Slashdot Mirror
Politicians Target Social Sites For Restrictions
cnet-declan writes "Politicians are looking for reasons to convince citizens to vote in November, and polls say suburban parents are worried about the internet. Wednesday top House Republicans announced a bill to make 'social' Web sites unreachable from schools and libraries. The bill is intended to go after MySpace, but the actual text of the legislation covers sites that let users 'create profiles' and have a 'forum' for conversations -- which would include Slashdot and many blog sites. House Speaker Dennis Hastert claims it's necessary to stop 'dangerous predators' out here on the Interweb."
Well that explains why Rupert Murdoch, the richest & most influential media owner in the world (owner of Fox and myspace.) has ended years of Clinton hating and started cosying up to Hilary Clinton.
Utterly fascinating - he's a powerful, ruthless, pragmatic man, normally the kind of person who gets along perfectly with the current republican administration - but it looks like the christian right's prediliction for censorship is starting to ruffle his feathers.
Anyway, for anyone unlucky enough to be using internet access in a library, I'm sure the circumvention techniques good for the great firewall of china will work inside the US as well. Maybe the BoingBoing guide to evading censorware will be useful too.
Oh - on a side note, check out the spoof Rupert Murdoch Myspace Profiles
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
Those who have nothing to say will have nothing to fear!
I have nothing to hide. So, why are you spying on me?
Now I'll never find a girlfriend! (Where's the -1 Creepy mod when you need it?)
Ah yes, it's another year divisible by two, as you can tell by the haunting call of the red-breasted politician:
From TFA:
That's a rather wide range, and a quick perusal of the web (Google is your friend) gives ample reason why this is such a moronic idea:
And from Speaker Hastert's statement: Well, we've heard stories of various congresscritters involved in all sorts of shenanigans....perhaps we'd better just outlaw Congress.
Now, I'm not trying to deny that online predators exist and are a problem, but a better solution than a draconian ban on all discussion-type websites might be to actually educate your child about the danger...after all, the predator can't molest your child through the computer, and if a child knows better than to give out sensitive info, it's over before it begins. But of course, parents would rather have our legislature raise their children than take a little responsibility themselves, and the legislature is more than willing to pander to the irrationality of the general populace, especially in a year divisible by two. The problem with this approach is that everyone gets treated like stupid children that need to be protected, and that's unfair to those who still have their wits about them (although they seem to be in the minority).
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
What do you expect these politicians to do, something worth while? We have budgets busting the income of the government, we are gushing in debt. We have 2 wars which aren't close to being over. We have looming social security problems and even worse is the pending Medicare problem (slated to go bankrupt in only 10 years!). Yet, our worthless, and i mean worthless in ever meaning of the word, politicans are more worried about restricting myspace. Maybe they should starting thinking of the children's FUTURE, being able to have a country.
Idiots.
From the FA, which again a Slashdot submitter seems to have not actually read:
... a proposed federal law that would effectively require most schools and libraries to render those Web sites inaccessible to minors ...
Note the use of the word minors here. If you want to argue whether or not minors should be prevented from accessing sites like Slashdot, that's fine, but the article doesn't say at all that adults will be prevented from accessing those sites.
Really, if you think about it, there are predators out there that will use such pages and forums to gather their forces to go after some of these poiliticians and get them out of office. It must be very scary for this guy and his ilk indeed.
Most teenagers i've met in the internet in "social sites" (i mean forums) have problems about abortion, parents beating them (or telling them that they're worthless), depression, anorexia, suicide problems, drugs... (you should read more teenager blogs , people). And I'm not talking about 18 or 19 yo's... I'm talking about people 15 years old in average.
Families are practically becoming prison camps for kids... and you're telling me that the greatest danger are sexual predators on the internet? Are you f*cking kidding me?
So who protects the people from their government?
Guns. Lots of guns.
Just as guns can be used to repress people, they can be used to free people.
Of course, then the whole "throne of bayonets" thing comes into play...
Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
Terrorists.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
involved?
I guess this is yet another "save the children" campaign.
But guess what? Most people that abuse children are trusted friends or family members, not some slashdot geek in his mom's basement in Maine going after the poor children looking at websites at the library in California.
The problem is not MySpace or Slashdot, its that the US is full of lonely scared sick people that take it out of the easiest victims that they can, children. And although it is pretty common to do minor pedophilia, severe and chronic abuse is very rare.
