Slashdot Mirror
No Space for MySpace?
conq writes "BusinessWeek looks at the flaws in the bill proposed by the House of Representatives that would block access to social networks and Internet chat rooms in most federally funded schools and libraries. One big problem with their bill is it is much too vague, it 'could rule out content from any number of Internet companies, including Yahoo! and Google.' What's more, DOPA would prohibit sites that enable users to create their own content and share it. That covers a wide swath of the online world, known colloquially as Web 2.0, where users actively create everything from blogs to videos to news-page collections." This is analysis of a bill we covered yesterday.
There's something "Freedom of Speechish" about that that doesn't sound quite right. What's the argument going to be? "No, we aren't preventing speech about topic X -- we're preventing all speech". Riiiiight.
You could've hired me.
The argument is that it's "federally-funded" areas that are being targetted for enforcement, but wouldn't that amount to the government selectively banning content from the public? In which case wouldn't it be easy-pickings for a lawsuit over first amendment rights?
"DOPA would prohibit sites that enable users to create their own content and share it."
Wouldn't this cover any web-hosting service?
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
...is a good old fashioned witch hunt. In their zeal to restrict "predator" access to children, they are painting with a wide brush that will have the effect of giving those in power far more power than they should. So what else is new?
Why not just call it DOPY, so we get a better picture of what the politicians are thinking.
That's it! I'm moving to China.
Oh crap, my constituents are upset again about something. Let's knee-jerk a bill together that is ill-defined and problematic. God knows it won't ever pass, but it looks like we did something!
So Congress gets to bask in the glow of the "protect the children" big lie, AND deal a significant blow to that pesky "blogger" problem. This bill is like a politicians' wet dream.
So it is perfectly legal to view porn in the public library, and they will even give you a special screen to do it... but not myspace?
DOPA.
Yeah, that sounds about right.
Conallen, of Fitzpatrick's office, says that the bill is intended as "just a start" for shielding kids when they're away from home supervision.
His office then said they are looking to build a "Walled Garden on the internet" where only government aproved thoughts are allowed.
-Grey
Silver Clipboard: Time Management Tips
The school I went to blocked certain sites via "custom block" on websense etc...
:p).
Someone I knew found out the admin password by watching him type it because he lost the password to his account. He used it to change the school's homepage to a websense looking page saying category block "school/education" because at his school, the blocks were VERY restrictive and blocked legit sites. IMO best prank ever (and he got 3 days of detention for it
By reading this, you have given me brief control of your mind.
how about insted of going after the law abiding we go after those who are breaking the law?
oh rihgt, cause those that follow the rules are much easier to controll, and if they cant vote, all the better
That covers a wide swath of the online world, known colloquially as Web 2.0, where users actively create everything from blogs to videos to news-page collections."
I thought "Web 2.0" was supposed to mean the new "Ajax powered" web, where people use Javascript just like they always have, except now it (sometimes) uses XML too. Now "Web 2.0" means, basically, the Internet?
People have been "actively creating" online content, including blogs (formerly known as "home pages") since the beginning of the Web. I don't see why we need to apply new buzzwords to the same old Internet just because someone's marketing department just discovered this whole intarweb thingy.
The idea? Keeping kids and teens off potentially dangerous sites, at least on public school and library time -- not to mention keeping would-be offenders from using library terminals for nefarious deeds.
"Nefarious deeds," added Fitzpatrick "like thinking."
-Grey
Silver Clipboard: Time Management Tips
OK, I can see why a public library might need a little more room to wiggle, I will definitely concede that point - but public schools and those oh so great government jobs? They don't need access to MySpace.
I also have a hard time believing that it isn't vague for specific reasons. Police might need to be able to access these sites for research reasons, as would some Gov't employees tasked with research. You don't want those people restricted in their web access.
You do however want to restrict that moron at the DMV from checking out the American Idol blogs.
This seems to be a common way for legislators to write law that can be selectively enforced.
Ahhh, its moot anyway. These people don't understand what it is they're writing laws for anyway - they just know they have to do something or lose votes.
Computers at schools and libraries shouldn't be used for chatting or whatever those 'social networks' expect you to do, right? Around here it's an established rule that you're using those computers for research or educational surfing. Can't help but think that's somewhat normal.
I'm Rocco. I'm the +5 Funny man.
The vast majority of high schools and elementary schools in the US (i.e. those with funding to hire someone who knows how to use the internet) already do extensive blocking of this sort of material. The problem is that with proxy sites and other work-arounds this legislation will be no more effective than the policies which are already in place. The flip side is that those teachers who have found innovative ways to use blogging, wiki-ing, and other interactive web media in their teaching won't just be able to go to local officials to clear ideas.
Hell, at this point I'd take anything to have people browsing MySpace less. There's nothing worse than having your significant other proclaiming that it's just "chatting" when in reality it is "online flirting".
not a dupe. that was informing about the law. this is a story about an analysis of the law and why it is flawed.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Does anyone think that there exists sufficient language to regulate ANY activity on the internet? Governments use platforms like child porn and copyright infringement to attemnt to push legislation into the mostly lawless arena of the internet. If any sweeping legislation does get through, who's going to enforce it? Internet police? The logical conclusion is what government does with all other regulation: licence and tax. To optain an IP address, you would need a government supplied license, one which requires signing off on a legally binding agreement, paying a fee for the beurocracy, and a tax for the usage.
I don't see how else you can even think about drafting laws in a lawless arena. The first step for everything is that which China has already made: all ISPs are now 0wned by the government.
-dave
6th Street Radio @ddombrowsky
What to know why Rupert Murdoch is hosting fundraisers for Hillary Clinton?
Murdoch owns MySpace.
Hmmmmm....
and pass a law that sends all children to boarding school at an early age and denies them all contact with the outside world until they are 21.
This isn't going to stop until the Internet has been turned into TV.
No, RTFA! It's "DOPA"!
So say we all
You'd think with the amount of computer literacy children are growing up with these days, they'd have an inkling of paranoia about meeting people from MySpace and other sources. I imagine AOL deals with stuff like this on a daily basis.
I guess Devo was right, society really is devolving and people are getting dumber overall rather than smarter. Just because a monkey can use a stick to fish ants out of an anthill we think the monkey is smart. But this is the same monkey you can trap by putting food in a glass jar. Therefore, children may appear smarter because they're typing LOL on their computers, but they're still morons at the end of the day.
Our county office of education is the ISP for most of the school districts in the county. Filtering is already required by law. Our filters block MySpace and other similar sites, because the computers are there to be used for school work. Social networking is to be done on your own time, not when you are supposed to be researching a history paper during class time.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
"That covers a wide swath of the online world, known colloquially as Web 2.0, where users actively create everything from blogs to videos to news-page collections."
Did somebody just call the RIAA, MPIA and Big Media. If Congress criminalizes sharing your own (video, audio, news & blog) content, then you can obtain that sort of entertainment only from the RIAA, MPIA and Big Media . Is there some hidden agenda, perhaps $$$ or perhaps some (not so) unintended consequences?
"the bill proposed by the House of Representatives"
An accurate description would be "the bill proposed by House of Representatives top Republicans". The House does not "propose" legislation, it passes legislation - despite the popular Republican "unitary executive" treason that makes Congress optional. This bill is the product of Republicans pandering to their clueless "morality base" as their "Brand W" sinks past 30% approval, below Nixon territory. The pandering relies on reporters ignoring its partisan Republican production. And Slashdot is there.
--
make install -not war
US Evil plan to control the world
1: Have a guy invent windows to spy on everyone
2: Keep everyone's phone records
3: Prevent the young in school to create there own sites and ideas on the net
4: Control the entire internet
5: Give out the new uniforms
I think this is a fantastic idea. Like most of the current Administration's plans regarding public schools, any such project regarding control of Internet access should NOT be funded by the federal government. Eventually, the schools will be spending so much money and dedicating so many resources to federally-required Internet restrictions and such that they won't be able to spend any money on any actual education. Et voilá! All those students grow up to become Republican neocon Bush supporters!
It's absolutely brilliant!
