Slashdot Mirror
Congressional Panel Says No To Filters
Private Essayist writes: "In this ZDNet story, it points out the ironic news that just as Congress is about to require all libraries and schools to install antiporn filters, a commision created by Congress to study ways to protect children online is about to decline recommending mandatory use of filters. The commission says, 'no particular technology yet offers an ideal solution.'"
We haven't "gone up in arms" yet because there has not yet been a serious enough assault on our liberties to justify such drastic measures. As the situation stands now, it would be much more efficient to attempt to resolve our problems through the legal system.
The time may soon come, however, when this is no longer effective. In which case, I suggest you take your "million moms" and your government with "better weapons" and hide yourselves, because the wrath of a forever free US citizen is nothing to be trifled with.
----(o)----
*sigh*
You have 3 problems here:
No, I don't have any problems here. You seem to have the problems. Let me straighten this out for you:
I am not, and I don't claim to be, an expert on what is and is not "porn." I am not trying to suggest practical solutions, or that there even is a practical solution.
I believe there are some merits to the idea of restricting people from looking at porn at libraries and schools, even though it might not be practical to do so.
I don't like the idea of having to wait in line to use a computer at the library while somebody in front of me is busy looking at pornography.
I don't like the idea of spending tax dollars on a school where kids are, instead of learning how to read & write, looking at mpegs of people having anal sex.
So please don't tell me that *I* have problems, especially when you don't understand the point of my post.
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."
Time is fun when you're having flies.
-Kermit the Frog
Anything whose intention is to make the viewer "get off"....this is a pretty informal definition, obviously, but I think it gets the idea across. I would say sports illustrated doesn't count, because, though a lot of people probably do use it to get off, it's primary intention is to advertise swimwear. I have never seen a porn site (not that I look at porn of course) that advertises anything but sex.
Anything of an edcutaional nature should not be restricted.
And, btw, I am not necessarily for this whole restriction as it is. But I don't think it's that bad of an idea, either.
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."
Time is fun when you're having flies.
-Kermit the Frog
These opinions are my own. My employer is not aware of them, does not endorse them, and is not responsible for them.
That's the whole point of the story. The parents asked me to help them block the stuff. The kids are pretty regular kids who happen to have had a computer in the house since they were born. They don't know any different. What I was trying to get across is that the new generation knows more about computers than some of us geeks do, because they've grown up with them.
I can really identify with you, so much.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
No, I'm merely stating what I saw. Please try to find something which can be remotely seen as an opinion in my post and start commenting on that. Oh wait, I'll make it easy. Here's my opinion:
Kids in the stage of puberty find things that are not allowed interesting.
The fact that boys in puberty find pr0n interesting anyway has nothing to do with that.
I can really identify with you, so much.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
A .k12 tld could be set aside for public schools. =) It could then be made illegal for porn sites to provide content to those k12 ips...
Maybe in 100 years when the software can do "perfect" filtering and do so at a level that is configurable for the billions for views regarding offensive materail, then it may actually work.
.. but why?. I just think though there's a fundamental problem with expecting technology (be it filters or anything else) to be the 'parents of america'.
.. then wait until the 7 year old 'hacks the nanny' and lets him view whatever.. Oh dear. *shakes head thinking about it*
Yea, it might get there in 100 years. Just think about how long computers have been around though - even *10* years is a long time in computing terms. The web wasn't really even 'around' (for most people) 10 years ago. By the time filtering software that could handle the internet of TODAY is around, we'll be on to something bigger and better.
Yea, filtering software might be nice
In 100 years we'll probably have REAL robot-nannys anyway. *shrug*
--
Delphis
The ultimate internet filter for all your needs:
The P.A.R.E.N.T.A.L unit (patent pending).
With this unit watching your back, you will never again be traumatized by unwanted imagery or immoral junk. This patented technology will allow all of the web surfing population to enjoy the wholesome things in life without having to deal with the unsavory side of the internet. And furthermore, it is very easily configurable to the moral and ethical standards of your family. In fact, the proper configurations are built in to the unit when first shipped.
Well, what if you change those standards? Do not worry! Thanks our groundbreaking technology, the M.O.R.A.L. chip (patent pending), these units can evolve to match whatever changes are made to your family standards . And just when you thought it couldn't get any better, your privacy is 100% guaranteed as no one, not even Big Brother, can correctly guage what is installed on your P.A.R.E.N.T.A.L unit so no one can hack it.
Incompetence is not to be tolerated. Ignorance is not to be ignored. Failure is not an option.
These same politicians that are trying to tell us free speech is not common sense are the same politicians I would not let a teen be their aids or runners for feer they will be molested.
Sometime I HATE politicians!!! All they want to do is exert power they do not care for Rights or even resposibilities.
"Technology lies on the leading edge of life" Rush
But the more I think about it, the more it seems to be a decent solution. Like the RBL, except it lists sites that _want_ to block certain kinds of content. In fact, many sites would voluntarily use it if it would honestly reduce complaints or legal liability.
Would only work well for institutions with static IPs, individuals would be out of luck unless they have static IPs or some other authentication method is used.
Spoofing or tunneling through another site for access might be another problem.
The worst of it is, the American populace (present company excepted) is probably ignorant enough to fall for it.
OK,
- B
http://www.bradheintz.com/
- updated
Nathan
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
- Ed the Sock
Deny access to \WINNT\System32
Delete telnet.exe on sight, and scan for renamed telnet copies.
Block out macros and embedded executables inside Office documents.
No floppy drives in the terminals themselves. The files could be saved in a personal network folder, then taken elsewhere to be opened within the school or saved on a disk.
Deny access to java applets (most of them are either hacking utilities, games, or something that students wouldn't use for educational purposes).
Block UDP ports 23, 1337, 7777, 27005, 27010, 27015, and 27960. Also, a packet sniffer would be implemented to scan for AIM, multiplayer games, Napster and the like.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
The catch is that while Parents are the "fillters" they are not around all the time. Even the best behaved and well mannered teen-aged boy is going to be curious about sex and such. The odds are that he'll try to find some porn and the easies way to do that is on the 'Net. Thus, a "perfect" filter would be able to help protect the teen.
Ce le gere.
PerlStalker
"I believe there are some merits to the idea of restricting people from looking at porn at libraries and schools, even though it might not be practical to do so."
And I do not. Part of the reason I do not is that I think there are powerful, theoretical (as opposed to practical) reasons why it isn't even possible. Thus my original demand that you define "porn".
Suppose I said "I believe there are some merits to the idea of restricting people from whizzing ginggangs at libraries and schools, even though it might not be practical to do so." You might rightly come back and ask me to define "whizzing ginggangs" before agreeing the idea has merit. If I cannot define the term or if my only definition could be easily twisted then you would conclude that the idea does NOT have merit.
Even your attempts at "something we can all agree on" fall short: "I don't like the idea of spending tax dollars on a school where kids are, instead of learning how to read & write, looking at mpegs of people having anal sex."
And I don't like the idea of spending tax dollars on schools where kids are, instead of learning how life came to evolve on this planet, learning about "alternative", pseudo-scientific theories like creationism. Does that mean that the idea of blocking all references to God in the library "has merit"?
--
An abstained vote is a vote for Bush and Gore.
Non-meta-modded "Overrated" mods are killing Slashdot
(Hey Ryan! Here's your proof!)
Some may say they're bad parents for wanting to hide things from their kids, but it's their family.
Nobody cares if someone wants to install censorware on their personal computer at home to keep their own kids from getting at stuff that they don't want them to get at. That's fine. It's their kid. What everyone seems to have a problem with is the mandate that all schools and public libraries must install censorware on their computers to appease this particular sort of parent by imposing restrictions on everyone's kids.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Actually Nader is also for 'Net censorship so he's out too.
No, that's false. I've read some /. posts from people who misunderstood Nader's concerns about the over-commercialization of the childhood experience. They incorrectly assume that he's pro-filter.
Gush and Bore are concerned about the "morality" issues and want to censor or rate television, film, and the internet. In contrast, Ralph wants to eliminate the greedy tactics used to peddle junk products to children. "Junk" such as snack food and entertainment with cheap low-grade sensuality and violence (not the artistic kind). All three of the politicians see a decline in the childhood experience, but Nader would propose solutions designed to harbor kids from the ad barrage. For example, he wants to ban Channel One from schools (a wise decision, I came from a Channel One school). He also wants to prevent those exclusive contracts that Coke and Pepsi sign with schools in an effort to get youngsters hooked on a lifetime of drinking carbonated corn syrup (or real sugar, for those lucky enough to be outside the U.S).
I have listend to Nader lecture and I have read his platform. I get the impression that he would rather promote quality rather than ban crap if at all possible. He has never proposed a requirement for filters in libraries or schools. If he has, then I challenge you to find a reputable informative link.
, sex with family members, out of wedlock births, teen pregnancies...
... rape...
I hate to break into a perfectly good rant there, but all of these are FAR more common in extremely "moral" families, cultures, etc. The US, with it's HUGE fundie christian population and continual attempts to pass laws based on christian "morality" sits at the bottom of the industrialized world by every single measure you quoted. Sweden, with about the most liberal porn laws in the world, is at the top. Fundie christians have more abortions than any other religious group, followed closely by catholics. Child abuse is more common among fundie christians as well. Furthermore, NOT ONE REPUTABLE STUDY has ever managed to prove any connection between porn and sex crimes.
