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.'"
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...
"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.
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 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!)
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...
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.
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
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.
--
"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!)
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.
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
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
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 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
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.
The other difference is that the Athenians had a method for removing corrupt or incompetant officials.
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.
That would all be fine if filters actually worked as advertised, but they do not, throwing out all that stuff mentioned above and more. Can a filter tell the difference between porn and just talking about porn? Could it tell that this entire thread was simply discussing porn and not porn itself? Watch the movie Boogie Nights; it's set in the environment of porn films, but itself is not porn (at last by my standards), and in fact shows just what can be wrong with porn and why it's considered harmful in the first place. The movie cannot do that unless it actually shows the subject matter it's dealing with in unfiltered detail. Software cannot tell the difference, and if it could you'd also be able to discuss the merits of Rennaisance art with it.
"How does restricting people from looking at porn in a library have anything to do with human rights?"
Here's how: define "porn". Give me a hard-edged, deterministic, objective definition for exactly those items you want to make unavailable from a library computer. Is the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue porn? How about pictures of breast cancer sufferers? How about the the "sexual reproduction" entry of the encyclopedia (you know, the one with the drawings of genitalia)? The Starr Report? How about any court documents or news stories about sexual harassment?
--
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 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
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...
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.
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
How can they tell the difference between a site that actually has "seedy" content, and a site that *talks* about "seedy" content.
How do you divide the "talking about" between advocating, disadvocating, reporting, paradying and satirising?
>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.
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...
--------------
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.
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...
Define "get off" objectively.
Also, I dispute your claim that the SI swimsuit issue's primary intention is to advertise swimwear. Whether or not I'm right, the existence of my dissenting opinion proves that your definition is not objective.
--
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'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!)
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.
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?
"I don't think there's any point to keep defining things when I think that you understand what I'm saying."
Then you are obviously not a programmer. You have 3 problems here:
1) Coming up with a consistent definition of "porn". This definition has to include all those and only those items that YOU think are porn. (For instance, you can't say "breasts are bad", because breast cancer is OK)
2) Coming up with a global definition of "porn". This definition has to comply with every (affected) person's definition from #1. If Jane Schmoe thinks SI swimsuits are porn but Joe Schmoe doesn't, this goal is impossible.
3) Implementing #2 (assuming you pass #2, which you won't) in software. This itself is nearly impossible because simple greps or color matches won't work.
"But, if you restrict kids in a public library, for instance, from looking at pictures of 8 guys ejaculating all over some girl's face, then I don't think that's violating anybody's human rights."
I do, on at least two levels. On the theoretical level, the library (or the gov't) has no right deciding what my children should or should not see. I'll be in charge of that, thank you. On the practical level, there's not even any way to accomplish this (supposedly) laudable goal. What are you going to do, hire some guy to find all the porn pics and hand enter the file names in a block list? You'll miss many this way, not to mention constantly updating, javascripts that hide filenames, email, ftp sites, etc. Write some software to blanket anything that seems to match? You'll miss many AND get false positives.
--
An abstained vote is a vote for Bush and Gore.
Non-meta-modded "Overrated" mods are killing Slashdot
(Hey Ryan! Here's your proof!)
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.
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.
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.
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.