(And a quick note to those who will inevitably mark this as "Flamebait" or "Troll" -- I've already run this past my many Republican friends, and they all found it funny. Of course, they're all college educated and they all hate Bush, too. And reality, as we all know, has a well-known liberal bias.)
"A statesman is a dead politician. Lord knows we need more statesmen." Opus
While it sets a bad precedent, I can't say the actual blocking of MySpace in schools and libraries is a bad thing.
I'm suprised that nobody has mentioned Wikipedia yet. This site is nothing BUT user created content, AND the best possible resource for students at ANY education level.
There's only so much pressure a system can handle before it cracks and all the mess pours out.
If they severely limit or cripple Internet access, people will either start setting up proxies from home to tunnel traffic through, or use other proxies, or do something else unthinkable or just not use that access at all and go for something alternate.
RIAA and MPAA are learning this the hard way, but apparently others do not learn from their mistakes.
Since our Constitution has been so twisted already, could this not be seen as a violation of our right to freedom of movement? If we can't move about freely as adults on the internet.... But yeah, give these rules to kids. If you've ever been so unfortuante as to have to go to the library to use the internet, you'd want to scream at every computer being in use by rugrats playing games, quite often not even at their machine, but instead peering over a friend's shoulder.
It's a girl!
That covers a wide swath of the online world, known colloquially as Web 2.0...
Colloquially, or as I like to say, "by idiots."
-- dR.fuZZo
Jeez - the furor over MySpace.com is disgusting. It's a GREAT site and both my kids (and me, sometimes) use it all the time - along with instant messaging and online games and many other online things kids are into these days. It's easy to monitor their homepage and linked friends and such and most of the favorite bands have a site. It also gives the kids a place to express themselves.
It's also quite safe if parents take some VERY basic precautions - turn off public viewing of the homepage (so only friends see it) and don't post very personal information (like schools or real names). And, of course, teach your kid not to be a moron.
I'm sick of congress trying to pass legislation to overcome terrible parenting. Parents need to teach their kids better so they won't talk to 30+ year olds or arrange to meet folks they only met online. It's common sense and the parents responsibility.
With VERY basic precautions and common sense, 99.9% of kids are perfectly safe and, when they're not, there are generally alot more serious problems at home than whether or not a kid has a myspace account.
Instead of wasting time and tax payer money on more red tape. Why not focus on increasing law enforcement funding for investigating child predators? Why not increase funding for programs to educate children about the Internet? Why not focus on whether treatment programs for child predators should be better funded/examined?
Is this really that hard of a rational leap in thinking for people to make? No wonder they have a reputation of being extremely inefficient.
0.0.0.0 myspace.com
0.0.0.0 www.myspace.com
if you're on windows, its c:\windows\system32\drivers\etc\hosts
if you're on linux, you should already know how to do this
problem solved.
"No dear, I don't know why MySpace doesn't work anymore."
Please, mod most of the Insightful posts above as "overrated." The posters simply don't know what they are talking about, though I can't blame them because TFA never mentions this part of it.
If you read the bill, the requirement IS NOT that all schools and libraries block access to the websites, but only those that receive funding under the Universal Service Discount program. If a school or library does not receive that money, and IIRC the majority do not, then they are not required to block access to any sites, nor filter any content that is deemed "harmful to minors."
This isn't a case of rampant government censorship, but of Congress placing conditions on the money that it doles out. If you run an affected institution and don't like the consequences, then don't accept the money.
Just be sure to wear the gold uniform when you beam down -- you know what happens when you wear the red one.
You may say, "Well, are we not currently enforcing the anti-prostitution laws and the anti-child-prostitution laws?"
The answer is "no". Look at myRedbook, which has been operating with impunity from law enforcement. myRedbook features prostitutes who come from a variety of countries and who have a wide range of ages.
... when many years ago I convinced the old biddy at the reference desk to get the book on nudist resorts out of the cage for me.
You young whippersnapers! Git offa mah lawn!
week. I have a crazy idea. why dont they ban pedophiles from MySpace and leave everyone else the hell alone.
It would be *gasp* legal even.
