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 [email protected]: >> >>> 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 > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
