[OSM-talk] Maintaining privacy as a casual mapper

Maarten Deen mdeen at xs4all.nl
Tue Nov 5 09:40:13 UTC 2019


On 2019-11-05 10:12, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> 4 Nov 2019, 12:53 by mdeen at xs4all.nl:
> 
>> In any case, I see that the "You must be 13 years or older to use
>> the Services." is still there.
>> 
>> Really? Someone under 13 can not look at the OSM map? I'm sorry, but
>> that is completely laughable. And not enforcable at all.
> 
> It is probably necessary for legal reasons, such requirement is
> typical in TOUs.
> 
> Mostly result of COPPA[1] and similar laws. Extreme requirements on
> providing
> service to children younger than 13 makes it is easier to ban all
> children younger than 13
> from service than comply with them.
> 
> Especially in cases where children are not very likely to contribute

"Use" in this case is also viewing the website. There is no account 
needed for that and if you want to block this you would need to do age 
verification which is a lot more intrusive than not putting this clause 
in your ToU at all. If people think OSM should be doing this, they 
effectively say that children should not use the internet. That may be 
your choice, but it is just that: a choice. In no way a legal 
requirement.

COPPA does not seem to apply since OSM is not directed to children, let 
alone in commercial ventures. The only possible connection would be when 
children register since you would store information about them. That 
might be a sensible reason to block children from registering (I can 
also see that they probably would not have a significant positive 
contribution to the data), but again, at the moment any use of OSM by 
children is blocked.

Either no thought went into that, or it was thought that throwing a wide 
net would be better "to comply" than no net at all. The same thing I 
argue against with the "lots" comment that started this. Better to claim 
that lots of the things you might do to keep your privacy are not 
allowed according to the ToU than to make clear which things exactly are 
not allowed.
It looks more like FUD to me at the moment.

Regards,
Maarten



More information about the talk mailing list