AOL Censor Tells Most If Not All

An unnamed reader writes: "From the latest Village Voice: 'You've got mail--and moral conundrums! A former AOL "censor" comes clean about the messy ethical dilemmas spawned by anonymity.'" This is one of the ickiest workplace accounts I've read in a while, but parts of it may make you laugh as well. You know that AOL has people watching the online traffic -- well, this proves that the job is not as glamorous and fulfilling as it sounds, but it does have some odd twists. See also this older Salon story for further insight on AOL acceptable use policies.

Comments

A difficult position

[Jakob Sorrel]

While censorship is always a difficult issue, I think there is a real place on the Internet for censored access.

I am a parent, with an 8 year old son and a 12 year old daughter. I want them to have access to as many educational opportunities as possible, but I am not always around to supervise them. My general practice has been to turn on censor-ware while I was away, but turn it off if I was available to keep tabs on my children.

While I appreciate the dilemmas that the AOL censor has faced, I feel that they are nonetheless providing a valuable service that is appropriate for many people. While I'm not sure what I think about government sanctioned or required censoring, censored Internet access definitely has a place in my household.

Re:A difficult position

[cheinonen]

While I don't have kids of my own, I have younger siblings that are growing up now with a whole world of online access I couldn't dream about. When I was my brothers age, I had an 8088, a 1200 baud modem, and CompuServe. He's growing up with his own P2/300 with DSL access in his bedroom.

My parents have asked me about installing censorship programs for them on the computers some and everytime they have asked, I've refused to do so. It doesn't make them happy, but I have reasons for it. I think that, as soon as I don't think I can trust my kids to be online and use it as a resource and that it's going to corrupt them, I'm going to just cut off from it. While I'm sure the censorware programs do a pretty good job at cutting off access, they will just go to the house of a friend who has parents that don't care and find that stuff if they really want to find it, or they'll find it other ways, like kids my age had to.

There are extreme examples, like the one cited in the article about the mother whose son searched for basketball, but overall, if they kids don't go looking for it, they probably won't find it. If they do go looking for it, then not allowing them access won't stop them from wanting to get it, it will just make them find a way around that. Only teaching your kids what you think about such actions will influence them, cutting them off just throws up a barrier they will find a way around.

Maybe when I have kids I won't have to deal with this, everything online will require ID to check, read from a smartcard, who knows. However, for now, I think parents have to take the responsibility for not allowing their kids to search out things, not relying on someone else to filter it out for them. It's a big world out there, and eventually they are going to see it, you just have to prepare them for it instead of slamming the door and not allowing them out. I think AOL is fine for censoring names and profiles if they want to create a safer service, and if you don't like that idea then get a real ISP instead of AOL, but parents shouldn't rely on it.

Re:A difficult position

[FriscoJohn]

" While I'm not sure what I think about government sanctioned or required censoring,...." Well, I'm sure what I think. The government has absolutely no right to censor or require censoring of anything. That's the first amendment, and I am, I suppose, a first amendment absolutist. That is not to say that what AOL is doing is wrong....it's a completely different question. AOL is a private business, and private property, and if the powers that be there decide that creating a family oriented place is in their best interests, and will profit the company, then that is their call. (They don't seem in fact to go out of their way to do so, as reading the Salon piece mentioned by Timothy shows.) Anyone who doesn't like it, can go elsewhere or start a competing service which operates using different criteria. I may not personally _like_ the way AOL defines proper conduct, but I respect their right to do so.

Re:A difficult position

[ralphbecket]

This kind of moral grandstanding disguised as informed criticism really hacks me off.

1. Of course we don't know that the poster isn't a nutcase, nor, if he is, whether that is due to reading pornography when younger (in the West, statistically speaking almost all males past puberty have some pornography stashed somewhere and, statistically, virtually none of them turn into dangerous types - rather poor grounds on which to posit a causal relationship.) In the same vein, we don't know that you're not some evil Bible-bashing fuitcake prepared to cause any amount of misery in order to protect other people's moral wellbeing. Your first point is nonsense.

2. While, no doubt, some people in the pornography business do get abused, we have to assume the vast majority don't otherwise it simply wouldn't (and couldn't) exist in anything like the scale it does. We all find the idea of children being exploited in sweatshops to make fashionable running shoes repugnant, yet those shoes still sell in their millions.

3. What has the original poster done that leads you to suspect that (a) somebody has suffered because of him and (b) that he has not taken responsibility for it?

To sum up, of course one posts one's own opinions. How, pray tell, is one supposed to prove objectivity?

Sorry, but contentless holier-than-thou rhetoric is just the lowest form of debate.

Re:A difficult position

[Boutzev]

Why shoult you supervise them ? Why not leave them make their own meaning about what they see ?

Re:A difficult position

[feder]

"Firstly, that you yourself didn't come to any harm - do we have any evidence supporting this?"
Let's toss that one around and ask: do we have any evidence supporting the opposite? No. We must take his word for it. Most, if not all, adult men have at some time been exposed to pornographic material (this is a fact). Of these men, only a fraction so small that it can barely be represented with numbers have turned into these psychopathic monsters you so colorfully describe (thisis also a fact). How in the world did you get the idea that there exist a relation between the two?

"How do we know you're not now a psychopathic misogynist rapist who stalks innocent teenage girls, hoping to live out scenes depicted in hardcore pornography which shaped your adolescence?"
But why? Why would somebody want to go do something just because they saw a picture of somebody else doing it? If you show your son a picture of somebode mowing their lawn does that mean he will go do the same with your lawn? Oh boy, you really have stumpled upon something here. "Photographic mind-control". Try selling it to the military.

"Secondly, you only consider the harm which porn may have caused you, without considering the harm that may have been caused to the people involved in producing the pornography."
Considering the harm that may have been caused to the people involved in producing automobiles, does this mean that you never drive a car or ride the bus?

"Also, you don't consider the harm that may have been caused to other people exposed to this porn. The sum total of these groups could have experienced significant harm. "
Wonderful argumentation. How can you use the point that you are trying to prove as an argument for that very point? "2+2=5, because 2+2=5" anyone?

Re:A difficult position

[mill]

Hmmm. Why do you assume that the vast majority in porn couldn't get abused, when you already acknowledge that children all over the world are abused in sweat-shops just to keep us with cheap shoes? Why is the former not possible when the latter is happening?

/mill

Re:A difficult position

[feder]

"Only teaching your kids what you think about such actions will influence them, cutting them off just throws up a barrier they will find a way around."
Exactly! Censorware isn't for parents that care about their kids. Censorware is for parents that don't want to take the time it takes to raise a child.

Re:A difficult position

[grazzy]

>Hmmm. Why do you assume that the vast in porn couldn't get abused, when you already acknowledge that children all over the world are abused in sweat-shops just to keep us with cheap shoes? Why is the former not possible when the latter is happening?

Thats diffrent, you (as a swede) should know that pornography isnt only produced in third world countrys but also countrys like Sweden.
Why would Americans/Europeans be part of pornography if they didn't want it? Dont give me that bullshit about fairness and social rights.

Either they are narcomans and do it for the drugs
or they want to be part of it because of the money.

I can see that you are an student. Have you ever pondered upon what you do as an employee?

I would suggest most of them do it for the money -just like everyone else thats selling their time to their employeer.

Alla dina bas är tillhör oss. :))

Re:A difficult position

[holloway]

When I was a kid any type of censorship software would have just been a challenge. I haven't seen software for windows stand up the l337 haxor skillz of starting windows in safe mode.

So I usually recommend an old 486 (as an auto-dialup gateway) with unix and some logging software. It's secure enough for most adults.

Re:A difficult position

[Hellburner]

"...but I am not always around to supervise them."
Well, you were obviously born sometime after 1965 and your parents were born between 1938 and 1948. That's the only way you could just check off the "please abdicate my personal responsibility, I need some ME time."

Unsupervised children? Just too hard? Need some personal ME time away from those darn organic talking ornaments that squall and whine all the time?

Turn off the damn computer. Lock it in a cabinet. Turn off the damn tv. Turn off the radio, grab the walkmen, the cd players, the nomads, the gameboys and the goddamn tamagotchis. Pick out some books, a baseball mitt, ball, and bat, a soccer ball, and an easel and some paint. You can manage to keep your children in your yard? Right. Good. Now place your children gently outside with their books, balls, and brushes. Add graham crakers if necessary. Allow play. Reading. Thought. Creativity. ACTIVITY.

Best damn form of internet censorship I ever heard of. Can't supervise them my ass. That's a parent's job.

Re:A difficult position

[Shadowlion]

Why do you assume that the vast majority in porn couldn't get abused, when you already acknowledge that children all over the world are abused in sweat-shops just to keep us with cheap shoes? Why is the former not possible when the latter is happening?

Note: as a US citizen, I can only speak for the US porn industry.

For one thing, virtually all porn that is capable of being sold involves adults. Adults, contrary to popular belief, are capable of making informed choices, and that includes the choice of whether or not to participate in the production of pornography (yes, I know it's not quite that easy, but close). I've yet to hear about somebody in the commercial US porn industry who was forced to perform with a gun to their head.

For another thing, the general populace likes to believe that porn is wrong, and will try virtually anything to stop its production. As a result, if there was even a hint that any measurable amount of porn was being produced where the actors/actresses were being forced/coerced into performing, the government would come down on the industry like a ton of bricks. That they haven't, aside from regulating who can perform (gotta be over 18) and where the movies can be sold, tells me that there is no substantial evidence that the porn industry involves non-consenting adults.



--

Re:A difficult position

[Shadowlion]

How dare you use use logic against a kneejerk reaction. You've got some nerve, buddy. ;)



--

Re:A difficult position

[plague3106]

Firstly, that you yourself didn't come to any harm - do we have any evidence supporting this? How do we know you're not now a psychopathic misogynist rapist who stalks innocent teenage girls, hoping to live out scenes depicted in hardcore pornography which shaped your adolescence?

I'm willing to believe him, just by the odds. A similar scenario is violent video games. Millions of kids play them, but that doesn't turn them into violent murders. And the few kids that end up in the news were already on the edge. I believe the same can be said for porn.

Secondly, you only consider the harm which porn may have caused you, without considering the harm that may have been caused to the people involved in producing the pornography. Also, you don't consider the harm that may have been caused to other people exposed to this porn. The sum total of these groups could have experienced significant harm.

Unless he's downloading something illegal, i doubt any harm came to those involved in making it. They got paid to do it, and did it of their own accord, and probably like it. (No, i don't buy that BS story, 'I had no choice.' McDonalds or your local grocery store are always hiring.)

As far as harming others; you don't just stumble onto porn, you have to go looking for it. Which to me implies it was something you wanted to see. Besides, i could claim someone is doing me harm when i see commercials with little kids in them; they make me sick, b/c rather then finding them cute, i find them disgusting b/c i know exactly what they are trying to do. Associate their product with cute. So why don't they take responsibility and pull all commercials with kids under 13.

In conclusion: you are not the only person affected by your actions, please learn to accept some responsibility for what you may have done

He has. And there really isn't much to do; he looked at an explicit picture. He's not responsible if the chic (or guy) in the pic hates what they are doing and hates themself for it. Thats their own stupidity. He's not responsible if someone else finds it offensive. They were disgusted, and got rid of it. At that point, its settled. And the person that goes around trying to act out what he sees is already fucked to begin with.

Re:A difficult position

[plague3106]

For another thing, the general populace likes to believe that porn is wrong

What i find amusing is that the people think that, yet they all like to buy it. Its why people got VCRs, CDROMs, and the Internet (at first, of course). Just look at the AOL article if you don't believe it.

Re:A difficult position

[plague3106]

He's growing up with his own P2/300 with DSL access in his bedroom.

If the idiots are so worried about what he's doing online, why does the DSL go to his bedroom??

Re:A difficult position

[matria]

Nevertheless, youngsters often lack the experience to handle the situations that arise...re the 16-year old lured to his abduction-murder in Israel recently. But this really has nothing to do with the Internet. Jimmy Rice was stalked from the Little League field. Parental responsibility, as has often been mentioned, is the answer. I kept the computer in the living room, and when my young son insisted on logging on to a friend's rather silly ASCII graphics porn BBS, I knew where the OFF button was...

Re:A difficult position

[dhuff]

Best damn form of internet censorship I ever heard of. Can't supervise them my ass. That's a parent's job.

Somebody please mod this up - waaaaay up. This post contains the sum total of all that needs to be said about supervising childrens' use of the Internet.

Now mind you, as a parent myself, I might at some point obtain a semi-safe ISP like AOL for my child. But not for one split-second would I think this abdicated my personal responsibility to supervise my child in any way. BTW, this parent was born in 1960 ;)

Re:A difficult position

[cavemanf16]

As far as harming others; you don't just stumble onto porn, you have to go looking for it.

Are you joking?! I've stumbled across banner ads that are way out of line while just looking for computer equipment and games that do not have any such crap associated with them. You must not use the internet much if you think that is the case. Just watch a movie or TV, you'll stumble across some form of outright ludeness without even realizing it's coming!

Re:A difficult position

[pogen]

The problem with censor-ware (not the only one) is that it gives parents a false sense of security. Even if it were 100% effective at keeping kids out of "adult" areas of the internet, it would not keep adults out of the "kid" areas of the internet. Based on the news stories I've read, most pedophiles seek out kids on their own turf.

Re:A difficult position

[glenwood12345]

Ok, I've just got to play devils advocate here. "But why? Why would somebody want to go do something just because they saw a picture of somebody else doing it? If you show your son a picture of somebode mowing their lawn does that mean he will go do the same with your lawn?" This is WAY oversimplifying the issue. Sexuality is the most potent force which guides us as Mammals on this planet. Combine sexuality with visual stimulation, you can very quickly become addicted. What happens with addicts? They start upping their dosage - the porn needs to be nastier, they're getting bored...before you know it people are looking at some sick shit. There may be something to the idea that pornography addicts start to become 'steered' by their addictions into evil ways. I'm not even sure I believe what I just typed, but thought it should be said.

Re:A difficult position

[weave]

Don't filter, install a linux gateway in the basement, protect it under lock-and-key, install firewall rules, and a proxy server that logs web access. Don't hide it, tell your kids that it's there and logging and you WILL check it and they must police themselves. Then make occasionally allowances for a mistake or two, like when clicking on an innocent looking site and being redirected to that goatse site.

Either that or sit with your kids at all times when they are on the net.

Filtering software is a parent's worse enemy.. WTF people can't understand that is beyond me. Even if it worked 99% of the time (and they don't), that 1% will be found and if so, it might as well not be there. Filtering software lulls parents into a false sense of security.

Logging via a secure box and self-policing with consequences if the house rules are violated is the only sane way I can see of handling this problem.

Is this easy? Not for many. And that means a business opportunity. Put an (often) free ad in your civic association or community newsletter advertising that you will take their old unused obsolete computer, like a 486, set it up as a linux firewall, give the parents a way to view the logs, you'll be a hero. Almost everyone has an old POS computer laying around these days. My basement has its own 486/66 Linux box too! :)

Re:A difficult position

[cougio]

The appropriate censorship, at the appropriate time, and in the appropriate manner, is how we raise our kids; and that's been true since long before the net was ever around.

Sure! To raise your kids, hide the part of reality you don't think is appropriate for them and it will magically go away. They will grow in a world where no bad things exist and everything will be for the better. Don't you think about educating them about the facts of life and how everything isn't always the way it should be and that they have to learn to deal with those things. It's useless. Kids are too stupid to understand.

After that, people wonder why teens are lost and try to escape reality...

Re:A difficult position

[Oztun]

I hope you have taken the time to explain what sex and porn is. Parental responsibility is completely the answer.

This doesn't mean hiding your children from reality it means educating them about it. Unfortunatley most parents are immature and probably don't get it.

Re:A difficult position

[Oztun]

For another thing, the general populace likes to believe that porn is wrong

This is a protestant/christian belief that the body and sex are an ugly thing. I don't think you'll find this is the popular belief in europe. The reason porn is such a big deal is because these morons make such a big deal about it. Yet its just nature when you watch two animals going at it at dinner time on the discovery channel.

Re:A difficult position

[kbeast]

i've been trolled for an opinion...
pfffft
"you should've turned it off"
la

.kb

Re:A difficult position

[Oztun]

You hit the nail on the head.

The only part you missed was that porn is a big deal because its taboo among the protestants and christians. If they decided that mowing the lawn was taboo tommorow there children would be cutting peoples heads off with edgers next week.

Re:A difficult position

[dfalgoust]

Sure! To raise your kids, hide the part of reality you don't think is appropriate for them and it will magically go away. They will grow in a world where no bad things exist and everything will be for the better. Don't you think about educating them about the facts of life and how everything isn't always the way it should be and that they have to learn to deal with those things. It's useless. Kids are too stupid to understand.

After that, people wonder why teens are lost and try to escape reality...

That is ridiculous. What is appropriate for a 21-year old may not be appropriate for a 14-year old, what is appropriate for a 14-year old may not be appropriate for a 9-year old, and what is appropriate for a 9-year old may not be appropriate for a 5-year old. Most people understand this intuitively. Good parents do censor materials based on their child's age and maturity.

Re:A difficult position

[Ian Wolf]

DING! DING! DING!

We have a winner!

I couldn't even get a phone line in my room.

Re:A difficult position

[Shadowlion]

Hence my reason for prefacing my comments with: Note: as a US citizen, I can only speak for the US porn industry.


--

Re:A difficult position

[marc987]

a 21-year old may not be appropriate for a 14-year old...

The only "not appropriate" is teaching beyond the childs abilities to understand, if a child is exposed to information that he cannot assimilate then it is ignored, if he is exposed to information he cannot assimilate and is dowsed in fear, prejudice, badness etc etc he will hold a general picture of the unassimilated info surrounded by emotional pain/curiosity/guilt etc etc

Seeing naked people doing it is never inappropriate at any age, possibly boring but not wrong; its the authority figures emotional state in relation to "the situation at hand" that can cause structural damage later in the childs growing up.

Re:A difficult position

[American AC in Paris]

Huh. You must have been stapled to your mommy's apron strings as a child. I'll bet the other kids got a kick out of that.

I used to go off into the woods, unsupervised, in grade school.
I used to walk home from school, unsupervised, almost every day.
I sat on my bed and read books, unsupervised.
I climbed trees, unsupervised.
I played video games, unsupervised.
I programmed my old Apple IIe, unsupervised.
I rode my bike all over the neighborhood for entire afternoons, unsupervised.
I played baseball in the street, unsupervised.
I went to the public library, unsupervised.

Yet I'd laugh in your face if you even to even suggest that my parents were negligent. My parents raised me to be an individual with a spirit and responsibilities of my own. I cannot even begin to express how glad I am that they did not tower over me every waking minute of the day. I wouldn't have grown into a person; I would have become a spineless, simpering cur, incapable of taking the slightest bit of independent action or thought.