So brilliant legislators, what is next? Outlawing telephones, children in public places, school, libraries, music, TV, well, everything besides the privilege of paying taxes?
Dipshits.
Keep taking our liberties, and you will understand what the 2nd amendment is all about.
I can't believe that with Republicans in the majority, that htey would push for a Federal law like this. They are more than happy to make Evolution a state and county issue and to not regulate the sciences --- but they are going to attempt to regulate this? This is such crap and it strikes home in a deeply personal way, so excuse my venting.
I have been slowly working on a project called the Free Textbook Project that I'd liek to target at schools. As well as something called the Piaget project, which is a collaborative and interactive mathematics learning environment. Others at the MIT Media Lab are doing similar things. These would all be banned, as well as Wikipedia, as far as I can tell. GMail is banned, and really, most any other internet technologies. I don't see how one can find appropriate language on a national level.
The problem isn't letting children on community driven sites.
The problem is a community driven site has no way to properly police and identify it's members.
I ran a community based website for 8 years where users could create profiles, message each other, participate in tree style board discussions and it became very popular with high school age children. I went through most of the steps that would have made the site COPPA compliant (though it was unneeded) using email based multi-opt in methods to verify the user. The site was policed regularly for content that would have been inappropriate for underage users, erring on the side of caution. I didn't regulate what users sent privately to each other, though there were jobs that ran on the backend that would watch for things that should send up a red flag (ie, adults talking about 'plane tickets' with minors). It wasn't perfect, and most of the time the flags were false positives that I just ignored. Users were aware of the monitoring and generally approved.
I shut the site down about 10-12 months ago because I couldn't handle dealing with the child predators anymore. One of my monitors had gone off and upon investigation I found not just one but three different adults (30+ males) that were all attempting to 'hook up' with girls 13-16... I am not in position to judge, make laws, or anything of that nature. However, this activity is explicitly not what I wanted on my site (and since all parties were in the US, they all were beneath the laws of this country and their respective states). I attempted reporting these activities to the states the individuals were from (California and Indiana in this instance), was given the run around for a while and eventually just told in a round about way that nothing I could submit or do would effect anything. No investigation, no extra monitoring, no research into these individuals who were quite knowingly breaking laws and endangering a child (from at least the law books perspective).
I searched for ways I could as a small website operator (~20000 members) validate a users identity. I figured I could at least prevent some of these activities if users knew without a doubt that their accounts were tied to their real identity (even if it was hidden to other users). I hit a brick wall. I could not find any means to accomplish this and queries on solutions were left unanswered (though my Ask Slashdot question is still in Pending state and has been for the last many months).
I don't see this issue as being something that laws preventing children from getting on these sites is the solution. I *do* however feel the schools should have the right to block access to any sites they don't deem as needed for the education process. I happily blocked access to my site on my side at the request of school administrators that didn't have the technical wherewithall to block it on their side. Social networking websites have as much place in a classroom as cell phones and instant messaging devices. So blocking them I approve of, but at the school administrations discretion.
My biggest point here is the problem: "Sexual predators preying on children" is not solved by their solution "Block access to myspace while at school and put the load on the site delivering the service, not on the site accessing the service".
Most social networking sites ignore the fact that they KNOW their sites are/will be used by predators. Some of us let the guilt get to us and shut down.
Yes, that's comforting....problem is, we're under it, and when it collapses, it's gonna hurt.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
OK, I'm a dad. I am not concerned about predators ever reaching my daughter over the internet. Why? Because I keep an eye on my kid and pay attention to her. My wife does, too. Responsible parents don't let the TV, iPod, video games, or computers babysit their children.
;-)
If kids can't get the attention they need from their parents, they'll look for it elsewhere.
You can't legislate that. Parents just have to pull their heads out of their asses and be parents.
Politicians are reactionary organisms that will do anything to please the masses so they can get re-elected. Bills like this are merely placebos that make the government appear that they're doing something about a problem that should be addressed at home.
This is a waste of time and a distraction from REAL issues. But I don't have any stong opinions about it
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
If you want less nannying regarding the Internet, why on earth would you vote for Hillary Clinton? She and Joe Lieberman are frequently to the right of Republicans on most "civil liberties in tech" issues -- check out their broadsides against the gaming industry, etc.
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
If you want a different government, you vote for different people.
It's as simple as that.
The question is what kind of phoenix will ascend from its ashes? The usual fire bird has tanks, guns, and conducts elections at pistol-point.
