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.'"

Comments

Re:Well alright!

[Mad Hughagi]

I couldn't agree more!

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.

Well alright!

[AntiPasto]

Finally, someone puts into words the distinction between interpretation and processing. Nothing is better at filtering internet content than a Human Being, and I hope it stays that way.

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.

----

Rep Istooks' Comment

[jayfoo2]

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.

Ignorance triumphant

[Private Essayist]

The panel had some sense:

"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.
________________

Blocking porn for kids.

[JurriAlt137n]

Let me give a short description of a how a couple of friends of mine tried to prevent their kids from surfing to "certain" sites.

• They put a password in Windows, he he. Protection bypassed by pushing "cancel".
• They put a password in the Bios. The kids screwed open the computer and jumpered the computer back to default settings after which they manually reset the Bios to the correct settings.
• They installed a blocking program. The kids uninstalled it.
• They asked me to insert a registry key that automatically started a screensaver with a password. The kids went into the registry and left a message in the key for me:-)
• They asked me if there was anything else they could about it. I told them that the only difference between this and a more old-fashioned situation was that Mom had to look in the Internet history instead of under the matrass and that it otherwise was pretty normal for a 14 year old boy to look at "dirty pictures". So they stopped trying to prevent it and the kid lost all interest. Their daughter wasn't really interested in pr0n anyway.

I can really identify with you, so much.

Well.... yeah.

[Booker]

I mean, I guess I'd probably say that pornography should be blocked from our schools' computers, too. But there's a gap in logic to decide that you should therefore install Net Nanny, since it has been demonstrated that it doesn't work well.

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?

---