The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
Child pornography is a kind of lame excuse to invoke censorship. Most interest in such stuff is generated by illegality of it: quite a lot of the people like using/having illegal stuff just for the thrill of doing something illegal.
But actually, child porn is very boring in comparison to the contemporary adult porn. If legalized, it will quickly disappear, or become fringe activity, but will be no more stupid excuse.
You have to think about children? No, you don't have. You have to think about your freedom of thought. Children are in no way more important than adult people, and taking our rights because it could be harmful to them seems both silly and evil.
In reality, this is just more of the same nonsense from the dolts on the hill. The problem has never been the content available to students. It has always been an issue of enforcing faculty responsibility. Students are given the opportunity to use systems unattended in the school environment without focus or direction.
Granted, computers are a wonderful way to excite students towards learning methods. The internet provides a platform for research and collaboration unsurpassed by what any previous school library could provide. However, it also provides a platform for screwing around.
As a tech in this environment I've had to deal for years with the light-hearted way teachers use technology. Some understand what the power of the internet can do unfocused, many do not. For the most part the activity that is trying to be mitigated is the activity that shouldn't be allowed to go on in the first place: playing. A teacher standing yards away from a student playing games, or viewing questionable content, taking up valuable chair time, while students with research wait is a travesty and yet it goes on all the time. Some faculty are more aware of the issue and pay attention, but some are on the opposite end of the spectrum and disregard their responsibility saying it is the IT staff who should manage what's "right and wrong."
Schools spend millions of dollars maintaining infrastructure, servers, workstations, network environments and the like, meanwhile little is ever done to give thought to training of staff. So when it comes down to it, the unharnessed potential of the internet is not typically used in a directed manner. We are undermanned in Edu-IT and haven't the time to rate the entire internet, so we try and mitigate major bandwidth hogs, it's all we can really do. If the congress really wanted students to be safer at school faculty need to be accountable for what their wards are doing in the virtual world. They'll never do it, cause the Teacher's Union Mafiosos won't accept responsibility for their actions (or inactions), and congress wouldn't risk losing their support. (read: money)
One of two things are going on here.
Either the sponsors of this bill think it will work, or the sponsors of this bill know this is completely ridiculous, unenforcable and ultimately will probably be overturned. I'm not sure which frightens me more. The idea that our government is completely inept or the idea that our goverment is completely wasteful and corrupt.
Find coupons in Greeley
How would you like to see Your Childs "mySpace" room defaced by this person?
me if i ran a site (and had the jingle to run as a private club) this guy (or any friends of his) would find their account VAPOR.
as it happens i know of one company (with stock) that has blocked myspace from all corporate owned locations and if you somehow get past the block you can be FIRED ON THE SPOT (ie "give me your name tag")
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Will sombody please give President Bush a blowjob so we can impeach him already?
We could incorporate that solution to encompass everybody on capitol hill and solve many a problem.
Windows has more viruses because linux has more virus coders.
We need a constitutional ammendment to fix this. The founding fathers forbade the federal government from regulating free speech. But the government found a loophole:
1) Offer federal funding to sources of media (schools, libraries).
2) Get them hooked on it.
3) Threaten to cut it off if they don't comply with a freedom of speech limitation.
Really, they could pass any law at all using this technique. Ex: "The president is now above all laws. Any state that does not agree to enforce this loses all state funding."
The federal legislature would never pass a limitation on their own power, but it is possible for the states to propose and pass an amendment without federal support according to Article V of the US constitution. (Note 2 explains this)
I suppose that is silly though - the states could just start refusing federal funding. But that isn't likely unless all of them do because no state wants to be at a disadvantage.
When I was growing up, Web 1.0 was all there was and I turned out fine! These darned kids are so spoiled! Get a Geocities account and a few "under construction" animated GIFs, and shut your traps!
-exerpt from "History, 2000-2500"
dont ask how i got it
Yippee! Like any serious geeks on /. really give a damn about that abomination of a site.