As another poster mentioned, this is the reason for the second amendment. It's just ironic that liberals might be leading the pack in wishing that it hadn't been all but repealed.
Where were the privacy rights guys when people wanted gun registrations? Now the government has lists of who could oppose, and they'll be the first to go when the red bird rises.
People have been so divided by this "Conservative" and "Liberal" false separation that they refuse to think about the implications of each. We're all guilty of unquestioningly accepting dogma that someone tells us is consistent with our particular "faith". The evidence is the apparent absence of "moderates" in America.
So here's the revolution: Stop thinking in terms of Liberal and Conservative. Stop letting other people speak for you and think for you. Re-think your beliefs, and know WHY you believe what you do.
I think most intelligent people would understand that disarming the populace is the first step of any dictatorship, and it's only now, when something that always seemed impossible in the U S of A now seems frighteningly plausible, that people will see the obvious. That's also when it's too late.
The irony is that liberals may have set the stage for a conservative dictatorship.
Voting means nothing, and I think 50% of Americans don't vote probably because they realize this.
Maybe it's the other way around; maybe voting means nothing because 50% of the public is too stupid to take up their part of the process. Maybe it's these kinds of people who let things get bad because their too gutless to take 5 minutes out of their busy day and let their elected officals know what they're thinking.
Everyone who cries that they're screwed (by the government) and that there is no way to change things are right... as long as you keep sitting on your stoop and crying "poor me" you're not going to change anything.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
This should NOT be enforced by the government.
It SHOULD be enforced by teacher/librarian watching the room and possibly filtering on the school level.
Extra legislation to make people do what they are already suppose to be doing?
This is a school-level issue. The school/district should make their rules and enforce them.
Does anyone have any excuse left for voting for Republicans because they represent "small government", "no intrusion into personal affairs" or any of the "Conservative" lies they've spewed for decades to grab power and squander American freedom?
--
make install -not war
802.11 assault rifles.
I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
Seems to me that a broadcast morgul
I think that was supposed to be "mogul."
However, "morgul" would be very appropriate here.
Oh, no! You have walked into the slavering fangs of a lurking grue!
Guns. Lots of guns.
You might want to ask David Koresh how that worked out for him... or the folk at Ruby Ridge
Violence only begets more violence. A well educated populace that is active in their community and politics is the only long term defense against corruption & tyranny. Teach your children well.
Or maybe more to the point a violent uprising to gov't only plays into their hands by justifying their use of overwhelming force. The US people would not stand for a Tiananmen Square style crackdown on US soil. Look to the civil rights movement of the 60s. Freedom Riders being attacked on National TV forced JFK to send in the troops. Or look at the Kent State Massacre.
If the govt becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law, it invites man to become his own law, it invites anarchy
I work in a school system, so three things:
One, we already block this content. So this is purely campaign crap to get extra votes. And every school system, at least here in Virginia, is required to provide an Internet filter to protect students from accessing certain sites. Our public libraries do the same.
Two, what content we do not block, is for educational purposes. For example, Slashdot. Well, if Slashdot now fits the profile of a site that needs to be banned, then school systems across the nation will be required to sacrifice some sites that are essential to teachers' methods of teaching.
And three, why make the Internet more restrictive through more legislation? The Internet is a public forum for open communication and collaboration. Don't stifle innovation just because parents can't raise their children properly. I know from experience that parents like to point the finger at everyone except when it goes in their general direction. "Their kids didn't do anything wrong, it's obviously the school's fault."
Once, I had a student with animal porn on his school-issued laptop. We found it when he brought it to our helpdesk for repairs. We called in his parents because they just had to see it. They couldn't believe their 15-year-old son would do such a thing. Well, when I spun that laptop around with a picture of a girl and a horse on-screen, all his mom could say was, "[student name], what the hell am I looking at?" And the lesson of this little story is this: I can't keep him from getting it on this SCHOOL computer. If a hormonal little teen wants porn, he/she will find a way to get it; no matter what their odd tastes may be. I can take the floppy drive away, the cd drive, disable USB, etc. All I've done is locked a machine down so tight, it's now good for nothing. No amount of bill and legislation promotion are going to keep things like this from getting to kids because the kids (and their rearing) are the source of the problem, not the content. And I'm not condoning the predators or saying they're not at fault, but if children were taught/disciplined to be more aware of what's out there, maybe they wouldn't be so "stupid" to put themselves in a situation to be preyed upon.
That's my two cents. Thanks.