Furthermore, I hate to break it to you, but a lot of us don't think there's anything morally wrong with stuff like sex with strangers, sex with multiple partners, or out of wedlock births. Just because you think it's wrong doesn't mean it is. And just because you think it's wrong doesn't mean you have the right to pass laws preventing the rest of us from doing it. You don't like it? Don't look. But don't even THINK of trying to take away my right to do it. As far as I'm concerned, that's a form of assault, and I'll defend myself accordingly.
I happen to consider myself a person with very strong morals. The fact that you don't agree with them doesn't make them any less strong, or any less moral. Me fucking two women doesn't make me immoral; it's your attempts to restrict my rights that is immoral.
--
There is no sin except stupidity -- Oscar Wilde
I am generally a big proponent of free speech on the net. Sometimes, I don't think it's a big deal though. Like here, I don't think it'd be a big deal if it were possible to restrict this type of thing. Like I said, I believe the idea has some merits. It also has it's downsides.
But, right now it wouldn't be practical, and maybe not even possible, as you say. But, that was not my point. My main point was that it is largely false to presume that it would be possible to to filter some types of content, but not others. Why does this "congressional panel" or whatever they are recommend filtering some web content, but specifically not pornography? So forget what porn itself is defined as for a minute. Think about the bigger picture...what is anything defined as? How can they make a distinction between porn and not-porn in this sense? And, responding again to the original poster of this thread, how is it that filtering porn (or anything) could be called pro-human-rights, when they still want to filter all kinds of other things? That is why I think human rights has nothing to do with the fact that they "declined to recommend the mandatory use of antipornography filters."
So, to say what some other posters have already said, that congressional panel was being inconsistent.
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."
Time is fun when you're having flies.
-Kermit the Frog
Draft No. 22
The current draft of the treaty, released on Oct. 2, attempts to level the legal playing field throughout Europe by standardizing computer crime statues and requiring signatories to cooperate with one another.
Standardzied crime statues. Hmmm, so they need to make sure those statues of Kevin Mitnick I see *so* often are of the same height, weight, material, linear distance from "computing device", and so on?
cya
Ethelred
Everyone wants to be Ethelred. Even I want to be Ethelred.
If you're wondering what the hell the above post is about, see the thread it was intended for.
Ethelred
Everyone wants to be Ethelred. Even I want to be Ethelred.
Sounds like the biggest problem is the fact that they were using Windows. Throw a copy of Linux on that box, lock it down good security wise. Make individual user's config files read only (i.e., the kid's browser settings). Maybe add another machine on the net as a proxy to filter out certain sites (sites added on a reactive basis). Another box as a firewall, with logging to see where they all go. Regarding the BIOS - add the password, but buy a case where one can lock it up (most cases use to have this feature, it is hard to find nowadays - I would suggest a rack mount server case or similar). To get to the BIOS would take an extreme amount of effort.
I am going to take any and all measures to make sure my children (if I ever have any) do NOT know more than me about the machine, at least until I am dead or they are able to make good decisions on their own.
I also plan on parenting my future kids - to take an active interest in what they do, to guide them and help them learn. I would rather keep the computer as open as possible, and give them a Linux box to hack on if they wish. I plan on having frank discussions with my kids about sex, violence, and drugs, as soon as they are old enough to understand. I won't stammer or skirt around the edges, unlike many parents. When they want privacy, I will give it to them. Most of all, I will trust and respect them - and I will expect the same from them.
My parents did these things for the most part, as best as they could. It didn't bother them that I was "online" for many hours of the night (BBS'ing), downloading anything and everything, posting messages and such. I met many friends that way. They trusted and respected me, and I gave the same back. I didn't have "run of the house", but I did know what my freedoms and boundries were, and I think I turned out alright...
I support the EFF - do you?
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
What's sophisticated about it? Put your netscape prefs on a floppy that is labelled with the child's name. Done.
--
An abstained vote is a vote for Bush and Gore.
Non-meta-modded "Overrated" mods are killing Slashdot
(Hey Ryan! Here's your proof!)
Congress is still on the verge of mandating filters in schools and libraries. To help STOP them , please get involved.
These opinions are my own. My employer is not aware of them, does not endorse them, and is not responsible for them.
"...if the community wants to put filters in schools or libraries, then that is the choice of the community."
"...if the community wants to put blacks in separate schools or libraries, then that is the choice of the community."
Local option is no more moral than federal mandate.
--
An abstained vote is a vote for Bush and Gore.
Non-meta-modded "Overrated" mods are killing Slashdot
(Hey Ryan! Here's your proof!)
For the record, IMHO is that even the community level should NOT be in charge of what your kid see's or doesn't see. I think if an person is under 18 years of age his legal guardian should decide or they should decided together what material can and should not be view by the person under age.
It is the parents or legal guardians responsiable to raise their kid and not the federal, schools, communities job. The parent or legal guardian needs to own up to their rights and responiables and do the work needed to properly raise thier kid as they see fit. The federal, state or other goverment or community entiy should not get involved in this.
Oh yea, if the goverment does decide to do this, guess who money they are spending for this project? Yours and mine tax dollars, maybe we should just keep are money and buy software filters, food or other things we see proper for our kid to have, instead of letting the goverment decide what our kid should or shouldn't have. That would say alot of time and effort and generate better results.
The above post is not advocating that the community should be involved in implenting software filters, the above post is just stating a differant way a community could handle a community problem. Software filters are not a community problem. It was more intended as a "Do we need a fire department, the town square has been on fire for 2 weeks staight". Since community voting came up, I though I would throw in my 1 cent, hey I am cheap
"`Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.'" -THHGTTG
Which is why I specifically said TLD, If this type of thing were ever implemented (which it could never realistically be); it would be simpler if public schools were logically separate from the .us domain...
Annoyingly enough, plain old text means that it removes all the tags, even those that Slashdot "supports." You want to use Extrans and CmdrTaco should consider why Plain Old Text is even there - it doesn't seem to actually DO anything useful. Extrans seems to provide the proper support. I have no idea why that's even there.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
If the kids get this sophisticated, I say they've earned their porn. :-)
It seems like the government is actually starting to care about human rights. Imagine that.
"Feel a glory in so rolling / on the human heart a stone" --E. A. Poe, "The Bells"
You are now going to the other extreme. You want me to filter what my kid sees at school when the city or county (particularly at school)is in charge of them. How is that supposed to work?
Mark
Those who open their minds too far often let their brains fall out.
I suggest that we give pornsites a new type of extension. Try pronouncing www.porn.com using a heavily overdone Scandinavian accent and you will know what I mean.
Cheap shot, I know. Could not resist.
I can really identify with you, so much.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
Well, if George Bush is elected it will be interesting to see what will happen to this. One of Mr Bush's advisors, the very hidden Mr Ralph Reed has money in a little unknown company called this.com (which seized to operate under that name) which provides filtering for the internet, that company went under owing people a lot of money, Mr Reed used is influence a lot to get sales people into the school districts in the south and try to make them adopt that filter. He succeeded in Florida because of J. Bush, I wonder if this.com will come back to life if GW is elected. We will see...
Hmm, I may have a misapprehension somewhere, but I thought the DoMA was basically an exercise of Congress' right to "prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved", i.e. the DoMA doesn't say "gay marriage is illegal", it says "a gay marriage valid in Hawaii need not be recognized by any other state."
"Oh, I hope he doesn't give us halyatchkies," said Heinrich.
To prevent me from getting distracted, I need a filter that prevents me from seeing anything but pr0n
The best way is not to do filters in the first place. Some people may not get it, but is it really appropiate to be searching for porn in a public place? What about hate speach? Well, you do have a right to free speach, but you generally need to obtain a permit to hold a public protest. So by that reasoning the governemant should be allowed to block that stuff from government funded public terminals. Some belieifs are motivated through religion, and thus the government should just not get involved. For government the whole issue is a no win situation. The filtering software isn't good enough, and any soultion is outragously expensive to maintain. squidGaurd and squidBlock have potential, as the community at large can update the blocked and unblocked site lists. I belive they only filter the URL, not the actual page content.
If you're going to implement a filtering system, here's my gereral suggestion: train the libiary staff on how to add sites to the allow list. (Make a nice web interface for squid or something.) Whenever the users hits a site that was blocked, a page explaining the procedure will be displayed. They will then either fill out the request form or go to the libiary staff. The libiary staff will review the site and use their own judgment on the spot.
At the end of a given time period, the modifications to the list will be reviewed by a board of voulenteers. Sites can again be added or removed. After the meeting, the results will be posted for public review. At any time a voting user can go to the public libiary and request access to every site on the list, and give their vote on any listed site. These public votes will again be reviewd.
And so the process continues, each filtering site shares it's list and every voter has a a say. In time you have a system that has a large database of blocked sites. If the centeral government wants to maintain the centeral database, fine as long as long as the end user can override that instantly.
This is by no means a complete system, just me musing on what the heck I would implement a public filtering system. I should write my congressman. Maybe I can get a grant or something!
I'm going to go back in my box and will think within the limits of my box: MS Sucks Linux Good I read too much Slashdot.
Too bad this isn't big news. If one congressman can't go without contridicting himself how can we expect an entire body of them to do it.
There are too many examples of congressional contridictions to site all of them, but my favorite is the tobaco industry is evil, lets spend money to stop smoking, but subsidize tobaco farmers
As x approaches total apathy I couldn't care less.