Don't confuse responsibility with supervision. Constant supervision is most certainly not a responsible way to raise a child.

Re:A difficult position

[canadian_right]

Censorware is not a replacement for parental supervision, but when I can't be looking over my children's shoulder I'm not too worried. Why not? I'm not worried because I have taken the time to explain that there many things they shouldn't be looking at, that if they run across it, the back button is to be pressed, and if that doesn't work, home, then just kill off explorer. Because I actually DO spend a lot of time with my children I know I can trust them to follow these rules. Of course one day they will get curious, but I'm confident it won't warp their minds as I have helped them to become independant, thinking, individuals, who will have had practise making many decisions for themselves.
If you think you need censorware, you need to work on teaching your children that there things they shouldn't be looking at until they are older, and you need to work on building up TRUST between yourself and your children.

Re:A difficult position

[gaudior]

My kids can log onto the internet, any time we are home. The computer is in the family room, where anyone can see what is going on. I check access logs, and we have discussed where and what our kids are permitted to see.

This isn't perfect, however. It doesn't stop the porn-laced spam that drops into our inboxes, or banner ads that are beyond the bounds of good taste. But these events serve as teachable moments, where we can contrast what we have taught and believe as right against what others believe to be right. The same happens when certain words are used in movies we watch as a family. That's the key: as a family

Re:A difficult position

[rark]

I think you're missing the original point -- when your parents let you go out in the woods alone (I assume) they didn't ask the U.S. government to send a swat team in first to kill anything that might harm you and burn out all the poison ivy just for good measure.

*constant* supervision is bad, but expecting everyone to take care of your kids for you is worse.

Re:A difficult position

[Milican]

I agree. The problem is that without censorware kids have access to what these sick online bastards spew out. I am a college student, but when I have kids of my own I don't wan't my kid to have access to pictures of saran wrapped grandma felching out of dead grampa's corpse. That's very traumatic for a young child. There are some real sick fsckers on the Internet and its nice to *try* and keep some of it away from kids on a house hold level (not goverment).

I do not think kids should be accidentally exposed to this crap. When I was a kid I was unsupervised a great deal and went to the woods alot, but I didn't have sexual predators trying to sweet talk my eight year old ass via the Internet either. Kids are not equipped to deal with smooth talking predators. You wouldn't leave your kids unattended in a bad area of town, and with the many bad areas of the Internet I can see where censorware does help. Long live censorware and screw Internet Psychos!

JOhn

Re:A difficult position

[mill]

I never said anything about location.

If they are drug addicts their choices are in reality limited. Often they have been abused as a child and to get the drugs they crave the choice of continuing to abuse or let others abuse their bodies is a "simple" one.

My point is that even though they have "chosen" to participate they are being abused. The "gonzo" films that are being produced nowadays are abusive - choice or no choice.

/mill

Re:A difficult position

[RobNich]

Seeing naked people is NOT what they can find without trying. There is HARDCORE shit out there. I don't even need to describe it. None of it is appropriate for children under a certain age, and a parent makes the decision about when their child is mature enough to see it.

Re:A difficult position

[swordgeek]

Oh yeah. This from someone who can't even take responsibility for their POSTS!

So how do you propose raising kids? Chain them up until they're 18? This is a serious question here--are you planning on not giving your kids any freedom at all as they grow up?

And my kids are doing just fine, thank you. They're learning that freedom requires responsibility, and is not a right.

Re:A difficult position

[mill]

Abuse doesn't require physical force to make you do it. You can be abused even though you have "chosen" to participate.

There are numerous examples of "talent" being coerced to do things they don't want to because they had to. Read something about one actress being coerced into anal sex or the producer wouldn't pay for the surgery she needed for a bad boob job as she was promised. Sure she could choose not do it and face the consequences (risking losing her breasts or whatever).

Btw, since American law doesn't allow certain acts (fisting for example) the producers take that kind of things over to eastern Europe. There you can always find young women "choosing" to do the most vile acts because they need the money to survive.

I read an article (always taken with a large grain of salt because journalists are lying bastards) covering trafficking - mafia-like organizations selling children and women to prostitution and other abuse. I would think pornography is not isolated from such things.

Anyway, my point is that it can be abuse with or without choice.

Btw, I don't believe in censorship or legislation, but that doesn't mean these women (or in a some cases - men) aren't abused.

/mill

Re:A difficult position

[Shadowlion]

Btw, I don't believe in censorship or legislation, but that doesn't mean these women (or in a some cases - men) aren't abused.

I'll grant you all that, but I certainly don't believe that the vast majority of porn stars (at least in the US) are abused. Yes, there may be a case here or there where a porn star is abused or mistreated, but the notion that somebody who participates in porn is automatically a victim of abuse by the mere fact that they participate in porn is nothing more than a crock. Abuse in the US porn industry is more the exception than the rule.

--

Re:A difficult position

[jchristl]

Combine sexuality with visual stimulation, you can very quickly become addicted. What happens with addicts? They start upping their dosage

I'm afraid you don't understand addiction. Addiction occurs when something you desire is then taken away from you, and you crave for it once again. It's the same thing drug pushers do; they give a little of the product away for free, and then they start charging for it afterwards.

As far as I am concerned, I've seem far more problems with the lack of porn than those who've view it. Represses sexuality is far worse than unrepressed.

Re:A difficult position

[TheCarp]

So instead of looking at ascii porn in your living room, he looks at it when he is with his friends

I first viewed porn and foun dit interesting when I was about 7. From the age of about 12 I was regularly viewing porn and masturbating. Honestly, about every person I know was the same way.

Who didn't have a hidden copy of playboy or hustler or under their bed? Or a secret video cassett or two? Hell, in high school there were a couple of guys going around selling videos!

Porn is available, has been available, and will continue to be available no matter what you or anyone do. What is the point of perpetuating this myth that it can be controlled?

The fact is that all this censorship boils down to one thing. It allows parents to fool themselevs into believeing that some imaginary problem is being averted. It helps calm their unfounded paranoia.

Theres a shitload of people in the world. Even some who like to abuse children and murder unsuspecting people. Yup its true. However, they are rare, and we only find them so often because there is such a fuckload of people in the world already.

Masturbating to some porn has never hurt anyone who wasn't already on the edge of reality. Your kid has access to porn. He obviously knows what it is. Nothing you can do, short of treating your hom elike a prison and even home schooling and making sure he has no unsupervised contact with "the outside" and removing doors to bathrooms and bedrooms to get rid of all privacy.

That sthe ONLY way you can ever take all his porn away. That, I can assure you, would be far more damaging to a person than any person than a little masturbation (really what is porn but an aide for masturbation and sexual fantasy?)

Honestly, it should be encouraged. I can't think of a better habbit to get into. Good exercise for the tricepts and forearms (dependant on technique) - and does wonders for a persons general attitude.

-Steve

Re:A difficult position

[marc987]

There is HARDCORE shit out there

Are you referring to pictures of starving children, the iron curtain between the us and mexico, the death penalty?

Illegal material should be dealt with at the source as existing laws provide.

The possibility of falling on illegal content should be addressed but not through censoring software: below a certain age restrictive surfing where only friendly sites can be accessed...and supervision.

Re:A difficult position

[dfalgoust]

The only "not appropriate" is teaching beyond the childs abilities to understand, if a child is exposed to information that he cannot assimilate then it is ignored, if he is exposed to information he cannot assimilate and is dowsed in fear, prejudice, badness etc etc he will hold a general picture of the unassimilated info surrounded by emotional pain/curiosity/guilt etc etc

Seeing naked people doing it is never inappropriate at any age, possibly boring but not wrong; its the authority figures emotional state in relation to "the situation at hand" that can cause structural damage later in the childs growing up.

Spoken like someone with no children (or someone who is still a child himself).

I have a difficult time envisioning a scenario where a parent who gives a damn about his kid would find allowing a 9-year old to watch hard-core porn to be a positive for his or her child's development.

Hell, I have a difficult time envisioning any age where seeing goatse.cx could be construed as healthy. I'm 27, and I'm still emotionally scarred from that hidden link...

Re:A difficult position

[palo0019]

Ah yes, outside, that's much better. You may feel you have little control of what your kids can do in your home, just imagine what they can do at their friend's house (as that is what will invariably happen if you kick them out). I just found out my nephew (10) saw Scary Movie at a friend's house (an NC-17-worthy movie if I ever saw one). Obviously his mother was furious and he's no longer allowed over at that person's house (and I believe she complained to the parents, as well). Try all you like, but kids are humans, not pets. They're going to do what they want, and they're going to see and do things that you don't want them to. You can only try to guide them. I don't see how kicking them out is a better solution than having censorware while you're not available to keep an eye on them.

Re:A difficult position

[dlkf]

. Constant supervision is most certainly not a responsible way to raise a child.

You are confusing constant supervision with dictation of action. Supervising a child does not remove individuality from them. Supervising a child does not mean that you have to prevent them from making their own decisions. Supervising a child does not mean that you have to prevent them from making mistakes. Supervision means being aware of the environment that your child is in. Constant supervision is necessary in any environment untill the child is capable of handling the environment on their own. Whether that is the living room, the back yard, school, their friends house, etc. While it is not irresponsible to allow children to play in the woods in grade school, it is irresponsible to not go with them untill they learn how to survive in the woods on their own.

A responsible parent ensures that a mistake that a child makes becomes fixed and that the child learns from it. Whether it is fixed by the child, when possible, or by the parent, when the child cant. A parent cannot fix the mistakes their child makes if they are not around. If the child has not been taught how to fix their own mistakes when not supervised, serious accidents can happen.

Re:A difficult position

[cougio]

Woa! Some answers... I didn't mean to allow a 5 year to watch hardcore or goat.cx... I only said that blocking some content and allowing others is NOT a way to raise a child the parent of my post suggested... It can in no way replace the role parents must play in their education. The world would be a much nicer place if people stopped relying on TV and the net to raise their kids. But my main point was that prevention and teaching children what is appropriate from them is much more effective than a filter.

Re:A difficult position

[thopkins]

Actually I believe freedom IS a right, once you're 18 anyway.

Re:A difficult position

[dillon_rinker]

There is no way in the world I would let my four-year-old drive a car, or go across the street by herself, or stay at a mall unattended, or walk around the block with a sixteen-year-old boy who thought she was cute and who couldn't keep his eyes off of her. These are all appropriate things to permit a sixteen year old girl to do (maybe - depending on the boy :) Surely you would agree that some actions are appropriate for a teen that aren't appropriate for a preschooler. Why not some knowledge? Would you try to teach differentiation of transcendental functions to a child who hadn't grasped counting? Or fractal transformations to a child that hadn't mastered the names of shapes? Do you think that gradually teaching children what they need to know can be a good thing?

Let's talk about death. My four-year-old does not need a gut-level understanding of the horror of the holocaust. She doesn't need to see bodies in a morgue. She doesn't need to know how horrific death can be. For that matter, she doesn't have to realize that she will die some day. She does have to realize that her 70-year-old grandparents may not always be here. Why? Real, deep knowledge of her own and others' mortality is too much for her to handle at her age; it would lead (unnecessarily) to nightmares, to a fear of risk-taking, to a fear of the world in general. Can't climb a tree, might fall down and die. Can't pet the dog, might rip me to shreds. Can't go to sleep; clown will eat me :) And what would the benefit be? Why does she have to know the horrors of the world NOW? However, the reality is that her grandparents COULD go at any time. She needs preparation for that. If she contracted some disease that would kill her, she'd have to realize that she was going to die. As she grows and matures and becomes more and more capable of dealing with reality, I will ABSOLUTELY see to it she has the knowledge necessary to deal with reality.

Let's talk about sex. I was a teacher for a while, and one of the legal requirements of my job was to report suspicions of child abuse. If a young child was able to give a detailed explanation of oral sex, the parents would find themselves in a police station pretty quickly. Too-extensive knowledge of sexuality at that age is a strong indicator of sexual abuse, and with good reason.

Do I think that anyone else should decide how I raise my child? No. Do I think anyone else should decide what I see? No. Do I think that I should decide how best to protect my child and provide her with the knowledge she needs? Absolutely.

On the other pseudopod, I knew a family which became EXTREMELY upset because someone used the word 'penis' in front of their 17-year-old daughter (the word was used clinically to describe a medical procedure). DO I think that those parents are a few miles around the bend? Absolutely.

To raise your kids, hide the part of reality you don't think is appropriate for them and it will magically go away.
No, gradually reveal reality - not all at once. It's too much for them.

Re:A difficult position

[marc987]

I have a difficult time envisioning a scenario where a parent who gives a damn about his kid would find allowing a 9-year old to watch hard-core porn to be a positive for his or her child's development.

I agree, also: I have difficulty envisioning a child falling on hardcore porn by mistake as negative to the child's development, unless the parent, at a loss or righteous, gets emotional and leaves the child with the impression that they caused the adults discomfort.

Hell, I have a difficult time envisioning any age where seeing goatse.cx could be construed as healthy. I'm 27, and I'm still emotionally scarred from that hidden link...

I was shocked at 9 years old when i fell on open heart surgery, your intellectual motor generates emotional feedback, not always a pleasant experience.

Re:A difficult position

[dfalgoust]

I agree, also: I have difficulty envisioning a child falling on hardcore porn by mistake as negative to the child's development, unless the parent, at a loss or righteous, gets emotional and leaves the child with the impression that they caused the adults discomfort.

I'm sorry, but I hardly think that's true. Kids below a certain age/maturity level should NOT be viewing pornographic materials. They just aren't equipped to deal with it.

I was shocked at 9 years old when i fell on open heart surgery, your intellectual motor generates emotional feedback, not always a pleasant experience.

Ahem...have you actually seen goatse.cx? I've seen brain surgery on cable before...I don't think you can compare the two.

Re:A difficult position

[marc987]

They just aren't equipped to deal with it.

please explain this

Ahem...have you actually seen goatse.cx? I've seen brain surgery on cable before...I don't think you can compare the two.

Yes I did see goatse.cx, at 41, and i know what you mean, personnally the experience of surgery at 9 years old was worse.

Re:A difficult position

[plague3106]

Are you kidding me? Just what do you consider out of line? I really doubt you say ads for hardcore porn if you were looking for computer eqiupment. I use the internet everyday, and work for a web development company.

TV and the movies are different...but not by much. What do you think you'll see in an R rated movie anyway? Duh.

Back up your claim. Point me to websites that have banners that are 'way out of line.' Until you do, i have to believe you're either a troll, or have such uptight standards as to require women wear clothing that show no skin.

Re:A difficult position

[swordgeek]

True enough; freedom is a right once you legally become an adult. However, we're talking about raising kids here, so that's something of a moot point.

Regardless, even as an adult your right to freedom only goes so far. You're only free to operate within the law, in what amounts to a responsible manner. As parents, we have to teach our kids what responsibility is, what it means with regards to freedom, and then give them some space to learn for themselves. Following your kids around every single minute for 18 years is _not_ the best way to raise adults capable of dealing with society, etc.

Re:A difficult position

[Malaveldt]

While you're at it, follow Eisenhower into the grave. Wait a minute... I've been trolled. Damn. :^P

Re:A difficult position

[thopkins]

The thing is you said your kids are learning that freedom is not a right. They already know this is true for a minor, I don't see what you're teaching them.

Re:A difficult position

[Pooua]

this is a complete load. most porn consumers aren't addicts any more than someone who drinks beer, wine, or even vodka regularly is an alcoholic.

Alcohol-related accidents kill 25,000 people a year in the United States. Alcohol-related accidents are the leading cause of death for people age 18 to 24. I find little comfort in your choice of comparison.

at worst the individual may view the material more often, and maybe they'll purchase more of it, but there is nothing to support the notion that someone who grew up on Penthouse or Hustler is suddenly going to be grabbing little girls and boys off the playground to star in the home movie version of "Snuff" or "Silence of the Lambs". there is just no slippery slope here.

There is a huge market for "white slavery." That's the practice of trapping someone--often after kidnapping them--and forcing them to serve as prostitutes. There was a particularly gruesome case in New Mexico, in which a gang of Mexican men kidnapped a woman from her own driveway, as she was returning from the grocery store. After using her to make several porn videos, they murdered her (this is a well-known case from the '80s that has been in the local newspapers several times over the years). Then, there is Lisa Calico, who was riding her bike in Valencia, New Mexico, when two men kidnapped her; she has never been heard nor found since then. I even knew a woman whose coffee at a restaurant was drugged; she felt strange, started walking towards the bathroom, and passed out in the aisle. When she fainted, a nearby table full of men got up and left. There were other cases of kidnapping from that restaurant.

Most of these cases are unknown to the general public, just as most cases of illegal immigration are unknown to the public. There is no question that thousands of otherwise-uninvolved people a year are victimized to feed the porn habits of people who crave this material.

Re:A difficult position

[Pooua]

I'm afraid you don't understand addiction. Addiction occurs when something you desire is then taken away from you, and you crave for it once again. It's the same thing drug pushers do; they give a little of the product away for free, and then they start charging for it afterwards.

You obviously don't know what you are talking about. No one has to take away the substance to which you are addicted; your body constantly craves more. The addicted keeps increasing the time he is drugged and the amount he is drugged.

As far as I am concerned, I've seem far more problems with the lack of porn than those who've view it. Represses sexuality is far worse than unrepressed.

NONSENSE!! Anyone who reads enough police reports knows better. Most sexual assualts are committed by people of unrepressed or nearly-unrepressed sexuality, not those who are "celebate." It's you bunch of perverts who are responsible for the spread of sexually-transmitted disease. It's you bunch of perverts who are responsible for rape. It's you bunch of perverts who are responsible for white slavery.

There is a huge market for "white slavery." That's the practice of trapping someone--often after kidnapping them--and forcing them to serve as prostitutes. There was a particularly gruesome case in New Mexico, in which a gang of Mexican men kidnapped a woman from her own driveway, as she was returning from the grocery store. After using her to make several porn videos, they murdered her (this is a well-known case from the '80s that has been in the local newspapers several times over the years). Then, there is Lisa Calico, who was riding her bike in Valencia, New Mexico, when two men kidnapped her; she has never been heard nor found since then. I even knew a woman whose coffee at a restaurant was drugged; she felt strange, started walking towards the bathroom, and passed out in the aisle. When she fainted, a nearby table full of men got up and left. There were other cases of kidnapping from that restaurant.

Most of these cases are unknown to the general public, just as most cases of illegal immigration are unknown to the public. There is no question that thousands of otherwise-uninvolved people a year are victimized to feed the porn habits of people who crave this material.

