Ex-COPA Commissioner: Parents > Age Gates

November 10, 2010 -

In response to Microsoft’s recent Xbox Live dashboard update, which added the ability for parents to limit non-game content such as downloaded movies and television shows on a per-user basis, CNN took a look at the current state of other measures designed to keep kids from viewing content that perhaps they shouldn’t be.

The article focuses mainly on “age gates,” or content that is hidden behind a screen in which users must input their birth date. Obviously such obstacles are easily overcome by any mouse-wielder, regardless of age.

Sony’s PlayStation 3, the author writes, “doesn't appear to let owners lock content downloaded from Sony's digital store or those manually loaded onto the console,” like its Microsoft brethren now does. In reply, Sony’s Vice President of Marketing Peter Dille said that “We’re all doing something similar,” adding that Sony complies with the Child Online Protection Act (COPA).

James Schmidt, a retired professor and former member of the now-disbanded COPA Commission, answered Dille's claim, saying, “To say they [Sony] are complying with COPA is a nonsensical statement.” Schmidt said that the Commission determined that there was no “technological means” to protect kids online and that age verification schemes were “were so patently transparent that they were of no use.”

The ESRB asks participating videogame-related websites to install a browser tracking device that would not allow a user to access a website upon failing to meet an age gate’s standard.

GameTrailers.com, however, has declined to implement such a device, because, according to the site’s Shane Satterfield, that barrier was “a little more extreme than we had wanted…”

For her part, ESRB Chief Patricia Vance added, “We can't prevent kids from lying about their age. The important part is that we aren't inappropriately marketing these games to children.”

Schmidt outlined what the COPA Commission eventually surmised about the situation, “We believed first and foremost that the responsibility for monitoring access to content on the internet lies with parents and legal guardians.”


Comments

Re: Ex-COPA Commissioner: Parents > Age Gates

So now they are trying to censor or block the videogame websites? Great job GT for telling them to politely go fuck themselves

 

This however has got to stop, we need to tell these nanny-statist to shut the fuck up.

 

IMHO of course.

-------

Gamepolitics, it's time for a mobile version of the site, don't you think?

-------

"WARNING GUARANTEE: This post contains material which a truly free society would neither fear nor suppress."

Re: Ex-COPA Commissioner: Parents > Age Gates

Not exactly "censor," just allow parental control software to recognize certain material as something to block.  If mommy and daddy haven't activated the child locks, then nothing would be inhibited.

Re: Ex-COPA Commissioner: Parents > Age Gates

Are we talking about COPA or COPPA here? There is a huge difference-the former is a content restriction that was ruled unconstitutional and no longer relevant, while the latter is the privacy protection measure that is still in effect.

Re: Ex-COPA Commissioner: Parents > Age Gates

Age gates are dumb unless they are incorporated by a password in the paternal controls.


I have a dream, break the chains of copy right oppression! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/2010/05/21/cigital-disobedience/


Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Let's renegotiate them.

---

Patreon

Deviantart

Re: Ex-COPA Commissioner: Parents > Age Gates

Age gates are perhaps the dumbest most ineffectual child protection measure in existence.  Seriously, has any child anywhere ever been stopped by an age gate?  Hell, I don't even put in my true age; I just open the "year" drop down and give the mouse wheel a good spin.  I usually end up being born in the sixties.

Age gates are nothing more than a nuisance to people who want to watch the damn video.  Get rid of them.

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: Ex-COPA Commissioner: Parents > Age Gates

Is anyone actually arguing that age gates effectively prevent minors from entering sites?

It's a liability issue, nothing more: if a minor lies to get around an age gate, it's not the site owner's fault.

I'll grant it's all terribly silly, but I think it's a necessary CYA from the content providers' perspective.

Re: Ex-COPA Commissioner: Parents > Age Gates

"Is anyone actually arguing that age gates effectively prevent minors from entering sites?"

I should certainly hope not.

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: Ex-COPA Commissioner: Parents > Age Gates

Come to think of it, it doesn't just shift liability, it's also an end run around the "children can see/hear it by accident" argument, which was key in the Seven Words case.

 

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Which group is more ethically challenged?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Infophile(cont'd) about non-union police officers being given hell until they joined the union.07/07/2015 - 4:58pm
InfophileParadoxically, the drive in the US to get rid of unions seems to have left only the most corrupt surviving. They seem to be the only ones that can find ways to browbeat employees into joining when paying dues isn't mandatory. I've heard some stories ...07/07/2015 - 4:57pm
Matthew WilsonI am old school on this. I believe its a conflict of interest to have public sector unions. that being said, I do not have a positive look on unions in general.07/07/2015 - 3:59pm
TechnogeekWhat's best for the employee tends to be good for the employer; other way around, not so much. So long as that's the case, there's going to be a far stronger incentive for management to behave in such a way that invites retalitation than for the union to.07/07/2015 - 3:10pm
TechnogeekTeachers' unions? State legislatures. UAW? Just look at GM's middle management.07/07/2015 - 3:05pm
TechnogeekIn many ways it seems that the worse a union tends to behave, the worse that the company's management has behaved in the past.07/07/2015 - 3:02pm
james_fudgeCharity starts at home ;)07/07/2015 - 2:49pm
james_fudgeSo mandatory charity? That sounds shitty to me07/07/2015 - 2:49pm
E. Zachary KnightGoth, if Union dues are automatically withdrawn, then there is no such thing as a non-union employee.07/07/2015 - 2:38pm
Goth_Skunka mutually agreed upon charity instead.07/07/2015 - 2:33pm
Goth_Skunkyou enjoy the benefits of working in a union environment. If working in a union is against your religious beliefs or just something you wholeheartedly object to, dues will still be deducted from your pay, but you can instruct that they be directed towards07/07/2015 - 2:33pm
Goth_SkunkBasically, if you are employed in a business where employees are represented by a union for the purposes of collective bargaining, whether or not you are a union member, you will have union dues deducted from your pay, since regardless of membership,07/07/2015 - 2:32pm
Goth_SkunkIt's something that has existed in Canada since 1946. You can read more on it here: http://ow.ly/PiHWR07/07/2015 - 2:27pm
Goth_SkunkSee, we have something similar in Canada, called a "Rand Employee." This is an employee who benefits from the collective bargaining efforts of a union, despite not wanting to be a part of it for whatever reason.07/07/2015 - 2:22pm
Matthew Wilson@info depends on the sector. for example, have you looked at how powerful unions are in the public sector? I will make the argument they have too much power in that sector.07/07/2015 - 12:39pm
InfophileIt's easy to worry about unions having too much power and causing harm. The odd thing is, why do people seem to worry about that more than the fact that business-owners can have too much power and do harm, particularly at a time when unions have no power?07/07/2015 - 12:31pm
Matthew Wilsonthe thing is unions earned their bad reputation in the US. the way unions oparate the better at your job you are, the likely you want to be in a union.07/07/2015 - 11:33am
InfophilePut that way, "right to work" seems to have BLEEP-all to do with gay rights. Thing is, union-negotiated contracts used to be one of the key ways to prevent employers from firing at will. Without union protection, nothing stops at-will firing.07/07/2015 - 11:06am
Infophilehas an incentive to pay dues if they're represented either way, so the union is starved for funds and dies, unless things are bad enough that people will pay dues anyway.07/07/2015 - 11:02am
InfophileFor those who don't know, "right to work" laws mean that it can't be a condition of an employment contract that you pay union dues. That is, the right to work without having to pay dues. Catch is, unions have to represent non-members as well, so no one...07/07/2015 - 11:01am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician