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.'"
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
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 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.
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!"
"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
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 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.
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!)
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?
---