This guy is way out there
I think its high time to see the (I) next to a politician's name on the ballot as a clear indication they have been in office for far too long. Yeah we might lose a few good ones but it has become apparent the bad ones outnumber the good and it only is getting worse. They have essentially trapped us into voting for them over and over by using the courts to limit our choices and now they will further attempt to keep a good portion of the population in the dark.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Yeah, myspace isn't something that should be accessed at school, it's a complete waste of time, and I'm not sure why so many people like it, let alone spend more time on it than the rest of life (including my sister), but the problem I see from an average geeks point of view is what about Open Source projects with bug tracking systems, user forums, documentation wikis, and so on and so forth. From what I've read about DOPA, it sounds like all that stuff would be blocked as well, which I would say would be a huge injustice to students that use free software on a regular basis... Back when I was in school, one of the biggest perks of going was downloading linux/bsd iso's on a connection faster than 56k, and then burning them to CD's to take home and tinker with. I guess this is another Microsoft plot to prevent this generation from knowing about Open Source Software Sam
That's for lawyers and politicians to make a living deciding. Paying TAX's and voting doesn't entitle you a say in how your country is run.
This week in the UK dropping litter will result in a £90 fine while vandalising a 85 year old pensioners fence and garden get you an ASBO (a polite telling off).
See a sane logical approach doesn't apply in today's legal and governmental deparments.
Maybe it's that, strictly speaking, email isn't intended to be a shared resource. An email represents a single transaction between 2 parties, and it's ostensibly trackable, but it's not a sharing mechanism, I think, because you can't get content unless the other party agrees to email you the content you want. I'm not sure I'm articulating this well, but maybe someone else can take this up where I'm leaving off.
congresscritters fear teh intarweb, as a haven for child pornographers
slashcritters fear congresscritters, as trying to create orwell's 1984
myspace fears slashcritters, because we all know why slashcritters post here and not somewhere where actual pictures are involved
hey, i have a wacky idea:
how about slashcritters have a point: government shouldn't intrude on people's civil life on the web
and howabout congresscritters have a point: we need to catch pedophiles, and they do exist, and they are hurting children
there: prudent reasonable points, without the fearmongering
from congresscritters or slashcritters
of course, being prudent and and reasonable, i fully expect these words to be completely unpopular here, or congress
please, commence some more with the FUD, dear critters
it's a sad day when myspace users seem the most level headed
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
It's spawning political and social controversey again.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Congress, having solved all other problems both internal and external, turns it's superbrilliance to protecting our children from doing something that any selfrespecting teacher worth his salt would prevent anyway, in the name of... I dunno... TEACHING SOMETHING.
Self-referential Sigs are cool on /. these days...
54
Congresswoman Geda Clue proposes outlawing walking down the street in an effort to eradicate mugging.
God, don't these people have anything important to do?
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
And what I found... wasn't as bad as the news reports made it out to be. Granted, it's still silly and won't stop kids from accessing sites they want to see. But it wouldn't, as now written, ban library access to all of Web 2.0.
The bill would require federally-funded libraries to ban access to Web 2.0 sites through which students:
So if your Web 2.0 sites don't allow readers to "easily access" the bad stuff, you are clear.
*Of course* the devil be in dem der details. Which still makes this bill a lousy idea. But it wouldn't force librarians to shut down access to every discussion board and group blog on the Web.
Why is it called COMMON sense when so few people have it?
Danah Boyd points out the real flaw in this bill: it only hurts the poor kids. Rich kids can get online through a cell, home, etc etc etc, where as econimically disadvantaged kids surf only at the library and are shut out yet again from their "cultural artifacts".
Freedom of speech means that you have the freedom to express your opinions freely, not that the taxpayers have to supply you with the means to post your life story for every pedophile with a hard-on to read.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
Any network administrator knows they can easily block entire domains from being accessed on several levels : router, security policies, 3rd party crapware, Proxy servers.......... -This would affect the entire school district -You *could* have blocked all porn sites too if you hadn't botched the www.porn.xxx idea. -The parental reaction is not unfounded in some cases, but getting the Gov involved will only get your toys and freedoms taken away since we can't learn play nice. I'm not saying that either should be suppressed to death, but i WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree that schools are not the place for it. Porn is a great business and i think it's healthy for adults, and Myspace is an incredibly entertaining (and rare) site for self-expression.
