User talk:Minhyyuk/sandbox

Information Privacy Article Evaluation
Name of article: Information privacy
 * I was given this article to evaluate in the English language.

Lead

The lead of this article consists of an initial sentence that starts with the article topic (Information privacy) in bold, that briefly defines the topic accurately; it describes the two most important aspects of data privacy in the lead sentence [collection / dissemination] of information. It also in the following sentence states two synonyms it commonly goes by [data privacy / data protection].

The article's main sections include that of protection legislation, information types, it's legality, and international complexity when dealing with data privacy, and the lead concisely touches on these sections in the third and forth lead sentences.

The lead is not overly detailed nor is it saturated with repetitive definitions and ideas.

Content

The article's content is relevant to the topic and describes in detail the points that were brought up in the lead. The content describes the challenges between data collection with data protection but also focuses on the legality, political, and expectations of privacy through discussing the types of data collection and international interconnection of data protection.

The content of this page has been edited recently (June 23, 2020) with all the links working. However, the most recently added link is a hyperlink to another Wikipedia article, which I think the original database website should be linked instead.

I feel indifferent towards the large section of the United States Safe Harbor Program as this article isn't one that is mainly focused on this program by itself. I understand that it has implications with the EU and international organizations, but I feel it slightly distracts the readers away from the main gist and theme of Data Privacy and shifts it into an article solely about the creation, implications, and controversy with the program.

Instead, I see this article improving if we expand upon data privacy legislation by each country and minimizing it's focus on the US Safe Harbor Program.

Tone and Balance

After a read through of the article, I have the perspective that the article is neutral and the editors don't have the motive to sway the readers to feel one way towards data privacy.

The definitions are consistence with the unbiased lead and the sections do a good job with describing how different pieces of legislation affect data privacy across the globe as well as describing the different forms of privacy through data.

No viewpoints are over represented, as the article is written in English, which should emphasize the environment of data privacy in the US and European countries, but would like to see data privacy efforts in other countries to be discussed more. I understand that legislation and data protection from other countries are linked within the body of the article, but believe a little bit more information regarding information types and the legality of data privacy from these other countries to be discussed more.

Sources and References

The content of this page has been edited recently (June 23, 2020) with all the links working. However, the most recently added link is a hyperlink to another Wikipedia article, which I think the original database website should be linked instead. Other than that, the links all seem to be from credible sources with credible authors.

The references have a good balance that reflects the material in the body of the article which discusses information from multiple countries, to different types of sources, to a wide range of reference time frames.

Their 'See More' section also does a good job with showing readers various topics related to Data Privacy, organizations and scholars related to the article, as well as links to computer science related topics.

Organization

The article is well-written, which follows an easy to follow blueprint of:
 * LEAD
 * Basic principles and international authorities of data privacy
 * Different types of Data
 * Legality
 * Protection of Privacy in IS
 * US Safe Harbor Program (An essential block of Data Privacy in US / EU)
 * Additional links to further details of this topic

There are no grammatical or spelling errors I could pick up on, and the article is formatted in a way that makes it easy to understand the topic of data privacy first, and then dives into the complexities of it internationally.

The section of the US Safe Harbor Program is fairly extensive, which I believe should be reduced as said before, and given more room for additional international information on data privacy.

Images and Media

There are no images in the entire article, and believe that a simple chart regarding the different types of information types, charts regarding the US Safe Harbor Program, or images of the logos of federal organizations that are related to data privacy could greatly enhance the ease of viewing to the readers.

Checking the talk page

The article is rated as a C- by Wikipedia and has been a part of a couple WikiProjects: WikiProject Computing, WikiProject Internet, and WikiProject Mass Surveillance.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

The conversations on this talk page are pretty stagnant, with each message being stagnated roughly two years. The most recent one is from June of 2020, and describes the motive to add additional information to the internet type of data to include more with social media. It's great to see people adding and changing parts of this article with reference to Wikipedia's small list of rules, and can see how information privacy can change over the course of two decades (since the first talk message).

Overall impressions

The article does a good job discussing the basics of information privacy; which includes the various types, the complexity of regulating it internationally, with an example (US Safe Harbor Program); and the legality of it. It gives a small list of how data privacy is viewed internationally, with some organizations that are related to the topic, but would like to see additional information due to how widespread and large this topic actually is.

