Originally posted by no1marauderI am not a lawyer but I would certainly be very surprised if every lawyer agreed with you that RHP is subject to COPPA. The information Russ collects can not be assumed to be anything other than the parents (whose credit info is used). The FTC also claims that the owners (who and where) will be taken into account and the owners are NOT under any form of US law. As I said before I disagree strongly with the decision but afterall this is Russ' site. i just would have preffered that he seek legal advice BEFORE making such a decision.
Sorry, I did not see your edit but I don't believe the two provisions you cited exclude RHP. The first would specifically include RHP as if the site admins KNOW there are children under 13 (which they certainly do) and they are collecting personal information as defined by the Act (see my post above), they are covered by COPPA. Since both of these ...[text shortened]... he other way! But, I wouldn't have a high degree of confidence in convincing a judge otherwise.
Feivel
Originally posted by no1marauderbut we do give e-mail addresses (which children usually have separate e-mail addresses)
I'm sorry I'm typing something and I don't see your post in-between. It's not just credit card information; as I said I don't remember if we give our full names at registeration (could someone who recently registered help me out) but we do give e-mail addresses (which children usually have separate e-mail addresses) and even the knowledge that ...[text shortened]... econd point. And if he didn't know he had people under 13 on the site, he certainly does now!!!
Usually means not always 🙂
Can Russ be sure that the email address (and also the name) is not the parents?
Feivel
Originally posted by FeivelI'm sure not every lawyer would agree with my interpretation (esp. if they was paid a sufficient retainer!) but I bet almost all the lawyers at the FTC would! And we have to give information when we register, not just when we subscribe, and IF a child give their full name (again, help!), email addresses (again you could argue they are parent's email but what if a parent complains to the FTC and says it wasn't?) and the "hobby" bit (chess would probably be considered a hobby at the FTC; though it's a religion at no1marauder headquarters); I think if you put that all together the risk of litigation and/or FTC action just far outweighs the unfortunate effect the decision has on a few existing subscribers from Russ' point of view.
I am not a lawyer but I would certainly be very surprised if every lawyer agreed with you that RHP is subject to COPPA. The information Russ collects can not be assumed to be anything other than the parents (whose credit info is used). The FTC also claims that the owners (who and where) will be taken into account and the owners are NOT under any form of US la ...[text shortened]... . i just would have preffered that he seek legal advice BEFORE making such a decision.
Feivel
And I do not agree that a website soliciting business in the US and seemingly using a server actually physically located in the US would be exempt from US law (in law school, we called it "the bullet from Canada effect"😉.
Originally posted by no1marauderBy that type of convoluted illogic, the entire internet should be shut down (or restricted to those over 13). The sections i quoted were from the FTC so it is not me who said anything it was the FTC. If they taught you in law school that the FTC was wrong I claim that you went to a law school in the middle of a desert somewhere where they don't speak english. Now if it is your opinion that what the FTC writes is untrue that is another story but NOT something a lawyer would base a case on. Everything else you are claiming is IF this or IF that. i am sorry but that means doubt. I guess you law school taught you to create cases based on doubt. Forget your opinion and show some concrete reasons that RHP falls under COPPA. Are there any precedents? Considering COPPA was in efect for a few years there must be. lawyers are known for citing legal precedents so why are you giving nothing but opinion?
I'm sure not every lawyer would agree with my interpretation (esp. if they was paid a sufficient retainer!) but I bet almost all the lawyers at the FTC would! And we have to give information when we register, not just when we subscribe, and IF a child give their full name (again, help!), email addresses (again you could argue they are parent's ...[text shortened]... US would be exempt from US law (in law school, we called it "the bullet from Canada effect"😉.
Feivel
Feivel
Originally posted by FeivelI'm the one who first cited and quoted from the FTC publication regarding COPPA; so I don't know what you're talking about. I didn't say the FTC was wrong; I said your interpretation of the FTC's publication was dubious given the wording contained within it and the intent of the law. One thing they did teach me in law school is that you can ALWAYS argue about the meaning of words in statutes and that's a good way for lawyers to make a living; but it's NOT a good way for a small business that could not afford litigation and/or FTC action to go.
By that type of convoluted illogic, the entire internet should be shut down (or restricted to those over 13). The sections i quoted were from the FTC so it is not me who said anything it was the FTC. If they taught you in law school that the FTC was wrong I claim that you went to a law school in the middle of a desert somewhere where they don't speak english ...[text shortened]... known for citing legal precedents so why are you giving nothing but opinion?
Feivel
Feivel
If you want to send me a retainer, I'd be happy to do detailed legal research on COPPA cases, but I think Russ is trying to avoid being a "precedent" that some lawyer is researching in the future!