I'm sick all of our politicians being in the pockets of the Web-1.0-inistas. Our children are already behind in Math and Science and now you want them to be unfamiliar with the Web 2.0 and 2.1 revolutions?
I refuse to let our politicians control us by keeping us ignorant (of Web 2.0 uberinnovation).
Your argument here is that, since there are more sexual abuse cases arising from known acquaintances of the victim, that we should ignore the relatively minor threat of myspace. Unfortunatley, this argument is fallacious. It would be like saying "Far more people die of old age than childhood leukemia, so we should stop fighting childhood leukemia and focus on our old age problem." The fallacy here is that both issues are problems, both require solutions, but you cannot focus all effort at one problem to the exlusion of all the rest. Just because one problem is more pressing than another doesn't mean that the less pressing problem can be ignored, and even so, far more is being done right now to catch Father Scumbag than Internet Scumbag.
The truth is, that many teenagers are too ignorant and immature to realize that the things they reveal about themselves can give other people with motive to do so enough information to harm them. This is where parenting comes in -- parents have a responsibility to ensure that their children do not, for example, post sexually provocative pictures of themselves on myspace along with their addresses and phone numbers. Good parents, when finding such material, may decide to ban their children from myspace altogether. But what's to stop the child from accessing the site from a public terminal at school and creating a new account, and putting the material right back up there, and keeping it secret from their parents? This act, in principle, would remove at least this possibility. Even though the child can access the site from friends' houses, internet cafes, or other places, at least school -- the one place a parent can't prevent a child from going to (unless the parents home school)-- is safe.
Freedom and responsibility go hand in hand. Before one can be truly free, they must first gain the responsibility which comes with age. Without responsibility, freedom can be deadly.
The idea is that young children aren't old enough to make an informed decision to appear in porn. I agree with that, but I think 18 is too high of an age to make the cutoff. I think maybe 12 or 13.
Le français vous intéresse?
How many readers here have actually followed up and read the text of the bill involved?
First, the bill only addresses access to the Internet from schools. Of course, if the law were applied at the HS or University level, I think it would be over the top. At the Elementary level, I'd have to think about it. But it can be taken as an example of the dumbing down of America.
Second point, the solution must be able be disabled when there is adult supervision, or if its an educational situation. This almost means that it has to be a software solution... and not just IP filtering.
My high school's ISP blocks most e-mail and social networking sites already. Facebook, MySpace, Gmail (curiously not googlepages yet... only a matter of time, I suppose), Yahoo, Hotmail, all Geocities sites (may actually be a benefit) and the usual pr0n/militia/omg ponies. I was shocked to find that any article on Games @ /. is also blocked.
My biggest complaint, however, is when I have to use Tor on a flash drive just to get some sudoku action.
In this day and age, it's yet another example of the government trying to overstep their bounds by attempting to infringe upon some of the basic, fundamental rights of the American public. Granted it only affects areas that are funded by the government ... for now. But, given time, I'm sure it will not take very long for them to try to extend it beyond it's current scope.
Some people say that western civilization has evolved beyond the days of Hammurabi. Yet, if current events are any inidication, We, as a civilization, have traded one extremist system, for another. With that in mind, are We any different from those at whom we point the finger of modern day justice?
Terrorists attack! Response? Keep records of phone calls made by every single individual living in the US.
Internet child predators attack juveniles! Response? Ban every internet-based, socially collaborative environment in existance.
Why is this news?
Content is already banned in many schools (mine, for example) by proxy blacklisting. Porn, social networks, and game sites are blocked routinely to make sure students stay on task and don't abuse the network resources during class, and to cut down on the amount of spyware (the school runs unsecured IE6 as its standard browser for internal compatibility reasons).
I repeat, this is absolutely a non-news story. Schools around the country have been like this for years. The only news issue here is that instead of all schools relying on differing local policies, the federal government is stepping in to create a universal policy.
This seems like a last desperate attempt by the media companies to keep kids from embracing media and communication methods that effectively circumvent the media monopolies. If kids can create and share their own content, why would they pay the giant media conglomerates for stuff thats not even as good?