Re:A difficult position

[Pooua]

I think you're missing the original point -- when your parents let you go out in the woods alone (I assume) they didn't ask the U.S. government to send a swat team in first to kill anything that might harm you and burn out all the poison ivy just for good measure.

*YOU* are the one missing the point! When he was a child, there weren't people raising and releasing into those woods things that might harm or kill him. Today, that is *exactly* what people are doing! The dangers on the Internet aren't native to the wires and computers; they were put there by people! People are responsible for the content that is online; porn and spam didn't just evolve out of white noise. Not only that, but people have created a raging torrent of the material. Thus, it is completely understandable and even imperative that the government police the material.

Re:A difficult position

[Squeeze Truck]

Hear hear!

When I understand why people who don't want to raise have kids, I will know everything there is to know about people.

Re:A difficult position

[swordgeek]

Ah, Finally!

Wonderful post. WONDERFUL post. Your kids will almost certainly turn out just fine. Thanks.

Re:A difficult position

[Squeeze Truck]

When I was a child...

I had latchkey-kid friends who would watch R-rated movies on cable after school. (For you young 'uns, 20 years ago cable was the big danger to children, not the internet.)

My parents let me out of the house, but they always wanted to know where I was going, when I would be back, what I planned to do, and most importantly who was going to be there.

No responsible parent, no playtime. It was impossible for me to see an R rated movie like "Scary Movie" (without deliberate defiance of my parents' wishes) until I was 18 years old.

Now I'm a parent, and I understand that nearly all the movies I missed sucked anyway. (Thanks Mom & Dad!)

My point is, even when I was not at home, the supervision continued. Before, during and after.

Re:A difficult position

[Squeeze Truck]

If you find hardcore porn to be boring, I surmise you must have seen a ton of it.

Some people find it stimulating, and some people find it revolting, but no one ever found it boring except through constant exposure.

Re:A difficult position

[radsoft]

I'm glad you're not my parent.

Re:A difficult position

[Squeeze Truck]

This is a protestant/christian belief that the body and sex are an ugly thing.

Oh, rubbish. The sex industry is generally frowned upon in every country in the world including Thailand.

It is a Protestant belief, Catholic belief, Greek & Eastern othodox belief, Muslim belief, and Buddhist belief (Theravada and Mahayana). Also, the pornography controls in the former Soviet Union and today in China were/are quite strong (China's are *very* strong). So I must assume that it is a Marxist/Lenninist and Maoist belief as well.

I know some parts of Europe are more liberal about porn than some parts of the US, but that doesn't make "fear of sexuality" a "problem" particular to stodgy and puritanical christian Americans.

Re:A difficult position

[Squeeze Truck]

Let's toss that one around and ask: do we have any evidence supporting the opposite? No. We must take his word for it. Most, if not all, adult men have at some time been exposed to pornographic material (this is a fact). Of these men, only a fraction so small that it can barely be represented with numbers have turned into these psychopathic monsters you so colorfully describe (thisis also a fact). How in the world did you get the idea that there exist a relation between the two?

I'll grant everything you just said. Saying pornography leads to sex crimes uses the same messed-up logic that proves marijuana leads to drinking Drain-O.
However, saying pornography is harmless is also untrue. Pornography is an addiction, very similar to smoking or gambling. It is not uncommon for men who consume porn to "consume" it at several times per day, and spend thousands of dollars on it every year.

It can be considered a victimless addiction, except for the times that you can't "get it up" for your wife/girlfriend because real women don't turn you on as much as airbrushed ones, or because you're already tired from making sweet love to Miss November.

How would it be if I just said porn consumption is at best pathetic?

Re:A difficult position

[Oztun]

Obviously you've never been to europe and watched local television. Take a trip and then tell me that.

Re:A difficult position

[Oztun]

Oh yeah not only is did I see porn on local tv in several countries in europe but in Japan they had vending machines with soiled undies and much worse.

Re:A difficult position

[BBowden18]

Censorship has no place when you are paying a large fee to access. If parents are worried about what their children see while surfing the net then maybe they should not let them surf alone at all. Or maybe they need to spend a little bit more to purchase a "Net Nanny" to control the content that they are seeing / as well as use some of the new features that are provided for by 99% of the IPS's. The Internet is as close to true freedom as anyone will ever see. This is the new Revolutionary war - I want as much content as they are willing to give - If I do not want to see something then I can either turn it off or keep surfing - but to have some group, person or other censor my content on purpose is criminal. I you as a parent (and you should be) are so concerned about what your child see then maybe you need to keep the "censor-ware" on 24/7 because while you are in the house doing one thing - I will bet that you kids are surfing places that they shouldn't. The Net = Freedom - Censorship = Slavery

Re:A difficult position

[marc987]

Some people find it stimulating, and some people find it revolting, but no one ever found it boring except through constant exposure.

I'm talking about children, a six year old for example, seeing a porn site while surfing the net, they would find it neither stimulating nor revolting, uninteresting probably but not revolting unless already primed in the art of righteousness.

Re:A difficult position

[rark]

No, but nature/god/what have you released far more dangerous things into the woods in which *I* played as a child. Cougars and rattle snakes are generally much more deadly than porn, spam or even bomb making instructions. And that doesn't even take into account the possibility that some pervert might have been hiding back there (a remote, but scary, possibility).

The world is not safe. It has never been safe (at least not since God cast Adam and Eve out ofthe garden, if you happen to believe that. I don't) The only time you'll be safe is when you're dead. The only time your children will be safe is when they are dead. It's your responsibility to raise your children, and protect them as you see fit. It is not my responsibility to do so, nor is it your responsibility to raise my children and protect them as you see fit.

This isn't to say that real dangers shouldn't be dealt with. I'm all for killing or confining cougars who have eaten humans, but I am against doing the same for cougars who have not. In a similar vein, I am all for killing or confining those who would rape or kill those of any age, but esspecially children, but I cannot condone the outlawing of porn (spam is a different matter -- defined as that which uses other peoples resources it is theft, not speech, which is the issue) even though I feel that it is used to spread societal memes of female subordination and male domination/violence. To do so would be to institute laws against thought. That's a much bigger crime against humanity than anything ever said.

Re:A difficult position

[plague3106]

Ok, i could see how this might be flaimbait. But it is honestly the attitude i see with most middle class americans aged 35-50.

Re:A difficult position

[Vegeta99]

As a teen myself, It seems the MPAA has increased strength of ratings. For instance - 3 "fucks" in a movie can give it an instant R. I mean, sure, South Park: Bigger Longer and Uncut was a BIT RAW, but it hasn't made me less of a person. With cable, parent leaves house, switch to the porn, or whatever. With this nice little filter software my school has (My mother trusts me enough as that the computer is MINE, in MY room.), I can't even visit a site that HAS the word "bitch" in it, Trying to read Forum2000. Fact is, it's NOT going to hurt your kid. I grew up, pretty much setting my own limits. "Go your own way, be responsible," my mom said. My dad did exactly the opposite, controlling everything I do. Please, for the love of God, don't oppress your kids. What are they going to do when they're adults and don't know the first thing about the real world?

Re:A difficult position

[Squeeze Truck]

I'm posting from Japan.

Yes, there are vending machines here with soiled undies. The residents find them revolting.

The Japanese public considers pornography and sex crime to be serious social problems.

Re:A difficult position

[dfalgoust]

(1) I can't believe I'd actually have to explain such a thing. A 9-year old isn't mature enough to deal with explicit sex, because 9-year olds are by and large immature. Most people grasp this kind of thing intuitively.

(2) Surgery at 9 may be worse than goatse.cx at 41, but I guarantee that goatse.cx is worse if you hold the age constant.

Re:A difficult position

[marc987]

A 9-year old isn't mature enough to deal with explicit sex, because 9-year olds are by and large immature

circular argument: kids aren't mature because there immature

what do you mean "cannot deal with" explicit sex, what are the theoretical results of exposure to material that is beyound the grasp or interests of children of a certain age.

Re:A difficult position

[GregWebb]

(Not a parent, so this is an abstract question)

I'd do that, BUT below 11-12 (for example) I'd do positive filtering (you can't look at unless I've said so) as well. There's far too much rubbish out there and I don't want to scare kids who make an innocent mistake.

Believe me, there's far worse stuff than porn on the net.

Re:A difficult position

[dfalgoust]

I know I shouldn't try to explain common-sense propositions to those who lack common sense, but here goes: Kids are, virtually by definition, immature. Period. Anyone who tells you otherwise hasn't spent an appreciable amount of his adult life around kids (or, of course, is a kid himself).

Re:A difficult position

[marc987]

ok so kids are more or less immature depending on their age, this is the definition of kids...

(Now what do you mean "cannot deal with" explicit sex?)

(What are the theoretical results of exposure to material that is beyound the grasp or interests of children of a certain age?)

When a child asks what where they doing after mistakenly seeing explicit sex for a few secounds before you grabbed the remote and switched the station: what are the plain english answers for a 3/6/9/12 year old? Is this the problem.

Re:A difficult position

[dfalgoust]

This isn't limited to pr0n. I wouldn't want a six-year old to see Saving Private Ryan, either. Kids should etain some measure of innocence during their formative years.

How old are you? I'm guessing early teens. Do you have kids? I'm guessing no. Most parents will understand this point instinctively: innocence lost is a harm in and of itself. I don't think that most kids will be turned into promiscuous sociopaths by seeing sex and violence on television, but they do lose a measure of innocence when they are exposed to such material before they are emotionally mature enough to handle it, and that loss is reason enough for a parent to restrict what his or her child sees.

Re:A difficult position

[marc987]

One thing at a time:

seeing explicit sexual behaviour...leads to loss of a mesure of innocence...because they can't handle it.

What causes loss of innocence in explicit sexual behaviour, what can't they handle?

Big Brother

[jakdin]

Long Live Big Brother!!

Jak Din

Re:Big Brother

[TopShelf]

Are you kidding? That show got lousy ratings last summer - and besides, Cassandra should have won.

Re:Big Brother

[jakdin]

...That show got lousy ratings...

What the hell are you talking about? Go rent or read '1984' and then you can post on topic.

Jak Din

Re:Big Brother

[gaudior]

YHBT
HAND

Re:Big Brother

[jakdin]

ytybsatbhm
Jak Din

Censoring the net instead of setting up familynets

[Rares Marian]

I don't get it. During the BBS days you had to provide a copy of your drivers' license to prove you were old enough to view adult content.

You could even prevent certain phone numbers from being dialed.

Are people so lazy they can't request home to home DSL access instead of full blown Internet?

Yes, I know it's not offered yet, but neither were a lot of features now available. The same people who can keep ISPs from daring to set-up metered access can't take the time to request the services they want?

Imagine for example:

You set up an agreement with a neighbor that one DSL modem dial number is for full blown Internet and one for the home-to-home net. Give your kids the home-to-home net and access the Internet yourself on your own time.

Could you imagine

[HerrGlock]

How utterly dredful 99% of the content a person has to go through. People think their problems are the worst there ever were, people think they are the only ones with THIS problem. Well, anyone with this job has got to see the exact same problems with the names changed a hundred times a day.

Hey, that's a good job for someone who is really depressed. If they figure out that their problems are not unique and that they are not the only ones with that problem, they may realize that others are also overcoming it daily.

Then again, it may not be for those who internalize other's problems. A really good empath would be insane after about an hour.

Oh well, AOL has been looking over all the messages and traffic into and out of their domain. This is supposed to be news?

DanH
Cav Pilot's Reference Page

Re:Could you imagine

[Pfhreakaz0id]

dude, put it in perspective. You want to be REALLY depressed? My wife was a child welfare worker for a year and a half (investigated child abuse). You wouldn't believe the situations so many kids grow up in. It's just sad. I have no idea how she did it.
---

Wow

[To0n]

Stringent Rules and tough personal calls on what is right and wrong morally, and allways having to take the company line on that matter.

Only thing that would get me to take that job is if it paid well (which from the sound of it, it did, for an entry level position)

I guess there should be some congratulation for fee speech from AOL, as well as their grounds for rightful censorship, and security of personal information. Just as many bad things to say against all those as well.

Re:Wow

[zietlow]

Having worked for AOL at one of thier out-sourced call centers. I know 1) they didn't pay very good and 2) personal information was easily accessable to people than one would think..among other things. The pay wasn't very good it was only $8 starting out and if you were super lucky and had your 8 minute call time average, among other things. Hurry up get them off the phone, we don't care if it is fixed, as long as you have an 8 minute call time, you would get a whole $.50 raise. And personal information was pretty easy to get if you knew the right people. Most people who worked there would look up the information on people in a chat room, or someone they met on the service. Turn over was so high at this place training classes were weekly and they were always full. So you would become friends with someone who you went to training with and became friends with they would normally look up the info. You know..doing something for a friend I had friends that would do it for me when I was there and didn't want to look it up myself. Wanted a new screenname...wanted to see if it was avaliable Just go and look in the database. Hell, some early accounts some got CRIS (the program that gives the member info out) access..some how magically acheiving this "rainman" status as it was called. You always had it beaten into your skull that it is always audited and they are always watching you and what you do. I found this not to be the case except in one instance. A friend looked up her personal information and so did a co-worker, she was aware of this when he did it, and they both got fried. This was the only time that I can recall for as long as they were in town that AOL had followed the internal policy of checking CRIS access and seeing who was looking at what. And as far as the Ending of this article I had a similar instance with customers calling up saying that people were stalking each other. They would have thier new screennames and thier home phone #'s and address. And how did they get this information? Internal people. I had people crying to me on the phone about how these people were never leaving them alone and asking why I couldn't help them any. I would have to turn them away to talk to one of these guys who wrote the article. And as far as the internal people what could I do...i had no clue who was doing it. AOL wasn't looking at who was looking at what records. And some Internal people would just hand out the information to thier friends. But this is what happens when you hire anyone off the street. For tech support for a major ISP and doing training like I did, I should have not of had to give a class on how to use the mouse, like I did on many occasions.

Re:Wow

[jafac]

zeitlow wrote:
The pay wasn't very good it was only $8 starting out and if you were super lucky and had your 8 minute call time average, among other things. Hurry up get them off the phone, we don't care if it is fixed, as long as you have an 8 minute call time, you would get a whole $.50 raise

This is pretty standard throughout the tech support industry. At my company, we flirted with policies like that for many years, and there's definately that emphasis for first line support, but in the end, we all realized, and 2nd line had to make this point to management, that quantity of calls does not equal quality, and in some cases, using bandaids to mask problems will make the situation worse, because if it doesn't get into more capable hands, and get some time spent, a bug can end up costing the company a lot of money in answering repeated calls on the same problem. Once the more experienced techs can point to some problem like this; "we get X calls a day on this issue, costing us Y. The method of dealing with this problem is a reinstall, but we never get the troubleshooting info because nobody wants us to spend the time working on it. All it will take is one 2nd line tech working on this case, and we can reduce the call time for this issue to the time it takes to get the customer to download the patch. Tech bulletins can eliminate some of those calls, and the next release will eliminate all of them if we can get the bugfix worked into the next release (which happens a lot less often than you'd think)."
It's just a matter of explaining the costs to the bean counters.

Re:Wow

[zietlow]

To the best of my understanding, this was AOL wide policy because the AOL coporate trainer, and the other techs I would talk to on the job they would say they were all pushed for low call times. And this was in 97/98 And by that time AOL would have had thier stuff together and know that not all problems could be fixed in this time. Granted you might take approx 200-300 calls a day non stop for your 8 hour shift.
basically you had to quick give them an attempted solution get then off the phone and let them try it on thier own. If it doesn't work, then they will call back...sit on hold forever and get to the next technician.
Didn't seem very cost smart, but this was how it was going for years before I got there and will probably be going on for years to come.

Outside my purview

[dorzak]

I work for an ISP, doing tech support. I started at about 30% higher per hour, and Issues like this are the issue of Customer Service, and not tech support, thank god.

As for the familynet idea, you can do it with a variety of ways not requiring the ISP offer it.

As for censorware that was mentioned above, I have also resisted installing on my in-laws computer. They have a 16 year old who is turning into a real slut, because even the best censorware is not perfect. Instant Messaging is a problem, and considered installing Cybersnoop. It doesn't censor automatically, rather it logs the pages visited. I know you will find porn even on accident out there, clicking off it quickly is one thing. Lingering is another. And yes, pop-ups look different in the logs than lingering.

Re:Outside my purview

[khym]

As for censorware that was mentioned above, I have also resisted installing on my in-laws computer. They have a 16 year old who is turning into a real slut, because even the best censorware is not perfect.

Because of imperfect censorware? Teens have had hyper-active sexdrives since the begining of humanity, and have grown promiscous without the help on the Internet. How do you know her current sexuality has anything to do with the Internet?

Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose that you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.

Re:Outside my purview

[peccary]

As for censorware that was mentioned above, I have also resisted installing on my in-laws computer. They have a 16 year old who is turning into a real slut, because even the best censorware is not perfect.

Well, what's her screen name? Don't be such a tease!

Re:Outside my purview

[Regolith]

I'm assuming that since it is your in-laws, they probably have a Windows box, so how is censorware going to help exactly? I would guess that a lot of teens would be able to circumvent or remove the software with relative ease. And if not, there is always Anonymizer.com and Rewebber, or modifying the logfile after surfing. Do her parents even know that half of that stuff is possible?

If someone wants to access something, there really aren't too many ways to stop them. When I was in HS, the sysadmin had to basically turn the school's lab into a bunch of vegetables that weren't even capable of running Word reliably before I gave up from lack of interest. I'm not sure what the real value of these things are. Not a lot can stop a determined teen.

I personally believe that counseling and actually discussing things with your kids is a much more effective and natural way to deal with things. Don't blame the Internet when you fail to do your job as parents.

-----

-----

Censorware is used to prevent competition

[Rares Marian]

McAfee WebScan blocks out competing products and very little else.

Censorware companies block out criticism and send threats to peacefire.org.

It's called censorware for a reason. Tell your parents that the next time they can't see www.whitehouse.gov, it's because the weather report on the site says, "Winter is hard on cars".

Several censorware companies routinely and broadly block out university students' web pages or those of homestead users, such as users of geocities, fortunecity, homestead.net, just to fill in their quota.

Mashed potatos

[Anonymous Coward]

For any that don't know, 'If I knew it was gonna be that kinda party I woulda sticked my dick in the mashed potatoes' is from a Beasty Boys song. I have to wonder if the censor knew that, it may have changed her opinion.

I had a roommate that almost drive off the road laughing hysterically when he heard that line!

AOL might not be the only one...

[yendor]

From my professional work I've learned that most ISP's don't work with "ethical guidelines" when it comes to privacy... the big companys might have them but it's mostly up to sysadmins and the techs to make their own rules.
I think that most people respect privacy but when it's a big company that claims to respect customers privacy it's realy bad.

