Russ, how about this:

a new kind of RHP account especially for kids: no forum access (reading or writing), and no personal messages. that would be safe enough wouldn't it?

I don't have an opinion on implementation, but *some* form of kid-friendly access seems prudent.

The only reason I stay on here is to talk. Chess alone can't keep my intrest. In fact, I could just play it on my computer instead.

Originally posted by dfm65
Russ, how about this:

a new kind of RHP account especially for kids: no forum access (reading or writing), and no personal messages. that would be safe enough wouldn't it?

Originally posted by nemesio
It would seem that the forums would be less of a problem (their being public limits the danger of personal sexual solicitaiton).

The problem, I think, is mostly with PMs and in-game messaging.

Russ would have to verify this, or someone more familiar with COPPA.

Anyone?

Nemesio

Originally posted by no1marauder
The problem with COPPA would not be solved by this: it is the collection of personal information (e-mail addresses, hobbies) that creates the problem. Everytime a child under 13 gives such personal information, the site admin must get VERIFIABLE parental consent. What that is is unclear from the FTC requlations, but apparently an e-mail from the parent is insufficient. So the problem remains.

Originally posted by Remora91
Why not just not collect the personal information of people under 13?

Originally posted by no1marauder
The problem with COPPA would not be solved by this: it is the collection of personal information (e-mail addresses, hobbies) that creates the problem. Everytime a child under 13 gives such personal information, the site admin must get VERIFIABLE parental consent. What that is is unclear from the FTC requlations, but apparently an e-mail from the parent is insufficient. So the problem remains.

Originally posted by nemesio
Assuming all sites would want to comply with COPPA, wouldn't these stipulations exclude a 12 year-old from any site, forum, chat group, even a LISTSERV that required an email address to join?

I mean, this seems to be moot here, because I can't discern anyone else's email address; everything is done through the site specifically to protect privacy. The ...[text shortened]... mail, 'ilovechess@yahoo.com' how much information could a predator glean from this?

Nemesio

Originally posted by no1marauder
I'll try to explain the law purposes, even though I don't agree with the law. Site admins can be predators, site admins can sell the personal information to 3rd parties, etc. The law requires that there be verifiable parental consent BEFORE the personal information is collected from the child; some sites could set up toll free numbers, some si ...[text shortened]... d be a major headache for a small site with a worldwide clientele.

Does that clarify?

I'll say it again folks: a credit card number (number that is: you don't need to charge a payment, just verify the number) is apparently considered a valid means of gaining parental consent:

For example:
Microsoft's Hotmail, of course, is just one of many companies that use credit cards as a way of obtaining verifiable parental consent. After all, credit card verification is explicitly offered as one method of consent -- along with slower and costlier methods such as telephone, snail mail, and faxed responses -- in the language of the law. A spokeswoman for Microsoft said the company was exploring other options for obtaining parental consent, but said that for now, credit card verification is the only option Hotmail accepts.

PS A marketing exec summary online indicated that for the purposes of RHP, a parental email probably is sufficient verification, as RHP does not give out personal information gathered at access time to 3rd parties. That's assuming their reading of COPPA is accurate:
http://www.directmag.com/mag/marketing_coping_coppa/

The following is from the official FTC website Frequently Asked Questions about COPPA (link is htp://www.ftc.gov/privacy/coppafaqs.htm#consent:

You can use one or more of a number of methods of obtaining parental consent. Until April 2002,[no1: This date has been extended to sometime in 2005] the methods you may use will depend on how you use the information you collect.

If you are going to use the information only for internal purposes, that is, you will not be giving the information to third parties or making it publicly available through such activities as chat rooms or bulletin boards, then you can use what is being called the "email plus" method of obtaining consent. You may send an email to the parent containing the required notice, and request that the parent provide consent by responding in an email - as long as you take some additional, confirmatory step after receiving the parent's email. For example, after a reasonable time delay, you can send another email to the parent to confirm consent and let the parent know that he or she can revoke the consent if they wish. You may also request in your initial email that the parent include a phone number or mailing address in his or her reply so that you can follow up to confirm via telephone or postal mail.

If you are going to disclose children's information to third parties or make it publicly available through such activities as a chat room, message board, personal home page, pen pal service, or email service, then you must use the most reliable methods available to obtain parental consent. You can: provide a form for the parent to sign and mail or fax back to you; ask a parent to use a credit card in connection with a transaction (perhaps a fee just to cover the cost of processing the credit card); maintain a toll-free telephone number staffed by trained personnel for parents to call in their consent, or you can accept emails from parents where those emails contain a digital signature or other digital certificate that uses public key technology.

no1: Question 34 deals with the credit card issue and basically states (I don't know how to copy and paste 2 things at a time!) that it is the credit card company that must verify the parent's identity and most won't do that without a transaction. Assuming that Russ didn't allow children in the Forums or to PM or possibly even send ingame messages, he would have to comply with the "email plus" provisions above. Whether that would be cost-efficient to him, I can't say. If someone wants to PM him and cut and paste the above, they're more than welcome to.

Note the email plus method assures compliance with COPPA, but it would NOT be a sure defense against liability if something should happen to a child because somehow a predator got information from that child at RHP. That risk is probably unlikely, but can anyone say it doesn't exist and that if it did happen, it wouldn't mean the end of RHP? I think those questions might be even more relevant than the COPPA compliance question.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Note the email plus method assures compliance with COPPA, but it would NOT be a sure defense against liability if something should happen to a child because somehow a predator got information from that child at RHP. That risk is probably unlikely, but can anyone say it doesn't exist and that if it did happen, it wouldn't mean the end of RHP? I think those questions might be even more relevant than the COPPA compliance question.

What's going on here? Denial of postage and foroms? Is this some sort of prejedous?

So this is to protect the kids? Why not have the kids e-mail Russ with the situation? Then everything would be solved. The parents could talk ( over phones if no e-mail) and disccuss this. And , voila, no more post will be issued governing this situation and we can listen to my hillariously funny jokes!!!😀😀😀😀

I'm probably talking utter rubbish here, but on a simplistic reading of the age discrimination under the in australia (ADA 2004), the "no under 13s" rule could be contested as illegal where providing a service to an Australian citizen (or more to the point, refusing to provide such a service). While the ADA2004 does indeed have "get outs" when Australian law contradicts itself, there is no such clause for where Australian law contradicts US law. The get-out of "positive discrimination" is a possibel route, but as any positive discrimation of one group can be argued as negitive discrimination of another, its a sticky wicket...

Changes nothing though: COPPA exists and as RHP is hosted in the USA, it must be upheld on RHP.