COPPA

[flapjack]

It is a case in which it is LIKELY that nothing would ever happen to the site if COPPA was followed or not... but if it DID, then the owner would be liable, whether the server is in the US or not. (especially because remember, regardless of where the SERVER is, the OWNER lives in the US)

ok, so please tell me how would the federal government get the owner's name and address from a hosting company situated, let's say, in Argentina? because that would have to be the first step before actually bringing someone to the court. and again - they have no power to force Argentinian hosting company to give them those details.

here's an interesting article, translated from polish, about the very same issue of finding the correct jurisdiction for a fictional case:
http://url.ie/6epc

[wynnyelle]

Actually now that I think about it, I don't need to collect a parent' email beyond just having an auto message sent to it when the kid puts it in there. We don't need those emails on record...I don't think. The whole idea is that the law requires parents to be made aware of it and given the power to withdraw their child from membership if they choose. Nothing was mentioned that I can recall about having to keep the parents' information on record as well. The less personal info we have to store, the better, I think.

I already started the thread in Help but will add the link from here. Thank you again Kindred.

[flapjack]

this is not a case of the US federals searching out sites...    what would happen in this case is that the parent of a child would complain about a site and THEN the feds would look at it...  or something would happen to the child and the site owuld be found in the computer browser history by the police... etc.

I just went through this:
http://www.uscourts.gov/EducationalResources/FederalCourtBasics/CourtStructure/UnderstandingFederalAndStateCourts.aspx
and this:
http://www.uscourts.gov/EducationalResources/FederalCourtBasics/FastFacts/BirdsEyeViewOfTheFederalCourts.aspx

and I can't see any word about the possibility of bringing to court someone outside US, and this is my point: feds can go after a webmaster that lives in US, but in order to determine this, they would need to obtain the webmaster's details and address from a company they don't have any authority over.

[Kindred]

flapjack,

1- it is simple to get the name of the domain owner, unless the person purposefully tries to obfuscate the information... even then, it is still relaticely easy.

2- most hosts will QUICKLY turn over detailed information to any governmental body.

why purposefully break the law or even try to when it is so much work?

[flapjack]

2- most hosts will QUICKLY turn over detailed information to any governmental body.

maybe you meant is actually:

2- most US hosts will QUICKLY turn over detailed information to any US governmental body.

I still don't see why anyone who is outside should even bother to respond to such enquiry, and I am pretty sure they are not.

why purposefully break the law or even try to when it is so much work?

you still seem not to understand. it's not breaking the law, because such law doesn't exist. and I think it's not "so much work", if all time you need is that 3 mins to buy a hosting account and redirect DNSes (and, well, wait few hours for them to propagate)

why do you think most internet casinos are located in Antigua or Gibraltar? first, because of the zero tax, and second to not been liable for breaking any law by offering gambling with no licence to do such (in my country internet gambling is forbidden yet some betting websites sponsor for example national soccer league)

or why do you think Maritime flag of Cyprus is one of the most popular? (clues: easiest regulations regarding insurance and again, little or none tax)
or why there's so many companies with a shipping address in Isle of Man? - this need more explanation:

Although the Isle of Man is not an integral part of the United Kingdom, its people are British citizens under UK law - there is no separate Manx  citizenship. The United Kingdom has responsibility for all the isle's external affairs, including citizenship, the isle's defence, good governance, and foreign relations. The isle has no representation at either the UK or EU parliaments.

so, to put it in few words, they dont have to pay VAT tax on anything they sell to a customer in EU, but they would be liable to pay 20% extra if they move their office address down 50 miles. and do you think those companies really have all the warehouses on a small island?

you see, every time companies run into some obstacle that requires substantial amount of money/other resources, they seem to look for other ways they can win with "them". and the most wise way so far was to move their centre of interest to a place, such obstacles either don't exist or are easier to fight
and do you claim all that companies

oh, and last but not least, read about big IT company that even patented a way to circumvent law, where? in US of course

and now, a little summary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offshore_outsourcing

Offshore outsourcing is the practice of hiring an external organization to perform some business functions in a country other than the one where the products or services are actually developed or manufactured. It can be contrasted with offshoring, in which the functions are performed in a foreign country by a foreign subsidiary. Opponents point out that the practice of sending work overseas by countries with higher wages reduces their own domestic employment and domestic investment. Many customer service jobs as well as jobs in the information technology sectors (data processing, computer programming, and technical support) in countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom - have been or are potentially affected.

do you see my point now?

[Kindred]

flapjack, I see your point... unfortunately, you are just wrong.

I don't have time to look it all up and get references, but I did a fair amoutn of research on this sort of thing a few years ago.

while I do not know about other countries, I can tell you that the US WILL prosecute, even if the server is held offshore... So again... why risk it?

[rd]

You guts should stop being so hyped

I know 11 and 10 year olds who are members in YouTube, Facebook, etc. Guess what? They lie about their birthday and doesn't give a damn.

This whole thing is simply useless.

[Kindred]

no... it's not.


If kids are lieing about their age, then it becomes the fault of the kids and their parents. However, it is every responsible site owner's responsibility to live up to legal standard as well as moral standards)..

If the kids are lieing, then it's the parents fault. I have a daughter and I know every site she visits and everything she does on the internet. Then again, I am unusual in that I take a GREAT interest in my daughter activities and her life... and I have key loggers and other things in place to keep me informed and keep her safe.  I appreciate where the OP is coming from. If he's running a site which encourages under age participation, then it is his responsibility to follow up, especially for parent s who are not as techy as me and don't have tracking in place.

[rd]

I agree with some of your points Kindred but I think it's the parents resposibilty to teach their kids what's right and wrong.

But, seriously if someone really wanted to go online without their parents knowing or anything, it's pretty simple. WiFi hotspots, smartphone, library , etc.

[Allusion]

But, seriously if someone really wanted to go online without their parents knowing or anything, it's pretty simple. WiFi hotspots, smartphone, library , etc.

Regardless of whether users lie about their age etc. or not, the site owner still has certain responsibilities, including legal ones.