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.
|
