WEBVTT - YouTube to Pay Record Fine in Children’s Privacy Case

0:00:03.520 --> 0:00:07.040
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

0:00:07.120 --> 0:00:09.680
<v Speaker 1>day we bring you insight an analysis into the most

0:00:09.720 --> 0:00:12.200
<v Speaker 1>important legal news of the day. You can find more

0:00:12.240 --> 0:00:16.160
<v Speaker 1>episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple podcast, SoundCloud

0:00:16.280 --> 0:00:20.080
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. A record fine

0:00:20.079 --> 0:00:23.000
<v Speaker 1>in a children's privacy case, YouTube will pay you one

0:00:23.040 --> 0:00:26.400
<v Speaker 1>hundred seventy million dollar fine and limit ads on kids

0:00:26.480 --> 0:00:29.680
<v Speaker 1>videos in order to settle claims that the company collected

0:00:30.040 --> 0:00:35.200
<v Speaker 1>children's personal data without their parents consent, violating children's privacy laws.

0:00:35.560 --> 0:00:37.840
<v Speaker 1>Joining me is Eric Goldman, director of the High Tech

0:00:37.920 --> 0:00:42.959
<v Speaker 1>Law Institute and professor at Santa Clara University Law School. So, Eric,

0:00:43.040 --> 0:00:47.440
<v Speaker 1>this fine is the largest the FTC has leveled against Google,

0:00:47.520 --> 0:00:50.520
<v Speaker 1>but it pales in comparison to the five billion dollar

0:00:50.640 --> 0:00:54.840
<v Speaker 1>fine the FTC imposed against Facebook this year, and two

0:00:55.080 --> 0:01:00.320
<v Speaker 1>FTC commissioners thought it wasn't enough. What's your take is

0:01:00.400 --> 0:01:03.360
<v Speaker 1>that despite the fact that Google and Facebook makes so

0:01:03.480 --> 0:01:06.440
<v Speaker 1>much money, the FTC is really breaking some new ground here.

0:01:07.000 --> 0:01:09.400
<v Speaker 1>The size of the find that the FTC is imposing

0:01:09.760 --> 0:01:12.720
<v Speaker 1>dwarfs anything that anyone's ever been able to get from

0:01:12.720 --> 0:01:16.200
<v Speaker 1>Google for privacy violation. So I think that the FTC

0:01:16.319 --> 0:01:18.200
<v Speaker 1>should be pretty pleased with itself that it's made as

0:01:18.240 --> 0:01:21.319
<v Speaker 1>much progress as it has. Let's talk about the compliance

0:01:21.400 --> 0:01:24.720
<v Speaker 1>part of the settlement, which may hamper YouTube's ability to

0:01:24.800 --> 0:01:29.000
<v Speaker 1>sell ads. What did YouTube agree to do? Well, one

0:01:29.040 --> 0:01:32.160
<v Speaker 1>of other things they agreed to basically try to find

0:01:32.640 --> 0:01:37.400
<v Speaker 1>automatically what channels are directed towards children, using algorithms and

0:01:37.440 --> 0:01:40.479
<v Speaker 1>machine learning to do so. And from my prostructive, that's

0:01:40.480 --> 0:01:44.960
<v Speaker 1>a really unprecedented move. Um, we haven't historically seen internet

0:01:44.959 --> 0:01:48.840
<v Speaker 1>company is required to prospectively look for a material that's

0:01:48.880 --> 0:01:52.040
<v Speaker 1>directed towards children. So this is a pretty major development,

0:01:52.160 --> 0:01:54.760
<v Speaker 1>both from a regular air standpoint as well as from

0:01:54.800 --> 0:01:58.280
<v Speaker 1>a machine learning and algorithm standpoint. Will it work? Will

0:01:58.320 --> 0:02:00.960
<v Speaker 1>they be able to find the content? Well, that's a

0:02:01.000 --> 0:02:03.560
<v Speaker 1>really good question, um, And that's a question that we

0:02:03.640 --> 0:02:05.480
<v Speaker 1>probably ought to have a checkpoint on in a few

0:02:05.560 --> 0:02:08.560
<v Speaker 1>years and revisit. We know that machine learning is getting

0:02:08.560 --> 0:02:11.440
<v Speaker 1>pretty good, but really trying to reduce what's going to

0:02:11.520 --> 0:02:14.760
<v Speaker 1>appeal to children it doesn't strike me as the easiest