AOL have clueless users but that donesn't mean that AOL are allowed to do what they like with them.

// yendor


--
It could be coffe.... or it could just be some warm brown liquid containing lots of caffeen.

The article does not

[www.sorehands.com]

mention several things:

• The qualifications of the people for determing porn. But, that may be the point of the article since there is no real qualifications.
• The failure of the CyberPatrol list that they use for censoring. Ever try to call into AOL to report a wrongly blocked site?
• About when the AOL people go overboard on censoring home pages. I don't expect them to be able to balance the issues of free speech, protected speech, libel, and pornography. That is different from the stalking threat which was cited.

Re:The article does not

[ShaunC]

All three of the things you mentioned are beyond the scope of the person who wrote the article. She was working the TOSNames mailboxes, there are separate mailboxes (and separate teams) for files and user home pages.

Gotta admit though, I'd love to hear war stories from people who used to work TOSFiles. Imagine being "the guy who downloads porn all day, to see if it's really porn..."

Shaun

Poor moderation

[willis]

I can't believe this got moderated as "insightful" -- it's both offensive and not funny. (and, shows no "insight" into the joke it was attached to).

willis.

Spooky, but good read.

[Jace of Fuse!]

One thing that bothers me, though...

Ours was one team at America Online, but there are others, monitoring violations in e-mail, on member Web sites, and throughout the company's staple, instant messages .

Is this to lead me to believe that anytime someone uses AIM, that it's being monitor?

I know that ICQ is peer to peer, sending messages directly to the other person's IP, but AIM doesn't seem to do this unless you use Direct Connection.

Until having read that line, I just assumed AOL had better things to do than monitor conversations and e-mail. fnord

"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"

Re:Spooky, but good read.

[Sheeple Police]

During my days of AOL, which was about 3 days before I realized how incredibly lame it was, was that you could use a keyword (Keyword: TOS) to report a "TOS Violation" When reporting IMs, you simply pasted in the chat and they would "investigate" it. Whether this meant they analyzed the logs to see if what they said is true, or simply accepted your word on the paste job, I do not know. But the belief always given was that they weren't watching until someone asked them too.

Re:Spooky, but good read.

[jgerman]

You know, I never really thought about the fact that AOL may be logging and possibly monitoring AIM content. AIM is about the only good thing to come from AOL as far as I'm concerned. It's a very quick and easy way for friends to get in touch with me while I'm at work, and also a convenience in the office to communicate with co workers. I'm sure other companies use it in the same way. Kinda scary that company info, and of course my personal messages could be logged.

I'm pretty sure I'll never get around to implement it (too many other projects), but what we need is a plugin for aim that allows you to associate a public key with a name on your buddy list... whenver you IM that person it is automatically encrypted, and automatically decrypted on the other end by the receivers private key. Let AOL fill their logs with encrypted gibberish.

This may r may not really be an issue, but I'd rather be safe than sorry. Of course the only way to be truly safe is through not using AIM for anything sensitive.

Re:Spooky, but good read.

[scrain]

As someone who used to work for AOL ('til the TW merger finalized, at least) here's the scoop.

No... AOL doesn't scan or log IM content either on the service or via AIM or ICQ. There's just too many of them to even consider doing it. The last number I heard about volume was upwards of 750 million IM's a day, and that was at least a year ago.

The IM's that they're talking about in the article are ones reported to the CAT teams via what used to be the TOSIM screenname/notify AOL tools. Those were notoriously easy to try and fake by posting in whatever you wanted. They changed it to use only the 'Notify AOL' button in AOL 5.0 and later as the only acceptable way of reporting. The button adds a verifiable token value to a hidden field in the report to ensure that it's not faked content.

scott

Re:Spooky, but good read.

[chrisvr]

...what we need is a plugin for aim that allows you to associate a public key with a name on your buddy list... whenver you IM that person it is automatically encrypted, and automatically decrypted on the other end by the receivers private key.

Or another product that recognizes the need for security and builds it in... like Sametime. A government agency actually uses this to communicate confidential info at regular staff meetings between officers spread around the world.

AIM is great for casual use but when people start to use it for business purposes, they are potentially exposing really sensitive info to the world. Instant Messaging is a wonderful business tool but without security it's no good.

(BTW Sametime allows you to message AIM users as well, although not with the same level of security)

Re:Spooky, but good read.

[plague3106]

I doubt AIM is monitored at all. Thats why they provide the warn and block buttons. I doubt there's any policing there at all.

In AOL, there's a button on the IM window that you can use to send the IM to the TOS people, should someone say something you don't like. Otherwise i don't think they have the manpower to watch EVERY IM.

Sick people

[kruczkowski]

Come to prove that their are a lot of sick people. I don't know if this will grow or fall in popularity with the Internet.

Re:Sick people

[Loundry]

As long as there have been people, there have been people that you would consider "sick." This holds true for every person. But what is "sick"? What is "sick" to one is fun/good/moral to another. And that holds true for all opinions.

I think what is more interesting about this article is it shows how the Internet has allowed people to explore all of their taboo thoughts and fantasies. As it turns out, many thoughts and fantasies are not as taboo as one would think, if judges tabooness in terms of numbers of aficionados.

AOL and information

[zietlow]

Having worked for AOL at one of thier out-sourced call centers. I know 1) they didn't pay very good and 2) personal information was easily accessable to people than one would think..among other things.
The pay wasn't very good it was only $8 starting out and if you were super lucky and had your 8 minute call time average, among other things. Hurry up get them off the phone, we don't care if it is fixed, as long as you have an 8 minute call time, you would get a whole $.50 raise.

And personal information was pretty easy to get if you knew the right people. Most people who worked there would look up the information on people in a chat room, or someone they met on the service. Turn over was so high at this place training classes were weekly and they were always full. So you would become friends with someone who you went to training with and became friends with they would normally look up the info. You know..doing something for a friend I had friends that would do it for me when I was there and didn't want to look it up myself. Wanted a new screenname...wanted to see if it was avaliable Just go and look in the database. Hell, some early accounts some got CRIS (the program that gives the member info out) access..some how magically acheiving this "rainman" status as it was called. You always had it beaten into your skull that it is always audited and they are always watching you and what you do a total Big Brother thing. I found this not to be the case except in one instance. A friend looked up her own personal information on her account and so did a co-worker, she was aware of this when he did it, and they both got fried. This was the only time that I can recall for as long as they were in town that AOL had followed the internal policy of checking CRIS access and seeing who was looking at what.

And as far as the Ending of this article I had a similar instance with customers calling up saying that people were stalking each other. They would have thier new screennames and thier home phone #'s and address. And how did they get this information? Internal people. I had people crying to me on the phone about how these people were never leaving them alone and asking why I couldn't help them any. I would have to turn them away to talk to one of these guys who wrote the article. And as far as the internal people what could I do...i had no clue who was doing it. AOL wasn't looking at who was looking at what records. And some Internal people would just hand out the information to thier friends. But this is what happens when you hire anyone off the street. For tech support for a major ISP and doing training like I did, I should have not of had to give a class on how to use the mouse, like I did on many occasions.

Re:Censoring the net instead of setting up familyn

[Punto]

I don't get it. During the BBS days you had to provide a copy of your drivers' license to prove you were old enough to view adult content.

No.

My porn directory is still c:\ter400\download\pictures, because most of the porn I have I downloaded from BBSs. I was 14 then.

And it was so much easier. You just selected the files, and download them. No popups, no spam, no 'FREE!!' signs everywere. I would just chat with the sysop (probably a 16 years old kid) and ask 'where is the porn?'

Good times.

--

Hmm...

[Scoria]

They're monitoring our instant messages?

Aren't these supposed to be (well, sort of) private?

I know that it's definitely possible, as almost all instant messages (the ones that aren't sent via a direct connection) pass through the AOL servers.

I'm not sure, but wouldn't this be in violation of a law or two?

Re:Hmm...

[RobHornick]

No. They don't monitor instant messages. The person who wrote the article was responsible for the TOS Names/Profiles division of AOL and even if they did monitor IMs he (she?) would have had nothing to do with it. But anyways, AOL has a thing where you can "submit" an instant message to the CAT (Community Action Team) for review if it contains a violation of the TOS, and these IMs are reviewed. If they contain a TOS violation it will (theoretically) be actioned against the offender's account. As far as I know, except for the most severe violations, you can have 3 TOS violations before they "reset" (i.e. terminate but not really :) your account.

Re:Hmm...

[Phroggy]

They're about as private as your e-mail, which your ISP can read whenever they want. You waived any rights you may have had when you signed up for the service. Read the user agreement - yeah, the one you clicked "I Agree" on without thinking.

--

Damage to the censor

[plcurechax]

This reminds me of the study done by Customs Canada that looking at obscene material did not affect their employees. The references are available from EFC archives.

Yet, this same study was not taken seriously in the freedom of speech context, that is if Customs says high concentration of this material doesn't damage the mental health and well being of their employees, yet the average citizen should still not be allowed to look at the material in question. A classic double standard.

Some speculation that the study was to be used as potential evidence if there were lawsuits by Customs employee that smut and filth that ruined their lives.

Are AOL censors lives ruined by the subjection to porn and illegal material in the workplace as part of their job?

Re:Damage to the censor

[protovirus]

In short. Only the lives of the extremely sheltered would be damaged by being exposed to the kind of material an AOL censor sees. I should know because I worked that job and others for AOL from 1995 until 1998. At AOL you don't just see this working for CAT. It is everywhere. The tech support reps hear it on the phone from customers as do the billing reps. In fact, I have to say that working the phones at AOL was much more stressful than answering email or canceling accounts for TOS violations. Here is the thing - while the person from the call center in NM says that they were always told to follow company policy that is hardly what happens. In fact, most AOL techs were given little guidance on what to do and so just did it their own way. I handed out addresses to porn sites when requested and instructed the same people on how to get porn from newsgroups. I handed out URLs and search engine tips like no tomorrow. I was monitored on many of these calls but did management ever say a word about helping the customer? Hell no. I was good. I gave the caller's what they wanted. Aside from fixing everything from their operating system installs to AOL's shitty software I provided a full service guide to the internet and had an average call time of about 5 minutes. It took me way to long to realize that I was actually too good. On the list not to promote due to high performance..etc etc. The article writer mentions high promotion rates at AOL. That only happens when a new call center is opened and after that it's kiss ass to move up. They never cared about their employees and stole employee ideas suggested at keyword 2 cents without even giving recognition. They lie constantly to employees. etc etc...not to mention customer complaints. AOL was by far the worst company I have ever worked for. On the other hand AOL stock has been good to me and will continue to do so in the near future. Steve Case and crew know what they want and they know how to get it which I can't say for many companies out there. They are a Juggernaut because they learned a long time ago that ANY press is good press...in fact bad press is probably better because it's free. They litter the world with their software and have spammed usenet to death at times. Their TOS rules are silly and aren't really an attempt to stop anything. They shun the porn trading that made them what they are today. I could go on for days. When I worked their the janitors were making more than the call center workers. So...then I left AOL to work for MediaOne and some of the same situations arose. One night some coworker's and I were monitoring our channels as we should. Pimps up Hos Down was on Skinimax. Some bible thumper that works here passed buy and noticed the tv. She filed an HR complaint to which I replied - "You work for the fucking cable company...you personally recommend this shit daily." It was dropped. Why did it happen? If you don't like what your company is selling, go work elsewhere.

Re:Damage to the censor

[peccary]

I should know because I worked that job and others for AOL from 1995 until 1998

...during that time, I learned how to use the CapsLock key, but I still haven't figured out why you guys leave all those blank lines in your posts, or how -- is there some kind of a blank line key or something?

Re:Damage to the censor

[Courier]

I don't think the idea there was that material does things to people but that idea is that haveing alternative lives does. And i fully agree with that.

I started using the internet around 1995. This was before ICQ became very popular and before the large stock bubble and bust. Most you u must have been using it way before that.. but anyhow.

I was 14 at the time and the first thing i was pointed to by my real life friends were chats. Wow I though this is great! I have all these people here talking to me. No longer was I the shy geeky kid unable to articulate my ideas and thoughs.

I was really very happy and my internet usage increased everyday. I guess at that age when you were insecure and there were all these "cool" people you know in real life you wish you can be just like them in someway. You hate part of them at the same time of course. Cause you know that drinking to death every friday isn't right and you know drugs does them no good. So you don't do it you envi them for being popular with the girls yet you hate them because of how they are popular.

Online no one noticed you are a pimple faced youth who in real life can't say two words right to the girl you have a crush on.So you are happy you make cyber friends who you plan on meeting but never got around to.

I went along like that for about 2 years while I slowly grew up. And slowly I find that dispite being able to be free from the problems i face in real life I wasn't really happy. Sure my real life best friend actually meet up with his internet girl ( they are great friends now but not going out) but I really don't know any of my internet friends a great deal and I wasn't any better at social stuff in real life.

So slowly I stop using the chats. Here i was spending way too much on internet bills chatting all day to strangers whom i would most likely not ever meet. While i was missing the real life missing out on bonding with real people. So i stop totally one day. And started playing quake of course that's another story all together..

So the moral of my story is internet stuff doesn't hurt you. But when you life your internet life more then your real one you could be in real trouble. Especially if you were a kid just starting ot learn about life. IT could damage you irreversiblily.

Re:Damage to the censor

[plcurechax]

There is an old saying,

Money changes a person.

YOUVE GOT.......

[deran9ed]

YOUR RIGHT TO PRIVACY INVADED

Ok so I wouldn't use AOL if they paid me to, but one has to be concerned, especially if they're an AOL user and by chance reading here. Users are supposed to have a right to privacy, judging by this article the interviewed person should be sued for violating someone's privacy rights while hiding under TOS bs. Surely I can see he states he is doing his "job" but how much of his "job" would be to post about older women and their cats. I would not be upset if I heard about AOL suing this moron for NDA based stuff.

Sure you can moderate this down and troll it to a -3 wouldn't matter, the facts remain, I'm sure even the typical user would expect to have some form of privacy when using their ISP.

Thanks to $INSERT_DIETY_HERE for PGP, stunnel, SSL, PPTP, Outguess

stor elak javel

Re:YOUVE GOT.......

[stephend]

Everything is a compromise.

For a parent not wanting their kid to access indecent material on the internet, having other people monitoring content -- losing privacy -- seems fairly pragmatic. By using AOL you're agreeing that people can do this. I'd assume (hope) that the author changed the names to protect the guilty...

It's not a compromise I'd currently be happy with, but then I don't have kids. And at least AOL is open about it. It has official policies, which is more than can be said for my ISP (who say they can teminate my account if they ever get the urge and little more).

Data captured

[deran9ed]

Diary of an AOL (l)User.

July 18 - I just tried to connect to America Online. I've heard it is the best online service I can get. They even included a free disk! I'd better hold onto it incase they don't ever send me another one! I can't connect. I don't know what is wrong.

July 19 - Some guy at the tech support center says my computer needs a modem. I don't see why. He's just trying to cheat me. How dumb does he think I am?

July 22 - I bought the modem. I couldn't figure out where it goes. It wouldn't fit in the monitor or the printer. I'm confused.

July 23 - I finally got the modem in and hooked up. that nine year old next door did it for me. But it still don't work. I cant get online.

July 25 - That nine year old kid next door hooked me up to America Online for me. He's so smart. I told the kid he was a prodigy. But he says that's just another service. What a modest kid. He's so smart and he does these services for people. Anyway he's smarter then the jerks who sold me the modem. They didn't even tell me about communications software. Bet they didn't know. And why do they put two telephone jack holes in the back of a modem when you only need one? And why do they have one labeled phone when you are not suppose to hook it to the phone jack on the wall? I thought the dial tone sounded funny! Boy, are modem makers dumb! But the kid figured it out by the sound.

July 26 - What's the internet? I thought I was on America Online. Not this internet thing. I'm confused.

July 27 - The nine year old kid next door showed me how to use this America Online stuff. I told him he must be a genius. He says that he is compared to me. Maybe he's not so modest after all.

July 28 - I tried to use chat today. I tried to talk into my computer but nothing happened. maybe I need to buy a microphone.

July 29 - I found this thing called usenet. I got out of it because I'm connected to America Online not usenet.

July 30 - These people in this usenet thing keep using capital letters. How do they do that? I never figured out how to type capital letters. Maybe they have a different type of keyboard.

JULY 31 - I CALLED THE COMPUTER MAKER I BOUGHT IT FROM TO COMPLAIN ABOUT NOT HAVING A CAPITOL LETTER KEY. THE TECH SUPPORT GUY SAID IT WAS THIS CAPS LOCK KEY. WHY DIDN'T THEY SPELL IT OUT? I TOLD HIM I GOT A CHEAP KEYBOARD AND WANTED A BETTER ONE. AND ONE OF MY SHIFT KEYS ISNT THE SAME SIZE AS THE OTHER. HE SAID THATS A STANDARD. I TOLD HIM I DIDN'T WANT A STANDARD KEYBOARD BUT ANOTHER BRAND. I MUST HAVE HAD AN IMPORTANT COMPLAINT BECAUSE I HEARD HIM TELL THE OTHER SUPPORT GUYS TO LISTEN IN ON OUR CONVERSATION.

AUGUST 1 - I FOUND THIS THING CALLED THE USENET ORACLE. IT SAYS THAT IT CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS I ASK IT. I SENT IT 44 SEPARATE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE INTERNET. I HOPE IT RESPONDS SOON.

AUGUST 2 - I FOUND A GROUP CALLED REC.HUMOR. I DECIDED TO POST THIS JOKE ABOUT THE CHICKEN THAT CROSSED THE ROAD. TO GET TO THE OTHER SIDE! HA! HA! I WASNT SURE I POSTED IT RIGHT SO I POSTED IT 56 MORE TIMES.

AUGUST 3 - I KEEP HEARING ABOUT THE WORLD WIDE WEB. I DON'T NOW SPIDERS GREW THAT LARGE.

AUGUST 4 - THE ORACLE RESPONDED TO MY QUESTIONS TODAY. GEEZ IT WAS RUDE. I WAS SO ANGRY THAT I POSTED AN ANGRY MESSAGE ABOUT IT TO REC.HUMOR.ORACLE. I WASNT SURE IF I POSTED RIGHT SO I POSTED IT 22 MORE TIMES.

AUGUST 5 - SOMEONE TOLD ME TO READ THE FAQ. GEEZ THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO USE PROFANITY.

AUGUST 6 - SOMEONE ELSE TOLD ME TO STOP SHOUTING IN ALL MY MESSAGES. WHAT A STUPID JERK. IM NOT SHOUTING! IM NOT EVEN TALKING! JUST TYPING! HOW CAN THEY LET THESE RUDE JERKS GO ON THE INTERNET?

