Slashdot Mirror
House Passes Ban on Social Site Access
Krishna Dagli writes to mention a C|Net story covering a House of Representatives vote on restricting access to social sites on public terminals. The bill, which passed the House in a 410-15 vote, would bar users from accessing sites like Amazon, MySpace, or Slashdot from terminals in libraries and schools. Adults would be able to 'ask permission' to access such sites. From the article: "'Social networking sites, best known by the popular examples of MySpace, Friendster and Facebook, have literally exploded in popularity in just a few short years,' said Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick, a Pennsylvania Republican and one of DOPA's original sponsors. Now, he added, those Web sites 'have become a haven for online sexual predators who have made these corners of the Web their own virtual hunting ground.'"
Strange I didn't hear a thing...
Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
Why not just kick them in the face while you're at it?
-Eric (former poor kid)
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Obviously this law just screams out to be abused. Who defines when a site is social? Does the Democratic party have a forum? I bet that makes them social enough to be blocked. On the other hand though they are blocking MySpace, so this law does have some redeeming qualities.
Philosophy.
We desperately need the current generation of senior citizens to die off. That, or we need to make voting significantly more accessible to informed people who have shit to do.
These boneheaded politicians have fucked our country in so many ways in the past 6 years alone it's almost inconceivable, and there's no light at the end of the tunnel.
If slashdot is grouped with MySpace does that mean we are also a haven for online sexual predators? Personally, I stick to making women my own uncomfortable.
The cancel button is your friend. Do not hesitate to use it.
FTFA: "The list could include Slashdot, which permits public profiles; Amazon, which allows author profiles and personal lists; and blogs like RedState.com that show public profiles. In addition, many media companies, such as News.com publisher CNET Networks, permit users to create profiles of favorite games and music."
This is altogther halarious. Slashdot is now will be illegal in public!
Besides, shouldn't it be up to the organization to make rules on their computer use? Or is this another case of the government sticking it's nose where it doen'st belong?
"You will do foolish things, but do them with enthusiasm." - S. G. Colette
Unless you have to protect the children! In which case freedom is the first thing out the door.
Sorry for the "troll", but come on, this law is ridiculous.
on the one hand, I'm a big fan of free speech, freedom, small government
on the other hand, i cant stand myspace or emo
"...would bar users from accessing sites like Amazon, MySpace, or Slashdot.....[which] ....have become a haven for online sexual predators who have made these corners of the Web their own virtual hunting ground."
Of course, because preteen girls are well known for associating themselves with this particular social network.
Argh.
Apparently no bill is too stupid if it's for the sake of the children...
Now, he added, those Web sites 'have become a haven for online sexual predators who have made these corners of the Web their own virtual hunting ground.'
People might also get together and discuss anything else, including unpopular wars, politics (including bills to viloate privacy, violate basic civil rights and interfer with the 'free market' and communications) or the corporate predators who back them.
i welcome you to the new america. leave your conscience at the door.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Shouldn't this be in the Won't-someone-please-think-of-the-children department?
www.wavefront-av.com
Myspace is like slashdot? and Amazon? In terms of social networking?
NOOOOOOOOO!!!!
Congress can do some crazy things sometimes, but most things like this get a scant margin of victory. This vote was 410 to 15, an overwhelming show of support!
Dark Reflection
from a public terminal. Sexual Predators: How to Recognize Them on the Internet and on the Street. How to Keep Your Kids Away. I guess the best I can do now is keep them away from politicans and teach them to vote for people that aren't idiots.
"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security
The problem with MySpace is that some idiot paid money for a social networking site no one knows how to use and continously says VIEWING 40 of 41 friends (when you only have 40). Librarians should protect patrons against such confusing 1 off errors.
After work I will busy myself inventing new tube blockers..
-- www.globaltics.net
Political discussion for a new world
Oh yes, because clearly many 13-year-old girls frequent Slashdot to lure us predators....
