This post is a response to this post from Scam Detectives.
Frankly, they shouldn’t. As long is it does all that it can to secure the data and privacy of the information its users choose to hold there, they’ve done their bit. Anything beyond that is a bonus.
Comparing security on Facebook to the content of what gets shown on CBBC is at best only just tenuous. Of course we should expect the BBC to be careful of what gets broadcast on its children’s channel, especially during the day. But Facebook isn’t the BBC, it operates across borders, and parents already know that the internet is a dangerous playground. The watershed in the UK is there to partly absolve parents of their responsibility to control what their children see - and that suits me just fine, though I don’t know why broadcasters read out “This programme contains strong language, violence and scenes of a sexual nature” for programmes that start at 11pm) However, it doesn’t stop horny teenagers from distributing clips of the Adult Channel’s ten-minute preview around school, does it? Why isn’t the Adult Channel doing more to stop this sort of thing. What about BabeStation or FilthTV - both available on FreeSat without any age verification. You’d have to be pretty desperate to see some tits if either of those two channels do it for you, though.
Facebook’s come under a lot of pressure over the last few months, particularly because of its refusal to show the CEOP Report button. Facebook has more than adequately articulated its reasons why, though I wonder why they should have to justify their decisions. Facebook is a business, not some sort of publicly funded quango: their ball, their rules.
Facebook’s terms and conditions are quite clear:
4.5 You will not use Facebook if you are under 13.
Computers are in people’s homes, and they’re bought by parents, not 12 year-olds. It’s not good enough for parents to claim that they don’t know enough about computers or the internet any more. That’s like claiming that they didn’t know that feeding their kids junk food would make them fat, or that not doing homework would reduce their job prospects later. You don’t let your 17 year old child drive your car until you’re satisfied that they’re capable and responsible enough, do you?
Internet-based software solutions are not effective. It’s easy enough to use fake ID to buy a two litre bottle of Woodpecker in person, so getting ID sorted for using on-line is a breeze. I have NetIDMe verification based on entirely false information, created using a throwaway email address from a web mail provider. It took about ten minutes, and the hardest part was working out a valid driver number. Given that NetIDMe has the backing of the Daily Mail it’s hardly any wonder that it’s pretty ineffective.
The problem with the internet is that there is a lot stupid people using it, and a lot of those people are parents who don’t care what their kids get up to.