0:02:14.840 --> 0:02:17.839
<v Speaker 1>type of thing to train an algorithm to do. And

0:02:18.120 --> 0:02:22.360
<v Speaker 1>what about the ads that YouTube would be selling in

0:02:22.440 --> 0:02:26.480
<v Speaker 1>connection with children's programming, will it still be able to

0:02:26.480 --> 0:02:30.560
<v Speaker 1>target children and their practices. Well, one other thing that's

0:02:30.560 --> 0:02:32.760
<v Speaker 1>required to flush all the data that has gathered that

0:02:32.840 --> 0:02:36.160
<v Speaker 1>the FTC believes is ill gotten, So that's going to

0:02:36.280 --> 0:02:39.600
<v Speaker 1>hamper its ability to use the legacy data and is

0:02:39.680 --> 0:02:42.960
<v Speaker 1>prohibited from continue to do that in the future. Google

0:02:43.040 --> 0:02:45.560
<v Speaker 1>and other tech giants, as we've discussed before, have faced

0:02:45.560 --> 0:02:50.880
<v Speaker 1>these fines over practices also involving children, and Google's under

0:02:50.880 --> 0:02:56.360
<v Speaker 1>agreement with the FTC that it was fined in for violating.

0:02:56.400 --> 0:03:02.720
<v Speaker 1>So how much can we trust in this particular agreement. Well,

0:03:02.760 --> 0:03:06.720
<v Speaker 1>that's an interesting question because on the one hand, there's

0:03:06.760 --> 0:03:09.440
<v Speaker 1>good reason to believe that there are other privacy violations

0:03:09.440 --> 0:03:12.919
<v Speaker 1>Google is committed, and really there's no there's no limit

0:03:12.960 --> 0:03:16.200
<v Speaker 1>to where our imagination could take us with the crazy

0:03:16.240 --> 0:03:18.480
<v Speaker 1>things that Google might be doing. On the other hand,

0:03:18.560 --> 0:03:22.679
<v Speaker 1>this is an example that between the FTCs find of

0:03:22.919 --> 0:03:26.080
<v Speaker 1>Facebook and the fine here of Google, that the FTC

0:03:26.240 --> 0:03:29.080
<v Speaker 1>is paying attention to these questions and they are our

0:03:29.160 --> 0:03:33.000
<v Speaker 1>champions as consumers. So on the one hand, I'm nervous

0:03:33.040 --> 0:03:35.640
<v Speaker 1>about all the crazy things that could be taking place.

0:03:35.640 --> 0:03:37.800
<v Speaker 1>On the other hand, I'm comforted that we know that

0:03:37.840 --> 0:03:41.840
<v Speaker 1>the FTC is paying attention instigation. Is this an indication

0:03:42.160 --> 0:03:46.920
<v Speaker 1>of the growing pressure that big tech may face in

0:03:46.960 --> 0:03:50.800
<v Speaker 1>its practices with miners? Unquestionably, there's a lot of interest

0:03:50.840 --> 0:03:53.840
<v Speaker 1>in how in our companies are interacting with miners, and

0:03:53.920 --> 0:03:58.000
<v Speaker 1>that's a global phenomenon. Everyone is concerned about the impact

0:03:58.160 --> 0:04:01.680
<v Speaker 1>of technology on miners. I don't think that the FTC

0:04:02.160 --> 0:04:04.320
<v Speaker 1>is in a unique position that way. I think that

0:04:04.360 --> 0:04:06.880
<v Speaker 1>they are also interested in but they are given this

0:04:07.000 --> 0:04:09.760
<v Speaker 1>special authority by Congress under the law that the FTC

0:04:09.960 --> 0:04:13.000
<v Speaker 1>enforced here, and so I think that the FTC feels

0:04:13.000 --> 0:04:17.719
<v Speaker 1>a responsibility to be proactively looking for ways to protect

0:04:17.760 --> 0:04:20.960
<v Speaker 1>children online. So I do see this as part of

0:04:21.000 --> 0:04:23.320
<v Speaker 1>a larger trend. But I don't think that this particular

0:04:23.360 --> 0:04:26.400
<v Speaker 1>settlement is anything unusual. This is what the FTC has

0:04:26.400 --> 0:04:29.440
<v Speaker 1>been asked to do and is doing. And what about