August 7 - Why have a Caps Lock key if you're not suppose to use it? Its probably an extra feature that costs more money.

August 8 - I just read this post called make money fast. I'm so exited. I'm going to make lots of money. I followed his instructions and posted it to every newsgroup I could find.

August 9 - I just made my signature file. Its only 6 pages long. I will have to work on it some more.

August 10 - I just looked at a group called alt.aol.sucks. I read a few posts and I really believe that aol should be wiped off the face of the earth. I wonder what an aol is.

August 11 - I was asking where to find some information about something. Some guy told me to check out ftp.netcom.com. I've looked and looked but I can't find that group.

August 12 - I sent a post to every usenet group on the Internet asking where the ftp.netcom.com is. hopefully someone will help. I cant ask the kid next door. His parents said that when he comes back from my house he's laughing so hard he can't eat or sleep or do his homework. So they wont let him come over anymore. I do have a great sense of humor. I don't know why the rec.humor group didn't like my chicken joke. Maybe they only like dirty stuff. Some people sent me posts about my 56 posts of the joke and they used bad words.

August 13 - I sent another post to every usenet group on the Internet asking where the ftp.netcom.com is. I had forgot yesterday to include my new signature file which is only 8 pages long. I know everyone will want to read my favorite poem so I included it. I'm also going to add that short story I like.

August 14 - Some guy suspended my account because of what I was doing. I told him I don't have an account at his bank. He's so dumb.

More AOL humor

Re:Other things are far more dangerous

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be new here. Anything that can even be remotely determined to be anti-MS gets modded up, even if it's blatantly wrong, off-topic, and links to the goatse.cx guy all at once

like this:
The Microsoft cafeteria regularly serves up European children who were here on vacation

I expect to be modded to +5 insightful within the hour

Yeah, right...

[rakslice]

The bit at the end of the story -- the occurrence that the author supposedly quit their job over -- sounds like a cookie-cutter "social engineering"-type attempt to recover some poor loser's account info.

(Did you hear? They took "gullible" out of the dictionary.)

If anyone needs professional psychological help, it's that person.

Ah... the smell of the closed minds vanishing in the early morning mist...

Re:Yeah, right...

[Ergo2000]

I thought the same thing. And you know that a lot of psycho stalkers and revenge seekers use those sorts of tactics to try to get the info, and that particular story about coming in to find the words see you soon seemed incredibly fictional.

She could have called the police and the police could have dealt with it if there was an issue. AOL is completely right in not revealing that sort of info to everyone with a nonsense story calling up.

Are you Zamey?

Keep KidsNet separate from the Internet

[Morgaine]

If parents allowed their children into the adult parts of town, we'd call them irresponsible. Yet when it comes to the Internet, apparently they can ignore their responsibilities as parents and pass the blame on to others instead.

The Internet isn't a protected playground and it can never become one without becoming utterly emasculated. It is a faithful cross-section of all of humanity, without artificial barriers, and that is what makes it the largest and most valuable resource on the planet. The Internet may be in fashion with youngsters wanting to be adults, but if you're a parent it's NOT the place to let your youngsters roam freely before they are old enough to make their own decisions.

In its danger lies its strength.

Re:Keep KidsNet separate from the Internet

[CrazyLegs]

Ok... I'm a parent and, no, I wouldn't let my kids go into 'adult' parts of town. But as a metaphor for Internet usage, this is really weak! There's a big difference about controlling where your child is PHYSICALLY versus where your child is ON-LINE. I know when and if my kid leaves the house, but it just takes a few quiet clicks to end up on the wrong side of the Net. Make no mistake, the Net offers up some truly unique parenting dilemas.

Having said all that, I agree with the rest of your post. The Net is NOT that place to let youngsters roam free (and to hell with childless libertarians who spout crap about kids coming to grips with the 'real' world, and "porn never hurt me when I was a BBS whippersnapper", and the like).

For my family, we have a few solutions. We DO NOT use censorware 'cause it doesn't work well and provides a false sense of security. I DO check logs, caches, and such from time to time. I DO surf with my kids from time to time and help them build bookmarks for the sites they regularly visit. And finally, we DO keep the kids PC in a corner of kitchen where the monitor is there for all to see.

Does this work? So far, yes.... but my kids are only 5 and 8 and someday they'll be smarter and curiouser. When that time comes, well I hope I've raised 'em right, Beyond that, I guess I'll be their parent....

- rant over -

Re:Keep KidsNet separate from the Internet

[Medgur]

Why even let your young children use the internet? Really, what does your 8 year old need the internet for? As for older children, keep the computer in a heavily trafficked part of the house, such as the kitchen. Simple.

-Medgur

Re:Keep KidsNet separate from the Internet

[Pooua]

The Internet isn't a protected playground and it can never become one without becoming utterly emasculated. It is a faithful cross-section of all of humanity, without artificial barriers,

What part of humanity do you hang around? A pretty weird bunch, I'd say!

There are about 6 thousand million (6x10^9) people on Earth, living in about 120 countries and composing thousands or millions of regional cultures. There are about 300 million people living in the United States, composing hundreds of regional cultures. There are about 200 million Internet users world-wide, almost half of them in the United States. Entire cultures remain unrepresented, or barely represented, on the Internet.

The biggest problem with the point you are making, though, is that it ignores the territorial nature of humans. In the real world, people who are in general philosophical agreement with each other tend to live in communities, and outsiders are expected to adapt somewhat to the community's standards. In the Internet world, there are large clusters or associations of people who are forced together who are violently opposed to each other's way of life. You mention the "adult" parts of town; those are run-down, dangerous areas of town, hopefully segregated from people who wish to live decently. We lament the lives of those who are forced to live in those conditions, especially those who live a better life than those conditions indicate.

Why do you suppose we don't display pornography on billboards? In the United States, we hardly even display nudity, even for "gentlmen's clubs." France does. They displayed full frontal female nudity about 30 years ago. Do you suppose the United States is so different from France just because of a handful of prudes? Or, might the United States have a fundamental difference of philosophy? The Internet allows for few fine distinctions; everyone is thrown into the same environment, with only minor modifiers. The more time you spend on the Internet, the more you learn what evil lurks in the hearts of men, even if you don't want to learn it.

and that is what makes it the largest and most valuable resource on the planet. The Internet may be in fashion with youngsters wanting to be adults, but if you're a parent it's NOT the place to let your youngsters roam freely before they are old enough to make their own decisions.

When I was a child, I loved to read about science and space travel. When I was 8 years old, I had a World Book Encyclopedia, and I used to day-dream about aligning the letters on the different volumes and getting information on the subject I spelled. I looked at every science book I could find. Now, the Internet has been wonderful about providing me with some information. How horrible that some people are so barbaric that the Internet is not decent for public use!

Quote Inaccuracy

[Eagle7]

Its not "If I knew it was gonna be that kinda party I woulda sticked my dick in the mashed potatoes."

Its "If [the creationists] are going to throw that kind of party, I am going to stick my dick in the mashed potatoes." Such art does not deserve to be misquoted. :)

Its a must listen for any Darwinist: MC Hawking

Re:Quote Inaccuracy

[Eagle7]

How the hell is this offtopic???

Didn't the stupid moderators even read the freaking article? Geesh.

Ignorance

[vulg4r_m0nk]

To my mind, one of the saddest things about this account is that it's further demonstration of how little technology is understood by the average user. As the article illustrates, the myth of anonymity is far and away the greatest contributor to inappropriate behavior online. For another recent case in the media, recall the genius that used AOL instant messaging to send follow-up threats to students at the high school in SD -- "Huh? How'd they find me? My curtains were closed and I sent the message from inside the closet!"

Now where this gets kinda interesting is the fact that users want technology that hides the details, as the discussion Monday indicates. Unfortunately, as more is hidden, the less likely it is that a user will be able to utilize the technology in a prudent manner, because they simply won't know where to begin looking for possible dangers, if they look at all. So, I expect we'll see more instances of people doing questionable things online out of idiocy, and the problem will get worse as long as they are shielded from the details of how things work. As the article posted notes, many AOLers (and you know they aren't the only ones) misunderstand the nature of the Web so fundamentally as to fail to see that sending threatening letters to AOL staffers is about as smart as demanding a cashier's check at gunpoint.

Another example to think about here is the impressive number of young nekkid chicks all over the Web -- how many of them actually understand that those pictures will never, ever go away?

So, I think where I'm going with this is to suggest the following:

• Developers of technology ought to be focussing on giving the common user tools that 1) work; 2) are mature and stable such that the user doesn't have to plan to learn a new system every year. Fewer bells and whistles, more good apps that users actually comprehend. (note that I'm talking about software for the average person, not slashdotters, so relax ;-)
  
  
• We need to realize that many of these problems exist because to learn to use any piece of technology safely requires some time and effort to understand on some basic level what it's doing, unless you want to clip the user's wings entirely and make their decisions for them. Right now there is a scary dearth of knowledge in the heads of users, and that's why a lot of the shit out there (death threats and worms clearly labeled .vbs (which just kills me BTW ;-) ) is there in the first place.

The upshot is that a crucial part of our discussions about the future of technology, especially where the discussion is about responsible uses of tech (i.e., Web access in public libraries), has to be about properly educating users. And I'm not talking about holding the hands of retards, but giving good instruction just as we do regarding the use of any other major piece of equipment.

Re:Ignorance

[jafac]

vulg4r_m0nk wrote:

"Another example to think about here is the impressive number of young nekkid chicks all over the Web -- how many of them actually understand that those pictures will never, ever go away? "

I often wonder this myself. I think that this will be somewhat mitigated by the fact that there are SO SO many of them. Just like all the people who smoked pot or snorted coke in the 70's. "everybody does it" diminishes the badness of it until we have a US President who was a blow monkey.

I just can't wait until the nudie teenage anal sex pics of the US President in 2020 are posted.

"I didn't ejaculate. . ."
yeah, right.

Just goes to show...

[galego]

You can't rely on corporations, elementary schools, government, churches...Nay, not even censorware to keep your kids safe.

The story of the kid and the screen identity is kind of heart-wrenching...at least how its told. Did he say what the nick was on the IM? I mean...it could have been the kid down the street and her son going to light off some firecrackers. <siderant>We just live for media like this and look for the worst in it. There must me a perv on the other end cuz the media tells us (or suggests) so...right?</siderant> But I do understand the anguish of the mother. I've had my daughter wander off inside a store and send my wife frantically chasing and calling after her, meanwhile thinking what might have happened. Amazing what your mind can do in 5 minutes!

There's just no guaranatees...which means you can't rely on AOL's censorship team to keep your kids safe. People get mad if a politician, teacher, etc. tells them it's their primary responsibility (as parents) to teach, monitor and help their children, but that's just the way it goes folks. And ya know what...There's still no guarantees!

And yes...since It's our responsibility, I would just as well have these groups out of the picture, only invading privacy further.

Galego

Re:Just goes to show...

[peccary]

The story of the kid and the screen identity is kind of heart-wrenching...at least how its told.

The "mother" was bull-shitting the AOL rep. Scamming, lying, social-engineering. Mark my words -- you'd have heard about the AOL-stalking child-abducter otherwise. The caller was almost certainly not actually a mother, and was just trying to extract someone else's identity from a trusting AOL staffer. It burns me to see people who ought to be tech-savvy still perpetuating the myth that the Internet is overrun with pedophiles and child abusers, when the reality is that it's overrun by petty, vindictive, malicious, lying adults.

Re:Just goes to show...

[Saint Nobody]

i can think of two cases of that kind of social engineering succeeding against aol just of the top of my head:

• A girl named Amber Applebaum found out Trent Reznor's email address. (he used to have MTRez@aol.com) she proceeded to call tech sypport and say that she was Trent's wife (he's not married) and she needed the password. then she proceeded to send email from his account for a while. she was later arrested for it.
• There was a case a while ago where there was a web page run my an anonymous member of the u.s. navy dedicated to gay sex. the navy just called up, without any of the allegedly necessary paperwork, such as a subpoena, and asked who it was, then gave him a dishonourable discharge. (i'm pretty sure it was the navy at least. i don't remember details.)

in both of those cases, aol specifically stated that the operators violated aol policy. and who knows how many cases of that i don't know about...

Re:Just goes to show...

[Lish]

I have a strong suspicion that you are correct, that this was social engineering. Now, I am an ICQ user, so this may not apply to AIM, but there should be a chat history, a record of the messages sent to/from a user. Now, in order for the kid to know where to go, either he knew the person already, or the address was sent to him over IM. The mother should be able to read back through the messages, and find the address (if it's a stranger) and/or what they were intending to do there. Besides, the person's address might not be where they were meeting. It's possible this was legit, but I am very suspicious.

Re:Just goes to show...

[galego]

True...hadn't thought of the social engineering angle.

Just one question...

It burns me to see people who ought to be tech-savvy still perpetuating the myth that the Internet is overrun with pedophiles and child abusers, when the reality is that it's overrun by petty, vindictive, malicious, lying adults.

Are pedophiles and child abusers not malicious, lying adults in most cases?

Although...I do believe generally, people are good, I also do believe very seriously in keeping your guard up.

Galego

Re:Just goes to show...

[eaolson]

There was a case a while ago where there was a web page run my an anonymous member of the u.s. navy dedicated to gay sex.

Just to be pedantic, it wasn't a web page "dedicated to gay sex." In his AOL profile, under marital status, he said he was gay. That's it, nothing more.

Re:Just goes to show...

[blerg]

The "mother" was bull-shitting the AOL rep. Scamming, lying, social-engineering. Mark my words -- you'd have heard about the AOL-stalking child-abducter otherwise. The caller was almost certainly not actually a mother, and was just trying to extract someone else's identity from a trusting AOL staffer. It burns me to see people who ought to be tech-savvy still perpetuating the myth that the Internet is overrun with pedophiles and child abusers, when the reality is that it's overrun by petty, vindictive, malicious, lying adults.

My question is why was the mother so concerned about who the person on the other end was and not how to find out where her son is so she can rescue him? Surely this would have been the more plausible request of someone in this situation.

I'm confident explaining the "backscroll" feature of various chat services wasn't against the rules.

A tale of bad parenting?

[eyez]

What bothers me about the end of the article is the way this 'mother' is acting.

To elaborate, She will probably blame AOL and the Internet for the rest of her life for what those evil internet people did to her child, and her child was a victim, and blah blah blah.

I'm not saying that the internet is not partially to blame, but to just leave your child in front of a computer, or a video game console or the TeeVee without EDUCATING them about what's good or bad or evil or wrong or happy or productive or whatever is just STUPID. Come on, parents. The Future isn't an excuse for you to let electronics replace you. and I've heard that excuse more than once... "I don't know anything about my child's video games. All I do is buy them!" Moron!

And this stretches as far as to the kinds of people who go ballistic over doom/quake/mortal kombat//etc... What, your child doesn't know that when you frag someone in real life, they don't respawn? Sure, it may not be the most obvious thing int he world at first, but COME ON.

Bottom Line: Some things in this world should NOT be handled by someone not Mature enough to handle them. (duh?) And Parents should be the ones monitoring this kind of thing, not some guy in a cubicle at AOL.

Re:A tale of bad parenting?

[droleary]

And Parents should be the ones monitoring this kind of thing, not some guy in a cubicle at AOL.

The thing is, AOL is monitoring. They're the ones employing the censors and making claims that their filtered version of the Internet is safe for kids. In doing so, they're no longer a common carrier, and now become accountable for the content they fail to police. You can call it bad parenting, but AOL bears considerable responsibility for failures on their part.

Re:A tale of bad parenting?

[Stephen Samuel]

There are two possibilities with the last tale of the woman and her son:

• She could have been lieing through her teeth -- trying to get the address of someone for some nefarious (or benign) reason -- hoping that a sob story of a run-away son would get AOL to break the rules.

  People can tell pretty convincing lies, just to get what they want. I remember I once managed to well up crocodile tears trying to talk my way out of something I was guilty of. (I later got caught). Both cons and actors are professionally trained for the task.

• It's possible that she really is a freaked-out mom trying to figure out where her son is. In this case, unless there's something we weren't told -- like the message previous to that was some guy telling her son how he'd like to make him look like the goatsex guy -- I'd be inclined to bet my money that it's a false alarm. 90% probability that her son is doing something like going off to the Eminim concert, or meeting his (secret) girlfriend.

  Even if it turns out to be something nasty going on, you still want a court order -- i.e. she should go through the police. If it turns out that her son's gone off to meet with Geoffrey Dahmler, what's she going to do by herself? Go out, track him down and become part of a mother/son two-course meal?

  The worst case would be she prepares for the worst, goes out armed to the teeth, and ends up putting a bullet through the head of the guy who answers the door -- finding out later that it's her son's girlfriends dad.

  If it was me, the only thing I would have done different would have been to mention that "I can't do anything without a court order". If she's legit, then she can call the cops. If not, then she'll go away.

WIth respect to how nasy people can be, consider the math: Let's consider 99.5% of all users to be normal. The other 0.5% are the ones we'll consider 'deviant'. Out of the N million AOL users, this is still going to give you thousands of people to deal with. This isn't "all AOL users", or even "most" of them. This is 0.5%.

To put it in a more personal perspective: In a school of 500 kids, this would be two or three people. What are the three most whacked-out stories you heard about people in your school? Extend that out a few years for them to get some practice, and you've got the AOL top .5% . Now multiply that by 20 thousand and you've got the CAP caseload. Not too hard, is it?
--

Just like the BBS's of old...

[Anml4ixoye]

I am one of those users (as I am sure are a lot of us) who started with this whole computer thing long before AOL, when it was just BBS's and 300-1200-2400 baud modems (zmodem transfer, yes!). I never had a problem accessing most content, though some BBS's did a better job than others.

At the time, I was just a wee lad, and really didn't know much better. I got involved with quite a few groups, and became 'friends' with a lot of people. Of course, you could lie a lot about a lot of things, but jeez, I was only 13 when I started, so I didn't know *too* much to lie about. At any rate, after being on a lot of the local boards, one guy invited me to do work at a shop he owned doing electronic stuff. I worked there for perhaps four months on the weekends before on day he drugged me and molested me (I'm a male BTW).

But do I blame the BBS for that? Do I blame technology for that? Obviously not as I am still heavily involved in the field of technology, nor do I go out torturing llamas and the such because of it. It was a bad experience, and one that I hope no one has to go through, but I learned a lot of valuable lessons from it.

So why people all of a sudden act like AOL is such a bad thing, I don't understand. In my opinion AOL is to BBS's what Napster was to MP3's - It opened up a world that previously was only available to those who knew what they were doing. It mainstreamed chat and email, and allowed users to connect to this 'internet thing' (even if they do think AOL == Internet) and enter a world never before open to them.