Reality has a liberal bias
Simply put, if Google and Wikipedia are out, this is just unacceptable. Both are invaluable tools to the student. I should know, I needed them all the time. Those are only two of the many examples.
It's not about children. Right now almost anything running over ISP networks can and is monitored by the various spook organizations. The last place someone can go for almost complete privacy is publicly accessible terminals at a library. Bring a usb stick with TOR, Firefox, and a few other goodies and you're completely set. This bill closes a loop hole where citizens could participate in free discussion of ideas the government may not approve of. Like it or not, we're already so far down the tunnel to state-minders a la the Chinese that I wonder if news organizations put out reports about human rights abuses in the US. Oh wait...
You know, it's well with in the schools right to write up their own usage policy that prevents students from using such sites. Its no different than agreeing to your company's network policy that says you can't use their network for personal surfing. We don't need the governemnt to do anything about this, its not the governments job. This is no more than polititions trying to drum up support by telling people what they want to hear. If your a parent concerned about your kid looking at these sites at school, go to the school about it and ask what they are doing to discurage or prevent it, it's their network. This is all too common of a problem now adays, everyone thinks its the governments job to solve everything, yet they turn around and complain about "Big Brother" when people only have themselves to blame for giving the government such control. This is also an ongoing example of parents pawning off responsability to someone else for their kids instead of educating them themselves. You get what you ask for...
It's fitting that the same people who refuse to institute term limits or campaign fund limits have no hesitation in legislating limits to information access. This is an issue best solved at the school or school district level through living, dynamic policies about who uses the net for what and when.
If you know of a school that still doesn't have a web use policy, there's a set of tips that would help get the process started. Might even be useful for parents who need to work this out before school's out for the summer.
"Schools, Parents and Students Can Improve Web Safety with Basic Policies, Says Info-Tech Research Group", Tekrati - May 12
The extremists on both sides weigh into the debate without any thought for what is best for the students and library users. I don't want my kids at school accessing these kinds of websites etc. I don't even want them to have internet access except for very specific websites (eg britannica is good - wikipedia would be blocked if I had my way). This is because my kids are at school to learn - not stuff around writing blogs. Computers at the library are supposed to be a learning resource not a free access point. If you want free access - find a friend. I support the result of the bill if not the reasons they say they are doing it.
I can't tell you how much I have learned on Wikipedia (that would have to be banned, too, you can have a profile on your user page and you can even make a page about yourself. ZOMG) over stupid, uninformative school books. The truth is school doesn't do much to help anyone, it just gives them slips of paper saying "I AM SMART" and makes the other people that are probably just as smart look dumb for not having a paper saying they are.
I say we stop FORCING kids to "learn" from school and allow them to do it their own way. What is the best school can tell them, anyway? At best, what everyone else has done. Never the ability to think outside the box.
Problem solves - no schools to ban the sites in.
This same sort of abuse happens in all sorts of ways. Look at how federally-funded scientists don't get to work on certain problems in biotech, or how states containing federally-funded roads (i.e. all of them) have to have a certain drinking age -- whether the people who live and vote there want it or not.
If we make the feds stop taxing us, so we can afford to send the money to our state governments to fund our schools instead, then this kind of abuse will not be possible. So the next time some politician running for a federal office says, "I want to be the 'education president'" ask him if he's willing to prove it by cutting education funding.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
DOPA...er...DOPe A...yeah...that's it...really dopey...
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
Having just come from a demonstration where students (3rd and 4th grades) are creating and sharing PodCasts, MP3s, and all sorts of iLife-related projects, this is disappointing.
MySpace may not be fostering the best communication, but what happens there is no less detrimental to our socity than what happens in DC.
-David
Maybe google could build a search engine for all schools and libraries that censors out any links to forbidden (blocked) material!
Did anybody actually read the constitution and bill of rights when it was still around?
"The large print giveth, and the small print taketh away" -- "Step Right Up", Tom Waits
Stop reading the fucking Daily Mail and try thinking for yourself, an ASBO is a shitload more than "a polite telling off" you fuckwitted right wing dumbass.