I see large potential to add onto current day data privacy issues (Social Media, AI, etc) that may resolve my issue with how emphasized the US Safe Harbor Program is, and can see additional information on international focused organizations/legislation on data privacy. Past examples of data privacy breaches could be added also with hacking becoming more pertinent.

The article is formatted great with discussing it briefly, then discussing the different types, and then diving into the complexities behind it.

The article is decently well-developed, but couldn't see it's strengths when it comes to professional studies, however seems like a great read to the casual reader wanting to learn more about data privacy in the modern age.--Minhyyuk (talk) 07:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

대중감시 Article Evaluation
Name of article: 대중감시


 * I chose this article to evaluate in the Korean language (한국어).
 * Wikipedia in the Korean language doesn't have the strong community of writers and editors that are seen in the English Wikipedia community, and I noticed this immediately through not only the limited number of articles in Data Privacy / Information, but in the available articles with how short they were.

Lead

The lead of this article consists of an initial sentence that starts with the article topic (대중감시) in bold, its direct Chinese transcription (大衆監視), and its English translation (Mass Surveillance). It gives a concise definition of Mass Surveillance. It briefly describes the start of public surveillance through Korean organizations with military motives in the beginning of the 20th century which later transformed into more of an economic tool later on. However, the second to last sentence sends a biased viewpoint of something along the lines of "unregulated mass surveillance will deteriorate the values of a Korean society." This is linked to a study found in the footnotes, but is actually a news article posted by CBS, which is a Korean television network.

The article's main sections include a brief paragraph on public surveillance in Korea as well as a theoretical approach on this topic.

The lead is not overly detailed nor is it saturated with repetitive definitions and ideas.

Content

The article's content is relevant to the topic and describes recent efforts through the Korean government to issue warrants to users of KakaoTalk (a popular phone messaging application in Korea) and telegram (an anonymous messaging system in Korea). They describe the efforts of Republic of Korea in the Terrorism Act ([[ko:국민보호와 공공안전을 위한 테러방지법[[) for public protection and public safety and how many Korean citizens it affects (38 million).

The content of this page has been edited recently (May 2020) with all the links working. However many of the links used to describe different events are web articles that aren't from a professional source.

I believe however, that the second section of the analysis of public surveillance isn't needed, and the article would benefit greatly from analysis of Korean governmental agencies, police surveillance systems, and recent events where agencies used public surveillance in federal crimes.

In addition, a great example of the use of public surveillance in Korea was the extensive network used by Korean authorities to flatten the curve of COVID-19 and help identify potential carriers of the virus through CCTV, logs, and other methods of surveillance.

Tone and Balance

The lead and first section of the article has a neutral perspective, but the second paragraph on the analysis of public surveillance seems to push a motive against the use of public surveillance.

The basic descriptions on how the ROK in the Terrorism Act for public protection and public safety is good, but again see a benefit in removing the theoretical analysis and adding recent events on the use of CCTV in police investigations; due to the fact that its incredibly highly used. Not only CCTV, but the usage of messaging applications, phone tapping, etc.

Privacy articles aren't well managed in the Korean language, but definitely see large potential in adding to this because of how big of an issue privacy is in Korea.

Sources and References

The content of this page has been edited recently (May 2020) with all the links working. However many of the links used to describe different events are web articles that aren't from a professional source.

Organization

The article is well-written in Korean, which follows an easy to follow blueprint of:


 * LEAD
 * 대한민국에서의 대중감시 (Public Surveillance in S. Korea)
 * 대중감시에 대한 이론적 분석 (Analysis of Public Surveillance)
 * 같이 보기 (See More)
 * 참고 문헌 (References)

There are no grammatical or spelling errors I could pick up on, but not entirely sure as I couldn't understand 5-10% of the article due to my limited Korean, and the article is formatted in a way that makes it easy to understand the topic of the basics of Korean public surveillance, and then dives into an analysis of it.