...so we will be censored and helpless. However, that doesn't prevent rebellion; we could go up in arms illegally and still prevail. That was the exact situation in the late 1700s. Maybe it's time to repeat history.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
I don't think the Feds should get involved with filters at all. I believe the decision rests in the hands of the cities and counties alone. What is offensive in one county may not be so in another county. Forcing everyone to the same "standard" od morality is rediculus.
At this point in time, filters are less than worthless. When the technology gets to the point where it bolcks 99.99% over "inoffensive" material and 0% of the "non-offensive" material then let them install them.
PerlStalker
That is sooooooo worrying! Apparently 92 percent of people want porn filtered, whereas only 79 percent care about hate-speech being shown to minors. Glad we've all got our priorities right, eh!
Content filtering is not a new problem. Go down to your public library and ask for the latest copy of Penthouse.
This is not a valid comparison. Dead tree publishing is "opt-in", meaning that you only have access to the things you specifically request. Penthouse, besides being controversial, is not high on the list of priorities when it comes to the goals of an educational, record-keeping institution such as a library. There are many obscure journals and books that you won't find at all but the biggest university libraries. Would you argue that this is content filtering as well?
The Internet is, of course, an "opt-out" system. Once you plug your computer into the internet, you instantly have access to everything (neglecting pay-for-access databases and such). So anything that's not there has been actively blocked. Which is a completely different animal than simply not opting in to the more obscure or more controversial dead tree publications.
--
Best way to protect your kid is to make sure you know why they're on the 'net. If they say that they wish to look for something you're willing to allow them to look for, chances are they really are. And by staying nearby, you can make sure they really do.
Dare I say... best way to protect your kid is to give them a moral foundation and then TRUST them? My internet usage, and therefore my massive self-education campaign, would have been severely stifled if my parents had demanded that they know every time I was online, or worse, decided to monitor every session.
--
America is not a democracy. At least not in the classical Athenian sense. We are a representative democratic republic. The way this is supposed to work is: first the candidates get up and tell us what they believe. Ok, this part of the process is completely broken, b/c they all lie and this is the main reason people hate politics. If the candidates would just tell everyone straight out what their actual goals are half of the ills in american politics would vanish. Second, we choose one person to represent us. Third, they vote their conscience in Congress.
I know the actualites don't follow this. But have you ever had a boss who insisted on micro-managing even when he had no idea of the details of your project? The commission has a reason for being - to study all available materials, discuss the matter, and decide the best course to follow. They have access to a body of knowledge not known to that 92% (man they must have cooked that number, MUST have been a leading question) who favor mandatory filtering. They were elected to do a job. Let them do it. Then if the public is unhappy, the remedy is to remove those people in the next election. Don't micro-manage. Don't insist they follow the public's whim (which is largely shaped and controlled by a cynical media machine) on every issue. That's not their job. If that's what's desired, well then let's throw the entire federal system away and go to a system of direct democracy. I am not opposed to such a move. In fact I think it's at least 50 years overdue. The only reason we weren't a direct democracy in the first place is that technoligcal limitations prevented it. But until we do so, saying that you're doing something because the polls show it's what the public wants (and really, it would be just as easy to conduct a poll asking people if their children's right to free speech should be limited using federal funds and get the exact opposite response) is a complete cop-out and not relevant to the job you were elected to do. Elected representatives are supposed to be leaders, they are not supposed to be mindless robots doing what they're told. The government has a duty to prevent a tyranny of the majority, capering to the will of th majority is a failure to uphold this duty.
Okay, unlike most people, I do feel in a public place a filter needs to be put in. The main problem with these filters is that you are given a set of sites that are marked evil, and no one has any idea what it is. So why not create a filter with all the sites that are blocked easy to edit (by an admin)?
I feel the government should fund this; when they needed a stable version of Windows, they paid MS for one. So pay one of the filtering software companies to do this. It really doesn't matter because they all do the same damn thing. The important thing is that you can easily edit the list and easily override the list temporarily (as an admin, of course). And this blacklist should be in plaintext, not in some special encoded scheme.
I am a bad speler. Please ignore speling meestakes in me poast.
If that were true, that'd be fine and I'd agree with you. Not everyone on Slashdot thinks like that, though. You ignore the "I'd be SUCH a great parent" demographic on Slashdot who seem to suggest that leaving a kid to watch TV or browse the web on their own for an hour is somehow child neglect.
I wasn't really talking about the libraries. I agree filtering there is wrong. Some people seem to think filtering in the home is also wrong. I just find it odd that all of the "The parent should take watch over the kid constantly" posts have "When I have kids..." somewhere else in the post.
Where is the Irony? It is just bad timing and organisation making them look inept. It isn't Ironic. You Americans don't understand Irony do you. That American, Alanis Morrisette and her song which was dedicated to Irony and listed a series of event which while annoying were in now way Ironic. Isn't It Ironic?, What the way you've written a song about Irony but failed to list one actually ironic example. Yes that is pretty Ironic. I was pleased to see that in 'Dogma' her voice was so bad that humans heads would explode if they heard it.
"How is that supposed to work?"
Like this
--
An abstained vote is a vote for Bush and Gore.
Non-meta-modded "Overrated" mods are killing Slashdot
(Hey Ryan! Here's your proof!)
Rep. Istook also wrote a bill (it failed) to protect a student's "right to pray in school," but it was so vague that it clearly smashed threw the wall between church and state. It was a really disgusting bill. It would have allowed student led prayer sessions at events such as football games (recently ruled unconstitutional).
Check the ACLU's website for more info.
www.aclu.org
"I am a student. Please do not fold, spindle, or mutilate me." -Slogan of the Free Speech Movement, 1964.
What I want to know is, what is so intrinsically terrible about children looking at porn while they are at school? If they are doing it while they should be doing work, it is only as bad as them browsing Disney.com while they should be doing work. If they are eating bandwidth, it is only as bad as them burning Red Hat CDs. And if their parents think they should be prevented from seeing naked people, are we going to filter ankles from the Muslim students, and gay rights information from students with homophobe parents? What about sex education from students whose parents don't agree with it?
In fact, given the quality of sex education in some schools, it might be good for the students to check out some porn just so they learn which bits go where!
I can certainly see that any individual school might make the decision to block porn if it has a problem with it, the same as my primary school banned yoyos one time when there was a craze for them. But I see no obvious reason why all schools should be automatically required to ban porn, no matter how excellent the filters might be. To what extent are schools required to shelter their students from the outside world according to each set of parents' beliefs?
Exactly. For some many 'raging debates' few people are willing to consider the effectiveness of the human solution. We don't keep the national geographics in the belly of a roving robot that can scan ID cards. We don't keep anatomy books under a force field. The Joy of Sex isn't on an encrypted disk. We don't keep William S. Bouroughs books on the highest shelf in the library behind electric cattle wire. Hopefully, I'm not giving the opposition too many ideas here.
"Yes, yes how much would that roving robot cost and could we arm him?"
Its so much easier to have the library staff shoulder surf one in a while or at least listen for giggles, or heaven forbid provide assistance to the technophones. What we should be teaching youngsters, if we can't go with them to the library, is that there's lots of stuff you probably shouldn't be reading and its against the rules and you don't want to lose internet access.
Machines are good a lots of things, but they sure aren't the best solution for every problem, even a computer problem.
If you install the Windows PowerToys, giving you TweakUI, there as option in the TweakUI panel that allows you to automatically delete all IE browser history. It's under the Paranoia tab.
Trust me - if I want to look at things my parents don't want me to, I know enough to remove all traces. If the kid knew enough to jumper the BIOS, they know enough to make plenty sure that the parent can't use the browser history. (Anywhere from brute force by deleting, which would arouse suspision, to copying previous history/cache to a temp folder and them moving it back, to, under Netscape/Windows, creating a new "user" and deleting it when done.) If you can't trust the kid, then don't let them on the Internet. Seriously though, most kids I know don't use the Internet for pr0n, they use it to look for stuff their more insterested in, be that Slashdot, SNES emulation, Pokémon, whatever.
Best way to protect your kid is to make sure you know why they're on the 'net. If they say that they wish to look for something you're willing to allow them to look for, chances are they really are. And by staying nearby, you can make sure they really do.
I think you should have told the parents just to watch the child while she was browsing the Internet - there's no need to attempt to prevent her from even using the computer! There are very easy ways to keep children off the Internet when you don't want them on - if you're on DSL, disabling the modem works wonders, on a phone line, keeping track of when you were on and comparing that to the invoice is another great method.
Unless, of course, there was material on the computer that children shouldn't know about...
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
and THEY'RE with THEIR or THERE /. poster (or six - taco? hemos? I fogret which but probably both) should go back to 3rd grade :P
and THAN with THEN
and HIS with HE'S
etc etc
Even a certain
Do your best, hope for the best, suspect the worst.
My parents never put me in a Mind-Cage(TM) and I'm not going to restrict my children's ability to make their own moral decisions either. If you teach your kids how to think for themselves and to realize when to click 'back' on the browser or when to close pop-up windows then you wouldn't have anything to worry about.
More than anything this is just another case of the american public trying to shake off one of the problems with it's family structure. First it was "My kid is hyper - better get him on that ritalin!", now it's "My kid has such a fragile mind, better not let him have access to any material that might force him/her to make a moral decision".
The government can't fix the problems that you have with raising your children. Schools can try to help, but in the end it's the parents responsibility to not just protect their children, but to teach them to think for themselves.
