Google Rolls Out New Features To Improve Child Safety Online

 

Tech giant to make ‘safe search’ default for under 18; no ad targeting for them

To give kids and teens a safer experience online, Google has announced a host of changes in its policies and product to limit their exposure to explicit content, including blocking advertising targeted at the under-18 age group.

In the “coming weeks and months”, the technology giant will roll out a new policy that will enable anyone under 18, or their parent or guardian, to request the removal of their images from Google Image results. “Of course, removing an image from Search doesn’t remove it from the web, but we believe this change will help give young people more control of their images online,” the company said in a blog.

It would expand safeguards to prevent age-sensitive ad categories from being shown to teens, and block ad targeting based on the age, gender or interests of people under 18. “We’ll start rolling out these updates across our products globally over the coming months. Our goal is to ensure we’re providing additional protections and delivering age-appropriate experiences for ads on Google,” it stated.

The company would also roll out changes for YouTube, Search, Google Assistant, location history and Play Store. “Some of our most popular products help kids and teens explore their interests, learn more about the world, and connect with friends. We’re committed to constantly making these experiences safer for them. That’s why in the coming weeks and months we're going to make a number of changes to Google Accounts for people under 18,” it said.

‘SafeSearch’

For YouTube, it would change the default upload setting to private for users in the age group of 13-17, and would more prominently surface digital well-being features and provide safeguards and education about commercial content. Likewise, in Search, ‘SafeSearch’ -- which helps filter out explicit results when enabled, would be turned on by default for signed-in users under 18.

SafeSearch is currently on by default for all signed-in users under 13 who have accounts managed by Family Link.

The company said it was working on ways to prevent mature content from surfacing during a child’s experience with Google Assistant on shared devices, and in the coming months would introduce new default protections.

Additionally, location history, which was a Google account setting, would be turned off by default for users under the age of 18 globally without the option to turn it on.

Currently, this feature is active for children with supervised accounts.

“...we’re launching a new safety section that will let parents know which apps follow our Families policies. Apps will be required to disclose how they use the data they collect in greater detail, making it easier for parents to decide if the app is right for their child before they download it,” it noted.

The company pointed out that data played an important role in making its products functional and helpful, and it was developing engaging, easy-to-understand materials for young people and their parents to help them better understand the company’s data practices. These resources would begin to roll out globally in the coming months.

“...Having an accurate age for a user can be an important element in providing experiences tailored to their needs. Yet, knowing the accurate age of our users across multiple products and surfaces, while at the same time respecting their privacy and ensuring that our services remain accessible, is a complex challenge. It will require input from regulators, lawmakers, industry bodies, technology providers, and others to address it – and to ensure that we all build a safer 

Google responds to brand safety reports it benefited from child abuse on YouTube

Google has responded to reports that it has benefited through adverts appearing on channels that supported child abuse after it closed channel Toy Freaks and announced that it had launched a subsequent investigation on the platform.

During a year where Google has responded to concerns by advertisers over brand safety, where it was found that adverts were running against terrorist propaganda video with the brand's knowledge, it is now defending itself against further claims that the same has happened on channels featuring children.

The channel, Toy Freaks, which began two years ago with Greg Chism and his daughters in different situations, had 8.53 million subscribers making it one of YouTube's top 100 most viewed channels when it was closed.

Google released a statement following the Times claim on Saturday that the channel was one that benefitted from featuring children in 'abusive' situations.

“We take child safety extremely seriously and have clear policies against child endangerment. We recently tightened the enforcement of these policies to tackle content featuring minors where we receive signals that cause concern. It’s not always clear that the uploader of the content intends to break our rules, but we may still remove their videos to help protect viewers, uploaders and children. We’ve terminated the Toy Freaks channel for violation of our policies. We will be conducting a broader review of associated content in conjunction with expert Trusted Flaggers," the statement read.

Google responded to The Drum's questions over what it was planning to do to ensure further examples of child exploitation were not found on the platform.

Asked how quickly it moved upon discovering the violations by Toy Freaks, a spokesman claimed it closed the account "as soon as we were notified, we took action." The channel has also been developing machine learning capabilities to determine which channels do violate its policies, they also highlighted.

"We have strict policies against child endangerment on YouTube. We cannot always speak to the intent of families uploading content, but sometimes they may cross a line and violate our Community Guidelines even if they didn’t intend to do anything harmful. In these instances, we may still remove their videos to help protect the children or viewers. We are going to do a broader review of content such as these with expert Trusted Flaggers," they continued to explain.

On brand safety and how YouTube was working with advertisers to avoid future brand safety concerns, it was claimed that it had "ramped up" its training to educate clients and agencies on the safety controls that had been introduced.

"In any situation whereby a brand's ad runs against content they feel is inconsistent with their values, we work with them to review their current settings and put additional exclusions in place. We continue to be transparent on the process we've made with our machine learning algorithms and our dedication to making sure they are reaching the right audience on YouTube," it was stated.

Read More

Article by Stephen Lepitak

Trinity Mount Ministries YouTube Channel

Google + Amber Alert for Missing Children:

Google now includes Amber alerts for missing children

The company's search and maps products will include the alerts for nearby users who may be able to help.

Google said today it would include Amber alerts in search and maps as part of an effort to heighten awareness of missing children and assist in their safe return.

Amber alerts, which are coordinated by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, will provide data about new cases through Google's Public Alerts platform.