But as those of us who have operated or participated on BBS's or ICQ or anything else of that nature know, the price that opening a service such as that brings is exactly what we see. People are not what they seem, very sadistic and strange people dive right in, and a general melee seems to run rampant. By exposing your personal information to a stranger, you can get in a lot of trouble. Why does this surprise people?

I despise AOL. Not because of what they have accomplished, but in their methodologies. Researching them, I see what they are trying to do, and the 'features' that they add to their software. Imagine a service like AOL that, instead of trying to protect themselves, served to help people step into the next level of computing. Imagine something similar for the world of Linux (very theoretically of course) where users would get a simple installation disk to start that was all GUI, and 24-hour support, but slowly were weened off to strictly command-line interfaces and hash-bang scripts.

Or maybe not.

But let's not let the people who have no clue set the boundries to which we are 'allowed' to use the internet. The internet world has always been and will always have people who aren't what they seem, whose ultimate motives are to pillage, rape, kill, etc. No longer are they forced to hide in their little worlds. Anytime you have the ability to hide your identity, some people will use that to a different advantage, for a different purpose than just expressing ideas.

I feel we basically have a few options of where to go from here.

1. Reveal the identity of all users. Have some giant world-governing organization ensure that everyone is who they say they are, say by implanting a chip in everyone that automatically signs them into the computer.
2. Continue with things being the way they are and watch as the world we are used to gets bashed and limited to the point where you would be lucky if you could find Powerpuff girls sites because they are too violent.
3. Educate the public, and our lawmakers, and support ways to protect users without taking away the things that we hold dear. But realize at the same time that by not regulating everything, some people may slip through the cracks and you may have to actually be careful online.

If your kid has a computer in his/her bedroom, and you don't talk to them about the things they may see, or don't keep up with them on a regular basis, don't be surprised to come in one day to get them for dinner and find them gone. But even if you do all of that, you still may find them gone. Sometimes there is nothing you can do.

So don't let the public take away something that has been around for years and years just because it doesn't fit into their personal schedules. Yes, the internet is a dangerous place sometimes, but that doesn't mean that we should close shop just to appease the customers who don't like it.

They have no choice

[DrXym]

Whether people like it or not AOL pitches itself as a family friendly service and has no choice but to monitor and censor screennames. Without such action the whole service would become such a cesspit that no parent would want their child to go near it.

Despite the screen name censorship, AOL doesn't censor Internet access unless you tell it to. So you can still plumb the depths of depravity if you so desire but not with a screen name like "rimjobbr69" whilst doing it.

Does AOL monitor AIM conversations?

[fialar]

I know about the AOL chatrooms, but what about
the AIM conversations? (Using Oscar or TOC)?

Does anyone know if there's a team of AOL
employees that watches all that traffic?

fialar

Old News...

[BlueUnderwear]

Look at the date. As far as I know, this component even has been removed since then (the German government threatened to forbid sale of Windows 2000 if that component stayed in...)

what a testament

[zear0]

to the level of maturity the human race has achieved... *sigh*

Someone is going to be spanked in Metamod.

[Lotek]

Look folks, just because you don't agree with someone's postion does not automatically make the person a troll. Its called a discussion.

Opinions vary. This is a reasoned, thought out post, not a link to goatse or it's ilk. In fact, this is a rather enlightened take on things from the point of view of a parent who actually seems to (gasp) care!

This kind of moderation is sad. It tends to narrow the focus of the conversation, and keeps people who may have views that are valid but unpopular from expressing them.

I run a chat service

[Mr_Silver]

I help run a chat service called UberWorld. Its not quite like AOL in the fact that people with just standard telnet access can use it and its a little more complicated (10 basic commands to learn and you're away, but there is a total of 400 available plus many more depending on how long you use the place).

We used to run an 18+ only rule because people were free to talk about what they wanted. However this became more and more difficult to implement. Unlike AOL we don't have any way to link back peoples online names to addresses or personal details. Only thing we take is an email address for some of the features when you register (and you don't have to if you don't want to). People just lied, and we had no way of checking.

So we stopped it. It was simply being too difficult to police. So now we have a set of rules which are in general the sort of thing you'd expect to abide by in everyday life.

Occasionally we do get idiots, racists and homophobes or general nutcases who take delight in winding up people, but they tend to find that they are ganged up on and ridiculed off the place.

Self regulation.

Its a shame that AOL have to resort to draconian measure for this sort of thing, but there are strange people out there.

Strange people tend to do it to get the attention. They like it when people make a fuss and something happens. When they're totally ignored or ridiculed then they tend to give up and go elsewhere.

Granted we're not quite as popular as AOL (only 200 hard core users, most bored administrators and coders looking for some light conversation) but I'd hate to start implementing the sort of stuff AOL does if we did grow any bigger ...

--

Re:I run a chat service

[the coose]

Occasionally we do get idiots, racists and homophobes or general nutcases who take delight in winding up people ...

On Slashdot, these people are called trolls ;-)

Re:I run a chat service

[Xofer D]

The trouble with that sort of regulation is that it tends towards groupthink. I could name a web site where self-regulation, or self-moderation if you will, gives incentives for people to post opinions which are similar to those held by the groupthink gestalt, and disincentives to post contrary opinions.

Luckily, the userbase on, er, that site is large enough that there are usually two competing flows of groupthink, or sometimes three. This doesn't change the fact that when the mob rules, the nail that sticks up gets hammered. Too bad for those of us who like variety and innovation in debate.

Re:I run a chat service

[NewCode]

Whereas I am against fascism (and hence the reason why I hate the Computer Science department at Essex University (but thats another story)) I firmly believe that "groupthink" as you call it is a good way to regulate something such as a talker.

As for posting/expressing opinions that might go against the norm, thats only healthy. Its only when you get these complete idiots who shove really unpleasant opinions in your faces that it gets nasty.

And as for suggesting that people won't post/say things that they want to say just because they might get moderated down, frankly I don't care for the opinions of anyone who is so incredibly herd-driven that they fear upsetting someone who probably isn't even in the same country as them.

Moderate this to the minimum score, for all I care.

My experience with AOL

[DrEnema]

Frankly, as a medical professional, my experience with AOL has been less than satisfactory. Their overzealous account-cancelation policies are simply ridiculous. I called to explain to them that I am a real doctor but they wouldn't listen to me.

I am now happily using roadrunner for cable-modem access instead of the crappy AOL, upon recommendation from one of my patients.
---
"I give sadistic enemas to men, women, and children."

Re:My experience with AOL

[mkarpinski]

RoadRunner = Time Warner Cable = AOL

Re:Censoring the net instead of setting up familyn

[travisd]

WTF are you talking about? DSL is a non-switched service - there are no "dial numbers" - you get a single pipe into your chosen ISP's network.

a bizarre flashback

[Errant_knight]

It was rather disturbing for me to read this article.

For a number of reasons. The predominant one being that I knew everyone involved. I attended the same classes that were mentioned and as those 4 were pulled off to work on profiles I went on to the CAT team.

Let me quickly clarify some misconceptions that I saw in some of the postings.

Monitoring - If you spent some time to think about it you would recognize the impossiblity of that. The sheer number of IM's and chatroom conversations that occur would overwhelm anybody trying to actually monitor what was going on. They were referring to other departments that dealt with reports of violations. nothing more.

Civil Liberties, 1st amendment and others - I took it as a good sign when, in a course of a week, I was accused of being a neo-nazi and a liberal left winger the same number of times. I will neither defend nor condemn AOL's policies but I can tell you that I never once saw an account being actioned for a viewpoint, rather for how that viewpoint was expressed. If you are unable to express your viewpoint without the use of vulgarities, slurs, or personal attacks then AOL was not the service for you.

the last call -

It actually hurts sometimes to remember the things that we had to deal with. Sure it would be easy and convenient for us to label all of the stories that we heard to a socially engineered hack and I know very well that some of the people that I talked to were doing just that. But not all of them were, and after a while it got to you. The police officers that called, the mothers, fathers, friends.... people crying, desperate, frustrated. All the time making a decision based on our guidelines and our best judgement, in a 5 minute timeframe. Several times I heard things that prevented me from sleeping that night.

I was disturbed and happy to see this article, it was nice see someone express our side of the situation. Because I am not a neo-nazi and I am not a liberal left winger. I was just someone trying to do an unusual job as best he could.

AOL is a big part of the problem

[automatic_jack]

If you are a parent, and you want to keep your children safe on the internet, one of the easiest ways to start doing that is by NOT using AOL. Think about it.

"So easy to use, no wonder it's number one." How many millions of people have AOL accounts? Ten million? Twenty? I lost count somewhere around 1997. My point is that AOL is a very poor vehicle for internet access. The reason for this is that it's in the best interests of the company to keep its users away from the internet as much as possible, and point them towards their internal content instead. An example? Think of how often you see a TV ad that has both a web site and an "AOL Keyword." Those companies pay extra for that area on AOL, and AOL wants to make sure they get their money's worth.

What I'm getting at here is that if you turn your children loose on AOL, they are not going to go to the Homework Help areas, they are not going to go check out "Kids Only Online." They head for the chat rooms because chatting is fun. It's not educational, however, and it does have the potential to be threatening.

If you want to give your kids access to the internet for research purposes, then get an account with an ISP. A system like that is really not hard to learn, and actually lets you access the internet, not AOL's warped version of it. Yes, you still need to be careful about the sites your kids visit (hint: avoid www.nasa.com), but you don't have to worry about who they're talking to while you're in the kitchen making dinner.

Re:AOL is a big part of the problem

[gordguide]

"So easy to use, no wonder it's number one." AOL has about 8 or 10 million users in the US. Generally, all things being equal (and as far as a wired society goes in this case they are) you would expect about a million Canadians using AOL. I don't have recent stats available, but in 1998 there were more people using highspeed in Canada than AOL. They are not even close to the most popular service in this country. I believe the number of subscribers to AOL in Canada is still well short of 400,000 (it was 280K then) and that includes those who have AOL as a "pay your own way" option over Cable/DSL with another provider. AOL is number one in the USA but the rest of the world (Europe, other "wired" nations) it is an also-ran and losing fast.

Dick in the masted potatoes? Beastie Boys!

[funky49]

'If I knew it was gonna be that kinda party I woulda sticked my dick in the mashed potatoes.'

That line comes from a sample used by the Beastie Boys on Ill Communications. I don't know what it references. It's on the B-Boys makin' with the freak freak track.

Beastie Boys.. gotta love'em!

=steve
www.mp3.com/funky49

I've said it before...

[tb3]

AOL is the trailer park of the internet.
The worst thing to happen to AOL was the switch from free diskettes to free CD-ROMs. At least you could re-format the diskettes....
-----------------

Re:I've said it before...

[swordgeek]

HAH!

I collected those stupid floppies. Got about 15 or 20 of them back when they were still selling for $1.50 per around here. However, all but two failed to format error-free.

I can't imagine AOL going to the expense of deliberately damaging the disks, so I suspect they bought the QC rejects from Verbatim or whoever.

Re:I've said it before...

[JimPooley]

But AOL CD-ROMs are so useful! You can use them to prevent hot mugs of tea leaving a ring on the table! I thought everybody used them for that purpose. I've heard of people stringing them up over their gardens to keep the birds off. Sticking loads of them onto something for that shiny bad sci-fi look. Loads of uses for the CD-ROMS.

Hacker: A criminal who breaks into computer systems

Re:I've said it before...

[brank]

AOL floppies were mostly low density, to keep people from doing what you did and "stealing" from the company. The idea was that reformaters would get so frustrated that they would just sign up or pass the disks along instead of profiting off the company's ads.

Plus LD floppies are cheaper and can be used at HD (once)....

Re:Censoring the net instead of setting up familyn

[radish]

and you're an AC without even the balls to identify yourself ;-) touche.

All Internet Users Are Clueless

[Anonymous Coward]

I ran a BBS for 4 years, then I switch to running an ISP for 3 years. It was a small town of about 30,000 people. We had about 3,500 accounts when I left. What did I see? 1. This AOL story happens at every ISP. I saw people willing to throw away marriages so they could have cyber-sex with someone who they didn't even know. I've lost faith in people in general because they use the technological freedom well beyond what is probably psychologically safe for people to do. Internet dating... great idea... date someone who you have no idea who they are.... date someone who hasn't dated someone else in years(probably for a very good reason but you'll never know). We also had the same repeated type of case where people would sign up, and the first thing out of their mouth would be "where do I go to get the porn?" There were cases where we would cancel these people's signups right on the spot. These are MY tech support staff, don't go asking them that crap. It's in violation of our user agreement. 2. Internet users treat ISPs like they are utilities, "Hey, you can't turn me off for not paying!". Yes we could, and we did. We were not obligated to provide anyone anything. 3. Internet users always think ISPs are the ones at fault. Hm... Home computer user purchased a 'great deal' pc for $300 and now they can't stay connected... must be the ISP. I'm sure the ISP's $50,000 access server must be much more worthless and the source of the problem. We even had a guy call up to complain "ever since the upgrade" when we hadn't done any upgrade in the last 5 months. He also was angry when we told him so because he accused us of calling him a liar. Give me a break. 4. I watched some very genuine people erod away doing tech support. Users were abrasive, never wrong, and tried to take advantage of us. We used the "benefit of the doubt principle". We would always give users the benefit of the doubt. If the user screwed us over or lied to us, what do you know? We wouldn't be so kind after that. 5. Little punks try to mess with the admins because they get booted. I had a troublemaker who I put on the "You will now be guilty until proven innocent list". Ie. anything wierd happens, we'll assume it is you and suspend your account. In reality it meant that when I would get a collect call at home from a "uuuuuuuuuuuaaaaaaaahhg", that was him, and his account would get suspended. Finally, morons like this guy realized that I don't like dealing with them and that if they would just quick screwing around... well, they'd be left alone by me. 6. Here is where I don't trust in the AOL story... we had a pedophile on the system, a user from canada was spammed by him with child pornography. So I grabbed everything I could in terms of logging, personal contact into, etc.. and turned it over to the FBI. Why or how could I do this? Well, I knew what was going on... I'm not harboring any fugative, screw that. Secondly, our User Agreement said we could. 8) We had every right to take whatever information we wanted to the police should an illegal activity . We didn't go looking but when abuse@isp.com gets something like that, it's all over for the user. Wow, and imagine that... that user's lawyer couldn't do a thing about it and that bastard got thrown in jail(search warrant turned up tons of stuff). It made the paper and we got lots of praise except from one University professor who demanded to know if we were looking at his financial data, what a moron. 7. ISPs have the same customer base as fast food joints, and ISPs don't have the staffing to rotate out like fast food joints. Do I blame the guy for quitting... no. Do I think AOL could have done more? Sure, they may need to modify their user agreement but they could. They would also have to turn information over directly to the Police and not the person.

Misinformation Age

[donutz]

When else in history has it been so easy to fool so many people? Abe Lincoln would be shaking in his boots...

. . .

Free Speech is not AOL's Issue

[Speare]

when the AOL people go overboard on censoring home pages. I don't expect them to be able to balance the issues of free speech, protected speech

I don't expect AOL, a corporation, to have to worry about 'free speech' or 'protected speech.'

[stock rant on subject]

• The freedom of speech, guaranteed by the US Constitution's First Amendment, just ensures that the government will not consider any personal expression to be against the law.

• That's it. No more.

  You can't say just anything you like; forms of speech including libel, slander, inciting panic, insider trading, and matters risking national security are still illegal, as they infringe on other peoples' rights.

  You aren't immune to censure by other parties, either. The government may not hold your speech to be illegal, but your private-sector employer may have the right to curtail your expression further, depending on the agreements you sign with that employer. The government may allow your speech, but your Internet Service Provider may have a completely different set of rules about content.

  The Amendment is only two or three lines long, written in plain English, and yet it is the most misunderstood part of American Law.

[end of stock rant on the subject]

Job Security over Child Safty?

[HomerJ]

About that last caller:

I'm apalued that one would place security at a $7/hour paying job, over the safety of a child. I actually find that sickening. That information should have been given out, piss on AOL's policy. Not saying give that info out to every Tom, Dick, and Harry...but come one now.

And I also am shocked about AOL's poilcy on that. I mean, they see no problem in using your personal information to send you spam out the ass. But as soon as a child's safety is in question "sorry, that information is sacred, we can not give it out to anyone" No, it's they won't give it out for a pirce.

Makes me think that parent shouldn't have called customer service, they should have called marketing and just bought the information.

And to everyone that says "the parents should have been watching their child" It's impossible to look over your child 24/7 let alone just bad parenting to do so. THis wasn't some 6 year old. This was just a mother scared that her child was oen of the many that leave their house because someone in AOL convinced them to do, and they aren't seen again until someoen finds them in a ditch on some old hunting road 6 months later.

And people won't why I hate AOL..

Re:Job Security over Child Safty?

[castanaveras]

And how does AOL know that it is really the mother of a missing child and not some psycho stalker ex girlfriend looking for her boyfriend's new home?

Do you really want them giving out true names and addresses over the phone to any cretin who calls with a sob story?

I don't have an AOL account, but if I did and they gave my contact information out without being subpeonaed, I'd sue their ass off.

Re:Job Security over Child Safty?

[BitchAss]

I'm apalued that one would place security at a $7/hour paying job, over the safety of a child.

I don't think it's about the job - the author quit his job a couple of days later. I think the reason that he didn't give out the user's name and location is because of the law. I think there could have been all sorts of messey lawsuits and charges if he gave out the person's name and address. Think about it - do you want Taco your ISP giving out your home address to anyone who calls?

Re:Job Security over Child Safty?

[ethereal]

That information should have been given out, piss on AOL's policy. Not saying give that info out to every Tom, Dick, and Harry...but come one now.

Have you considered that the person calling claiming to be "Mom" may have really been "Tom, Dick, and/or Harry"? If (as other posters have made abundantly clear) I really wanted to find out someone's real address, that's exactly the story I'd lay on the most gullible call center employee I could find.

AOL has rules for a reason - because most of the time, they are the right thing to do (OK, limiting legal liability is probably a priority too, but in the long run legal liability is mostly based on what we consider the "right thing to do"), and it's very difficult for your $7/hour employee to tell on the basis of one phone call when it's OK to break those rules. Heck, it would be tough for anyone at any salary to determine that sort of thing, which is why Mom should have gone right to the police, gotten the subpoena to give to AOL, and so forth.

It's true that you can't watch the kids every minute. But you can make it clear before letting your kids on the Internet that basically everyone is a "stranger", and you don't get in cars or accept candy from strangers. I still say there's some parental responsibility if your kids would countenance doing anything just because someone on AOL talked them into it.

Re:Job Security over Child Safty?