UBU
Don't believe me? Here's a partial list of "smutty books" that have been banned at one time or another
It's easy to hold up a copy of Hustler and say "this is all we're trying to protect our children from." History shows that its just the top of a very slippery slope.
Nathan
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
- Ed the Sock
Not to mention the Sheeple Effect.
Surveys like this (especially when they are issued to prove a point - ie are politically loaded) are designed to elicit the result the questioner wants. You can design these "surveys" to get any answer. The best way to get sheeple...I mean people, is to prey on their desire to give consistent answers. For example:
Do you believe pornography is bad?
Yes.
Do you think children should be exposed to porno at school?
No!
There's porno out on the net. Do you think we should censor the net in schools so that porno can't be seen?
Yes!
Do you think we should use automatic blocking software to do this?
Yes! Definitely!
An alternative survey could be worded differently. Let's say the Slashdot Collective is running the survey this time, and wants to show that most people are against software filtering in schools and libraries. So they ask:
Do you believe in the freedom of speech as set forth by the constitution?
Yes.
The Internet is a breakthrough in freedom of expression - more people than ever can make their voice heard. Do you think this is a good or bad thing?
Definitely a good thing, oh yes!
Do you agree or disagree our children should learn about free speech?
Yes!
Software to block sites has been proposed for schools and libraries. It often blocks things it's not supposed to. Do you think that such an intrusion on the freedom of speech and information should be mandated?
Hell no!
This is just an example, and I'm sure the survey makers are a lot better at it than me. But basically, you can have the same person agree on opposite sides of the same point even if they answer both surveys back-to-back if the survey is well enough designed...so these surveys are actually meaningless. Pity so many people don't realise this.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Using a proxy server, a web server sees the proxy as the client, not the actual client itself. Effectively, it doesn't matter whether the filter is at the server, or at the client, because any proxy makes it appear that the proxy machine itself is the one making the request, and this machine probably doesn't appear in the list of schools.
What this means in practical terms is that one can still use babelfish.altavista.com to view pornography whether the site is filtered by the client or the server.
std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
Why is it that so many people don't take the 1/2 seconds thought it takes to realize that sticking your childrens heads in the preverbial sand does not solve the problem. The only solution that is likely to work is to let your children see porno and hate speach and whatever else you find objectionable and talk to them about it. Tell them why it is bad. Give them a good solid foundation of moral reasoning skills. Take the time to talk to your chilren. Don't pretent like the problems in our society don't exist.
--
The best defence is to teach your children well and hope that if they do fall into it, thay will be strong enough to get out. If you want the material filtered in the schools, etc. then get the majority of the community together to agree on a way to do it.
It's not easy. Moral decisions like this rarely are. I wish I had all of the answers.
PerlStalker
When I worked at my university's public computer cluster, I had to repeatedly have a certain user removed for viewing porn. This was in a library. Just goes to show you that those people are out there. However, filters are a bad idea, and we really need PEOPLE to make sure that this stuff isn't going on rather than some list of blocked sites. The internet is way too dynamic for that.
Addlepated - punk & metal
EXPERTS: There is no good technology to filter the net.
PEOPLE: We must protect the children!!!!
EXPERTS: Mandatory filtering is an undue restriction on free speech.
PEOPLE: You guys are a bunch of pedophiles, aren't you?
EXPERTS: Fine, you're on your own. ok bye.
Axel
Axel
mhm23x3, alt.fan.karl-malden.nose
I would like to point out that public schools and public libraries are not the same and need to be viewed quite differently.
A public library is a place where anyone can go and research for knowledge or read for leisure. It is a symbol of an educated and free society. Individual librarians have always had a de facto role as a censor. That is, each library has only so much shelf space and money so choices have been made for thousands of years with those limitations in mind. The internet and the computer age are quickly removing these historical limitations. This will allow people from every economic backgroud the ability to read the same material as a Harvard graduate student. It is utterly important that the government not attempt to choose which information is appropriate and which is not. The first amendment was written so that voices like Locke and Paine could never be restricted by the government. In today's world, many people see Heffner and Flint as freedom fighters in their own right. Their voices stand in direct opposition to the religious dogmas that preech the evils of sex outside predetermined boundries. To brand "sex" as smut is censorship and certainly should not be allowed.
Parents do not have to let their kids go to the library. Libraries do not have to let children on the internet. Terminals for children can be put directly in front of the librarian. (What kid want to browse porn in front of the librarian)Histories of the sites children visit could be sent home to mom and dad. All of these options work better than a computer filter and do not infringe upon the rights of adults.
Now, for schools. They are an institution for structured learning. Public schools range from kindergarden through college. I firmly believe that college is the bastion of adults and I don't think even the short sighted Congress has a desire to filter the internet there. If so, they are just plain wrong. All of the other educational institutions are full of minors and are therefore "in play." I say that because we don't let minors do everything they want. They can't drink, smoke, or go to a strip club. We have always controled the behavior of minors and the internet should not be an exception. And remember schools are for structured learning.
My question now is, "How many of these kids even need the internet at school and what do they need it for?" My wife is a second grade teacher and I can say with some authority that the internet at large has no place in an elementary school. Internet access at these institutions should be controled to allow only a handfull of approved sites through. Sites determined by the indiviual school districts, schools, or teacher and based on ciriculum taught to the students. A sixth grade class could be allowed access to a site on Apache Indians and not to the Apache Webserver. The webserver is certainly a great piece of technology but if it has nothing to do with the schools ciriculum and only serves as a distraction.
Middle schools and high schools require students to do progressively more elaborite research. The underlying principle remains: if it isn't part of the ciriculum, it doesn't belong. Schools across the country could develop and share lists of approved sites based on the needs of the students. Anything else is a distraction. If a highschool student wants to play games on the internet, it needs to be done away from school. That censorship is no different than intercepting notes being passed around the classroom. The ACLU doesn't complain about that.
This issue has been politicized because groups don't want porn and other "unattractive" speech to be easy to get. Those groups need to realize that all information will be easy to get and there is no possible way to stop it with out shutting down the whole system. Filters will never work and they send the wrong message. They say "these things are bad" and I don't want anyone else making those choices for me, thank you.
Selective internet access in schools just makes too much sense. And it is way too easy. And way too effective. And it doesn't say "this is bad" but rather "this applies to you at this school." Anything else only serves as a distraction.
"That's the sort of blinkered, philistine pig ignorance I've come to expect from you non-creative garbage."-Monty Python
OK, firstly assume that such a law was passed internationally, and that every site complied and also had access to a perfect list of school IPs.
The kid can still browse newsgroups archives for the same content, or simply use a surf anonymizer proxy thingy.
In the end, every great idea anyone thinks of can still be circumvented by smart kids. Perhaps you could put encryption on it and make circumvention illegal.
But the only sure way is to have an adult stand behind them in the library. Not too much to ask, since the same adult could also fix printer jams and reboot machines and stop kids hacking into the windows registry for fun.
---
This is so stupid...
I'm glad I live in Canada. :)
Aside from that, I really don't think government should regulate "morality" at all.
What's that saying?... ah, yes:
"If electricity comes from electrons, then does morality come from morons?"
;)
--
Cognosco: (Latin) To examine, enquire, learn
Cognosco: To examine, enquire, learn
http://cognosco©datablocks©net
I like it!
Since this is a war of memes and soundbytes, it's about time we develop and spread some of our own.
Children must be allowed to hurt themselves sometimes. Not *injure* themselves, but learn firsthand that there is a consequence to every action.
Kids are human beings! Humans are not designed to live in a perfect disney world. Humans (like every other living being) are designed to face problems, solve them and evolve.
A parent should protect the child, not by keeping it from getting hurt, but by saving it from getting injured. You tell them that they will hurt themselves if they cut themselves on a knife. THey will still get cut, because they *will* play with a knife. But if you did your job, they will be careful enough not to get seriuously injured. A band-aid will do and next time they know better.
I want my kids (the day I have them) to stay away from on/offline porn, not because I've filtered it, but because I tell them that it hurts others and eventually them.
Does porn hurt? Damn sure. It's a dirty business and it makes its money from sexually exploiting women.
Does a person get hurt by looking at porn?
A girl, yes. She will get a wery sick notion of men and their expectations.
A boy? hell yes! For one thing, a guy who watches too much porn will grow up to find that most women will think he's a complete jerk.
Does sex hurt? No way. Nudity is natural. Sex is a good thing. Porn is not. I just wish that the censorship mob would one day see the difference.
All opinions are my own - until criticized
I'm certainly not for censorware, but it seems that a lot of posts come from people saying "When I have kids, I'm going to do..." and not a whole lot from people who actually have kids. The same thing comes up when TV gets talked about here. Now, I'm all for parents spending time with kids, but how easy is it to watch your kid 24-7 and have a job and if you're lucky a social life? It doesn't matter how much you love them and how good a parent you want to be, you simply CAN'T devote all 24 hours to your kids. I don't have kids so I'm not going to judge how successful these plans are, but I get an impression that Slashdot is full of pollyannas saying "If I were a parent, I would be great!!"
On the one hand, I agree with you. On the other hand, if a parent can't be with their kid all the time, it might be better for them to buy their own censorware (maybe white-list based instead of black-list based) and let the kid roam with that. I realize that's a far cry from what the article talks about. Would it be so bad? We have to accept the fact that certain parents don't want their kids seeing certain things. The two options for these parents would be to install censorware or only let the kids use the Internet when the parent has time to watch. Which is better? Some may say they're bad parents for wanting to hide things from their kids, but it's their family.