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Some weird guy (or gal?) who wanted to root my server.
;)
I was so scared
(S)he also said something about a basement, but that's when I went offline
This is the sig that says NI (again)
THis sure makes me happy. I mean -- the House must have solved all of the other problems of our society overnight, to be back at banning things. Hooray for the do-gooders, our problems are solved!
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
This won't survive a court challenge.
"Useless organic meatbag" -HK-47
While most admins (including me) will be disgusted at the "protecting us from ourselves" aspect, as well as taking away free choice, this will really help the schools and libraries with their bandwith consumption. Some of the school and Library admins I know say that Myspace.com now accounts for over 50% of their traffic, with its stupid embedded music/videos.
What are we going to do tonight Brain?
... this could mean that any site that has a "society" (whether it's myspace, slashdot or your own personal blog) could be banned from public terminal access. Of course the bill is so fuzzy that anythin can be interpreted.
Yay, censorship!
I enjoy large posteriors and I cannot prevaricate.
Unless you have to protect the children! In which case freedom is the first thing out the door.
You've heard of the golden rule, haven't you?
It's not the one that goes "Do unto others as you'd have unto you."
It's the one that goes "He who has the gold makes the rules."
You can have all the freedom you can afford.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
The bill only restricts minors from accessing them in public, not everybody. In effect, the worst thing that's going to happen is minors will have to have an adult's permission before using a public terminal to access a poorly-defined type of site.
Nothing really to see here, move along. There's plenty of prior precedent for this, it will not affect teh rights of any adult, and if a parent wishes for a child to be allowed access, they may request access and transfer it to the child.
If you haven't foed me yet, what are you waiting for?
Why don't they just ban housing. That's where most child abuse takes place.
Seriously, though, the abuse, etc. should be a criminal offense, not something that might be related in some way. For example, guns should be legal; murder should not be. Credit cards should be legal; fraud should not be.
Way too many sites qualify as social networking in some way, and it's going to be a pain to block. Similar to porn, but who decides if a site is a social networking site? It has accounts and connections between accounts -- that's way too common now.
Besides I wasn't aware of the sexual predator problems on Amazon or Slashdot. (there may just not be enough sexual prey here, though)
I wasn't even aware of them on facebook, as it's not trivial to get an account without giving over real info that can be connected to the real you (school e-mail address).
Is not young persons' access to sites like myspace and facebook, but rather the fact that they can read. Just to be safe, we probably restrict their access to libraries as well.
Paul Grosfield - the quicker picker upper.
Geez... Now I can affirm that there's definitely all kinds of fetishes for all tastes....
If this is enforced, it makes certain classes of computer use far easier to track, amongst which is the posting of materials deemed politically distasteful ; you can't hide from the government in a library any more.
I'd point out that this makes the USA seem more and more like a police state, but I'd guess that the majority of slashdotters had already noticed.
This is like the stupidest law of the month.
Parks all across our nation are being used by vial preditors to attack our kids. VOTE for CLOSE THE PARKS NOW!!!!!!.
Government can regulate access to social network websites in schools and librarys, which is the responsibility of the parent in the home. However, these sites are still accessible to minors through a number of other ways outside of school and the home. The challenge is to create a mechanism that supports trust and privacy in social networks and makes it very difficult, or unfeasible, for predators to take advantage of minors.
...further laws are being passed to restrict childrens access to malls, public swimming baths, schools, streets and thier own homes in an attempt to minimise possible contact with peadophiles.
An anonymous coward was quoted as saying; "Wont someone pleeasse think of the children."
...Amazon threatens legal action against the US government for unequal discrimination against it.
Honestly, I can see it happening.
I don't really see this as much of a change in libraries, at least around here. In high school, the staff made regular patrols of the computers in the library, and the few computers that did have internet connections (back in 93-97 we were still required to use things called 'books') were heavily monitored. If you were, at a passing glance, at something that was notcibly not a research site, then you were told to get out.