[josu]

So you'd give out the personal information of a user to some unknown potential psycho over the phone? Where's the evidence that this "mother" is saying anthing that's true?

Re:Job Security over Child Safty?

[tommyk]

how the hell would you know that's really the parent calling? What if it was some nutcase stalker?

What if the same question was asked of a phone company?

Yeah, just chuck out law and order when it gets tough for you. Good answer.

Not saying they shouldn't have ways of getting, say, in touch with the police when something like that comes up, so the right channels can be followed, but that's so far out of the realm of something you'd want someone making $7 / hour deciding...

Glad that isn't you too... I can jut imaging you giving away my personal info to some axe murdering fiend who said she was my mom.

Re:Job Security over Child Safty?

[ocbwilg]

About that last caller:

I'm apalued that one would place security at a $7/hour paying job, over the safety of a child. I actually find that sickening. That information should have been given out, piss on AOL's policy. Not saying give that info out to every Tom, Dick, and Harry...but come one now.

OK, so how do you determine which Tom, Dick, or Harry you should give that info out to?

And I also am shocked about AOL's poilcy on that. I mean, they see no problem in using your personal information to send you spam out the ass. But as soon as a child's safety is in question "sorry, that information is sacred, we can not give it out to anyone" No, it's they won't give it out for a pirce.

As much as I hate spam, you're way off the mark here. AOL has a spam bullseye painted on it's chest, that I agree. But even if AOL made available it's entire mailing list for free to spammers, selling a list of email addresses is still a far cry from giving out the true name and address of a user. And assuming that you could buy a list of all AOL subscribers names and addresses (for direct marketing purposes or whatever), there's no way that it would be correleated with user names SPECIFICALLY so that you couldn't track down the "19 year-old hottie" that you were chatting with last nite (or the "13 year old punk-ass" who jumped in in the middle and pretended to be your gay lover just for kicks).

Makes me think that parent shouldn't have called customer service, they should have called marketing and just bought the information.

No, if this were true then the parent should have called the police. AOL can't enforce the law against a "pedophile" (if that were the case in this instance) and neither can a mother.

And to everyone that says "the parents should have been watching their child" It's impossible to look over your child 24/7 let alone just bad parenting to do so.

I agree. That's why in addition to supervising children until they are old enough to make responsible decisions on their own, a parent should spend some time teaching, training, and otherwise educating their children on the fact that life is not a giant fuzzy bunny (or singing purple dinosaur). Life is deadly. It will eventually kill us all. If you screw around and do stupid things, you'll end up dead sooner than expected.

This was just a mother scared that her child was oen of the many that leave their house because someone in AOL convinced them to do, and they aren't seen again until someoen finds them in a ditch on some old hunting road 6 months later.

You don't know that's what this was, and neither did AOL. And I think that it's preposterous that you refer to "one of the many that leave their house because someone in AOL convinced them to do, and they aren't seen again until someoen finds them in a ditch on some old hunting road 6 months later." People who have this happen to them are in the far far far minority. Out of 100 million people (or more) using the internet in the United States, how many has this happened to? 20? 30? Even if it happened to 1000 people (one a day for the past 3 years, which I find highly unlikely), this is still less than 1/100000 of a single percent. That's statistically insignificant. You probably have a better chance of being hit by a car crossing the street than being kidnapped by an Internet stalker.

You (and this hysterical "mother") are another example of people who just don't get it. You fail to comprehend what the technology is and how it can be used and the realities that come with it. Then when it doesn't work the way that you feel it should you rail against it as if it were your personal playground. It's not your playground. It's not your child's playground. It's not a playground at all, and it certainly doesn't need to be censored, cleaned up, or otherwise nerfed for the "children's sake."

Re:Job Security over Child Safty?

[HomerJ]

Ok, no, I'm not for giving out names and numbers for everyone that asks for them from an ISP.

But AOL isn't an ISP, AOL isn't even the internet. If the whole Internet just died tomorrow, AOL would be alive and kicking sans it's web access and ability to half ass use other tcp/ip programs though it.

AOL isn't the public internet, it's a private network. In a private setting, the constitution doesn't mean a thing. You have no right to privacy. Your only option is that if you dont' like it, leave.

Maybe they shouldn't have given that mother that number, but they should have at least called the police, and informed them of it situation. That's what you should get by using a private network. As far as AOL is concerend, they should know everything about the people that use their network. If that means personal information of 20-30 million people, so be it. It's those people that CHOOSE to be on that private network, they weren't forced on.

I'm not for censoring the internet in any way, shape or form. It's a public forum. But AOL isn't public, it's private. They advertise about safety and child seurity of their private network. They should start taking some steps to doing so. If that means sacraficing some of their member's privacy by giving their names to police, etc. then so be it.

I just can't say it enough that what happens on AOL is not the internet, as a private network, they don't play by the same rules. They shouldn't play by the same rules. Just like partents who send their childern to private schools so they can get education like religion that can't be taught in public schools, people should use AOL for protection that they shouldn't legally be able to get though a normal ISP.

That's why I feel like they didn't do their job. AOL is NOT the internet, and people should stop treating it like it is. It is a private network.

Re:Job Security over Child Safty?

[mami]

You (and this hysterical "mother") are another example of people who just don't get it. You fail to comprehend what the technology is and how it can be used and the realities that come with it. Then when it doesn't work the way that you feel it should you rail against it as if it were your personal playground. It's not your playground. It's not your child's playground. It's not a playground at all, and it certainly doesn't need to be censored, cleaned up, or otherwise nerfed for the "children's sake."

OH, well, our guru speaks from his heart. He understands what the technology is all about, how it can be used and the realities that come with it. It's not a playground, indeed.

If it's not our playground, why do you INSIST on keeping the playground OPEN, PUBLIC, UNCENSORED and ACCESSIBLE to mankind ? Wow, you even ask to pay the kids playing on it to PAY YOU ?

Wouldn't it be good enough, you alone play with your technolgoical toys then ? Please don't pest us with your technology. Because WE are just too dumb to play with it safely. Too hysterical to continue to provide you with your next salary as your playground user.

BTW, your statistical risk analysis stinks. Even if the likelyhood to be struck by a car is greater than the likelyhood to get kidnapped by a stalker (kidnapping is the issue here ?) , that doesn't mean that people haven't agreed some traffic security regulations to make getting struck by a car less likely and provide means, if the car's driver speeds away, to trace him down via the car's license plate.

And who are you to decide, what the acceptable risk level is and what the absolute value a "statistically insignificant" ocurrence of an event should be. Guess what, the dumb, hysterical idiot users will demand a democratic vote on that one, and you can bet, that the dumb-a** of the world will NOT let the technological intelligentia determine that. The times were gurus can hide out behind the phony "benevolent dictatorship" argument are over. Do you have any proof that your dictatorship is benevolent ?

*plonk*

---------

I made one mistake in my life - when I signed that letter to President Roosevelt advocating that the bomb should be built. But perhaps I can be forgiven for that because we all felt that there was a high probability that the Germans were working on this problem and they might succeed and use the atomic bomb to become the master race.
-- Albert Einstein to Linus Pauling, recorded in Pauling's diary.

-- Who will be the next master race ? The technological guru ? --

Re:Job Security over Child Safty?

[jafac]

The security just wasn't about losing his or her job.

If you give out another customer's personal information for any reason other than the strict guidelines, if the situation isn't as it was represented, you could be giving the info of a target TO the child molester. You could not only open AOL up to a lawsuit, but yourself, personally as well. $7/hr is one thing, but being held financially responsible for a death or molestation is another. Stick to the plan, follow orders.

Re:Job Security over Child Safty?

[laura20]

Clear your mind and think. The "mother" could have been someone social engineering the name of a target they'd located in chat rooms. Yes, gasp, even a child. AOL doesn't do this out of the goodness of their hearts -- they do it because if they give your address to the murderous creep who has fixated on you, they'll pay through the nose. Both money and bad publicity.

This sort of knee-jerk "well, damn the rules, we must Save the Children" reaction is _exactly_ what the con-artists and sociopaths count on to get what they want.

Re:Job Security over Child Safty?

[ocbwilg]

If it's not our playground, why do you INSIST on keeping the playground OPEN, PUBLIC, UNCENSORED and ACCESSIBLE to mankind ? Wow, you even ask to pay the kids playing on it to PAY YOU ?

Because it is a powerful tool that can enrich, simplify, and generally improve people's lives if it is used as such. It's only when clueless "trendies" think that they can use it as a playground or a babysitter or some other goofy purpose for which it was never intended that we have these kinds of problems.

Wouldn't it be good enough, you alone play with your technolgoical toys then ? Please don't pest us with your technology. Because WE are just too dumb to play with it safely. Too hysterical to continue to provide you with your next salary as your playground user.

Um...we didn't pester you with it. Nor did we come to your house, kick in your door, and put a gun to your head forcing you to use it. People choose to use the Internet. Nobody forces them. If you can't handle the responsibility of dealing with the results of your choices, then perhaps you need to do some more growing up before you make any more choices.

BTW, your statistical risk analysis stinks. Even if the likelyhood to be struck by a car is greater than the likelyhood to get kidnapped by a stalker (kidnapping is the issue here ?) , that doesn't mean that people haven't agreed some traffic security regulations to make getting struck by a car less likely and provide means, if the car's driver speeds away, to trace him down via the car's license plate.

Apparently kidnapping is the issue. But first I'd like to point out that no matter how it's done, kidnapping is illegal in all 50 US States, and more than 95% of the "civilized" world. There are laws in place against it. No matter how it is done, there are methods of investigating it and prosecuting violators, just like there are methods of investigating and prosecuting the drivers of autos who hit pedestrians. So what is your point? It appears that you have none.

But you know, there are also laws that help to prevent kidnapping. There are privacy laws. There are laws that say that you cannot profile minors for marketing purposes "to protect the children." There are laws that say that AOL doesn't have to release your personal information to any potential stalker who calls them up and asks for it, even if they pose as the hysterical mother of a missing child.

And who are you to decide, what the acceptable risk level is and what the absolute value a "statistically insignificant" ocurrence of an event should be.

You too are apparently of the kind that "just don't get it." Do you know what statistically insignificant means? By definition .00001% is going to be statistically insignificant. Of course, statistics don't mean much to you if you're that 1 person out of 10 million, but that's another story. You should have been more careful. Then again, Darwin did have a good point, and the world is overpopulated...

. Guess what, the dumb, hysterical idiot users will demand a democratic vote on that one, and you can bet, that the dumb-a** of the world will NOT let the technological intelligentia [sic] determine that.

A democratic vote? Are you kidding? Do you actually believe that this country (since the context of this article is in the US) would actually create a nationwide referendum to vote on what is statisitaclly significant in the case of kidnapping? We can't even elect a president! The technological intelligentsia may not be making decisions on the laws of this country, but the political intelligentsia do make those decisions. Only they don't make them based on true circumstances, knowledge, or experience. They make them based on what the company that is funding their campaign wants. Which would you prefer?

The times were gurus can hide out behind the phony "benevolent dictatorship" argument are over. Do you have any proof that your dictatorship is benevolent ?

Benevolent dictatorship??? When did I become part of the ruling class? I assure you that any dictatorship of mine would be anything but benevolent. Off with your head!

-- Who will be the next master race ? The technological guru ? --

Master race? You really do belittle all the people who suffered and died at the hands of the Nazi's with that statement. That's disgusting.

Re:Hey Steve Case...

[Steve Case]

Bob, you HAVE* to accept it. It is your ass that makes the pants look big.

I am sorry about this. However, you may get some support into an AOL chat room.

-- Steve Case

C|Net link on the second story

[SimplyCosmic]

Here's a link to a news article with more details:

AOL, NAVY Settle Privacy Case

My banning story

[EggMan2000]

I got banned from an online game called Ultima Online for having a user name of AssMan. I was so frustrated. These people have no sense of humor, nor do they watch much Seinfeld.

It is a shame that these underpaid self important idiots take the company line to such depths. Chill out and enjoy your crappy job a little more.

I personally question any company that does not allow employees to have personal effects in their "pods". WTF is a pod anyway? - Sounds very Scientology to me. - (not a troll)

Re:My banning story

[Glytch]

I don't know about AOL buildings, but in the call center where I used to work a pod was a single room full of cubicle.

Oh, and anyone in atlantic Canada, never work for Pollara. Trust me.

Re:My banning story

[kindbud]

AssMan is not a role playing name. You should have been banned.

The last paragraph

[onepoint]

The last paragraph is where I think the guy went wrong. What he should have done ( as in the armed forces there can be moral obligation ), is using the other parties profile. Gotten the Phone #. Walked out of the building to a payphone. Made the call to that party and tell him he's documented. Plain and simple. Instead he quits because he did not want to think about it.

Now, AOL could have fired him, in return he could have called a press conference and caused a bigger problem for AOL. Most likely causing AOL stock to suffer and HUGE lawsuits.

The power of the media is very strong and if there is kids around then it's even stronger.

ONEPOINT



spambait e-mail
my web site artistcorner.tv hip-hop news
please help me make it better

Re:The last paragraph

[Glytch]

Uh-huh. And what would have happened if the poor, distraught woman who demanded the information had turned out to be a stalker herself?

Re:The last paragraph

[onepoint]

Did not look at it that way. Very good point.

So I stand corrected.

But somehow I feel that he should have taken some sort of action that would have been positive to both parties.

I hope that this issue does not stick to his mind for the rest of his life.

spambait e-mail
my web site artistcorner.tv hip-hop news
please help me make it better

Re:The last paragraph

[mami]

Then her behaviour comes under the same legal scrutiny as the person, who she believed to be a stalker of her child.

You just make an argument which feed those, who are against anonymity on the net.

Why couldn't there be two separated www networks, one where anonymity is allowed, one where is not. People who have something to say, they can stand behind, don't need anonymity. Adults can connect to either network.

Re:The last paragraph

[Glytch]

Actually, I was making a comment on how it's good policy for AOL never to give out information like that over the phone. I thought I was advocating for more protection of privacy, rather than the latter.

Re:The last paragraph

[poltrup]

As in the Armed Forces, once there is a suspicion of inappropriate or threatening behavior, he should have done exactly what he did. Notify his superiors and await further orders.

As in the Armed Forces, the person monitoring the system is legally bound by the Fourth Ammendment not to reveal any information beyond that documented in a legal and formal request regardless of the requestor. And at that can only release information specific to that infraction, unless another legal and formal request for the incidental information has been submitted.

Anything outside this scope can subject the monitor to civil liabilty, not just the company.

Yes, there is a moral obligation... There is a moral obligation to protect the information you are trusted to view. There is a moral obligation to protect the interests of all users of the information system. There is a moral obligation to ensure an innocent person is not prosecuted based on an unverifiable request for protected information. For all the monitor knows, the "distraught mother" could have been a "cyber-girlfriend" with a vengance, or worse yet a stalker on-the-prowl... In either instance, revealing any information could blow all hope of successfully putting the "bad guy" behind bars.

As much as it sucks, there are times when you really wish you could open your mouth... Unfortunately, as a system monitor, unless you've got a legal authority sitting next to you, your lips have to stay sealed.

Re:The last paragraph

[majestyk2000]

I myself worked as a tech support specialist at AOL for about a year, and you are the kind of person that their training program would weed out. I'm not sure where you get off thinking you are smart enough to second-guess a multi-billion dollar corporation with thousands of other employees exactly like you. They do the things they do for a reason, and it isn't because they are stupid or unfeeling. I'm not sure where you missed the point that the person that the tech was speaking to might have been LYING. It isn't up to you to make that determination.

Re:The last paragraph

[onepoint]

>>I'm not sure where you get off thinking you are smart enough to second-guess a multi-billion dollar corporation with thousands of other employees exactly like you. Second nature I guess, the value of a firm has nothing to do with the thinking process ( just look at the history of IBM and their think about PC's ). I would have thought that this person had spoken to the "mother" could verify the fact that it was the kids mother. Now I can see your views very clearly, the risk to the firm is not worth the reward, and that's fine for the shareholders. For me, I would have dropped a dime, out side of the office to the local authorities. Might have saved the kid or atleast the kid would have learded to tell his parents that he was going out. Sometimes the hard road might be the road that can cost you the most.

spambait e-mail
my web site artistcorner.tv hip-hop news
please help me make it better

ROFL! Mod this up!

[DG]

Oh man, what a time to be without any mod points. If anything deserves a +5 (Funny) today, this is it.

For those that might not get it, this isn't a troll - go read the article.

Good one "Doctor"

Freedom of information is a bad thing too

[Quid]

As our friend so brilliantly voiced in his experiences at AOL, we see the Internet being a central point for many rather scary ideas. Because of the freedom (and ease) to exchange any and all information, we've seen an serious increase in the number of debates upon issues we might not have even touched previously. I'm going to hate bringing this topic up (again), but the Napster debate would be an excellent example of a recent conflict strictly related to the ease of information exchange. A better example would be child porn on Gnutella. I can't argue that there are numerous benefits to the freedom of information on the Internet, but can we really go on ignoring the extremely bad ones? Freedom of speech vs. freedom of information, I guess we're stuck at a catch 22 for the moment.
----Quid

Re:AOL SuX0rs

[Cid Highwind]

>> I had a blazing 9600 modem

<oldschool>
You lucky punk! I used AOL v1.1 on my Mac Quadra over a 2400 baud modem. The phrase "Updating artwork: plaese wait" still makes me twitch...
</oldschool>

Ah, Crud....

[V50]

The same went for a handle that "infringes on any patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright, right of publicity, or other proprietary right of any party or impersonates any person or entity, including any employee or representative of America Online."

Oh, Crud! There goes my idea of joing AOL and using the DeCSS source code as my Screen Name.....

Re:Ah, Crud....

[Pakaran2]

I think it's too long... that illegal prime thing, OTOH, was a pretty cool idea.

Population at Risk - Mental Health

[mami]

Village Voice and the author can only be praised for writing the article. The most significant sentences I found in the main article and in Salon's article are these:

"There is a simple explanation for why this happens," says a supervisor at America Online who does not wish to be identified. "People are able to completely transcend what they are in real life and live a different life entirely.

This IS a simple explanation and it IS a simple truth. It is also a very simple RISK.

Just put this statement side by side to the following observations.
I took a call. A woman frantically explained her catastrophe. Her young son had been chatting online, and when she went to get him for dinner, she found his room empty. A last instant message was posted on the screen: "See you soon, can't wait." She begged me for the name and address of the person behind the dangling screen name. I had the information right in front of me, but I couldn't give it to her.