Based on the conditions listed in TFA, it looks this bill would also require that access be blocked to Einstein@Home, SETI@Home, and similar projects.
"Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire." -- William Butler Yeats
So, someone in Congress realized that Congress is afraid of anything new, and decided that they can sneak through a bill that blocks anyone from posting anything on the Internet, in the name of protecting the CHILDREN from evil, new, high-tech web sites.
It's time to shoot the bastards.
Andy Out!
Right because without myspace, game forums, mmogs, IMs, etc., they would be totally unprepared? Bullshit. Maybe just, maybe, you're afraid of losing your AIM at school.
I work in showbiz in NYC. Anyone without texting, and IMing, and(for designers)a personal/design website is unconnected and doesn't get much work. Having an online presence (ie Myspace) is part of these kids social growth, wheither you think it's stupid or not. All business is just as much who you know as what you know, today's WOW gaming guild is tomorrow's diverse network of personal connections. This might not count for much when you're sitting on a government job, but if these kids want to be freelancers or job hop to faster promotions, or even stay keyed in a fast evolving work scene they need that online social scene. I spent over a hour today trading online dating stories with guys that can make a 50% difference in my annual income, it's better than playing golf with the boss.
We are all just people.
Perhaps, but it doesn't have to be developed during k-12 fed funded time. Learn the skills first. Get your social networking done in college. I'm not saying it's worthless, I'm saying it's unnecessary. Those things can be developed pretty rapidly. You won't be a social reject in K-12 without them. Oh, and uh... I've worked in the private sector. I don't think I'd win any points with any of my past bosses sharing sticky keyboard stories with them.
... what did you expect, something profound?
I've been the Network Admin for my County Library branches for over a decade, and I have also been an Assistant Librarian at a small branch library, so I think I can speak with some experience on this.
The small Ozark county where I live and work is pretty darn conservative - and that is reflected in the composition of our library Board of Directors, and the Executive Director and her staff hired by the BoD. (This isn't one of those "whacko liberal library culture nests" by any stretch.)
But even they, in their own very conservative way, realize that Freedom of Speech isn't only necessary in a Public Library, it is inevitable. If you censor too much in your library, people will find an "alternative library" to patronize. Same goes for computer labs, and social networks in general.
This is too much like CIPA (the Child Internet Protection Act) that has caused librarians and library techs alike so much trouble over the past few years. CIPA has been a huge failure, because it gives clueless parents the false sense of security to turn their kids loose on the library computers, thinking that they are somehow "protected from porn" because the library complies with CIPA. The fact is, no matter how hard the library tries, and no matter how insanely strict you configure your internet filtering solution, it doesn't actually work very well.
For instance, we use the "State Sponsored and Hosted" Internet Filtering program (its a big-name operation, and supposedly one of the strictest). When configured "correctly" it blocks "most" sites that fall under the CIPA restrictions. But it doesn't prevent the occasional inappropriate image from somehow finding its way on the screen, even if the child isn't intentionally looking for it. But if the kids IS looking to find trouble... Oh man! It is SO EASY for tech-savvy teens to find a way around the filtering. For instance, almost ALL filtering of any type can be circumvented by using an anonymous web proxy. And no, you can't just block all the proxy servers, because they change IP's and URL's regularly, just to prevent being blocked so they can stay useful and relavent.
(So before you blast the proxy hosts, keep in mind that if it wasn't for them, people in China and other repressive regimes - even more repressive than "US" - wouldn't be able to access "dangerous" informational keywords like "freedom" and "liberty!")
Most all libraries have computer use policies that are perfectly reasonable. It should remain in the hands of local communities to decide what is and isn't acceptable. If your local library, or school, has policies that you don't agree with, you and your neighbors who agree with you can take it to the local Board and effect change. When a mandate happens at a federal level, you're not going to be able to change anything, without a LOT of time, lobbyists, and MONEY (if then).
Keep it smart, and keep it local.
Can't say the same about the cowards at the helm these days.
Hey, I'm just your average shit and piss factory.
myspace