As I said before, I believe a swap of the (biased imo) analysis section with a section of recent events of police surveillance in investigations and the use of public surveillance with KCIA, K NIS, and Korean Police Precincts would benefit the quality of this article with the use of the recent COVID-19 pandemic as it's largest example.

Images and Media

There is an image of an eye which is the symbol of the Global Surveillance Network, but believe that should be swapped with something different related more to Korea.

If a paragraph on COVID-19 is to be added, I would love to see a simple chart on the flattening curve due to the extensive use of public surveillance.

Checking the talk page

The article is rated as an unrated article by Wikipedia and has been a part of one WikiProject: WikiProject: Politics or 위키프로젝트:정치.

The conversation page is empty except for one discussion that occurred in June of 2019.

Overall impressions

The article does a simple job of describing the bare basics of public surveillance in Korea. I see a lot of potential when it comes to the quality of this article through less emphasis on the analysis of the topic, but more discussion on how different governmental Korean agencies use public surveillance in investigations as well as how Korea flattened the curve of the recent COVID-19 pandemic through the use of public surveillance and tracking, which ultimately led Korea to become a global leader in reducing patients during this time. --Minhyyuk (talk) 02:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Connected Toys (Korean)
네트워크에 연결된 장난감은 와이파이, 블루투스또는 기타 기능이 내장된 인터넷 지원 장치이다. 스마트 장난감 일 수도 있고 아닐 수도 있는 이 장난감들은 음성 인식 및 웹 검색 기능이 포함 된 내장 소프트웨어를 통해 어린이에게보다 개인화 된 경험을 제공한다. 네트워크에 연결된 장난감은 대개 사용자에 대한 정보를 자발적으로 수집하거나 비자발적으로 수집하는데, 이로 인해 사생활 침해와 같은 문제에 대한 우려의 목소리가 제기되고 있다. 연결된 장난감에 의해 수집된 데이터는 보통 데이터베이스에 저장되는데, 여기서 연결된 장난감을 생산하는 회사들은 그 데이터를 그들 자신의 목적에 사용할 수 있다.

수집할 수 있는 정보 유형
부모와 자녀 모두의 정보를 포함하여 어린이의 연결된 장난감에 의해 다른 정보를 수집할 수 있다. 어린이에게서 수집할 수 있는 정보에는 다음이 포함된다:
 * 생년월일, 이름 및 성별
 * 프로필 사진
 * 아이들이 보낸 음성 메시지, 채팅 메시지 및 사진
 * 계정 암호
 * 물리적 위치
 * 채팅 기록 및 인터넷 검색 기록

부모로부터 수집할 수 있는 정보에는 다음이 포함된다.
 * 이메일 주소 및 메일 주소
 * 성별
 * 프로필 사진
 * 부모가 보낸 음성 메시지, 채팅 메시지 및 사진
 * 계정 비밀번호 및 비밀번호 검색 질문
 * 신용카드 정보
 * 전화 번호
 * 와이파이 비밀번호 및 IP 주소

일반적인 수집 방법
네트워크에 연결된 장난감에 의한 정보 수집은 자발적으로 또는 비자발적으로 발생할 수 있다. 일반적인 정보 수집 방법에는 다음이 포함된다;
 * 계정 생성 시 사용자가 작성한 정보
 * 장난감과의 상호작용
 * 와이파이 또는 셀룰러 네트워크 연결

개인 정보 관련 문제
과거의 데이터 침해로 인해 어린이들의 정보가 제대로 보호되지 못하는 것에 대해 많은 사람들이 우려하고 있다. 장난감 회사에서 수집한 정보는 보통 정보 프라이버시에 대한 인식의 부족함때문에 시스템에서 거의 암호화하지 않고 누구나 접근할 수 있다. 이전 데이터

손상
장난감 연결에 관한 몇 가지 데이터 유출이 발생하여 장난감 회사가 어린이 정보를 보호하기 위해 사용하는 방법에 대한 사회의 우려가 제기되고 있다.

