[OSM-talk] Maintaining privacy as a casual mapper

[Simon Poole]

The clause is mainly a consequence of the relevant GDPR rules and at the
time (not sure why we are having this discussion after the fact) we
spent a lot of time investigating what potential routes there could be
to working around this, but nobody came up with a workable solution.

Simon 

Am 05.11.2019 um 10:40 schrieb Maarten Deen:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20191105/bed98fea/attachment.sig>