Why the CCPA Treats Children Differently
Join over 3 million cybersecurity professionals advancing their career
Sign up with
Required fields are marked with an *
Already have an account? Sign In »
4 hours 41 minutes
welcome everyone to module five as we address everything you need to know about Children and privacy.
Before we jump into this topic, let me please ask a favor of all of you.
I know many of you work for a company or companies that do not come into contact with the personal information of Children. So I completely understand the temptation to skip over this module. But please, I really do strongly recommend against doing that.
For starters, you never know when something related to Children just might fall across your lap.
And beyond that, you never know where life will take you. So once again, I truly believe you will get a lot out of these materials if you stay with us.
Okay. So programming note.
This is where we are in our course outline.
We began the course by reviewing the history of the C, c p A and the scope of businesses that are subject to the law.
The last four modules thereafter are dedicated to the substantive privacy obligations that the CCP a established
in module five. We're going to identify the specific obligations relating to the information of Children that were established by the C C P a
less than 5.1. The first lesson in this module.
We will tackle the question Why the CCP A treats Children differently.
Lesson 5.2 and 5.3 will address the substantive privacy obligations that relate to Children. This is more of a holistic conversation that we are having
the learning goals and objectives for less than 5.1.
First, we will review the past and present regulation of Children's privacy
and then objective number two. We will identify the unique attributes of Children that make them particulary vulnerable online.
Let's jump into it
in module one, you might recall I mentioned Coppa when I was discussing a sectoral laws that exist in the United States.
Passed in 1998 the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act was the brainchild of privacy advocates. During the mid and late nineties,
they were particularly worried about what Children did online.
This is a mature regulatory regime, so if you are ever building out a compliance framework for the information of Children, they're absolutely our obligations established by the CCP A. But you cannot forget coppa.
It's well regulated and well enforced.
All 50 state attorney general's actively enforced coppa, as does the Federal Trade Commission at the federal level.
So please do not overlook it.
We will get more to Coppa later in the course.
There are some unique circumstances that apply to Children that privacy advocates when they were passing the CCP A but also coppa we're worried about.
Here's the four main drivers for why the CCP A treats Children differently,
starting on the left side of the screen. First off
Kappa and the GDP are both treat Children differently.
If you look at the GDP are there are specific privacy obligations that Onley apply to Children under the GDP are
so there was that historical precedents of that same model landing in the C. C. P. A.
Let's take a look at item number two here.
Why Children are more vulnerable to online activities.
I'm actually believe they're not going to skip over the first three.
*** trafficking, online bullying and child *** are well understood.
There's articles and documentaries about them frequently,
but the drafters of the CCP A were particularly concerned about these last two.
For starters, in the last five years, Children have been subject to an unprecedented amount of behavioral advertising.
Let me explain
if I as an adult, I'm serving through social media and I see an advertisement.
I understand in that moment that I'm receiving that advertisement because of my previous search history because of the way I have interacted with the website in the past.
And even though I'm a privacy professional by trade, I think most adults understand that.
But Children don't.
They generally might believe that the commercials or the advertisement that they're seeing for a certain toy is the same commercial that every person with a phone is getting.
And that's not true.
The advocates for the CCP understood that, and they wanted to establish specific protections for Children in the commercial space that did very little. Excuse me in that pre existing regular regulations that helped prevent *** trafficking and other things did very little to stop.
And equally important thing to note here is Children are unable to identify financial threats, so if a child is being targeted to purchase, a certain item may be using their parents credit card, which they might have the blessing to use. But they won't understand that they're being particularly targeted to spend money, and they might not understand the concept of a rip off for the value of money,
as I was frequently told growing up.
That's enough on why Children are more vulnerable
moving on to these other two items.
And California Senate testimony actually spoke to these other two items. For starters,
53% of American Children under the age of 11, according to recent market research, have a smartphone.
So think about all the information Children can access on their smartphone and compare that to the amount of information Children could access 15, 25 years ago.
So you understand the reason for why there needs to be regulation in this space,
the last item here, which received a significant amount of attention during the testimony of the California Senators and California representatives.
I bet you that if you would add up all of the tax returns that Children have individually filed,
it would be actually quite low.
But Children themselves,
even though they're not in the labor market,
they actually do represent a significant amount of consumer spending.
Childrens desires drive an absurd amount in fact, of consumer spending,
you need look no further than Black Friday holiday shopping.
Ah, lot of that. What adults spend money on is to satisfy the desires of Children
if Children are subject to behavioral advertising throughout the year
than adults will respond to that by acting as a proxy consumer on behalf of their Children.
So that is a specific concern that economists
that Children advocates and that privacy advocates have been long aware of and concerned about.
And the c c p A put aside specific regulations for Children to protect against that type of selling.
Regulators and courts are also equally worried.
I'm filming these videos in the fall of 2020 so some of this stuff might get dated really quickly. So I actually recommend you go online and look up the current enforcement news
starting on the left side of your screen
at the beginning of 2020. I think it was in June or July, actually that they finalized the decision. But Disney and Viacom were subject to a cop a suit as a result of their behavioral advertising campaigns.
It's what I was mentioning a moment ago.
Tick tock. The news on that obviously changes almost every passing day.
One of the main reasons why Ticktock is receiving particular regulatory. Even political scrutiny is because that APP is particularly popular among school aged Children.
Then, in January of 2020 there was both a coppa and Federal Trade Commission settlement for YouTube, resulting in many of the videos that Google, who owns YouTube, was aware the Children were going to be watching actually having to be de monetized, and we'll get to that a little bit more in the future.
But basically the idea is, if Google was aware that a particularly high number of Children was happening to be watching certain videos,
they then could not collect ad revenue from those videos.
In summary, we identified the regulatory history for Children and privacy
once again, copper regulated Children's online behaviors starting in 1998.
The GDP are also has specific privacy protections for Children.
We also reviewed the intersection of online activities with Children.
Do not forget that they are frequently viewed as proxy consumers and therefore deserve extra protections because they're unable to identify financial threats.
Nevertheless, having complete access to most corners of the Internet,
then item number three
regulating privacy on behalf of protecting Children is very invoked.
You need look no further than ticktock YouTube in the Disney Viacom settlements.
I'm sure that with each passing day, you'll see more
that summarizes less than 5.1.
I'll see you in the next lesson.