CloudPets 데이터 유출
2017 년 Spiral Toys사의 CloudPets 장난감은 데이터베이스에서 상당한 데이터 누수를 경험했다. CloudPets는 봉제완구로부터 수집된 모든 정보를 온라인 데이터베이스에 저장한다. 사이버 보안 전문가 트로이 헌트에 따르면, 820,000개 이상의 사용자 계정이 노출되었고, 심각한 CloudPets 데이터 침해 동안 자녀와 부모 모두의 220만 개 이상의 음성 메시지가 유출되었다. 데이터 유출의 원인은 Spiral Toys가 수집한 정보를 저장하기 위해 사용한 불안정한 데이터베이스 때문이었다. 그 데이터베이스는 데이터 유출이 일어나기 전에 일반 대중들이 쉽게 접근할 수 있었다. 더 이상 공개적으로 데이터베이스에 접속할 수 없지만 Spiral Toys는 데이터 유출에 대해 사용자들에게 알리지 않았으며 이는 캘리포니아 주의 보안 침해 알림 법을 위반하는 것이다.

VTech 개인정보 데이터 유출
2015년 11월, VTech는 해커들이 SQL주입을 사용했던 정보저장시스템에 심각한 데이터침해를 겪었는데, 이는 "공격자가 웹 응용프로그램의 데이터베이스 서버(일반적으로 RDBMS, Relational Database Management Syste, 이라고도 함) 를 제어하는 악성 SQL스테이트먼트(일반적으로 악의적인 페이로드라고도 함)를 실행할 수 있는 주입 공격"때문이며, 이는 아동 및 부모의 개인 데이터에 액세스할 수 있는 데이터베이스에 대한 전체 권한을 부여한다.

VTech의 공개 데이터 공개에 따르면, 약 480만 개의 부모 계정과 약 640만 명의 어린이 관련 프로필이 전세계 여러 제품에서 유출되었다고 한다. 데이터 침해 중 손상된 데이터에는 이름, 이메일 주소, 암호, 비밀번호 검색에 대한 비밀 질문 및 답변, IP 주소, 메일 주소 및 다운로드 기록이 포함되었으며, 동일한 데이터베이스에 저장된 신용카드 정보나 사회 보장 번호는 없었다. 미국은 데이터 침해로 가장 큰 피해를 입었으며, 미국에서 220만 개의 부모 계좌와 290만 개의 아동 프로필이 등록되었으며, 그 다음이 프랑스, 영국, 독일이다. 버크셔 출신의 21세 남성이 해킹 혐의로 체포되었다.

데이터 공유
장난감 생산자와 다른 회사들 간의 데이터 공유는 연결된 장난감에 의해 수집된 개인 데이터의 프라이버시에 대한 우려를 불러일으켰다. 어린이와 장난감 사이의 대화와 상호작용은 보통 장난감에 의해 기록되고 장난감 제작자의 클라우드 서버로 보내진다.

My Friend Cayla와 i-Que Intelligent Bot, Genesis Toys를 제작한 장난감 회사는 음성 인식 기술을 개선하기 위해 장난감이 수집한 음성 데이터를 Nuance Communications와 공유한다. Nuance Communication은 군사, 정보, 법 집행기관에 생체측정 솔루션을 판매한 기록을 갖고 있는데, 이는 연결된 장난감에 관한 사생활 문제를 감안한 것이다.

마찬가지로, Mattel, Inc.에서 제작한 Hello Barbie는 캘리포니아 Toytalk가 제공하는 음성인식 기술을 사용한다. Hello Barbie가 수집한 데이터는 Mattel과 ToyTalk 간에 활발하게 공유된다.

데이터 보호
연결된 장난감이 수집한 정보의 데이터 보호도 고려해야 할 문제다. 아동 온라인 프라이버시 보호법에 따르면, "웹 사이트나 온라인 서비스의 운영자는 정보를 수집한 목적을 달성하기 위해 합리적으로 필요한 기간 동안만 어린이로부터 수집된 개인 정보를 보관해야 한다. 운영자는 삭제와 관련된 정보에 대한 무단 액세스 또는 사용을 방지하기 위한 합리적인 조치를 사용하여 해당 정보를 삭제해야 한다.

