Bridget Knolling lost her son after purchasing what appeared to be Percocet pills online. They turned out to be fentanyl. She testified Wednesday at the state Capitol and supported legislation to protect him, she said.
The Minnesota Kids Code (HF 2257/SF 2810) was debated last year and is currently being amended and passed for a second time.
“Every product our children come into contact with, from the car seats our grandchildren bring home to the fire-resistant pajamas we dress them in at night, has specific safety requirements to ensure they are sold for use by our most vulnerable children. technology should not be an exception,” Norring said.
5Rights US is one of the organizations working on this particular law in Minnesota. Other states are also working on enacting similar laws.
MPR News is supported by our members. Gifts from individuals are the driving force behind everything here. Become a member by making a gift of any amount today!
Nichole Rocha, director of 5Rights US, says it’s time to build stronger protections for young people online. “We’ve reached critical mass when it comes to protecting children online. We’ve seen over the last few decades that technology doesn’t regulate itself,” she said.
To listen to Rocha’s full interview, click on the audio player above. The following transcript has been edited for length and clarity.
What’s the headline about what this does and how it works?
This is first and foremost a data minimization bill. So if you have a child who requests a service online, if you want to sign on to a social media platform, or if you want to buy something online, you can do that.
However, it would prohibit the platform from collecting additional information about them. And the information held by the platform cannot be sold.
One of the most intrusive types of data they can collect is geolocation, which really leads to the stalking aspect. Collection of that information about children is not permitted.
Additionally, websites and apps that children are likely to access should have advanced privacy settings by default.
What does it prevent people from doing, or what might people, including free speech advocates, be concerned about?
The bill does not prohibit children from searching for any type of content. Nothing prohibits the platform from distributing content of any kind. This is not a content regulation.
The bill also does not require age verification. Age verification can be highly privacy invasive, and opponents of the bill will argue that it would require the collection of additional personal information.
The bill clearly states that age verification is not required. However, if you do so, you should do so in a manner that protects your privacy as much as possible.
No information may be collected beyond what is reasonably necessary and may not be used for any other purpose.
What do you think people need to understand about this that may not be widely known?
We have reached critical mass when it comes to protecting children online. As we have seen over the past few decades that technology does not regulate itself, states are scrambling to figure out how to protect their youngest and most vulnerable populations.
And we see a lot of legislation going in the wrong direction on this.
What we have in the Minnesota Kids Code ensures that the platform collects minimal information about children, uses it only for specific purposes, and cannot profile and/or target children. It’s very narrowly tuned to do that. I see things that are designed to make the most of the screen.
They can use the internet and everything it has to offer, except online predatory collections [and] Misuse of their information is prohibited.
