AEP
(formerly known as EdPress) Testifies Before FTCNovember
1999 ? As many of you know, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has proposed regulations
for implementing the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 (COPPA).
As proposed, these regulations would have significant negative consequences for
children's online publishers. Specifically, the regulations would restrict our
ability to provide interactive content for children and would impose burdens on
parents and publishers through a cumbersome consent process.
The
deadline for filing comments with the FTC on the proposed regulations was Friday,
June 11. EdPress filed the statement contained below on behalf of our members.
We also participated in a briefing on Capitol Hill with staff aides representing
legislators who play key leadership roles in the children's privacy issue. The
briefing was organized by Kevin Bonderud and Peter Boyle of The Widmeyer Baker
Group, the lobbying group representing the Kids in the Know alliance. Participants
included: - Charlene Gaynor, Executive Director, EdPress
- Bob
Harper, President, The Cricket Magazine Group
- Bill Evans, President,
Evan-Moor Educational Publishers
- Leanna Landsmann, President, TIME
For Kids
- Keith Garton, Publisher, TIME For Kids
- Kate
Essex (for Sen. Ted Kennedy D-Mass.)
- Rich Keilholtz (for Sen. Charles
Grassley R-Iowa)
- Kevin Krufky (for Sen. John McCain R-Ariz.)
- Peter
Dahlin (for Sen. Joseph Biden D-Del.)
- Abby Hochberg (for Rep. Nick Lampson
D-Texas)
A public hearing on the FTC proposal is tentatively scheduled
for July 20. EdPress invites members interested in participating to contact Charlene
Gaynor. A copy of the proposed FTC regulations is available from headquarters.
Children's Online Privacy Protection
Rule
Comment, P994504Submitted by The Association
of Educational Publishers (AEP)
June 11, 1999
The Association
of Educational Publishers (AEP) appreciates the opportunity to provide these brief
comments on the Federal Trade Commission's proposed rules to implement the Children's
Online Privacy Act of 1998. We commend the FTC for the careful and comprehensive
consideration it has given this difficult issue, not only in crafting this proposed
rule, but in its earlier work in examining the many uncertainties related to this
new and rapidly changing medium.
We share many of the concerns raised
by Congress, the FTC and others about the impact the Internet can have on children.
The Association of Educational Publishers (AEP) is an organization serving publishers
of educational materials for children, families and schools. EdPress and its members
have long focused on supplemental educational publishing ? in an increasing variety
of forums ? and its positive impact on learning and teaching. EdPress serves CEOs,
editorial, marketing, and PR professionals. Member companies include national,
regional, and local school and teacher publications; national children's magazines;
software publishers; supplemental publishers; and broadcasters, foundations, and
corporations with educational programs. Allied members include school districts
and educational associations. Among EdPress's 400 company members are Scholastic
Inc., Weekly Reader Corporation, Highlights for Children Inc., TIME For Kids,
The Cricket Magazine Group, Evan-Moor Educational Publishers, The Education Center,
Turner Learning, and The Learning Company.Though the level of sophistication and
activity varies widely, most of the members of our 104-year-old organization have
a significant presence on the Internet.
We recognize that this nation?through
decisions made by the Congress and state and local governments, as well as classroom
teachers?is committed to encouraging young people to use and explore the Internet.
We share the enthusiasm shown by policy makers, parents, educators and young people
for children's use of this medium. We appreciate its significant potential as
an educational and enriching resource and as a tool through which young people
and parents can obtain additional and traditional educational resources. And we
are committed to promoting the use of the Internet as a means for increasing the
access to quality learning for all children.
We therefore caution
the FTC and other policy makers not to send mixed messages about the Internet
to parents, educators and children. We agree that certain protections are needed
and laud the goal of increased parental involvement in children's use of the Internet.
But the federal government should not promote the need for access to the Internet
in every classroom, while, at the same time, implying that interactions and exchange
of information online are bad. It should not praise the Internet's educational
value while making it harder to fulfill that promise.
Parents and
educators regularly encourage children to combine reading and writing with active
citizenship. On the Internet, this may mean sending e-mail letters to the editor
in response to articles they have read online or in a magazine. It may mean writing
a review of a book online. In most cases, websites designed for children are a
beneficial form of communication that can have significant educational value.
While we realize that Congress restricted this Act to "commercial"
websites, we encourage the FTC to recognize that commercial transactions are not
inherently bad. A child's expressed desire to own The Magic School Bus or read
Highlights for Children every month should be encouraged.
We urge the FTC to show as much flexibility as possible in writing the rules to
implement the Act to ensure that educational websites can operate in ways that
support sound educational practice and in ways that reward a child's curiosity
and love of reading and the written word. As the FTC recognizes, this is a very
complicated matter. We urge you to be extremely cautious to ensure that this Act
and its rules do not have negative unintended consequences.