Put this side by side with this paragraph from Salon's article:
After a flurry of exchanged photos -- "I want pictures of faces and bodies. Dicks if I can get them" -- Steve arranges a rendezvous. "Your place or mine?" is a refrain reverberating all over AOL's servers. It usually takes Steve 45 minutes from the time he starts his computer till he hears a knock on the door. His record? Five minutes. "I logged on, clicked into a room, exchanged GIFs and bam, I was out the door."

There is very little doubt that when "people transcend from their real life to a different life entirely (online)" they also bring back their entirely different (online) life into real life, if they can do so without repercussions.

If the human desires, expressed online only, that are as basic as making money for survival and finding sex, the desire to play out the online personality in real life is as strong as the desire to transcend from your real life personality to your online one. It transcends over within seconds, if two consenting desires meet. I can't imagine a stronger "drug" than this and a more dangerous technical tool for exploiting the "addictive nature" of human sexuality. This is by no means a moral condemnation, just a simple acknowledgement of our biological nature.

For those who dumb down the issue by referring to the personal responsibility with regards to any compulsive usage of a dangerous tool (be it guns or online porn), I just like to mention that it is off the point. We will not end the oldest trade of the world, but AFAIK there has been no society which hasn't established norms and seeked to enforce them, in order to prevent humans to become enslaved and exploited.

The denial of corporate leaders to talk about the scale of profitability of their business through income generated directly out of the exploitation of people's sexual impulses is just proof of the nature of this "business model". A simple drug dealing business based on "addiction", if you can call the need to have sex as an addiction.

Just continue with the conclusion:
What had started as a job wide with possibilities had narrowed to a pinhole through which I could see the messy corners and anguished moments of so many ordinary lives From a strictly evolutionary perspective, the eggs that hatch online, in the imagination, grow wings and claws behind the closed doors of real houses.

Well said, real house's miseries, real human life's exploitations, real business' profits, real community's political issues - all unsolved and talked down by a population in denial of getting mentally enslaved by their own technological tools.

--------

The greatest weakness of the democracies is economic fear. -- Albert Einstein

Re:Censoring the net instead of setting up familyn

[ebh]

But you could also get a single pipe into your neighbor's house. See this article describing someone who did this.

Very simple solution to protecting your kids:

[LordNimon]

Don't put a computer or a TV in their room. Force them to watch TV and use the computer in a room where the parents frequently are, like the living room.
--
Lord Nimon

Re:Very simple solution to protecting your kids:

[gaudior]

This is precisely what we do. The other thing is to talk to you kids about why you think some things are wrong. As kids get older, you give them more and more responsibility for governing their own behaviour.

Criminal Negligence?

[omnirealm]

"A woman frantically explained her catastrophe. Her young son had been chatting online, and when she went to get him for dinner, she found his room empty. A last instant message was posted on the screen: "See you soon, can't wait." She begged me for the name and address of the person behind the dangling screen name. I had the information right in front of me, but I couldn't give it to her."

Suppose something happens to this boy. IANAL, but couldn't AOL be held criminally negligent in this case? Shouldn't they have a policy of working with law enforcement in these matters? They may not be able to give the address to just anyone who calls in. I understand that. But couldn't they give the information to the local authorities, and work with them to protect this boy from someone who may harm him?

Re:Criminal Negligence?

[decesare]

Good question -- I think the mother would have had to get the police involved first.

Cult of $cientology did something similar

[FreeUser]

The Cult of $cientology destroyed the anonymouty of funet.fi after someone posted their secret holy scriptures (the horrifically bad science fiction we read last week here on slashdot) to USENET.

They did this by posting naked pictures of children through the same anonymous server, then reporting the same to the Finland police, who naturally demanded the list of actual user names. As it was not a double-blind system, the administrators were forced to comply. The Co$ then had no trouble extracting the true target of their efforts and suing said person into oblivion.

While not identical to the social engineering described before, the technique they used bore striking similarities.

Oddly, as far as I know, no one from the Cult of Scientology was ever arrested for peddling the child pornography they themselves sent through the anonymous remailer. Funny, that.

Unremarkable

[kindbud]

When it finally became un-slashdotted, I was able to read the article. Yawn. It's not particularly well-written, it says nothing new or shocking, it's all about how someone got job burnout. Big deal.

Everyone online is NOT a pedophile

[freeweed]

The predominant thinking here seems to be that this kid was going to be abducted by some old creep or something. Strange... when I think of that message, my first thought was 'he probably snuck out to see his girlfriend'.

I think the issue here has nothing to do with AOL, rather why this kid doesn't tell his mother where he's going when he leaves. But of course I forget, everyone who's not on /. is a pervert who abducts kids.

A LOT of kids (especially teens) chat with their friends online. No need to make a capital case out of it. You better believe the phone company wouldn't release the personal info if this kid had used the phone instead of a chat room. Or are slashdotters secretly technophobes too?

Re:Everyone online is NOT a pedophile

[mami]

Lame answer, so obvious that it's a shame to even mention it. Dumb yourself down, not the audience. Play the little victim card of the misunderstood geek /. pervert. Is there anywhere someone out, who thought everyone online IS a pedophile ?

That's utter nonsense, bloody dumb and of course moderated at score 4. Why ? As if it even were the subject. Actually, I would rate this post, if I wouldn't just ignore it, as off-topic.

Or are slashdotters secretly technophobes too?

No, but openly dumbdown-o-philes.

Re:Everyone online is NOT a pedophile

[Sir Robin]

"Not everyone online is pedophile", perhaps?

-- The Logic Police
:)

Other possibility is

[morven2]

that the call was real but wrong. Kid was WAY more likely to have just been arranging to meet one of his same-age friends and the mother freaked and jumped to the worst possible conclusion.

Thats more than enough perversion for me thanks...

[slashbrent]

Some people like to cocoon themselves in plastic wrap to crap and screw. Some fathers barter their daughters in exchange for the children of other men. Some women are looking to serve cocktails on their hands and knees at Super Bowl parties, butt plug in place. All of this became the business of our little crew.

The novelty quickly wore off of even the most unexpected combinations of words in member profiles, like "snatch fangs." Hobbies: "I like a good orange up my ass." Quote: "I'll f:u:c:k for a buck and do something strange for some change." Quote: "Stop changing your lipstick, my dick is starting to look like a rainbow." Quote: "You could drive a truck through my ass crack." The same lines appeared in thousands of profiles, the lack of originality making the task even bleaker. Hobbies: "k-9 sex, violent sex, bondage, anal, anything I'm a sub and I could be dominant too, if you are a sub email me with a fantasy and a slutty pic and I will respond to all I will cyber for anyone who can make me wet." Over and over and over.

Okay, thats it! Not like any of us couldn't have guessed this was transpiring in AOL chat rooms, but i can assure you i dont want to read anymore "inside AOL" accounts ever again, thanks.

Micro$oft chose the name .NET because .JOKE was too hard to explain to shareholders.

...the mindset of the writer...

[Interrobang]

Yeah, but that was the point the writer wanted to make. Did anyone else notice the oversensationalized "Ooooh! The Internet is baaad! It's so scaaaarrryy!" tone creeping in all over the place in that article? I sure did.

I mean, apparently you can take the censor out of the censor's job, but you can't take the censoriousness out of the censor. Or something.

In tone, this article reminded me strongly of such previous "Net Hysteria" gems as the Time "Cyberporn" story, "Is Your Computer Posessed By A Demon?", and all those unsubstantiated reports of stalkers finding their victims online and subjecting them to Satanic Ritual Abuse, or something.

This writer really wants us to think that the Internet is a dangerous place, basically to justify her (former) job's existence. Fortunately, she's just a little too dumb to spot a scam when she sees it. Thank goodness. More of that kind of attitude we don't need.

yuo must be stuypid or somthing

[cainem]

It's easy, just insert a

tag. Darn it, I mean a '

' tag. No that's not right, I mean you just use the letter P in angle brackets. There might be a key to do it, I tHINK IT@S THIS ONE. nOTHAT@S NOT RIGHT+MAYBE IT@S
++
NO CARRIER

Okay, see, this is freaky...

[connorbd]

You may agree, you may disagree. But a community has to have some standards.

I look at it this way: AOL is not Usenet. Fact is, they need to keep paying customers. Censorship (or at least segregation of controversial stuff) is probably all but required for them. Now, see, outside the AOL sandbox we don't need that.

Just remember that whether you agree or not with an idea, there's *usually* a legitimate other side to the story. I happen to be not in favor of censorship myself, but there is a place for it, and if nothing else keeping deliberately inflammatory behavior in line is occasionally (but not universally) useful.

/Brian

Weird Job

[Atreides4]

The censors to me seem to be in a very odd job. They have to look at all the smut and violence on the internet supposedly because other people can't handle it. What's their slogan? "Protecting you by looking at smut?"

middle ground?

[bobv-pillars-net]

I think I would have done told the customer that company policy forbids me to give out this information except by court order, then I'd have told her exactly how to procure that court order.

Any supervisor who fires me for giving out that kind of information is a supervisor that I didn't want to work for, anyway.

Don't go there, baby......

[EggMan2000]

Since when do you have to have a name like Stormblade to play an online game? The point of the post was these "offensive" names cited in the original post.

My name could have been EggMan -but it was taken already, and I would not have been banned. It was the Ass that got me the boot.

Re:Hey Steve Case...

[Stackis]

Can't the mods filter this shit out?

Sheesh!!!!

DSL with a multiplexer is switched

[Rares Marian]

Check your connection process sometime there is in fact a number that is being passed that allows you to get into the network.

Re:DSL with a multiplexer is switched

[Vegeta99]

No, not DSL. Thats PPPoE.

What ever happened to thinking?

[HobophobE]

Why use imperfect mechanisms to block childrens' access to "adult content"? Why not use a little old-fashioned thought? You've got one of the most amazing life forms in existence to "protect", so why not make it a responsibility for them to learn? You've got a chance to teach your kids how to think for themselves rather than to blindly obey authority, and that's what you should do. My parents let me make my own mind up as I became a teenager and it's payed off. I'd much rather go to a site, realize it's worthless, and never return than not be allowed to the site at all and never know if the information is worth looking at. Does censor-ware block /.? I hope not, this is certainly a great place to read other peoples' opinions and the reasons for them as well. If you had a choice between covering your childrens' eyes when you walk past an adult bookstore or to explain to them what the place is and why it's not a good place, which do you think would be more helpful when they're walking past it four or five years later with their friends? It boils down to the idea of informed decisions. If you have no prior knowledge or something, how can you be expected to make an informed decision about it? If you know what it is (truly what it is, not some distorted version created through propaganda and nonsense) then you're a lot safer and a lot more aware of your environment.

-HobophobE

Digging Through Garbage

[seraaches]

I agree with some of the points made here: If you cannot trust your kids online, then maybe they shouldn't have access. Teaching them to be careful when they search helps cut down on trash they may find. That's just wisdom.

Digging through garbage helps find trash.

I agree that a few years ago you wouldn't find trash if you weren't looking for it, but with the amount of moral degradation that has happened since then, it is often almost impossible to avoid it. I have a friend who likes to surf by typing in random URLs, he's not searching for trash, that's just how he likes to find new and interesting sites. How many times has he landed in a big pile of snot? I cannot even tell you, but he doesn't surf that way very often anymore.

I use to surf through Geocities much the same way, I would simply change the number of the address (this is when the addies were something like geocities.com/Area51/Hollow/9597), but I kept finding so much filth that I just had to stop. It's not that I was looking for that, it's just where I happened to end up.

Today there are also so many trash sites that attempt tp hide their true nature until you click that link. Even the descriptions are purposefully incorrect in order to draw more people in. Imagine my surprise when I was searching for a laptop, found a site about refurbished laptops (according to the description, anyway) and ended up at a porn site with about 10 popups with nude pictures! I DEFINITELY was NOT searching for that, but it landed right on top of me! The point is that it is now a lot harder to avoid garbage than it once was.

Going to the original issue, parents do have a responsibility to care, protect, and guide their children. No, you do not have to hang over them all the time. Maybe at first (face it, when you were a kid you did stupid things too), but as they grow older you should allow them more of the responsibility of deciding what is right and what is wrong. If you are teaching them correctly you won't have to hang all over them. I agree with AOL's censorship because some things should NOT be propogated, and my heart aches to know that they must sift through such garbage everyday, but much of the responsibility of protecting the kids lies in the parents. Those children will copy what they see you do and will learn your ideas and values. Our world is slowly sinking into a moral flood; it's hanging onto so much garbage that it is slowly sinking down. Soon, we will even be drowning in it, and all because we won't put the trash out.

Re:Time for a true story...

[Rakarra]

Ever notice when you give the best answer, the idiots say you're just insensative? :) Some people have to everything be perfect for -them-.

Oh, nonsense!

[Decimal]

Sensorware works *wonders* to keep parents off of those nasty places on the web!

[One week after installation...]

"Hey, the computer won't let me get into Yahoo!. Will you fix it so I can?"

"I think you already know the answer to that, mom."

Logic...

[kubrick]

It burns me to see people who ought to be tech-savvy still perpetuating the myth that the Internet is overrun with pedophiles and child abusers, when the reality is that it's overrun by petty, vindictive, malicious, lying adults.

Are pedophiles and child abusers not malicious, lying adults in most cases?

Yes, but not all malicious, lying adults are paedophiles and child abusers.

if A then B != if B then A

Re:Fuck yourself

[Pooua]

You can't imagin the pain that you fucking prudes cause in the world.

It's perverts like you who cause most of the pain. It's perverts like you who laugh the sick jokes and casual sex. It's perverts like you who kept AOL's homosexual chat forum open, which has at least two confirmed victims reported in the news (the first victim was raped by someone he met in the chat room; he then raped and murdered a boy who happened to be selling cookies door-to-door). It's perverts like you who harass the girls in high school, hurting their perceptions about themselves, making them harlots and unwed mothers. It's perverts like you who support the murder of unborn children, because fornicators would rather murder the child than act responsibly. It's perverts like you who make the Internet into an open-air septic tank.

I have hardly scratched the surface of the pain and evil your kind has inflicted on this world, and continues to inflict on this world. You are a creep. Your kind has always hid under a rock because the light of day would melt you. Now, you have the Internet, and you slime your way around the world.

Re:From someone who is currently an AOL volunteer.

[Pooua]

AOL has often been on my blacklist because of the constant stream of porn solicitation or other sexually-immoral material for which AOL is the gateway. I don't have to do anything to get this garbage. Simply having the account is enough.

I created an AOL account for my mother's business. She has never seen or used it, but a few years ago, it served as her business e-mail address (I forwarded all her business e-mails to her home office). I've been logging onto it about ever 6 months or so, ever since she changed to a different e-mail provider. Even though the account has been dormant for about 3 years, it gets constant porn spam (among other spam). As best I can figure, the fact that I created a user profile that identifies her as a travel agent is sufficient reason for people to flood her mailbox with porn ads.

Sometimes, I log into AOL in the early morning hours. I often get an IM (or maybe a half-dozen IMs) around 5 in the morning, from "SexyJessica" (or whomever); in the past, when I clicked to accept the message, it contained only a link to a porn site--"SexyJessica" disconnected as soon as she sent me the IM.

The most galling aspect is that a lot of these porn ads come from people who have AOL business accounts. AOL refuses to release to me any contact information regarding the people who keep spamming me (they claim they are protecting their customers). So, their customers whom they are protecting keep sending me porn spam, and there is very little I can do about it. I don't worry as much about it, now, though; I switched to a different ISP (I only keep the minimal service, for my e-mail, Buddy list and Web page). My use of AOL has dropped from about 8 hours a night to about 5 hours a week.

It almost took an act of Congress just to keep AOL from advertising their homosexual forums on my computer. I complained several times to Steve Case's office, but he only said that their ads were in the late evening, so children shouldn't be exposed. AOL only stopped putting those ads on my computer after one of their members who frequented their homosexual chat rooms sodomized and murdered a little boy.

This isn't the world I'm going to live in.

Kids and Porn

[codejnki]

The best way to gaurd your kids against porn is to be blunt about it. I say show it to them. Explain to them what it is.

Half the fun with porn and kids is the idea that they are getting away with something that mom and dad don't know about.

Then construct an elegant lie. Have all the internet access in the house routed through a Linux box. Tell your kid you've written a perl script which will scan every URL routed through the box for some keywords and will send you an e-mail once it reaches a certain limit.

By the time the kid has learned how to hack in as root and figure out how to disable this non-existant script you can feel confident that they know how to use the Internet as a tool instead of a porn bank.
----
"War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left"

Re:AOL and Fetishes

[Pooua]

What is it about AOL hiring weirdos?

1) Most geeks are weirdos, and proud of it. Computer science has attracted weirdos (people who tend to have an above-average intelligence, anti-social behavior and strange personal quirks, particularly regarding sexual matters, but who usually do a poor job of organizing their life or money) for the last 50 years. Most of them, if they are politically active, are Democrats, or maybe Socialists.

2) AOL pays rock-bottom, and hires in areas that don't have a lot of job options. New Mexico has traditionally had a poor job market. I also moved from a city in which AOL set up a large call center (I applied for that job; I was desperate), located out in East Texas--it had poor job options, too.

How to beat all censorware:

[Squeeze Truck]

Filtering software is a parent's worse enemy.. WTF people can't understand that is beyond me. Even if it worked 99% of the time (and they don't), that 1% will be found and if so, it might as well not be there. Filtering software lulls parents into a false sense of security.

Learn all the naughty words in a foreign language, search with Google, and have access all the filth you can stomach.

French and Spanish will do for simplicity, but Japanese and Russian turn up the most hits. :)

tee hee, he admited to being an AOLer!

[Rogain]

And what if the TOS states that you must suck my dick?

TOS's are the worst sort of lawyerly cowardice.

Does the average schmo who installs AOL, ever read all of that fine print anyway? And what if the only way to get on to the internet is by signing up via a nasty TOS, oh gee, see you can't get online unless you let us censor you, but thats not censorship, you agreed to it.

Re:Fuck yourself

[TheReject]

Actually, I agree with him. Eloquent argument is useless against a single-minded zealot. Pooua. Your website sucks. and I just looked at porn.

Do 8 year olds need the Internet?

[Eravau]

what does your 8 year old need the internet for?

Even grade school children are being constantly inundated with information telling them they need to be on the internet. My daughter comes home from school with books or magazines full of URLs to info related to the magazine. She watches the educational shows on PBS and what follows every show? "Visit our web site at pbskids.org". Everything aimed at kids (and adults of course) these days has an internet magnet attached to the end. Everything has a "Please visit our web site" attached to it.

No, I don't let her go off by herself. The computer is in one of the main rooms of the house and she already knows the safe sites where she wants to go anyway. No, she doesn't need the internet, but when it's all she ever hears about, you're not going to keep her from wanting it. And if she's going to be on the internet, I'd rather it was at home where I can explain any questions that come up, rather than in secret at some friend's house.