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.
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.
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
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.
How about we just put all minors in solitary confinement and carefully screen the guards? Then nobody could molest them, and parents wouldn't need to do a damn thing! And nobody's rights are violated, because minors aren't real people! Remember, it's not censorship if it's being done to someone else.
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.
Depending on your viewpoint, it's rather creepy to "check in" with someone when you want to access "inappropriate" content at all. On the plus side, librarians, and the ALA in particular, are generally quite opposed to censorship of any kind. You can bet that they'll have something to say about this. Libraries already have all sorts of trouble being compliant with the very vague law that is CIPA, and this will only muddy the water further.
I found a very interesting article (linked to from the ALA website) that goes over the problems that libraries face with internet filtering. Make no mistake; they hate it. Particularly alarming is the librarian from Singapore that wasn't that concerned about censorship:
She casually replied, "Oh yes, we get overblocking all the time. Last week I was helping a patron look for motor vehicle forms but they were blocked, probably because it has a box to check for SEX 'Male/Female.'"
There was something about her casual tone that tripped me up. I usually hear librarians give overblocking examples in tones alternating between outrage, bitterness and amusement. I heard none of that in her voice. Just a relaxed answer, perhaps befitting our tranquil setting.
Nevertheless, I prodded, "As a librarian, doesn't that bother you?"
"No, not really," she said. Noticing the surprised look on my face, she continued, "You don't understand. Everything in Singapore is censored ... our books, our movies. You get used to it. Internet filters are nothing special."
This is purely redundant legislation to collect mindshare for an election year, and will only be used to restrict us further. Once people get used to it, they cease to care. It must be fought.
Qualitas edurus commercium, nullus penitus net rimor, nullus deus beneficium
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