노르웨이 소비자평의회는 2016년 My Friend Cayla와 i-Que Intelligent Bot 대해 이용약관 및 개인정보 보호 정책에 대해 조사를 실시했다. 그들은 개인 정보 보호 정책이 사용자가 서비스 사용이나 계정 삭제를 중지한 후 얼마나 오랫동안 데이터를 보유할 것인지에 대해 구체적으로 언급하지 않는다는 것을 발견했다. 구체적으로 My Friend Cayla의 개인 정보 보호 정책은 "백업 및 기타 이유로 인해 일부 잔여 데이터 없이 데이터베이스에서 모든 정보를 완전히 제거하거나 삭제할 수 있는 것은 아니다.” 라고 명시되어있다

My Friend Cayla 독일에서 금지 외었다
2017년 초 독일 연방네트워크청(Federal Network Agency, 분데스넷제르)은 Genesis Toys가 제작한 연결된 장난감의 판매 및 보유를 금지하면서 이 장난감이 안전하지 않고 허가되지 않은 정보전송장치라고 주장하고 있다. My Friend Cayla는 독일에 의해 금지되었던 최초의 네트워크에 연결된 장난감이다. 독일에서는 추가로 비디오 녹화, 음성 등의 기능을 포함하여 데이터를 전송하는 모든 장난감이 탐지 없이 금지되어 있다고 명시하고 있다. 장난감을 감시 장치로 사용할 가능성에 대해 우려의 목소리가 제기되고 있다. Bundesnetzagentur의 사장 Jochen Homann 은 "카메라나 마이크를 숨기고 신호를 전송할 수 있어 탐지 없이 데이터를 전송할 수 있어 사람들의 사생활을 침해한다"고 말했다. 이것은 특히 어린이 장난감에 적용된다. Cayla 인형은 독일에서 금지되었다. 이는 우리 사회에서 가장 취약한 사람들을 보호하기 위한 것"이라고 말했다.

그 기관은 다른 연결된 장난감에 대해 추가 조사를 하고 있다. 장난감을 가지고 있는 가족들에게 아무런 조치도 취해지지 않았다. 연방 네트워크국은 부모들에게 개인 데이터 개인 정보 보호로 구성되는 잠재적 위험을 피하기 위해 장난감을 즉시 파괴할 것을 권고했다.

연결된 장난감과 관련된 법률
아동 온라인 프라이버시 보호법(COPPA) 및 연방거래위원회법 제5조를 포함하여 일반적으로 연결된 장난감과 관련된 연방법. 두 가지 법률은 연방무역위원회에 의해 어린이들의 개인정보 수집에 관한 법률이 시행된다.

아동 온라인 개인정보보호법
다양한 방법으로 인터넷에 접속할 수 있는 장난감은 어린이 온라인 개인정보보호법(COPPA)의 법률규정을 받는다. COPPA는 부모들에게 온라인에서 자녀들로부터 수집되는 정보를 통제하게 해준다. 웹사이트는 13세 이하의 어린이들로부터 온라인상의 어떠한 개인 정보도 받기 전에 부모들로부터 검증 가능한 허가를 요청해야 한다. 자료를 제3자에게 이관하는 경우에는 제3자가 동일한 절차를 밟아 데이터를 보호하도록 요구하는 사항이다. COPPA에 대한 위반은 사건당 최대 40,654달러의 민사 처벌을 받는다.

소매점에서 구매하는 장난감은 COPPA의 법률 보호 대상이 아니기 때문에 연결된 장난감에 대한 COPPA 보호에 대한 우려가 제기되었다.

COPPA에 관한 연결된 완구 회사의 준수와 관련된 다른 우려 사항도 있다. 전자 프라이버시 정보 센터, 상업용 무료 아동 보호 캠페인, 디지털 민주주의 센터, 소비자 연합은 Genesis Toys가 생산한 My Friend Cayla와 와 i-Que Intelligent Bot가 COPPA의 법을 어긴 경위에 대한 불만 사항을 연방 무역위원회에 제출했다. 이 불만사항에는 Genesis Toys와 Nuance Communication의 데이터 공유가 언급되어 있다. 또한, Nuance Communication이 COPPA 준수를 직접적으로 언급하지 않는 방법에 대해 우려한다.

