Path reaches settlement with FTC, agrees to pay $800K fine for COPPA violations

What "Children protection" means really is "we want to shelve children in a dark dry place until they reach age".<p>The problem with that kind of thinking is that it will yield toddlers of age. Able-bodied but socially infantile.<p>The solution to that problem is that those rules are largely ignored by everyone. But this creates the dangerous law relativity where you have these laws but know they're never applied to you. And when they suddently are applied you are in a deep trouble.<p>Stupid people -&#62; Stupid laws -&#62; Stupid society.

COPPA doesn't seem that unreasonable. Protecting children from information disclosure while they're under the age of 13 seems very appropriate to me. Once kids are 13, they can begin to disclose at their own discretion, but before that, I can see the case for protecting them.

Does this mean if you don't ask for a birthdate on your service, you're safe, or are you required to ask for birthdate and reject anything that comes in under 13?<p>An easy fix for this: dynamically populate the date drop-downs so you can only select (today - 13 years)

The sad thing is I think Path responded far better than most others, and they've received a heavy-handed response relative to the abuses of so many others.<p>They were transparent, admitted their mistake, and corrected it. What's the lesson here? Bury your mistakes and avoid the PR headache and financial penalties?

I know this might have a obvious answer, but I need to be clear: Which of the following is the case here?<p>1. Minors below 13 were able to sign-up under the guidance of adults but the system was not having enough checks in place?<p>2. Minors could register as minors without any system at all?