When I worked in my college's library, the first rule regarding the computers was that anyone having to write a report got preference over anyone else. Anyone doing research came next. Anyone who wanted to check their e-mail or do anythng else had to beg for access.
And our public libraries have a very strict system as well. You have to sign up for a computer at the front desk, and depending on what you are doing (and the staff makes sweeps) you are given a time to use the computer. If you're excuse is "just checking e-mail" you get ten minutes. And they enforce that.
We still have a cyber-cafe and a few hotspots in the area. Denny's will let you sit at the counter for hours and leech their connection for nothing more than a soda.
Library computers should be reserved for research.
Those who believe the Internet is private,
find their privates are on the Internet.
Welcome to the United States of China.
A little known fact is that this bill was pushed through by the lobbying of sites that have been shut down by the slashdot affect. Their reasoning is that by denying public access to Slashdot, the amount of traffic directed to a site by Slashdot will be lessened, which would be the first step in reducing the power Slashdot wields.
It's just unfortunate that so many other sites would be affected by this bill.
Dan East
Better known as 318230.
Interesting that I read this story, try to log into MySpace, and the site appears to be completely hosed. I can't log in (says my profile has been deleted), and I can't get to any of my friends' profiles either.
How is blocking MySpace (which is the main site this bill is _intended_ for) a bad thing? /sarcasm
The very slight possibility a site such as this would fall under what this act is imposing is rediculous. RTFA, it says that not all possible sites that meet the criteria would be blocked. Pretty much, they use language in the act to specify a site as close to MySpace as possible, without specifically mention a particular site. You can imagine the backlash from the community if the DOPA act said "we're blocking one site in particular". Too me, that rings of many lawsuits.
Give some credit to how this act has to be legally worded. Sure, it's scope is broad, but there's not a whole lot more than can legally be done.
Future ruler of a small Asian-Pacific island
The article which this story is linked to says that it would ban sites that allow to create a personal profile
No, really. It's not website's fault if a 11-year-old publises his home address. Such kids must first read links like "Safe browsing" Maybe their parent should tell them that?
This would be like banning all cars, because some teens take the keys without parents persimion, and not having a license go driving like crazy.
I don't know anything about MySpace, but Amazon and /.? In my years here, I don't believe I have ever seen any real sexual comments left by anyone (I browse at +4 though.) I often see hot political and technical debates here though.
/. for example will not do a thing to stop criminals from molesting children, so what is the real issue here? Is some politician trying to make a name for himself, or is there some other issue that is hidden inside the bill?
Why are people allowing the politicians to treat them as if they are children, is the majority of people really feeling that their government must protect them from everything that could be even remotely upsetting, or is it just the politicians, playing on the feelings of few to limit the rights of many?
Blocking school and library access to many sites like
(I live in Canada, still feel bad for the neighbours losing their rights AND concerned that this madness can quickly cross the border.)
You can't handle the truth.
Smart kids defeat ham handed attempts by fuddy duddys to restrict web access by using proxy servers...
Will they ever learn... Online predators are one of the risks of being online so teach them to be street smart
Also the article does seem to be stretching it when it argues that this could been Slashdot, Amazon and other such sites will be banned. I think (hope?) that school districts and libraries, and even the FCC are more reasonable than that. Yes there are always a few extreme measures like that cell phone checking in Farmingham, MA but that never got tabled. Sanity is so important.
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
"Social networking sites such as MySpace and chat rooms have allowed sexual predators to sneak into homes and solicit kids,"
Does anyone have any figures for how many kids have actually been solicited compared to those who are molested by family etc?
How in God's name do they plan on enforcing this? Knock on the door of every ISP in American with a list of banned IPs and URLs? Block all non-essential ports to prevent smarter kids from using their own proxies? Here we see again a bill that, if passed, would only piss off regular users and allow all of the really dedicated criminals to continue with their activities.
They'll just find a way to troll for minors on Wikipedia.
like white on rice.