Any real parents reading this? How do you deal with your kids viewing the internet? Do you let them watch TV? Do you spend time with them instead or do they take care of themselves?
Thanks for telling me Jurien. still ignorant people should be told what they sound like to "normal" people.
Make a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life
The Internet is going to kill your children!!
You know, our grandkids will look back at all this hysteria the same way we look back on the beginning of the atomic age and the space race..
"The Big Bad Internet That Is Going To Murder Your Children Becuase Before The Internet Everyone Was Happy And There Was Never Any Crime Or Hate" is just this era's version of a giant 300-foot radioactive praying mantis, except not as cool to watch at a drive-in.
Praise the Force Field! Praise the Laser Project! Slackware Loon #19830573
Here's a Washington Post article on the topic, dated 14-Dec-1998.
In the 1950s, it was Communism; now, political speech may be more tolerated, but if you look at the second half of the article, certain other types of speech would not be protected...
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Of course the ideal solution isn't available. It's impossible to make a list of every porn site, as they come up every hour, on the Internet. But isn't making getting to these sites harder worth it? Making it 'more difficult' _is_ the ideal solution in this situation.
ALG
Nexus, the trouble with implementing filters is how the hell do they decide what is/isnot acceptable. Take a filter system that (for instance) measures the amount of exposed flesh in a picture. If there is alot it blocks. Right, now take a student doing research in their local library/school lab into antomony or medical research... Take a word parser that blocks sites with unacceptable words... soon someone will come up with methods of breaking the filter. Filters just don't work full stop -- not with out alot more power than we have available to us.
--- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
> If you want unrestricted access to the net, get
> your own connection and pay for it!
If you want unrestricted access to books, buy your own library. If you are poor, you don't deserve to read anyway.
Wrong. My tax dollars pay for the library, and I don't want my or anyone elses access blocked because parents are too lazy and stupid to take care of their own children.
Current blocking software blocks a lot more than porn as "objectionable", and it uses secret blocking lists. I don't want my library to be blocked from viewing the ACLU site just because it's easier than responsible parenting.
If you don't want your kids to ever see anything objectionable, gouge out their eyes. Until then, don't tell me to prevent them from seeing.
If these decisions are made locally, you can vote with your feet. (ie, move to another state or county) and if enough ppl care they will have to take notice. Also, you as an individual might have more influence over a local decision.
If they are nationally decided you don't have a choice, and you have just lots one of your "voices" of objection. (one of the most powerful IMO, I might add.)
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
Go down to your public library and ask for the latest copy of Penthouse. See what happens.
There is a difference. Your dead-tree example is a result of being forced to decide what to bring in with limited funds.
Filtering is a case of spending MORE of those limited funds to keep stuff out.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Deny access to java applets (most of them are either hacking utilities, games, or something that students wouldn't use for educational purposes).
Gee, I always thought that public libraries were for recreational as well as educational purposes. Otherwise we'd better remove all fiction books from the libraries!!!!!
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
he makes this sound like it was a BAD thing!
hahaha.. you puny americans.. *insert maniacal laughter here*
check out my comic: Essential Tremors
don't think the Feds should get involved with filters at all. I believe the decision rests in the hands of the cities and counties alone. What is offensive in one county may not be so in another county. Forcing everyone to
the same "standard" od morality is rediculus.
First off I believe firmly in the principle of Federalism and do not believe that my local officials are any more capable than homeless bums on a street corner.
That being said I believe that I don't want to have a group of people who are fanataics calling all the shots (ie. Mormons, fundamentalist Christian groups like Southern Babtists,etc).
The Federal government does a better job than a bunch of lazy, stupid, crass incompetent people on the local level. To even get into the federal government you have to pass a civil service exam mandated by the Pendeleton Civil Service Act after the assassination of James A. Garfield by Charles Geateau.
There are no such qualifications at any city or county level at all. In fact you get a better chance to get fools and idiots there than anywhere else.
My community is in no way in control of me and never will be because I don't agree with their policies and don't really consider them representative of what I think.
Respond to s
I want to, when I have kids, hold their hand as they cross the street. I want to point out right and wrong. I want to ease them into things as they grow.
I also expect the school they will attend will do the same, and I expect them to not rely on technology to censor technoloy.
I know its a bit much, but you just simply cannot safeguard the net against anything. Its noones fault except that we need more people to look after things. More education for them to know how to work with technology, and more money -- especially in education.
----
I think the most interesting comment in the article is from Rep. Istook.
"The commission was not designed to recommend the consensus of the American public,"
Ummmm.. Neither is the Supreme Court. The reason being is that we (theoretically) appoint people to such positions who will look beyond what is popular to what is right.
Remember that segregation was once the 'common sense conclusion' of many people.
It would appear that not all politicians are clueless. Who would have thought.
This is especially interesting in light of the fact that filtering of the Internet at public libraries and such is a fairly popular stance. For example, both presidential candidates support some form of monitoring/filtering.
How refreshing. Perhaps there is hope for this country after all.
Who the hell is going to the library to look at porn?
I could just see the scandal... "Paul Reubens (Pee-wee Herman [one of my personal heroes]) arrested for porn browsing in the library!"
Will they censor Moby Dick ? And it's always the same story. People get killed, murdered, slaughtered everyday on TV, in the news, in the street but that is fine for censors... But showing living flesh is bad. It's all a long religion story which shaped people's mind in the times of ignorance. I hate those legacy systems, what we need is a good refactoring. Anyone interested ?
É que os desafinados também têm um coração
"We didn't recommend any mandatory practices," said Donald Telage, chairman of the commission and an executive at Network Solutions Inc. "We did consider them, but not even the most-conservative members of the commission felt that was the road to go down...I don't believe they're good enough. They're hopelessly outgunned. A legislative, quick solution may not be the right answer."
Correct. Even those on the panel who were conservative knew that filters aren't the answer. And legislation to require filters is merely the "quick" solution, not the right one. But does this stop Congress? Nooooooo...
"The House leadership believes the amendment will likely survive because of its strong public support. A study this week from the Digital Media Forum showed 92 percent of 1,900 U.S. residents polled believe pornography should be blocked on school computers and 79 percent believe software filters should block hate speech. "
Basic ignorance at work here, folks. You poll people and ask, "Do you think porn should be blocked on school computers?" and what do you think the responses will be? "Uh, no, I don't think we should block porn at schools."?? Of course not! People are going to say, "Sure, block the stuff."
Those polled probably have no idea that filters don't work. Congress should know better, but they would rather run around waving papers showing poll results and claiming that the American public is clamoring for filters!
Ignorance triumphant.
________________
________________
Private Essayist
>Windows 2000 for all the terminals (that's right, >no Linux, but these are supposed to be Internet >terminals, not telnet-equipped hacking stations). $su #chmod a-x /bin/telnet
BOOM! Not telnet equipped anymore!
Besides, what is wrong with having a telnet client on an "Internet" terminal? Telnet is part of the Internet too. When I was in high school, there were services that I needed, but the school network didn't provide. I used Usenet, email, and on occasion, wais. I couldn't do that from the school computers, so I had to telnet to a unix machine. If these services were offered on unix boxen on the desks, I wouldn't have needed telnet, but until everything I need can be done from where I am, I will always need telnet.
If they are worried, get rid of telnet and put a unix server somewhere on the local network. Allow ssh into that.
2000 != 1984 Stupid English people.
nah, you got it right. Some of them would love to make library censorship manditory.
So free speech is against most people's common sense conclusions? When did this happen?
--
Peace,
Lord Omlette
ICQ# 77863057
[o]_O
ex with family members, out of wedlock births, teen pregnancies... ... rape...
It's doubtful if Lot's daughters were over 19, when they raped their father specifically to get pregnant.
That's Genesis for the banned books list, how many of the remaining 65 books of the bible will be left...
Thank you so very much for confirming the point I was already making. And yes, I'm aware of the existence of Tweak UI. I'm also aware of the fact that if you right-click on Tweakui.inf and select "install" then you will not be stuck with the rest of those crappy powertoys. As for those protection methods you described, it's normal for (male) kids to look at pr0n. Let them be. What parents really should look into is giving their kids decent sexual education so that those kids will start respecting the other/same sex.
I can really identify with you, so much.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
Furthermore, I hate to break it to you, but a lot of us don't think there's anything morally wrong with stuff like sex with strangers, sex with multiple partners, or out of wedlock births.
With the former two any problems are likely to be primarily the result of a society which rams monogamy down people's throats. Also where there are problems associated with "out of wedlock births" it's very questionable if simply having the parents married would help much anyway.
Having a discipline problem is normal for puberty, you cannot hit 14 jear olds any more, very small children (ages 2-6) might learn from physical punnishment if you use it with care and are consequent. Physically punishing older children doesn't work because they think in an other way. Ps:what does god have to do with this at all??????
Make a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life
as it ever occured to you that monogamy and mainstream religion are considered hideous evils to some people?
Even the mainstream christian church has not been behind marriage for all of it's history. Indeed there is very little to support the idea of monogamous marriage in the new testament. (What there is appears to be telling missionaries to be "politically correct" to avoid being dismissed out of hand by the "natives".)
Indeed Jesus was never married yet there is no mention at all of his being a virgin at the time of his death.
