days-Payments-...

[2] http://techcrunch.com/2011/05/16/california-bill-to-give-par...

[3] http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArtic...

VladRussian• 15 years ago

whenever both are true simutaneously:

1. child doesn't want to share his online presence with his/her parents

2. and the parents still insist on it

then this parent/child relationship has much more serious problem than just the issue of access to the online page, and applying the government force on the side of the parent against the will of the child - how would it make the situation better?

jerf• 15 years ago

Bear in mind that parents can be liable for the actions of their children in a variety of ways. If a parent can be hit with negligence because they allowed someone to abduct their child because they were seduced away by somebody obviously creepy on $SOCIAL_NETWORK, then they need the power to discharge their legally-obligated parenting responsibilities.

I'm not saying this PROVES this is a good law or anything, I haven't read it, I'm just saying that this should be taken into account when trying to figure out the correct child-parent rights balance. If you come down on the side of the child, you are also saying that you agree that the parent is legally blameless if something goes wrong. I'm not sure everybody is quite ready to take that step. You should also consider the full age range; I think a lot of people mentally consider only late teens, but it has to work for 7-year-olds too, and all other ages. Everybody is on the net now.

JoeAltmaier• 15 years ago

I think only the FBI should be able to access my kids' facebook accounts. Heaven help us all if someone who knows, loves and has their best interest at heart should learn about my kids interests, friends and beliefs!

DavidSJ• 15 years ago

I'm so glad Congress wasn't paying attention to the Internet when I was a kid.

kwantam• 15 years ago

A thought experiment: how quickly would this bill be killed if Facebook played hardball and threatened to kill all California accounts?

Queue29• 15 years ago

That would be an easy bluff to call.

anigbrowl4• 15 years ago

I am not very impressed with this article. What the legislation actually says is that social networking websites have to set privacy options to maximum by default for new users, and that any user (or if a minor, their parents) can have certain personally identifying information removed within 48 hours on request.

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0201-0250/sb_24... It's very short, and although I think it's a bit flawed, it's clearly aimed at protecting privacy rather than enabling snooping.

darklajid2• 15 years ago

Whoa, thanks for the link.

After reading that I guess TechCrunch tried to get a nice headline here.. I don't see that the bill allows parents access to the profile. It 'only' allows parents to request that personal details of their children are taken down within 48h and it says that the default privacy settings are rather strict (Name, City revealed only) and need to be explained in plain text.

That seems to be a lot different from 'Your parents can access your profile, young boy'? Am I misreading the text?

anigbrowl4• 15 years ago

Well, it could be used to gain access to a minor's profile. Say Maurice Minor sets up a Spacelook account and elects to share his personal data with Spacelook Friends only. His parents become concerned because strange people start appearing at the door every day claiming to be Maurice's good friends, but since Maurice's parents are not Friends with him on Spacelook they can't tell exactly what information he's making available. Fearing for young Maurice's safety, they demand Spacelook get rid of his personal data but the company does not respond. They sue, Spacelook asks the court to dismiss their suit and denies any liability, and now the parents ask the Court to order that Spacelook reveal any and all data about Maurice's account.

But as written, it doesn't seem like the parents can just demand access to any and all personal information about a minor's social network account - only that it be removed or restricted from public view. I don't know what existing law says about access rights of parents to a minor's data/accounts - that'd be a bit of a project. IANAL, TINLA, etc.

JulianMorrison• 15 years ago

How long until some poor gay or trans kid gets outed and kicked out of home by religious parents because of this? I think it's going in absolutely the wrong direction. Kids should have their privacy respected.

archgoon2• 15 years ago

The article is completely wrong. This bill is actually a general privacy bill.

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0201-0250/sb_24...

Most of the provisions are about preventing social networks from by default publishing information like home address of their users. In fact, nowhere in the legislation does it actually give parents access to the information, only the ability of parents to request _removal_ of information from the website.

nitrogen3• 15 years ago

Removal is still a problem, if the bill is referring to parents removing their older kids' accounts. Teenagers should have access to an online life that their parents can't just delete on a whim.

archgoon2• 15 years ago

Only personally identifying information can be removed. And the bill is fairly restrictive in what counts. SS number, Credit Card number, drivers license number. Images and videos only count if they reveal the individuals current location.

Furthermore, the parents can only do this if the individual _identifies_ themselves as under 18. If they do not do so, Facebook (or whoever) doesn't have to do anything the parents request.

And again, this can only be removed if the parents have knowledge and access to the information they're trying to get rid of in the first place.

forkandwait• 15 years ago

Before you-all get in a tizzy from Techcrunch's sensationalist headlines, please take a look at some of the links to the actual law in the comments below.

run4yourlives• 15 years ago

Much ado about nothing, it seems. I'm wondering if Mr. Biggs actually read the very bill he linked to?

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0201-0250/sb_24...

The only reason the "evil parents" are allowed to direct the website to remove information on the minor's behalf is because a minor is, well, legally a minor!

The only people I would suspect getting all uppity about this are minors themselves (whose opinions matter little, to be frank) and sites that don't want to spend the money to retool their new user sign-up policies and defaults.

asharp• 15 years ago

Adults especially seem to forget that there is no clear change that happens when kids turn 18. Children turn into adults in a very gradual manner over a large period of time rather heterogeneously. This then causes problems when adults, especially those who have been adults for a large period of time attempt to treat all "children" (including teenagers/etc.) as children, especially when the use of power is used.

To give an example (taken from this page), put yourself into this sort of position. You have somebody who cares for you, wants all that is best for you. Somebody like a spouse. You live together, talk/etc. If you found out that they were spying on you, listening in on what you talk with to your friends, trying to find what websites you visit/etc. You'd consider it a rather massive invasion of privacy and you'd consider the spouse to be at the very least creepy, even if they were aiming to learn this information "for your own good".

Similarly a few posts here are variants on "spy on your kids", using various clandestine methods. I'd imagine that you would find it rather distasteful if your government were caught doing similar things to you, especially if the reasons used were that it was "for your own good", and yet the child's perspective in this isn't being considered.

To illustrate, say you are 18 and one day (age of majority 18), and had any of those things happen to you, you would be, quite understandably, pissed. Now as a 17 year old, your reaction would likely be unchanged, however there would be a lot less understanding and a lot more of a tendency to explain the anger generated and the resulting behavior as simply "poor behavior" of the child.

California Bill To Give Parents Access To Kids’ Facebook Pages

Related Stories