The Internets tubes need to be tied.
"The bill, which passed the House in a 410-15 vote, would bar users from accessing sites like Amazon, MySpace, or *****Slashdot***** from terminals in libraries and schools.
+
"'Social networking sites, [...]'have become *****a haven for online sexual predators***** who have made these corners of the Web their own *****virtual hunting ground******.'""
Now you hear it from someone else (and another example of USA politically finest too!) what this place is all about!
I always felt preyed upon by the preda..I mean, moderators, like they are called around here! And while it's difficult to say for sure, at least many slashdotters *act* as if they are little children having a tantrum!
Now the truth is revealed, just as the WMD were in Iraq! This 'slashdot'-place is the vile pit and hunting ground for sexual predators!
The many references to goatse only confirms it!
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
This stupidity makes me want to take a bunch of DVDs of Brasseye Pedophile Special and shove it down stupid voters' throats. Seriously, if you need a proof that "Think of the children" turns people into imbeciles, the show is what you want.
Because public access to social Web sites can only lead to dead blastocysts burning flags in support of gay marriage, and then the terrorists will have won!
For all of you outside the U.S., wondering with amazement at our news: Yes, the majority of us *are* this stupid. We have an anti-evolution screed by a hate-crazed female impersonator near the top of our best-seller list -- and that just affects the dwindling proportion of Americans who actually still read books.
"Skill shows through where genius wears thin." -Wittgenstein || Religion: uniting aviation and architecture.
I'm a little confused as to why Amazon is on the 'black list'. Since when is Amazon a "social networking site"? I mean, I use it to, gasp, buy books. Or does the government want to restrict that as well?
I'm not bitter, I'm just unsweetened.
Sexual predators are the new Communists.
They'd achieve far more if they instead spent some money on awareness campaigns to teach people the most common signs of abuse, and to make people aware that strangers isn't the greatest risk to their children.
"'Social networking sites, best known by the popular examples of MySpace, Friendster and Facebook, have literally exploded in popularity in just a few short years,' said Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick, a Pennsylvania Republican and one of DOPA's original sponsors. Now, he added, those Web sites 'have become a haven for online sexual predators who have made these corners of the Web their own virtual hunting ground.'"
Now that it's well on it's way to becoming illegal, will we go after other social environments such as bars or clubs? They after all have predators there in their own live hunting ground.
I'm serious. Where do we draw the line?
Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
Doesn't this kind of interfere with the whole freedom of association thing?
And, banning Amazon is kinda silly -- so many things on the web link to Amazon for information about books and the like. Why include Amazon in this?
Are they even going to be able to enforce this? What about as people add new social sites, are libraries going to be required to know all of the things they should be censoring, or will someone give them a list?
I'm kinda hoping the librarians fight them on this and get it shot down as unconstitutional. To me, this sounds about as insane as barring Baptists or some other group from meeting in any number than two in a public area -- it's both insane and unenforceable.
It scares me how much they are willing to curtail everyone else's liberties in order to suport this witch hunt which allegedly is supposed to help the children. Very scary indeed. I'm just waiting until US authorities start arresting people who run sites in foreign countries because they accepted logins from Americans.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
How is trying to block access to the 'social' internet as part of law NOT in very important ways a roadblock to free speech? If I add a Wiki or a chat function to a website, is it then a danger to children because anyone can access the site, and communicate freely to children using that tool?
That's a default system of banning speech in public, on a scale far worse than any indecency bill. It's akin to banning phone calls to private residences on public phones, in order to protect children from free communication.
What kind of idiotic message does this send to children anyway? The majority of our legislatures in the house seem to think that free communication is too dangerous a thing for children to do now. "Don't talk with strangers" is perhaps a way to get children to think defensively about the messages they get... but speaking with strangers is the only way to learn about the world outside your own little bubble. Sure - the boogey man of the Internet child predator has some reality to it, but the Internet is still one of the safest place for children to learn about the opinions of the rest of humanity outside their small environment. Banning such access in public libraries is telling children that they can't be trusted with even the possibility of such communication. I aknowledge that children can't be trusted with all the rights of adults, but our public infrastructure seems to be producing another generation of sheltered dropouts, each less qualified to enter college than the last.
