Youtube accused of exploiting children's data in UK

[porina]

Quote

Quote

YouTube is facing a legal battle for allegedly breaching the privacy and data rights of under-13s in the UK.

 

A claim lodged with the High Court against parent company Google accuses the firm of collecting children's data without parental consent.

 

Privacy expert Duncan McCann, who is bringing the action, argues this is a breach of UK and European (EU) law.

 

A YouTube spokesperson said it does not comment on pending litigation and the platform is not for use by under-13s.

Source

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54140676

 

Summary

In short, Youtube is being accused for unlawfully using the data of children in the UK since the EU General Protection Data Regulations and UK Data Protection Act became law in 2018. If successful there could be damages awarded of the order of hundreds of pounds for each violation (£1=US$1.27 at time of writing). Youtube's response is along the lines that the platform is not for use by under 13's, which could still leave some wiggle room as to the definition of "children" in this use case.

 

My thoughts

If this sounds familiar, it is. Youtube already went through a similar argument with COPPA requirements in the US last year, where from memory they came out with a fine and saying they'll change their ways. This had a serious impact to some content creators who content may be considered "made for children". The response was essentially to try and pass the buck to the content creators, who now must declare if their content is "made for children" or not. If declared as such, monetisation is not possible.

 

It remains to be seen how this goes in the UK. The laws will be different, so don't expect it to necessarily take the same route.

[soldier_ph]

24 minutes ago, porina said:

the platform is not for use by under 13's

So I guess that's why YouTube kids exist, huh. 

[Vishera]

"Personalized ads" and data harvesting analytics should be outlawed,

And when it comes to the web the word consent must be defined clearly within the law since it's abused by websites and advertisers,for example:

[adithyay328]

1 hour ago, Vishera said:

"Personalized ads" and data harvesting analytics should be outlawed,

And when it comes to the web the word consent must be defined clearly within the law since it's abused by websites and advertisers,for example:

Yeah, the whole concept of implicitly consenting to something on the web gets really messy from a legal perspective real fast, since it's really hard to figure out if the user actually did consent, or just wanted the notification to go away. But then again, implicit consent is a complicated topic in real life as well.

[Zodiark1593]

1 hour ago, Vishera said:

"Personalized ads" and data harvesting analytics should be outlawed,

And when it comes to the web the word consent must be defined clearly within the law since it's abused by websites and advertisers,for example:

Even is “Personalized Ads” were to be outlawed, how would enforcement work? Given the skill of the programmers on hand (and probably not a lot of emphasis on ethics in this field vs pursuing ambition), Google can probably go much more covert to conceal wrongdoing. Do we go so far as to demand regular code audits? 

[Vishera]

54 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

how would enforcement work?

It can work like GDPR,it works and that's what matters.

56 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

Google can probably go much more covert to conceal wrongdoing. Do we go so far as to demand regular code audits? 

Traffic and script analysis of websites is easy,i do that from time to time.

There are also a lot of extensions that will alert you if a malicious or data harvesting scripts are detected.

Here is one data harvesting script that i found during the analysis of this very page on the forums:

https://ssl.google-analytics.com/ga.js

[Vishera]

1 hour ago, adithyay328 said:

Yeah, the whole concept of implicitly consenting to something on the web gets really messy from a legal perspective real fast, since it's really hard to figure out if the user actually did consent, or just wanted the notification to go away. But then again, implicit consent is a complicated topic in real life as well.

Consent in regards to the web must be defined by the law as an active act,

Because even if i didn't press any agree button,they still claim that i consented because i visited their website,

It's like saying that i have to order in a restaurant because i entered it and don't have an option to say no.

[williamcll]

Youtube kids have always been a strange place. Guess it's not too different from regular youtube data harvesting.

[Doobeedoo]

We have YT kids for you know, kids. That one is for them. 

Kappa

[wanderingfool2]

21 hours ago, Vishera said:

"Personalized ads" and data harvesting analytics should be outlawed,

I think that there should be limitations, but really outlawing that kind of thing comes with consequences.  Depending how things go, I could see CPM dropping, more smaller sites would have to move towards more intrusive ads...or non-skippable ads on websites...etc.  Not saying that it would happen, but there is a good chance it would if it was outlawed.

 

It also would in general mean a worse experience.  Google comes to mind, it is good because of things such as data mining and such.  [Anyone who points to duckduckgo remember that ultimately since it uses results from other places it is inherently utilizes data mining (even though their users aren't being data mined, some of the results would have been garnered from people who did)]

 

To the topic though

Things like this are what makes startups harder and harder.  (Either do the straight and narrow and get no userbase because you need to go through so many hoops to show that the user is over 13, or ignore it and hope you become big enough to withstand a suit like this)

[Vishera]

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

It also would in general mean a worse experience.  Google comes to mind

Are you sure about it?,Users were happy in 2006 before those privacy invasions took place.

And i wouldn't mind to get ads like back then if it means no privacy invasions.

[BlueChinchillaEatingDorito]

Kid: Mom can we have YouTube

Mon: We have YouTube at home.

YouTube at home:

[wanderingfool2]

13 minutes ago, Vishera said:

Are you sure about it?,Users were happy in 2006 before those privacy invasions took place.

And i wouldn't mind to get ads like back then if it means no privacy invasions.

The introduction of tracking for ads was what likely saved google.  It also allowed for better searches when that data was used.

 

Yes, users were happy in 2006, but they were also happy with their flip phones back then (search engines were still different back then, and a lot more primitive)