0:04:29.720 --> 0:04:34.080
<v Speaker 1>practices of Facebook and Amazon that have been critiqued. Yeah,

0:04:34.120 --> 0:04:36.400
<v Speaker 1>I don't have any unique insights about that, but I

0:04:36.440 --> 0:04:38.160
<v Speaker 1>do think that it is time to ask some of

0:04:38.200 --> 0:04:40.960
<v Speaker 1>those questions. Are there things that are hurting kids that

0:04:41.000 --> 0:04:43.600
<v Speaker 1>we need to be protecting. Amazon is in a slightly

0:04:43.680 --> 0:04:46.840
<v Speaker 1>different position because in theory, in order to be making

0:04:46.880 --> 0:04:49.320
<v Speaker 1>acquisitions on Amazon, you need a credit card, which kids

0:04:49.440 --> 0:04:53.159
<v Speaker 1>ordinarily aren't supposed to have, although increasingly they probably are.

0:04:53.640 --> 0:04:56.880
<v Speaker 1>But certainly Facebook has tried in the past to screen

0:04:56.960 --> 0:04:59.760
<v Speaker 1>out underage users. They in fact did a deal a

0:05:00.040 --> 0:05:02.280
<v Speaker 1>kay to Go that was designed to keep the under

0:05:02.320 --> 0:05:06.000
<v Speaker 1>thirteen users from accessing the service. The reality of courses

0:05:06.040 --> 0:05:09.160
<v Speaker 1>that we know that they are underage users on Facebook,

0:05:09.200 --> 0:05:13.520
<v Speaker 1>and so because of that generalized knowledge that Facebook has,

0:05:13.640 --> 0:05:15.240
<v Speaker 1>there's some risks that they're going to have to do

0:05:15.279 --> 0:05:18.360
<v Speaker 1>more to keep the kids off and keep any remaining

0:05:18.440 --> 0:05:21.279
<v Speaker 1>kids safe. The big question that I've been thinking about

0:05:21.279 --> 0:05:24.560
<v Speaker 1>as we've discussed this is can anything work if the

0:05:24.640 --> 0:05:28.680
<v Speaker 1>parents aren't involved in policing their children. I don't even

0:05:28.720 --> 0:05:31.320
<v Speaker 1>know what that means anymore. To be honest with you, Um,

0:05:31.440 --> 0:05:34.080
<v Speaker 1>you know what they do on the internet, And so

0:05:34.160 --> 0:05:37.240
<v Speaker 1>I have kids. My children are seventeen and fourteen, so

0:05:37.320 --> 0:05:40.280
<v Speaker 1>there's a really perfect age for me to answer this question.

0:05:40.680 --> 0:05:43.360
<v Speaker 1>On the one hand, I am nervous about where they're

0:05:43.360 --> 0:05:45.960
<v Speaker 1>going online if they understand the consequences of that, and

0:05:46.279 --> 0:05:49.440
<v Speaker 1>unquestionably with my conversation with them, I've seen some examples

0:05:49.440 --> 0:05:52.760
<v Speaker 1>where that's not the case. However, I also want them

0:05:52.800 --> 0:05:55.400
<v Speaker 1>to have some freedom. It's their time to explore and

0:05:55.480 --> 0:05:58.440
<v Speaker 1>to grow and to make choices, some of which won't

0:05:58.440 --> 0:06:01.240
<v Speaker 1>be great as part of their learning process. I'm really

0:06:01.279 --> 0:06:03.200
<v Speaker 1>started as apparent about what to do. I know I

0:06:03.240 --> 0:06:04.839
<v Speaker 1>need to be evolved with what they do, but but

0:06:04.960 --> 0:06:07.599
<v Speaker 1>I can't be too involved. And that's a tough balance

0:06:07.640 --> 0:06:10.920
<v Speaker 1>of strike it is. I appreciate it. Thanks so much, Eric.

0:06:11.160 --> 0:06:13.520
<v Speaker 1>That's Eric Goldman. He's director of the High Tech Law

0:06:13.600 --> 0:06:17.919
<v Speaker 1>Institute and a professor at Santa Clara University Law School.

0:06:19.880 --> 0:06:22.840
<v Speaker 1>Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can

0:06:22.880 --> 0:06:26.600
<v Speaker 1>subscribe and listen to the show on Apple podcast, SoundCloud,

0:06:26.680 --> 0:06:30.560
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brasso.

0:06:31.040 --> 0:06:32.320
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg