Whatsapp to ban under 16's

[DonnaD]

Originally Posted by bentlsa

His is at least a step in the right direction. More needs to be done to protect children from the dangers of social media it all grew too quickly without being properly thought out. If my girls were younger they wouldn't even have a smartphone until they were 17 !

See more...

I hope you aren't serious. My girls are 11 and 15, without smartphones they would have very few friends here in Florida since our move in July. They also would have lost touch with most of their old friends and family in the UK as expecting them to write letters is pretty pointless now. My oldest has used Facebook to build relationships with family members she hasn't even met and other teenagers with the same disabilities she has. Social media has been very positive for her. They also use their phones as cameras and for looking up school work regularly.

WhatsApp is perfect for us keeping in touch with people in the UK for free and I certainly won't be deleting it from my 11 and 15 year olds' phones.

[pad406]

Originally Posted by Chair1519

16 seems a rather random age to go for. Under GDPR regulations the age of consent for someone to be able to give explicit consent for their data to be processed is 13.

See more...

Not quite true. The GDPR specifies 16 (initial drafts did have 13, but this was upped in the final draft) but allows member countries to legislate for lower ages as long as that age is not below 13. Ireland, for example in July 2017, has legislated it at 13.

[pad406]

Originally Posted by DonnaD

WhatsApp is perfect for us keeping in touch with people in the UK for free and I certainly won't be deleting it from my 11 and 15 year olds' phones.

See more...

Completely agree with you. Look on the bright side, as you live in the US the age is 13, so you're 50/50

[Nimbus]

Originally Posted by pad406

Which is why I explicitly stated them as being unwilling as they could not monetize it, and to be GDPR compliant it's easier for them just to exclude under 16's.

See more...

But it's not about them monetizing the personal data. Facebook (and other social media) exists to allow people to share personal data - that's the whole reason it's there. There wouldn't be any point in using Facebook if it didn't store/process/display personal data.

Originally Posted by pad406

The ability to use contacts is a convenience for the user and a blessing for the provider as they get access to information that they may not otherwise.

See more...

The ability to use contacts is required. Again, it's the whole point of WhatsApp and what makes WhatsApp different to other messaging apps - it allows you to contact friends and family using their contact details such as phone number/email address, etc.

Yes, there are different ways of contacting people, but that's not the point of WhatsApp.

Originally Posted by pad406

Requiring it and needing it are 2 different things. Even for subscription members, I am one, they do not need my personal information.

See more...

I assume you use an "online identification name" to log in so that the site knows you are you? I assume you had to provide an online payment method to pay for your subscription? These are examples of "personal data".

(And, btw, you don't have to choose the autorenewal option. You can just make a one off payment each year)

Originally Posted by pad406

Not really true. If you confirm you're over 16 you continue as normal. If not then you're back to square one.

See more...

"Continue as normal" means processing your data (as normal) though.

I thought you were saying that websites like Facebook and the DIBB don't have to "process personal data" at all? If so, then they would have to delete *everyones* account and get them to create new accounts that don't include any "personal data".

Or are you only talking about under-16s?

I suppose they could continue to process the personal data of those over 16 but not process the personal data of those under 16 (including not providing any means of identifying, either directly or indirectly, the person under 16). In which case, they would need to delete the account of all under-16s and get them to create new anonymous accounts that had no links to their old account and no means of identifying the natural person (no photos, no real names, no location, no links to family/friends, etc). Which considering sites like Facebook are all about identifying who you are and what you do, would somewhat defeat the purpose of them. And good luck in policing those rules about under-16s not providing/sharing identifiable personal data.

Originally Posted by pad406

It is such a complicated area. I feel for people that actually have to implement and ensure compliance.

See more...

Oh, I agree. Which is why it's easier to just stop providing a service for those that it would be difficult (by which I mean, "requires additional effort") to ensure compliance.