This is an immoral bill, in my mind, and one I hope is found unconstitutional.
Ryan Fenton
The problem I have with what the article states is classifying Facebook on the level of Myspace. From my understanding, I use facebook way more then myspace, that it is much more restricted. 1, you need to have a college e-mail address to sign up so it limits the site to the educated crazies. Two it allows High School kids but only if they are invited by a friend (current facebook user) from what I understand and then there are limitations on what people can see with those profiles. Basically Facebook is a lot different then MySpace
...a social site. Now let me go upstairs, my mother just made lunch.
One ring to bind them - should probably have more fiber and less rings in their diet.
Here's how it works: News program has time to fill and ratings to keep up, produces a piece about pedophiles stalking children on MySpace. Grannie, who votes religiously like a real patriot, watches news.
Congressman running for office, addressing an audience with grannie in attendance, says, "And to protect the children of America, which are our future, I have introduced legislation to ban access to web sites frequented by predators and pedophiles in our public schools and libraries."
Lather, rinse, repeat and watch all our freedoms slowly spin down the drain.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Wow... well this enfuriated me. I still don't understand why the Government is treating this any different than real-life situations. This, to me, is the same as the government banning access to public parks or playgrounds because sexual predators exist there, too. When will the government realize that these people exist in every corner of the world and we can't escape them... running from them isn't going to help any. Just like in a public park, a child's guardian(s) need(s) to be responsible and monitor their children. The internet is a continually evolving entity and predators of any sort are going to find a way to prey... banning access to stuff isn't going to help anything... and in fact, if this kind of government action continues, you can be damned sure that our internet access will be ruled and restricted just like China. George Orwell was a profit... the world of "1984" is on it's way and you can be damned sure that I'll be a part of some sort of resistance movement.
49 20 61 72 65 20 6E 65 72 64 2E
Goddamn repuglikkkan neocon fascists taking away my CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to anonymously use library terminals to pick-up kiddies!
Bah!
Since that requires personal identifing information - home address, contact number, name...
And chat rooms - 3 way calls... walkie-talkie operation...
share communication...
This is part of a much bigger problem: our developing fear of our own rights and our inability to accept that they cost on a daily basis. We cannot make life perfectly safe, but we can make life a straightjacket by over-legislating. Feel-good legislation is extremely dangerous, especially just before a midterm election, when testicles seem to shrivel up.
E Proelio Veritas.
Besides, shouldn't it be up to the organization to make rules on their computer use? Or is this another case of the government sticking it's nose where it doen'st belong?
There is conflict here...
I see the problem. The need to remove no from that text.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Thank God! Now that we've banned access to social web sites and
helped to solve the problem of sexual predators, we can get on with
banning access to web sites that criticize the U.S. government so that
we can finally get a handle on the terrorist threat.
My own sites tend to have text boxes for reader comments and guestbooks and things, does this make them havens for sexual predators? Because it'd be terribly unfair if underage kids could somehow get a date through my web presence while I still can't.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
while we're at it... lets outlaw children from going to public parks since sexual predators go there to find children. lets outlaw people from having candy in public areas since sexual predators use that to lure small children. lets outlaw people under the age of 18 from being in public without being handcuffed to their legal parent/guardian to make it harder to abduct them.
How do you ask permission for sites you dont even know exist? Sounds rather repressive to me.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Because they let you make lists? LISTS?
Earn a % of cash back from Newegg, Tiger Direct, Walmart.com, and more: http://www.mrrebates.com?refid=458505
Don't these people have something better to do, like balance the budget or something?
Sheesh.
