Senate Approves Censored .kids.us Domain

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."

Comments

Re:Uhhh...michael, did you even read the bill?

[Bonker]

This seems simple enough to me. If you want your children to access the .kids.us sites, then you have to install a Mozilla or an IE plugin. Those that don't have those plugins can't go (Boo-hoo...) and those that do are subject to the restrictions placed upon them by the .kids.us domain sites.

Does this allow the government or Neustar to spy on people and gather information if they want to? Yes, it does. Since it is an opt-in system, I'm comfortable with it. No serious site will place itself in the .kids.us domain. Those serious websites that do will no doubt also maintain a regular version.

Excellent!

[mr.nicholas]

I'm surprised: an intelligent and implementable system actually came out of Congress.

Of course, I wouldn't want to be NeuStar. That's a hell of a responsibility; to police an entire subdomain for appropriateness. And I wonder what sort of liability issues that creates. If I let my 10-year-old browse at will through .kids.us (he goes through a squid proxy right now that defaults to denied [I have an ACL of acceptable domains]) and he comes across something inappropriate, may I then sue NeuStar for allowing that exposure?

As it stands now, my son's email account receives close to 50 spams a day, 10 of which are sexually revolting. But because of the nature of the beast, I cannot press charges against any of the companies that originate the mail (if I could find them, that is). It would be refreshing to to have a "Kid Safe" label and have it mean something*.

* Unfortunately to get any organization to truly "Certify" that (and be able to TRUST that certification), there must be real and hurtful penalties attached.

Monitoring.

[perlyking]

How are they going to monitor it. What about a site that is about furry teddies one day and porn the next.

Okay I hear the jokes...

[El Camino SS]

But honestly, this will be difficult to regulate. And more than likely the pedophiles and grown men that cruise with names like Soccergirl342 will be there in masse. The way things are going now, the FBI is going to have to be in every chat room.

God, I hope that they do something right for a change on the internet before some place like adultsexplayhouse.com or donkeysweat.org decides to move into the kid market... and sue ICANN for "their rightful domain name" on .kids for kidsfun.kids.

So for all of you /.ers that think this is crap, or have some nutty agenda about having a kids safe internet, I suggest you go play legos with your cousins today, and then think about if they are mentally prepared yet for what some of these bastards will plan to do with them. You'll change your mind soon enough.

Enforcement?

[YrWrstNtmr]

What powers will the controlling group have when (not if) someone breaks the content rules?

What recourse do I have when my kids happen upon content that should not be there in .kids.us?

.kids.US ?

[YrWrstNtmr]

Are kids in the US the only ones befitting a "safe" surfing experience?

I realize that it would be nigh impossible to create a worldide standard, but theis tastes a little of "screw everyone else".

Re:Questions

[RailGunner]

What's more important, is exactly what counts as "hate speech"? Who decides what is "hate speech"?

If a child's web site is dedicated to history, would commentary on the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor be considered "Hate Speech" since it might offend Japanese kids?

Or what about a current events story on the conflict between Isreal and the PLO? Would the other side denounce any opinion given as "hate speech"?

Or more recent - there are some that consider it "hate speech" to talk ill of Al Qaeda (despite the fact that their goal is the destruction of the US).

Sounds like this may be just another example of political correctness gone too far. Why shield kids from any speech, even if it is vile, racist garbage? Wouldn't it be better to point out to the kids that racist organizations exist, but are wrong because they don't believe that All Men (and women) are created Equal?

good try, who will (really) control

[fermion]

This really solves a lot of problems. It leaves the internet in general free to do what it does. It bypasses ICANN and puts the subdomain in the control of a U.S. company beholden to the U.S. government, and, most importantly, it does not impose U.S. law on the rest of the world. As much bashing as the U.S. congress has gotten here, I think they now deserve a conditional kudos for having a clue. I say conditional because they do hav a tendency to sneak in little easter eggs that come back to bite us in the butt.

I, however, don't know if this will be successful. Parent who don't wish to monitor their children, like those that complain about South Park and the like, will complain that the system is not perfect when a nude painting inadvertently makes it into a discussion about classic art. Christian fundamentalist will try subvert the intention of the domain by using it to promote their religious beliefs. The fast food chains will dominate the advertising in a continuing attempt to brand our children.

But, all in all, a good attempt and a gold star for congress. I am really not trying to be ironic. It is just we need to first teach our children to think. Sometimes I think we are so concerned with nipples and penises that allow equally dangerous, but more socially accepted material. Of course I agree that stuff like goatsx should be banned, but perhaps also this Jerry Falwell propaganda against muslims.

Re:This is the way to do this kind of thing...

[GnomeKing]

Maybe with ipv6 we can be a little smarter and dole out adult ips to 6969:6969:6969 or sommat.

Thats not such a stupid idea...

With the current internet address system, anyone can have any ip

Would it be SO bad if there was a bill passed that anyone serving adult material had to have their IP's in a certain range?

There are obvious reasons why restrictions shouldnt be placed on the dns'ed addresses, but could they be enforced by whoever-it-is-who-hands-out-ip's?
"You can have this IP as long as you dont display sexually explicit images/movies as defined by section 3(c)"?

It would mean that making the net safe for kids would be as simple as blocking that netblock
Anyone displaying material which is deemed inappropriate and NOT within the IP range could have their IP address revoked...

I'm very much against internet censorship by the government, but can anyone think of a good reason why IP groups such as that would be a bad idea?

Not a laughing matter

[dnoyeb]

I know everyone is gushing over this as if its a good idea. Just look deeper. Look at whats happening today and you can see what will happen in the future. Let me help you.

1. servers in the kids.us domain immediately come under attack by crackers hell bent on inserting pr0n into those sites.

2. Parents attempt to sue Neustar.

3. Supreme court rules they cannot be sued and complaintants must sue the US Government (which one cannot legally sue)

4. Parents turn their fury to the individual server administrators.

5. Administrators can not keep up with all the bugs in the software and request help or protection from the us government.

6. FUD ensues.

7. White house demands new Cyber Terrorism laws.

8. DHD creates new Cyber Terrorism division.

9. more freedoms shot down in the name of "the children."

You can divise any scenario you like. The one common thread is that these servers will be major targets for crackers and they will succeed time and time again.

I Agree: Well Done Congress

[FreeUser]

As much bashing as the U.S. congress has gotten here, I think they now deserve a conditional kudos for having a clue. I say conditional because they do hav a tendency to sneak in little easter eggs that come back to bite us in the butt.

As one who routinely, and scathingly, bashes congress here and elsewhere, I have to agree. This appears to have been a rare instance of insightful, intelligent, reasoned, and balanced governance, something we have seen far too little of lately.

I think this actually has a good chance of being quite successful, and school firewalls can easilly be designed to only access .kids.us, leaving the school surfing of the 'net relatively reasonably without having to employ censorship software whose motives are often suspect (they filter political as well as objectionable content, usually but not always with a pro-right-wing bias, etc.).

As long as the criteria, process, and oversight of the selection of material that is allowed in the .kids.us domain is transparent and public, this will work reasonably well. Yes, there will be politics and debate, but it will be open and, if not always fair, at least reasonably democratic (quite possibly reminiscent of local school board politics). If not, it will just become another dysfunctional censorship project run amok.

However, I am actually fairly optomistic that some lessons may have been learned, and it will be the former, not the latter, which happens. In any event, this is a good, well balanced start to solving a problem without, for once, trampling on either the constitution or the most promising new technology to emerge in a hundred years, namely the Internet itself.