연방거래위원회법 제5조
"상업에서의 불공정하거나 기만적인 행위나 관행"은 연방거래위원회법 제5조에 의해 불법이라고 선언된다. 연방거래위원회는 소비자의 사생활과 개인정보를 보호하기 위해 제5조를 사용해 왔다. 연결된 장난감의 회사들은 장난감이 수집한 데이터와 정보를 부적절하게 수집, 보호, 오용함으로써 공정위법을 위반할 가능성이 있다.

Connected Toys (Korean) Analysis
The article does a good job at explaining the basic concepts of toys that are able to connect through a home's wifi or bluetooth. The average Korean reader would understand most of it, but the technical aspects may confuse them as well as foreign sections such as the My Friend Cayla or the VTech sections.

Key concepts are translated well in the article, although there were a couple words that could have been better worded. Although my Korean understanding is mediocre at best, I added some changes to words that I thought made more sense.


 * Wifi -> 와이파이
 * 암호 -> 비밀번호
 * 데이터 침해 -> 데이터 유출 or 개인정보 데이터 윷출 (Depending on what type of data breach)
 * 보존 -> 보호
 * 법 -> 금지 되었다

The tough thing is that just like in English, there are many styles and terminologies that can be applied to the same word, which occurs in Korean as well. So some Koreans may understand 와이파이 as wifi, or they may find 무선인터넷 to be better.

I think if this article will be translated and worked on again in the future, the next editor should keep in mind that the average Korean reader wouldn't understand this article at the same extent as an English reader would. So maybe condensing it and simplifying the article would help the reader to finish the entire thing but also not get mixed up in the jargon and technicalities behind the connected toy.

Week 6 Discussion
What are some reasons you might not want to use a company's website as the main source of information about that company?
 * A company may have a biased opinion regarding a topic.
 * Most likely, a company talking about an issue they are involved in will have different standards than a neutral perspective news organization, study, or research project.

What is the difference between a copyright violation and plagiarism?
 * Plagiarism is using someone else's work without proper citation.
 * Using a copyrighted item, whether that be music, etc.
 * Plagiarism is not illegal whereas a copyright violation is.

What are some good techniques to avoid close paraphrasing and plagiarism within a translated article?
 * Reading and fully understanding the topic in it's written language
 * Forming a new, distinct paragraph using the information provided
 * Translating the new, distinct paragraph into the new language

What are a few differences you notice between English citations and the citations in your assigned language?
 * Korean last names go before their first names unlike in English where the last name goes after. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minhyyuk (talk • contribs) 03:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Week 7 Discussion
What do you think of Wikipedia's definition of "neutrality"? # Must be written without bias # Different views should be covered with appropriate balance # Neutral language and emphasize facts
 * Wikipedia's definition of neutrality is this:
 * I believe that this is a good definition and should be used in all Wikipedia articles because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is available on the internet and not a collection of essays nor is it a news station with a motive to sway readers to one direction.

What are the impacts and limits of Wikipedia as a source of information?
 * Wikipedia has huge impacts worldwide as a source of information. They are integrated with many web browsers so they can be the first piece of information readers will see when they search for a topic.
 * Because Wikipedia has many editors that contribute to the page, much of the information published in each article is fact checked and cited.
 * Although Wikipedia is not used as a professional source for many documents, due to the fact that everything published on Wikipedia needs to have a source, people can find information and link it back to its original source to find more information.

On Wikipedia, all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. What kinds of sources does this exclude? Can you think of any problems that might create?
 * Opinion columns, blogs, biased news articles, and scholastic journals that are biased.
 * Attributing from biased, unreliable sources can create many problems on a Wikipedia article. It can lead to misinformation, a bad reputation for Wikipedia, and it breaks Wikipedia's policies.

If Wikipedia was written 100 years ago, how might its content (and contributors) be different? What about 100 years from now?
 * If Wikipedia was a thing 100 years ago, it's content wouldn't be on the internet but on paper, with editing articles being much harder as you couldn't add/edit instantly. However if the internet was a thing back then, content from back in the day would be greatly enriched with more available sources and personal experiences helping them find information.
 * Wikipedia articles in 100 years would most likely also be enriched with information as the process of adding and editing information continues. New articles would flourish as events continue to occur and I believe information would be more widely available to more editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minhyyuk (talk • contribs) 22:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Connected Toys References (Korean)
[i]Anon. n.d. “Consumer and Privacy Issues in Internet-Connected Toys.” (https://fil.forbrukerradet.no/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/toyfail-report-desember2016.pdf). 2017년 4월 13일에 확인함.