Would it not just be easier to make a deal with the American pr0n sites to use the new TLDs (e.g., .xxx and .adult)?
;)
Every filter I have used has been pretty much bogus. You can't arbitrarily keep kids out from stuff without some sort of standard; it just doesn't work.
It reminds me of the times I used to spend at Kinko's hacking "Desk Tracy", a slipshod program placed over Windows or Mac OS to try to regulate access (before this became a priority). I never paid one cent for computer usage. Using WinNT now, it appears to be a little more difficult. But *I* wouldn't know....
Lucas
Hold it!
These filters do NOT only block porn and sex chat, nor do they only block "hate speech" (the blocking of which alone is fairly contrary to the spirit of the first ammendment). These filters block much of ANY political speech, especially anything that deviates from the norm (not to mention that many have a right-wing slant, but that's not as universal) and articles that are critical of the filter itself.
Plus, sexual education material on the net, which the Supreme court ruled minors have the right to access in the hopes that such information could help stop teen pregnancy and STDs, is always blocked. These sites often have graphic images that even the most advanced filters can't distinguish from porn, but are vital to self-diagnosis.
For more reading on why NOT to filter, read Fahrenheit 451.2: Is Cyberspace Burning? . It's quite informative and brings up many issues that need to be addressed.
-benc
>Go down to your public library and ask for the latest copy of Penthouse. See what happens.
Go down to your public library and ask for a copy of Lady Chatterly's Lover. Or Our Bodies Ourselves. Or Leaves Of Grass. Or The Story Of My Life by Casanova. Or The Story of O. Or the Song of Solomon.
Your arguments are not only astonishingly insulting to any who hold liberty dear, but you are poorly read as well.
Praise the Force Field! Praise the Laser Project! Slackware Loon #19830573
Take a filter system that (for instance) measures the amount of exposed flesh in a picture. If there is alot it blocks. Right, now take a student doing research in their local library/school lab into antomony or medical research...
Except that there is no program (outside the mind of an SF writer) which can tell the difference between a clothed and a naked person well enough for that to be an issue in the first place. Also you will get all manner of false positives when the program tries to cope with all types of human skin (including monochrome and tinted images), let alone drawings.
I guess I'm going to have to invest in a surplus FBI Carnivore lock box and install an OpenBSD proxy into it. ;^)
--
Wooden armaments to battle your imaginary foes!
'm kind of curious why reproduction in particular was chosen to be the dirty function. Why not digestion or respiration? Maybe we should start filtering those "dirty" pictures that show people eating!Maybe because it's something people cannot do alone and there is a biological age limit involved.
Should we also have an armed revolution because little kids can't get into porno theaters and live strip shows?
There's no censorship there... just keeping the kids out of the sex game until they're old enough to handle it. So don't go grabbing your gun and 'Don't Tread On Me' snake flag yet, cowboy.
Phallic Symbols in LOTR
When they hire convicted, admitted perverts to write crime-catching applications like this!
--- Speaking only for myself,
Okay folks,
we've all seen the hordes of concerned do-gooders and politicians looking dreadfully serious and saying that we should "save our children"by giving them the powers to determine what we see, hear or can say. This has nothing to do with filtering technology.
Why is this a bad thing? Surely they are so much smarter, nicer and more intelligent than us?
WRONG!
We, as people - individual conscious entities - should be allowed to read, watch or say whatever we like provided we accept the responsibility for our own actions. Okay, maybe children's access to porn etc.. should be limited, but all adults should haveaccessto whatever knowledge they like. Including, for example, how to make explosives, toxins or even nuclear devices - the knowledge itself is not dangerous, merely those who would misuse it.
It is all well and good pointing to examples of people using such knowledge to bad ends but this is essentially irrelevant - the words on the page did not turn themselves into the devices which blew up Universities and suchlike,it took Theodore Kaczynski (sp?) to do that.
Elgon
hire one or two extra librarians that *know* computers (or look for high school or local college that are interested in computers/technology - they'll be cheaper than hiring a professional, they'll learn a lot, and it'll give them a job)
also, make sure the librarians help the people using the computers, that way you can help people do what they're trying to do in the first place, keep a watch to make sure there's nothing bad going on, and it'll raise an interest in younger children who would like to learn more about computers/internet but have no one to guide them...
--------------
I've seen too many stories of CyberPatrol being hacked and circumvented. Filter software just isn't the option; time to opt for good old "FORBIDDEN".
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
Just a random thought...
It just occurs to me that it might be better to make it illegal for porn sites (and whatever else the people deem inappropriate) to provide content to public schools, rather than attempt to block them out.
Think about it: porn sites pop up and shut down all the time, but public school IP addresses would stay relatively constant, and can be listed explicitly, and reliably. The list can be made available.
I haven't really thought about it deeply, so it may be a stupid idea. There's still nothing that can be done about foreign sites, for instance. But it's just my $0.02.
Accountability on the heads of the powerful.
Power in the hands of the accountable.
I have watched these debates rage and rage and this post puts me over the edge. No, our children should not be exposed to smut in the schools. But are our schools not there to TEACH our kids how to be responsible adults? My point is this, isn't it better for a kid to learn how to differenciate what is valid information versus what is garbage. Give our children to be able to recognize the BS from the true facts. Porn is the easiest (sometimes most obvious) way to start teaching that lesson. Here is another reality check for everyone. I worked in a school district as an IT person. Students are not off in a corner looking at smut when they are in the library. There usually is a teacher with them helping them learn how to use this tool. Most of the surfing that is done to look at porn, bomb making, drug making, etc. is done IN THE HOME. How many kids have computers in their bedrooms where they go and shut the door and ole mom and dad don't have a clue. You get a bunch of 10-16 year old boys together and what are they going to look at? Hmmm.....Seems to me they will always have access to it. I did and I didn't have the Internet. Laws and controls are not the answer. Eductation and learned responsibility are.
The actual wording of the ammendment:
t emp/~bdavhSd:1[1-172](Amendments_For_H.R.4 577)&./temp/~bdZvvB|/bss/d106query.html|
76. S.AMDT.3635 to H.R.4577 To prohibit universal telecommunication assistance for schools or libraries that fail to implement a filtering or blocking system for
computers with Internet access or adopt Internet use policies.
Sponsor: Sen Santorum, Rick - Latest Major Action: 6/27/2000 Senate amendment agreed to
from:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/L?d106:./
it doesn't mandate filters. it mandates filters OR a usage policy. The usage policy could be something like "no porn" or something as vague as "be good to each other".
but then again, it is governmental creep into places they shouldn't go. and as soon as a principle hears this, the principle is going to demand filters....
-red
Now the big question is not if they are currently contradicting themselves... which they are not. The real question is whether after the commission gives their findings and factual based opinions, will that same congress listen to them. If they do not, then it would indeed be contradicing.
This is not just semantics, what this indicates is that at least in name, congress is trying to gather facts to base decisions on, which is very good. The biggest and best thing of all, though, is that this indicates a time when we can contact our representatives, point to the fact finding commission, and throw in the usual assortment of how this will become part of the problem, not the solution. Simply put, if you feel strongly about this, then you should make every effort to have your voice heard. If you write a letter, perhaps point out that it would be completely unethical for congress to ignore the commisions findings, just because they "don't like" the results. (Not to mention juvenille and immature)
At the VERY least, this indicates some are trying in congress. However, congress will not know how you feel, unless you let them know.
BTW, I personally agree with the folks below (uhh, depending on how you list messages) that say that it should be up to the counties and cities. The federal government should only be making recommendations, not laws regarding this.
cheers
I seek not only to follow in the footsteps of the men of old, I seek the things they sought.
I can really identify with you, so much.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
The problem is that everyone wants to do what is popular, not what is right or legal. The first amendment must be defended, even if it is not popular. If 90 some percent of the population want censorship, fine. Amend the constitution to repeal the first amendment. If it passes, you have a whole new problem. The second amendment was created to prevent the first from being repealed. You can't get rid of either of the first two without a civil war. Go ahead and take away our freedom of expression. We'll just take that to mean you want us to excercise our right (not privelige) to bear arms.
2000 != 1984 Stupid English people.
As far as I'm concerned, if your children can't handle using the internet properly (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean) then it's your duty as a parent to teach them how to deal with information and what is appropriate. Don't expect the government to provide a quick fix to your faults in upbringing - it's a slim chance it will get implemented soon and if they ever do it's highly likely that it won't work the way everyone would want it to anyway.
UBU
Because it would be that much harder to raise a child if porn & violence weren't filtered out of schools.
Why do people insist of linking "sex and violence" together, when they are treated very differently. Whilst sex is censored violence is considered perfectly acceptable to show to children. Go watch some children's cartoons, be they The Flintstones or Pokemon, if you don't belive that...
bastard.
Axel
Axel
mhm23x3, alt.fan.karl-malden.nose
Oh, of course. I forgot. Those criteria make it evil. My bad.
</sarcasm>
--
Peace, education, prosperity, and a clean environment:
find out how the free market does it right.
As it has been noticed, auto-censorship can only work if you have some kind of uniform international legislation. If you assume that possible, then it may be simpler to have the porn sites add some extra HTTP headers, like
This way every user (publicly financed or not) would be able to choose the level at which he wants to filter out.Sure, a precise definition of the levels would not be easy, but at least it would give you the possibility of not putting explicit sex and simple nudity (like in erotic paintings or photography) in the same basket.