For everyone...a note on child predators: Child predators typically groom their victims over a period of time which ranges from several weeks to several years; during this time, they build trust and are occasionally inappropriate. Online, the predator may show a suggestive picture, direct a child to a questionable website or even a discussion is one of our own forums, or ask titillating questions about intimate sexual things (remember giggling over what parents where up to or mom's naughty underwear), gathering information about the child. The predator will begin to have little secrets with the child; I think so-so is a bozo or my parents have a dirty book collection, I stole a candy bar, say a bad word or two. This builds tolerance and trust. Things will escalate. Stop now and consider how much information you may have given someone on this site in the course of a chess game or through the forums. Children are even more likely to reveal a great deal. Child predators are hunting....they are looking for a lonely and isolated child who desparately needs attention and the illusion of love. The predator will have to make many, many attempts to find the victim and work hard to ensnare the child who becomes the target.
I am deeply sorry for the pain of those who have found themsleves excluded from this site.
However, as an advocate for victims of sexual assualt, I support this descision, it is a basic protection for younger kids. As a community I would like to see us act to protect the over 13's because they are still vulnerable to predation. I have seen the consequences of sexual assualt on children, I have watch families ripped apart by such predators and witnessed the anguish of family and friends who failed to protect a child. Even worse, I have worked with people who were child victims with no defenders and no protection from such predators. The pain and suffering of those individuals and the damage done is often lifetime damage.
Thank you for your time.
Originally posted by no1marauderI quoted the FTC in my edited post which you may not have read (the edit I mean). Believe me RHP would not set a precedent and I still maintain that RHP is not under the jurisdiction of COPPA. Unless and untill you or someone else could demonstrate without doubts that they are, I will maintain my position.
I'm the one who first cited and quoted from the FTC publication regarding COPPA; so I don't know what you're talking about. I didn't say the FTC was wrong; I said your interpretation of the FTC's publication was dubious given the wording contained within it and the intent of the law. One thing they did teach me in law school is that you can ALW ...[text shortened]... nk Russ is trying to avoid being a "precedent" that some lawyer is researching in the future!
Feivel
Originally posted by AynatThank you for your important and heartfelt post. I think most of us just hadn't thought much about that sort of thing because we just can't fathom it. I think it is much like being at a party where there are people of all ages. A group of adults might be talking and the subject matter might be of a sexual nature, and people simply forget that there are young children aroud who overhear the conversation.
For everyone...a note on child predators: Child predators typically groom their victims over a period of time which ranges from several weeks to several years; during this time, they build trust and are occasionally inappropriate. Online, the predator may show a suggestive picture, direct a child to a questionable website or even a discussion is one of our own ...[text shortened]... g of those individuals and the damage done is often lifetime damage.
Thank you for your time.
Any parent who allows a child online has to take part in the regulation of what that child views. Russ shouldn't have to police children on his site. But he has done so for the sake of the children, and for the sake of rhp.
Originally posted by Ragnorak
... but basically he's covering his own ass, ...
Yes, I would consider his action too if it were my site.
Originally posted by Ragnorak
Any under 13 can easily say they are over 13 ...
And also a parent who wants their child to participate can set up an account for their child. This restriction really is just to protect the site operators. I think that is fair enough.
Originally posted by collemanThe post got three recs because it is funny. Have a sense of humor. It really can't be intented for under 13's anyway. You'd have to agree that you were over 13 to be allowed in the forums and site.
It is very sad that this post got 3 recs.
Should we really be teaching our young people that if they can't get the things they want by legitimate means then they should resort to telling lies to get them?
It is but a small step from ...[text shortened]... k the law to get what they want, or do you support that too Shavi?
It's a pity we have to have the age ban, but I respect Russ's right to cover his arse.
I was about to set up an account for my eight year old son, who is a bit of a chess demon and has been better than me for over a year.
I know there are some VERY nasty people who use the Internet to prey on kids, so mine are never allowed to use the Web unsupervised, and they are never allowed to use newsgroups, chat rooms or IM at all.
As parents, we can rant about the mentality of others and the shortfall of content control on the Internet, but we must take ultimate responsibility ourselves.
Now he has five more years to practice, so you guys at the top had better start quaking in yer boots!
Originally posted by collemanBy lying you take the responsibility of decisions that could result in legal matters. Assuming your able to read, when you agree and then later decide to sue, we could always point you to the agreement you made that you were over 13, as pointed out by COPPA
This is very disappointing from a young person.
I hope that when you reflect on it you will realise that dishonesty is not a good way to achieve your goals.
Originally posted by royalchickenI don't. I understand the issues, but the measure taken is hypocritic and addressing the wrong persons, those who did nothing wrong. A few weeks ago, I have shown this site to my neighbours. They have 4 kids, two under and two over 13, and all (6) play chess. They were very impressed with this site (after having tried several other sites). They couldn't believe it when I told them the latest news.
FWIW, I agree with Russ's action on this matter, and I also feel it has little to do with the forums, after having read this and the other thread.
ps. what about our 'GM' and his 100 kids?