These 42 Disney Apps Are Spying On Your Kids, Lawsuit Claims

Walt Disney Co. secretly collects personal information on some of its younger clients and exchanges data with advertisers illegally without parental consent, according to a federal lawsuit filed last week in California.

The class suit is for Disney and three other software companies – Upsight, Unity and Kochava – claiming that the mobile applications they have built violate the law by collecting information about users of Internet applications, there are including the age of 13 years that facilitate commercial exploitation.

The plaintiffs argue that Disney and its partners violated the COPPA Act, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, a federal law to protect children’s privacy on the Web.

The lawsuit, filed in the District Court for the Northern District of California, seeks a court order prohibiting companies from collecting and disclosing data without parental consent, as well as punitive damages and legal costs.

The lawsuit claims that Disney has allowed software companies to integrate crawlers into applications such as “Disney Princess Palace Animals” and “Where’s My Water?”

Once installed, the tracking software can “smuggle this information out of the smart device for advertising and other commercial purposes,” according to the lawsuit.

Disney should not use these software development companies, said Jeffrey Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy.

“They are a robust technology, industrial use data and analysis companies, whose function is to track and obtain economic benefits from people,” said Chester. “It should not be in children’s applications.”

Disney has said that the lawsuit is wrong and intends to defend in court. “Disney has a robust COPPA compliance program, and we maintain a strict policy of data collection and use applications created by Disney for children and families,” the company said in a statement Monday.

“The lawsuit is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the principles of the COPPA law, and we look forward to defending this action in the Court.”

According to the Federal Trade Commission’s online services targeting users under the age of 13 should display a privacy policy that is legible and easy to understand.

The policy should specify the type of information collected and what the service could do with that data. Instructions on how parents can give their consent should also be included.

This is not the first time Disney has been a dispute over alleged violations of COPPA. In 2011, the FTC has penalized a corporate subsidiary Playdom, 3 million after Playdom has registered about 1.2 million users, mostly children, for online games.

The Federal Trade Commission’s ruling said Disney has collected e-mail addresses and the ages of the children and voluntarily allowed them information such as their full names, instant messengers and their physical sites as part of their online profiles.

Many Disney gaming applications are very popular. According to the Google Play Store installed between 100 million and 500 million times “Where is my water 2?”;

Google Has Fired The Employee Behind That Controversial Diversity Manifesto, Reports Say

After a controversial memory of a Google engineer in diversity programs the differences of society and gender were viral throughout the weekend, triggering an explosive reaction on social networks, the giant quest n ‘has not Denied media reports Monday night that the employee was fired.

Memory – in which the author suggests, among other things, that biological factors were part of the cause of gender differences in the technology industry and that Google should “stop alienating conservatives” – has provoked a Strong protest in social networks in recent days.

Critics have talked about statements about biological differences such as women, on average, with a “low tolerance to stress” or how Google should “focus on empathy.”

Others, among other Google employees, according to the author, defended his speech, leaving the Google HR store between the sword and the wall as to how to respond.

However, on Monday, after an email from Google CEO Sundar Pichai, “parts of the notes violate our code of conduct and cross the line by promoting harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace.”

Bloomberg News reported that the employee was finished. A spokesman said the company has not commented on individual employees, but it is not disputed that the author of the note was dismissed.

“I’m glad when I woke up this morning, I was not the director of human resources at Google,” said Brian Kropp, who directs HRB practice for CEB.

“If you think the continuum of the workforce, it has an end where people are going to say that this person should be fired,” Kropp said, on the contrary, does not seem to have employees who can d according to their comments .

“Whatever Google decides to do, they’re potentially going to be disappointing for someone along one of these groups or making them angry.”

Danielle Brown, who became vice president of the company for diversity, integrity and good governance, a few weeks ago, and other Google executives issued a statement expressing their disagreement with the trial.

Brown wrote in an internal response that “like many of you, I found that you had advanced incorrect assumptions about gender” and that “you are unequivocal in our belief that diversity and inclusion are essential to our success as a company.”

Ari Balogh, vice president of engineering at Google, wrote in a statement that “exchanging different perspectives is an important part of our culture,” but “one aspect of the position I was deeply concerned about was the inherent party implying that The majority of women or men, feel or act in a certain way.

This is a stereotype, and it is harmful. “Other Google leaders also commented. By the end of Monday Pichai had added their name to the leaders who weighed publicly against the note.

With the subject line “our words are important,” he opened by saying “we strongly support the right of Google employees to express themselves, and a large part of this memory is suitable for discussion, which most Google employees do not Agree with him “.