This is about public school libraries, not public libraries. In a public school's library, the main focus is on educational material. Fiction also fits into this, as fiction titles can be used in an English Literature curriculum.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
Uhhh...yeah. Dems showed how much they were "for" the 1st Amendment when Tipper Gore got record labelling in place. Remember how much eMpTyV cried and moaned about that?
"I ain't 'nobody,' dork....right?"
> Delete telnet.exe on sight, and scan for renamed telnet copies.
[How to stop people running applications on a Win 2k system]
Have you actually tried this on Win2k ?
You get a "Important Windows System Files Have Been Deleted" prompt, it asks you to insert the Win 2000 CD and then replaces the CD. You can tell it to go away but as soon as you insert the CD again, telnet comes back.
How do you stop people downloading telnet type applications - e.g. putty etc?
note, it would not be too difficult to download a telnet binary called SomeTelnetApplication.html, to save it to disk and call it NewExecutableTelnetApplication.exe
Connect to a known other *nix box on port 80 (e.g. students home cable modem / ADSL line) and then go from there.
The only way to secure against a determined person who wishes to log on to other machines is
disable _all_ write access to the disk
unplug from the network
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. (Einstein)
Did you ever go to the Zoo? There are those signs around there that say: do not feed the animals. Here on Slashdot it says: do not feed the Trolls. You did just that.
I can really identify with you, so much.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
So you want to control access. It's quite simple all you do is this.
1. Get a monitoring program. (We use Elron Software's Internet Monitor) This will flag sites containing explict words and you can create your own dictionary and exclusion word as well.
2. Only allow people with a library card to access the computers and assign them a manditory Log on ID to access the system.
3. Have someone go over the logs periodically and see if there is questionable activity, if so contact the owner of the Logon and talk with them as to acceptable use. If it is being abused, disable the account. If it is just research on whatever topic so be it. (this is the only sketchy part because it relys on one person to make a judgement)
Bing thats all you have to do. Works in my company and could work on a larger scale for schools and libraries.
With our monitor tool we have the ability to block sites but quite frankly just watching people is enough to keep them honest.
For the love of god people don't over complicate things.
Are you lonely? Hate having to make decisons? Meetings, the practical alternitive to work.
I'm curious why there never seems to much discussion over limited monitoring tools. If its possible to completely block a web page, then it also should be possible to flag when certain pages are accessed and then notify a system monitor. The monitor can then contact the offending user and inform them they are violating school/library policy. If the student has a valid reason to be accessing prohibitted sites, they can still be permitted.
Of course there are a lot of issues with this, including privacy and the objectiveness of the monitor, but it does seem like a better alternative than total blocking. This is particularly true for schools where internet access should exist primarily for research, not random surfing (at least during regular hours).
The objection to filters in libraries is not "they don't work". The objection is "they don't work which keeps me from doing what I want". My solution removes the filtering for those that don't want it. The people that DO want filtering can then walk the never-ending treadmill of trying to formulate an objective definition for a subjective notion.
--
An abstained vote is a vote for Bush and Gore.
Non-meta-modded "Overrated" mods are killing Slashdot
(Hey Ryan! Here's your proof!)
is not that it contravenes free speech, because as we know, free speech is often abused - witness the utter drivel that gets put on a pedastal in the name of "freedom".
The biggest worry is the deliberate or unconscious political agenda that goes into these filtering programs.
Never mind that people and place names like Hancock, Assam and Scunthorpe are going to be blocked, look at the softwares being used to filter. Many of them have an outright political agenda - filtering out any non-Christian religious site, health information (AIDS education is NOT PR0N), abuse hotline information (gotta keep them women in line!) etc.
And the fact that filterware is explicitly closed-source (why don't they want us to know and/or configure what can be seen and can't be???) is the biggest screen to whatever might be behind the scenes.
A library is and should be a repository of information without political bias. "I don't want my kids reading Chairman Mao or Mein Kampf!" OK, but if you ignore history, you're destined to repeat it. I don't think I could have completed my first year university Psychology project on cultural influences on Freud's theories without having been able to research Victorian sexual mores.
In reality, the only problem I see with Internet material is not its potential subject matter, but its veracity. I mean, if you believe half the stuff that's out there you need your head examined. My biggest worry with the Internet is that it'll turn people into lazy researchers and then it'll just be TAKEN for granted that there's a hollow Earth with derro living in it, for example.
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
It's about time we got rid of that old morality thing anyway. It really doesn't serve a purpose anymore.
... rape...
...and so on. Therefore, we need to get our children into the world of porn NOW, so they will be properly trained for this new society.
In these modern, enlightened times (we have the INTERNET now!) there is no reason to limit things like porn, objectification of women, sex with strangers, sex with multiple partners, sex with children, sex with animals, sex with family members, out of wedlock births, teen pregnancies...
So, yeah, it's about time we got rid of those "legacy systems" and installed this new, upgraded system of amoral anarchy. Then we will finally be free!!
Phallic Symbols in LOTR
"Forcing everyone to the same "standard" od morality is rediculus."
"I believe the decision rests in the hands of the cities and counties alone."
So forcing "everyone" in a city or county is to the same level *is* OK? How about we make it a local decision in the sense of a single person or (in the case of a minor) that person's parent(s)/guardian(s)?
--
An abstained vote is a vote for Bush and Gore.
Non-meta-modded "Overrated" mods are killing Slashdot
(Hey Ryan! Here's your proof!)
"no particular technology yet offers an ideal solution."
...)
Tell me, what would they consider an "ideal solution"? Imagine the Department of Censorship (cabinet level, of course), with a large sign on the door "Come back later, work in progress."
Also, I take some umbrage at the casual villification of "conservatives," as in "We did consider [madatory filtering], but not even the most-conservative members of the commission felt that was the road to go down."
Depends what you're trying to conserve, I guess, but in the current liberal / conservative dichotomy, a false distinction not only lives but thrives -- there are folks who are against censorship on both sides the aisle, and ones who are staunchly in favor of "protecting our children by whatever means necessary" on both sides, too.
Lieberman, Armey, Hatch -- where do each of them stand on certain online freedoms, and what are their designations as "liberal" v. "conservative"? ZDNet I don't expect great journalism from, and it was in fairness a quote, but it's a misleading one.
(Plus, note that most politicians are meekly saying nothing about either filters or Carnivore until they get a better idea of which way the wind shines
simon
"Hey Carlito, r'membah me? Benny Blanco from the Bronx!"
Hook the school/library/kiosk computers up to card readers. Issue cards to the people who want to use those machines. Give "full-access" cards to adults, "custom access" cards to minors. Let parent's configure the minors' cards to say what software (if any) and what levels within that software the child is limited to.
Viola! Personalized filtering that affects ONLY your child.
Possible downsides with comments:
Setting it up. No big deal with a true multi-user system (especially one where you can install multiple filtering technologies). Alternatively you could use filters that are online.
Child A has "full access" and show porn to Child B. Unavoidable in any system. Child A could bring a dead-tree copy of Playboy to school, it's no different.
Privacy violations if tracked by card? So don't do that. Print the name of the person on the card (or even a photo) but don't encode it for the computer to read. Just encode the settings.
--
An abstained vote is a vote for Bush and Gore.
Non-meta-modded "Overrated" mods are killing Slashdot
(Hey Ryan! Here's your proof!)
I don't know about anyone else, but I have heard of this great filter that has been around for a while. It works almost perfectly. As long as it is available, which can be all the time, it can filter nearly 99% of the smut from the children's screens. It can reward them for looking at good sites and punish them for looking at the bad ones. It can block any site, sometimes before the URL is even typed. Maybe I should patent it. Nobody seems to have thought of the idea of a parent before.
2000 != 1984 Stupid English people.
I don't know what version of Win2000 you are using but mine comes with telnet.
If you delete I can download one.
If you disallow me to run files, I can embed the executable into an office document and run it from there (well, I could under NT anwyay).
I can always boot off a linux floppy.
I can use a java applet from a web page.
If I were you i'd just block port 23 at the firewall. Certainly better than mandating _expensive_, resource hungry software when you've already complained of a lack of resources.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. (Einstein)
If you want unrestricted access to the net, get your own connection and pay for it! Do not force me to pay for your porn viewing, sex chatting, etc. Computers are cheap, internet access can be free in alot of areas, so quit whining about how they want to filter you.
Yes, filters are not perfect, but they are better than nothing, and better ones will come along eventually. If you find something that shouldn't have been filtered, bring it to the attention of the sysadmin -- or work on an open filtering specification, unlike the closed ones that they are currently using.
This is a personal liberty issue, and if you are being subsidized by the rest of us taxpayers you are going to have restrictions placed on your liberty. If you don't like it, use the free market and sign up with your local ISP, but please quit complaining about how they want to filter your Library connection. You don't own it and you don't pay for it, therefore you don't control it.
Brian
but until everything I need can be done from where I am, I will always need telnet.
YM ssh. Telnet sends your login password in plaintext to anyone who's sniffing your connection.
Will I retire or break 10K?
How can one "raise your children with open, healthy minds, and the ability to make decisions that are 'good' for them" when porn and/or violence is daily thrust in their faces by some sick 6th-grader in the computer lab? Someday my kids will be on their own and will have to make decisions all on their own, but in the meantime it would be nice if the school my kid attends could have at least a neutral environment to learn and develop in. Meanwhile my wife and I can attempt to teach lil' Johnny right from wrong. You don't honestly expect a second grader to turn his head when Big Billy flashes penthouse.com on his screen? Come on.
