Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Senate Approves Censored .kids.us Domain

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the barney-and-teletubbies-considered-safe dept.

lostchicken writes "The Senate has approved the first viable "kid-friendly" system that doesn't try to control the Internet. See the story here. It is an opt-in system that allows a .kids.us domain to be pointed at a site approved as safe, as opposed to an adult only domain type system."

5 of 424 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Questions by CowboyMeal · · Score: 4, Informative
    Read the rest of the article.

    The bill would place a ".kids" subdomain under the control of NeuStar Inc., the Washington telecommunications firm that won the right to manage the ".us" country-code domain last fall.
    The Senate added a provision that would give NeuStar an automatic two- year extension of its contract in return for managing the ".kids" subdomain, a Dorgan aide said.


    They wouldn't deal with ICANN at all, they'd be dealing with NeuStar, who they made a sweet deal with:
    --
    Your credit card information wants to be free.
  2. Re:The Text of the Bill: Not That Draconian! by SirTwitchALot · · Score: 2, Informative

    Unfortunately that link expired from the cache of the server (looks like searches are stored on the host side there.) You can find it by going to thomas.loc.gov and searching for "S.2537.is" as the bill number.

    --
    Go away, or I will replace you with a very small shell script.
  3. This is just great by IshanCaspian · · Score: 2, Informative

    Finally, our legislature has got it right. The primary argument for censoring the internet is "My son searched for *random innocent yet suggestive term* and got loads of pr0n." The answer up until now has been, "Well, why don't you form a special interest group and bitch at your congressperson until they pass all kinds of oppressive legislation?" Now we can say "Well, why didn't you have the software on your child's computer to restrict him to the kids domain?" The only issue others might reasonably have with this is censorship at public internet access points. Remember, though, if organziation X chooses to provide internet access for free, that organization has the right to provide it such that said internet access is conducive towards its philosophical ends. Just as you can't find the most controversial and offensive books in the library, you can't get the same on the internet. The only real argument left is..."What if I can't afford internet access and need to rely on the public libraries for my access to contraversial materials?" Remember that the libraries exist to promote education as it is desirable for the government, which is only to the extent that it produces citizens informed enough to vote. Remember, Jefferson advocated regular revolutions, but he did not expect the government to organize and promote such revolutions.

    --

    But there is another kind of evil that we must fear most... and that is the indifference of good men.
  4. Re:Not a laughing matter by The+Evil+Couch · · Score: 3, Informative

    and then:

    10. geeks turn inward, form their own centralized government, powered by a giant super-computer AI, and then move underground. After centuries of being geek-less the general populous grows technologically stagnant.

    one day the geeks emerge from their underground lairs with powered suits of armor and enslave the world's population.

    --
    The World's Worst Webcomic!
  5. This is what domains were for,,, by LostCluster · · Score: 2, Informative

    Remember your Internet history. It used to be, that .com meant commercial, .org meant non-profit, .edu meant educational body, .net meant an access-providing network and .gov meant US Government.

    Well, that went out the window rather quickly. Network Solutions decided in the interest of being able to sell more domains, they'd let anybody whose credit card clears own a .com, .net, or .org domain without checking to see if they really qualify for the definition of those TLDs. As a result, the TLDs lost their meaning.

    For example, if .news was maintained by the Associated Press, only news organizations who are members or partners of the AP (which is almost anybody worth their salt) would be allowed to create domains under that TLD. If you are a news orgainsation that doesn't play ball with the AP, you can still publish in .com territory and let people decide for themselves if they trust you. The Onion would not be welcome in the .news TLD, and that should hopefully cut down on the number of humourous stories that result when somebody thinks information presented in The Onion is a real news report.

    You can't regulate smut into the .xxx domain, because they'll insist on claiming their not smut and saying they belong in .com. So, you let them have the .xxx domain if they're smut and proud of it (putting the honest ones where they can easily be blocked), and then make sure that the smut is limited to the "free-for-all" domains by saying that they don't meet the qualifications for the resticted ones.