Overly
restrictive guidelines could thwart the educational publishing industry's ability
to serve children, families and educators by denigrating the websites themselves,
discouraging communication from children that has educational and personal value,
and creating barriers that diminish the ability of publishers to use the Internet
as a means to provide traditional supplemental materials to families, children
and schools either online or through the mail.
While, for the most
part, our comments speak generally to the proposed rules, we offer the following
specifics: - We understand that the FTC recognizes that determining
how to achieve "verifiable parental consent" is difficult. We ask the
FTC to be as flexible as possible and to strive to ensure that the requirements
do not unduly harm the ability of publishers to provide materials to children
and families through subscriptions and other means.
- We
ask the FTC to consider providing an exemption to consent, notice and opt-out
requirements for letters to the editor and other non-commercially oriented submissions.
- We oppose the requirement that privacy policies be visible at
the top of a home page because website design is an important part of its appeal
to children. This should not be construed as a lack of support for a requirement
that privacy policies be accessibly displayed on a website.
-
We support a simple notice requirement that is not overly detailed and complex,
so that children and parents can understand its intent.
-
We oppose the FTC's proposal to make the rules apply retroactively to information
already collected.
- We oppose expanding the interpretation
of the Act to treat information "requested" online the same as information
"collected" online.
- We ask that the FTC include
a more comprehensive definition of "parent" so that rules can be efficiently
implemented. For example, given that millions of children live in non-traditional
families, many schools have adopted policies that allow the release of information
only to custodial parents.
- We remain concerned that compliance
with Section 312.6 (a) (3) will have the unintended consequence of putting personal
information about children into the wrong hands regardless of the procedures established
to properly identify parents requesting information about their child. This could
potentially harm children, while exposing publishers to excessive liability.
The Association of Educational Publishers (AEP) is pleased that the FTC will hold
a workshop on the proposed rule on July 20, 1999. Industry representatives from
our association will participate in this event for the purpose of assisting the
FTC in refining the proposed rule to uphold the intent of the Children's Online
Privacy Act without creating unintended consequences that will limit educational
opportunities for our nation's children and their families. We ask the FTC to
hold further discussions regarding this rule and to accept reply comments in the
near future. We offer to the FTC our association as a resource to answer any questions
and concerns you might have about how educational publishers and schools use the
Internet to serve children and families.
Respectfully submitted,
John J. Micklos, Jr.
President
The Association of Educational Publishers
(AEP)
Charlene F. Gaynor
Executive Director
The Association
of Educational Publishers (AEP)
Kids in the Know Update
Timeline of Significant Developments
1996
-
Rep. Bob Franks and Sen. Diane Feinstein introduce bills in Congress that
would make it a crime to use children's mailing lists without mailers obtaining
parental permission slips.
-
Kids in the Know
participates in a hearing before the House Subcommittee on Crime on the Franks
bill.
1997
- The Senate Majority Leader in
California introduces a similar parental consent bill into the state legislature.
- Sen. Feinstein reintroduces her bill and attempts to attach it to a juvenile
crime bill. A ban on the use of prison labor for data entry is passed as an alternative.
- A similar bill wins committee approval in the New Jersey Senate.
- A ban on the use of prison labor for data entry is substituted for a
parental consent provision in legislation before the New York Assembly.
1998
- Rep. Franks reintroduces his bill and attempts
to have it attached to the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act.
- Two
children's online privacy and safety bills are enacted by Congress.
- A
bill drafted with Kids in the Know support passes in the California legislature.
- Two more bills with harmful parental consent provisions are introduced
but die in the California legislature.
- The California Task Force
on Personal Information and Privacy begins hearings on privacy for all.
1999
- Rep. Franks' bill is introduced for the third
time in the U.S. House of Representatives.
- New online privacy regulations
applying to all Web sites is introduced by Sen. Conrad Burns.
- A
comprehensive privacy bill is pending in the state of California.
- Several
privacy bills are pending in New York and New Jersey.
- Two legislative
privacy task forces meet in New York.
Key Arguments
Against Legislation Restricting Mail Access to Children and Families:
- The Wrong Approach. No child has ever been hurt by a direct mail list.
In fact, lists have been used by law enforcement agencies to find dozens of missing
or abducted children. The approach actually fosters a false sense of security
by diverting the focus from serious safety issues such as known dangers and predators.
- The Wrong Target. Restricting lists would make it virtually
impossible for many respected providers of valuable information, products, and
services for children to stay in business. The cost of implementing such legislation
would ultimately fall on the end users?children, families, and schools?making
them the victims rather than the beneficiaries.
|