All kidding aside, you know that there are new Top Level Domains that can be use to isolate pr0n sites in their own "red light districts." Both .XXX and .SEX have been proposed to ICANN. Most pr0n site companies actually don't want to have minors enter their sites. I predict that when these TLDs come online there will be a stampede by pr0n sites to grab them. Currently the Adult Check system and other credit card age verification systems like them are being used by most sites.
Fearless prediction: when .XXX and .SEX become legit TLDs, much of this problem will be solved. And some wags who post here regularly will have goat.sex to play with. Won't that be fun? ;-)
---- Hey Grrl Geeks! Your very own geek news site has arrived!
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
Amazing how you can divine how well read I am by my above post.
:)
Anyway, my point was that mechanical filtering already exists and has already been implemented. Your counter examples only demonstrate that the filtering is lightly applied, not that it does not exist.
It is also curious how you can speak for "any who hold liberty dear". Perhaps there are one or two of us who believe that government involvement at any level inheritly erodes liberty, and should only be applied as a necessary evil when no other alternatives exist.
In fact these very people, devoted to liberty, may go so far as to form their own political party on that platform. Hmmm... a party devoted to liberty based on a minimally empowered government... wonder what they would call themselves... How about liberocrats... or libercians... or...
Libertarians... that one's kinda catchy
Bill "who reads calvin and hobbes every day thank you very much" Kilgallon
Mathematically impossible requirements are technically not against policy.
This is why I have been suspicious of Gore from day one. I remember the "Washington Wives" hearings. I remember all this crap.
Go to a Wal-Mart or a K-Mart or a Target. Try to find an album that has the "Parental Warning: Explicit Lyrics" sticker on it. C'mon, I dare ya.
Can't find one? Why? Because it's against company policy for Wal-Mart, K-Mart and Target to stock albums that have the sticker. Instant censorship, folks! You want that Eminem album? You'll probably find it at Sam Goody, but not at those stores.
Do you really want this to happen to the Internet? Then elect either Gush or Bore. Actually Nader is also for 'Net censorship so he's out too. And Buchanan? Fuhgettaboutit!
Your only alternative? Vote Libertarian.
---- Hey Grrl Geeks! Your very own geek news site has arrived!
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
That is a good point, but I don't believe the filtering is applied mainly for funding reasons. I am sure the publisher of penthouse would be more then happy to give free copies to every library in the US.
I suspect the "mechanical filtering" is applied, especially regarding minors, to keep firestorms such as this one from interfering with the more important mission of libraries. They also likely do it to avoid breaking local, state, and federal laws regarding minors.
I was not trying to make a statement that is either for or against filtering (though I do have opinions on the matter that inevitibly creep out in my posts).
I just wanted to point out that there are really several different questions being asked when considering filtering, with different answers, and that most of the questions are not new, and that many (but not all) of the questions have already been answered (though right or wrong is still up for debate).
You add another good question that I had not included... is filtering cost prohibitive?
Bill
Mathematically impossible requirements are technically not against policy.
Like, oh, say, .k12..us, which is already in place, and already being used by the vast majority of Internet-using schools and school districts in the US.
Personally, I wouldn't enjoy seeing a second grader telnetting into eBay and messing around with pages. Hackers start young, whether it's opening up the Speak-n-Spell or screwing around with a Web server through telnet.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
...Or if 'Plain Old Text' actually meant Plain Old Text, that post would've said
.k12.<state code>.us
While it is fun for slashdotters to get all up in arms about hot button issues... lets keep a few things clear.
1) Both candidates support filtering. When Bush mentioned it, he explicitly stated that it was only appropriate for PUBLICLY FUNDED institutions. He went on to state his support for the first ammendment EXPLICITLY. Gore suggested much more expensive and invasive requirements to be levied on ALL ISP's, and was more interested in showing how much "smarter" he was then bush to bother bringing up the first ammendment.
2) Content filtering is not a new problem. Go down to your public library and ask for the latest copy of Penthouse. See what happens. There is already all sorts of mechanical filtering for the mechanical media in place, the question has been asked and answered. The question is how to implement the electronic filtering for the electronic media.
3) There are two seperate issues...
a) Should we filter at all?
b) Is current filtering software effective?
These are two seperate problem domains with two seperate soultion spaces.
4) The first ammendment protects "free as in speech" speech, not "free as in beer" speech. That is, you are free to say what you want, and seek what you want, but the government is not obligated to fund you for either.
5) The question "should parents have legislative supports to help them control the actions of their minor children" is also a different question. Saying minors should not be allowed unfiltered access without supervision is no different then saying minors can't buy ciggarettes and beer without parental supervision. Again, this is a question US society has asked and answered.
6) Free speech advocates are free to use their own money and their own resources to set up their own information kiosks (not unlike the Christian Science Reading Rooms, but with different content and motivations) and let people have all the free, non-filtered and unrestricted access they want. In this case, for non-minors, the second ammendment DOES protect them, as it is clearly a form of free speech.
7) Just becuase current filtering approaches suck, does not mean that all future filtering approaches will suck.
Hopefully that helps clarify the debate a little... we aren't helping anyone on either side with confusion.
Bill
Mathematically impossible requirements are technically not against policy.
Any number of examples and arguments for both "sides" can be used. However the obvious thing to do is look at what others have said about it and done about it. After all, that is how we operate in most other aspects. You don't teach medicine by just teaching the most current research, thus re-inventing the wheel each time. Same with this.
The solutions our founding fathers came up with, was to have a written set of laws that were in turn limited and steered by a underlying set of default "rules"... the constitution. We may look at this issue, like many others, and point out short term, or clustered statistical results and come to the conclusion the entire picture is based on that limited set. Or, we could use the constitution as a guideline.
The founders of the constitution and the countries government, knew that it was the big picture that was the most important picture of all. I personally don't want my kids looking at porn, and so it is reasonable to be concerned that they can do that when away from my care. However, a blanket restrictive policy does not work. It doesn't prevent them from gaining access to porn, it makes it more attractive to the kiddies, and it has the side-effect of blocking out real sites used for research, news, etc...
Add to this, that it basically says "Fsck You" to everyone else. My idea of morality might be different than someone elses, it is not my, and therefor the governments, say in that.
My personal proposal is for it to be handled by individual institutions. Maybe setting up accounts with card readers or some such thing. The problem is finding ways to prevent ways of getting around it... fools always defeat foolproof devices.
I seek not only to follow in the footsteps of the men of old, I seek the things they sought.
If they wanted to poll on filters, the question should not have been "Do you think porn should be blocked on school computers?" - it should have been
"Do you think school computers should randomly block internet material, including chicken breast recipies and Superbowl XXX information, in an effort to keep out some undisclosed fraction of the pornography on the internet?
---
The next day, we'll see the founding of thousands of one-man "libraries"....
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Hmmm.
Seems everyone here has pretty much the same view - filtering public internet access is the wrong thing to do, at least at a legislatory level. So say I disagree... Here are my reasons:
1) Public access anything is filtered (or in other words, censored). Films are cut for TV. Certain programs have to be shown late at night. Libraries don't have a section labelled 'Pornographic Material'. People expect it, and will not expect to be having their kids running off to the library or school and being able to surf on an unfiltered 'net.
2) As noted before, it is practically impossible to filter at the 'single node' level. However if the government were to adopt a sensible policy they could work it at a national level for a fraction of the cost per user. It has cost my school thousands of pounds and countless man-hours to come up with a solution that is 99% effective, but in theory this could be implemented on a central server for little extra cost. I will not discuss possible solutions here as there are already several threads dealing with these ideas.
3) I would quite like to be able to surf the net myself without running into porn sites left, right and center. And yes, it does happen - a non porn related search can lead to porn sites. Therefore, it isn't just about the kids.
4) It's not about free speech. The 'speech' is still out there - It's just that people who are too young or do not want to 'hear' it don't.
That's just ridiculous. There were mass murderers of all ages back in the 50's and 60's. Saying "Ithe two Columbine shooters had had some regular beatings they would still be alive today, and they would probably be popular as well" is just plain wrong. You completely underestimate the complexity of teenage psychology. I hope you get modded down as a troll, because that certainly was one.
Steven
-- I have marked myself unwilling to moderate-- I don't have other accounts to artificially inflate the karma of
Even if the subscriptions were free, storage space is a non-negligible cost for libraries. I have offered to donate MacWorld subscriptions to a few of my local libraries, but they declined with regrets. Now if porn mags were donating archives on microfiche...it would be weird, but doable.
"Okay, your papers appear to be in order mr smith, now our censors will view your website and add their censorware-tags to the html, so that we can be absolutely sure that there is no porn anywhere on the internet, just in case a child might see it."
That's the day I start mixing nitrates, brother.
"If the US should take up the habit of censoring its citizens, then on that day I shall move somewhere that they take their slavery cold and hard instead of sugar coating it, like Russia." ~badly paraphrased from Samuel Clemens
What's so wrong about people looking at porn? Is there something about our bodily functions that some people haven't yet adjusted to?
I'm kind of curious why reproduction in particular was chosen to be the dirty function. Why not digestion or respiration? Maybe we should start filtering those "dirty" pictures that show people eating!
--
Peace, education, prosperity, and a clean environment:
find out how the free market does it right.