The alerts will pop up in Google Search and Maps in both desktop and mobile whenever a user searches for related information in a particular location where a child has recently been reported missing. The alerts will also appear if users search for a related subject, such as the name of the missing child or child abductions in general.

"By increasing the availability of these alerts through our services, we hope that more people will assist in the search for children featured in AMBER Alerts and that the rates of safe recovery will rise," Google's Phil Coakley said in a blog post.

The alerts will include information about the child and details about the case, such as the type of vehicle the child was last seen in or information about the person believed to have abducted the child.

Google eventually plans to bring the alerts service to Canada and Europe.

Trinity Mount Ministries Website:

Join Trinity Mount Ministries on Twitter:

Facebook Dodges FTC Fines Over Privacy After Google Gets Nailed

By Chris Crum · August 10, 2012 · 2 Comments

A day after handing Google the largest fine it has ever handed to a single company, for allegedly deceiving users over privacy, the FTC has settled another privacy matter with Google’s industry rival Facebook, with no fine at all, provided Facebook complies with its regular privacy audits.
The FTC says Facebook must obtain consumers’ consent before sharing their information beyond established privacy settings, following a public comment period on the proposed settlement. Charges that Facebook deceived consumers by telling them they could keep their info on Facebook private, then allowing it to be shared and made public (repeatedly) have now been resolved.
Facebook is required to obtain biennial privacy audits from an independent third party.
The Commission vote to approve the final order was 3-1-1, with Commissioner J. Thomas Rosch dissenting and Commissioner Maureen K. Ohlhausen not participating.
Following is the FTC’s statement in its entirety (authored by Chairman Jon D. Leibowitz and Commissioners Edith Ramirez and Julie Brill):
The final consent order in In re Facebook, Inc. that we approve today advances the privacy interests of the nearly one billion Facebook users around the world by requiring the company to live up to its promises and submit to privacy audits. Notably, Facebook will be subject to civil penalties of up to $16,000 for each violation of the order. We intend to monitor closely Facebook’s compliance with the order and will not hesitate to seek civil penalties for any violations.
We write to address the arguments raised by our colleague, Commissioner Rosch, who opposes final approval of the order. One of his objections relates to the extent to which the order would reach the activities of third-party “apps” downloaded by consumers while using the Facebook platform. The Order broadly prohibits Facebook from misrepresenting in any manner, expressly or by implication, the extent to which it maintains the privacy or security of any information it collects from or about consumers. For a company whose entire business model rests on collecting, maintaining, and sharing people’s information, this prohibition touches on virtually every aspect of Facebook’s operations. Further, the Order sets forth clear examples of how this broad prohibition would apply in connection with apps, by prohibiting Facebook from misrepresenting the extent to which it makes its users’ information accessible to apps; or the steps it takes to verify the privacy or security protections that apps provide.
A statement from Facebook about an app’s conduct may well amount to a promise that Facebook is taking steps to assure the level of privacy or security that the app provides for consumers’ information.
These provisions make clear that Facebook will be liable for conduct by apps that contradicts Facebook’s promises about the privacy or security practices of these apps. Commissioner Rosch also opposes the consent order because it includes a denial by Facebook of the substantive allegations in the Commission’s complaint.
Based on this denial, Commissioner Rosch asserts that the Commission lacks the requisite “reason to believe” that Facebook violated Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act and a basis to conclude that the settlement is in “the interest of the public.”
We strongly disagree with Commissioner Rosch’s view that if the Commission allows a respondent to deny the complaint’s substantive allegations, or use language that is tantamount to a denial, there is no basis for the Commission to conclude that the respondent engaged in unlawful conduct or that the consent is in the public interest. As Commissioner Rosch is aware, an extensive investigation and detailed staff recommendation has given the Commission a strong—not just a reasonable—basis to issue its complaint in this case and to conclude that both the complaint and the resulting settlement are in the public interest. Here, as in all enforcement cases, it is the evidentiary record developed by FTC staff during the course of its investigation, not any ensuing settlement agreement, that forms the basis for action by the Commission. A respondent’s denial of liability in a consent agreement does not diminish staff’s extensive investigation or the ability of the Commission to find a reasonable basis to finalize a settlement or to enforce an order that results from settlement negotiations. Moreover, express denials of liability are consistent with the Commission’s current Rules of Practice.
We view the final consent order in this matter to be a major step forward for consumer privacy and hereby approve it.
While we do not believe that a respondent’s denial of liability is reason to reject a settlement that is in the public interest, we share Commissioner Rosch’s desire to avoid any possible public misimpression that the Commission obtains settlements when it lacks reason to believe that the alleged conduct occurred. We commend Commissioner Rosch for focusing our attention on the issue; going forward, express denials will be strongly disfavored. We also appreciate Commissioner Rosch’s suggestion that consent order language that the respondent “neither admits nor denies” a complaint’s allegations may very well be a more effective way to ensure that there are no misimpressions about the Commission’s process. Accordingly, we will consider in the coming months whether a modification to the Commission Rules of Practice is warranted.
Do you think this is a fair settlement, or did Facebook get off too easy?
Image from All Things D conference

Related Items Facebook FTC Privacy Social Media

About Chris Crum
Chris Crum has been a part of the WebProNews team and the iEntry Network of B2B Publications since 2003. Follow Chris on Twitter, on StumbleUpon, on Pinterest and/or on Google: +Chris Crum.

View all posts by Chris Crum →

Trinity Mount Ministries  

@TrinityMount (Twitter)

TrinityMount (email)