Slashdot Mirror
Lawmakers Try to Protect Kids From Spam
Carl Bialik from the WSJ writes "Some states have moved to shield children from email peddling porn, alcohol and other adults-only products, the Wall Street Journal reports. Critics say the laws, which establish a registry of kids' email addresses, are unfair to marketers and could create security risks. The debate echoes earlier discussion about a proposed do-not-spam national registry that the Can-Spam Law urged, but which the FTC nixed. This time, though, the registries are moving forward on a state-by-state basis, and facing court challenges from the adult entertainment industry." From the article: "Few email addresses have been placed on the state registries so far. Earlier this week, Utah's registry had 1,992 addresses, and 62 schools had registered their domain names to block emails to student accounts. About 160 companies had submitted their email lists for screening. In Michigan, 3,658 email addresses have been registered, along with 41 school domains. About 170 marketers had applied for screening."
Is this an abuse of the service? Probably. But it would bring me great joy to watch some spammer take a $1K-$5K hit for each e-mail sent to me promising the enlargement of my genitals and/or mammaries. From the article: Now that's satisfying!
If you're wondering what adult products qualify for you to file a complaint: Under the law, marketers are prohibited from sending messages containing or linking to any products or services that are illegal under Michigan law for children to purchase, obtain, view or participate in. These include, but are not necessarily limited to: Alcohol, Tobacco, Pornography or Obscene Material, Gambling, Illegal Drugs, & Firearms
On the converse, I'm guessing that if I did get on the list my Spongebob spam would probably increase.
My work here is dung.
I think the list systems are backwards. It would seem to me that no one wants spam and that everyone would would want to be on a do-not-spam list. To maintain a list of almost everyone would be unwieldly and expensive. The same idea applies for the do-not-call lists for telemarketing. Why not reverse the purpose of the lists and make them "OK-to-spam" list and "OK-to-Call" lists? All twelve people that like that stuff can voluntarily submit their info.
Oh wait, that would make sense.
Yet another wonderful way to desensitize our children to the tools of a police state.
You say you want a revolution....
No one has parenting skills anymore.
A kid plays violent games and then brings a gun to school to even some scores, and they blame the video games. They don'tblame the parents how did not monitor the child's habits, see the warning signs, take preventative measures. Parents howl they need a rating system, then blatantly ignore it, letting their kids do pretty much whatever they want.
My wife see it time and again -- children who are running their homes. Their parents are afraid to punish them for fear of being turned in to the authorities or being ridiculed. No one spanks their children anymore. Punishments are weak. Let's face it, sending a kid to their room means sending them to their Internet connection, their IM, their TV and video games.
Kids walk around dressed in mismatched, mis-sized clothes. Where di they get them? Most of them don't have jobs, so it must be dear-old-mom-and-dad who are letting them dress like hoodlums, tramps, and reprobates.
Does anybody seriously think this will work, When kids can get new email addresses easily? Last I knew, Hotmail and Yahoo wasn't asking for id when you signed up. This is just another case of government being forced to do the job of parents who are too lazy or stupid to do it themselves.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
You have to understand that there is a huge contingency of activists and lobbyists who want the government to take a direct role in raising children. They see the school system as the avenue for this. Just look at how schools are moving away from core-curriculum studies to social programs. Laws like these are a way to have what appear to be well-intentioned bills passed to enhance this move towards social "indoctrination," for lack of a better word. You start talking about having one parent at home, you're labeled as not fulfilling the needs of that parent. You start talking about letting "faith-based" programs augment ethical studies and after-school programs and you're violating "separation of church and state." In the long run, parents need to be parents. As parents, however, we have to let our voice be heard and kill the ideals that the modern educational system is pushing. This is why I advocate cutting education spending. Strip the overhead and you can pay teachers more. Cut out the bureaucracy, and the teachers will be teaching sciences, grammar, math, and other essential skills and not the agenda of the new superintendent fresh from his seminar at Berkeley. Hey, we're seeing some of the smartest kids coming from the backwoods of W. Virginia (don't laugh, some kid just blew the curve in academics nationally from W.V.) at a so-called "poor school." If you ask me it sounds like less is more.
It's not just about spam - it's about all kinds of speech, and about the technical competence of the lawmakers, who don't understand the implications of the laws they're writing.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
It's all in the numbers When you look at a close-by country with a population of 30 million: in the '02 census, there were a total of 23 children kidnapped by non-family members. This includes all kidnappings, not just sexual predation In the '02 breakdown by the Insurance companies, there were a total of between 370-430 children who were injured to the point of hospitalization and/or killed by non-famalial drunk drivers. (The paper cited a range of numbers, the lowest being reported, and the higher being the suspected numbers because of under-reporting) Your kid is 20 times more likely to be put in the hospital by a drunk driver than they are to have some predator kidnap them. Predators work geographically, Of the 23 kidnapped, I'd guess that maybe 3 of those were done by someone who didn't live within the same city. I think the chance that the list would EVER be used as a trolling source by a predator is somewhere in the realm of winning the lottery three times in a row. Especially when you can simply drive around and look for brightly coloured plastic things lying around in the front lawn and see who has kids.
Excuse me, but I disagree with the entirity of what you just said. I myself am well under 'adult' status, a minor. However, I program. I am currently designing a program to play adventure games made up of text, bitmap, and sound programs. In C++. Using the Windows API. Much of the information I use comes from the internet. I would not be where I am now if I had to wait till my Dad could come watch me everytime I went online, if I lacked an email address, how would I send copies of the program to a few interested friends who want to take a look (clue - the age you are banning email access for also would have the hardest time sorting out a hosting service). Take away my computer... that... that would destroy the hobby I want to turn into a job one day that I have wanted to do for almost half my life. That would be... monstrous. If I could only use my Dad's computer, while he was watching me... I wouldn't have enough time to code. The solution to this problem is obvious. Ban Spam. Instead of building a list of child email addresses, build a list of reported spam, find computers sending spam, and have them disconnected. Find the spammers making the spam, and fine them. Or worse, jail time. Don't hold me back. I'm ready to go onto the net and develop my program. I don't need the government to be holding my hand all the way. I find this sort of idea horrible, from the people who are part of the government that worships the word 'Freedom'. Pity they forget the meaning. (I would also like to thank the UK government, where I live, for not being a part of any of these recent laws. Because if they do, I'm moving as soon as I am able, to a place more free.)
Bad metaphor. We don't PAY to receive junk mail. We DO pay to receive your spam. So a better example might be:
Your Spam = Telemarketers calling collect without the option to refuse to accept.