[ii] O’Shea, Joe. 2016년. “’Toys can be directed to take pictures, video, audio, and you will have no idea it is happening'- Irish cyber security expert warns parents” Independent.ie, 11월 3일. 2017년 3월 24일에 확인함. (http://www.independent.ie/life/family/parenting/toys- can-be-directed-to-take-pictures-video-audio-and- you-will-have-no-idea-it-is-happening-irish-cyber-security-expert-warns-parents-35183365.html)

[iii] Nelson, Bill 1942-. 2016년. “Children's Connected Toys: Data Security and Privacy Concerns.” Homeland Security Digital Library. (https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=797394). 2017년 4월 13일에 확인함.

[iv] Gibbs, Samuel. 2015년. “Privacy fears over 'smart' Barbie that can listen to your kids” The Guardian, 4월 13일. (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/mar/13/smart-barbie-that-can-listen-to-your-kids-privacy-fears-mattel). 2017년 3월 26일에 확인함.

[v] Hunt, Troy. 2017. “Data from Connected CloudPets Teddy Bears Leaked and Ransomed, Exposing Kids' Voice Messages.” Troy Hunt. (https://www.troyhunt.com/data-from-connected-cloudpets-teddy-bears-leaked-and-ransomed-exposing-kids-voice-messages/). 2017년 4월 11일에 확인함.

[vi] Larson, Selena. 2017년. “Stuffed toys leak millions of voice recordings from kids and parents” CNN Tech, 2월 27일. (http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/27/technology/cloudpets-data-leak-voices-photos/). 2017년 3월 24일에 확인함.

[vii] Anon. n.d. “What Is SQL Injection (SQLi) and How to Fix It.” Acunetix. (https://www.acunetix.com/websitesecurity/sql-injection/). 2017년 4월 12일에 확인함.

[viii] Anon. n.d. “Data Breach On VTech Learning Lodge and Resumption of Trading.” (http://www.hkexnews.hk/listedco/listconews/sehk/2015/1130/LTN20151130247.pdf). 2017년 4월 13일에 확인함.

[ix] Anon. n.d. “FAQ about Cyber Attack on VTech Learning Lodge (Last Updated: 11:30, December 16, 2016, HKT).” VTech. (영어). (https://www.vtech.com/en/press_release/2016/faq-about-cyber-attack-on-vtech-learning-lodge/#10). 2017년 4월 12일에 확인함.

[x] Anon. n.d. “FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Washington, DC 20580 In the Matter of Genesis Toys and Nuance Communications.” FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Washington, DC 20580 In the Matter of Genesis Toys and Nuance Communications.

[xi] 16 C.F.R 312.10.

[xii] Anon. n.d. “Privacy Policy.” My Friend Cayla. (https://www.myfriendcayla.com/privacy-policy). 2017년 5월 4일에 확인함.

[xiii] Huggler, Justin. 2017년. “Germany Bans Internet-Connected Dolls over Fears Hackers Could Target Children.” The Telegraph. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/17/germany-bans-internet-connected-dolls-fears-hackers-could-target/). 2017년 4월 27일에 확인함.

[xiv] Anon. 2017년. “Bundesnetzagentur Removes Children's Doll ‘Cayla’ from the Market.”Bundesnetzagentur Press. (https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/EN/2017/17022017_cayla.html). 2017년 4월 27일에 확인함.

[xv] Anon. 2015년. “Complying with COPPA: Frequently Asked Questions.” Complying with COPPA: Frequently Asked Questions | Federal Trade Commission. (https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/complying-coppa-frequently-asked-questions#General Questions). 2017년 4월 20일에 확인함.

[xvi] 16 C.F.R. § 312.8

[xvii] Anon. n.d. “Federal Trade Commission Act.” Federal Trade Commission Act | Federal Trade Commission. (https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/statutes/federal-trade-commission-act). 2017년 4월 20일에 확인함. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minhyyuk (talk • contribs) 00:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)