I see many comments remarking on how our boneheaded legislators, courts, and members of the executive imperium are "stupid" for creating these sorts laws. I'd suggest that these laws are rarely result of stupidity (although there certainly is no shortage of that particular commodity in DC), but part of a larger concerted effort to monitor, restrict, and control Americans' access and content on the Internet.
Certainly, this may have been voted for by the bulk of legislators in an unwitting fashion, but the individuals who crafted the bill are almost certainly aware of the issues it raises and precedents it sets.
It's subtle, slow, and nefarious. The most effective tyrannies aren't installed via coup, but produced through erosion. Add this into the lump of wiretaps, data mining, network data snooping, and "secret" CIA prisons detaining individuals (including American citizens) without acknowledgement of their existence, and you start to get a pretty clear piture of where all this is headed.
I dearly love my country, but I fear that what the government has already become is far from what most of us beleive it is, and is a mockery of what we learned in your civics class back in high school.
Rock is dead. Long live scissors and paper!
It's a PNAC cyberwar.
Schools, libraries, and other public computing venues have been subject to installations of illicit software known as "Tor." It is believed to be a child-hating pornography-spewing america-killing program that allows access to sites such as Myspace, Slashdot, and Goatse.cx in places where they are usually banned.
More at 11.
I've done research on CIPA and filtering, and the sad truth is that most school systems, libraries, etc. desparately need this e-rate funding, or it's simply not judicious to allot their own money to computers at full price.
Great, now the predators will know that they're not wasting their time tracing IPs of those pesky libraries and schools, but real, non-public places where it's more likely to find someone.
I totally agree with our current dictator that we should have a giant firewall protecting our computers from evil cyberterrorists. Sure it will block lot of content, but that's the price of security. Hail Bush! Hail Bush! Hail Bush!
So the places that these websites would most likely have adult supervision/accountability (schools, libraries) are the places they want to ban them? What the hell is wrong with Congress?
-------
"Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
I slute our new communist over loards.
... and on and on it goes.
*puke!
The land of the free,
just became a little less so.
Holy Crap. I didn't know /. was a haven for sexual predators. Suddenly this "Cowboy Neal" sounds like someone I don't want to know. ;)
I can't wait till this president is out, and this congress is out. These people suck.
--SuperBug
1. No more dumbass kids on slashdot
2. Digg will die
The vote was 410-15. This is really bad becasue everyone was involved in the stoopid bill.
-- A computer without Windoze is like a choclate cake without mustard
Yeah, doesn't make sense to me. They're going to ban a major bookselling online entity in libraries. Now there's a whole latta sense. And slashdot, hmmm, well while there are definately a certain number of creepy people on here (you know who you are), I'd have to say that they tend to be creepy in the lack-of-social-knowhow sense rather than the dangerous-to-children sense.
... I hate election-year politics.
-- A computer without Windoze is like a choclate cake without mustard
Thanks for giving me another reason not to go to the library. Before it was mainly due to the banker's hours that seemed more for seniors than for working adults. Now you've crippled one of the few helpful utilities in the library. Of course the right-wing has a simmering hostility towards education and knowledge in general (damn those intellectual elites!) so this doesn't come as a surprise.
I guess the bad men will have to do their stalking from home, like they do now, or through proxies.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
These think-of-the-children laws are getting so out of control. It's nothing more than blind hysteria fueled by constant media drum-beating and politicians in search of easy votes.
Given how many users there are on the social networking sites such as Myspace, this online predator problem isn't really a problem at all. Seriously, how many kids have actually suffered as a result of a social-networking site? Sure, the politicians will drag out a teary story of a 16 year old that was abducted two years ago by a guy she met online, but it's a social-networking site, and you can't expect any social interaction between large groups of humans to occur without any issues. We can stop the number of stranger rapes that occur by not allowed people to leave their homes, but is it worth it?
Haven for sexual predators? Part of the problem is that they consider people who lust after 16 year old girls predators. If that is the definition, then they are going to have an endless supply of "online sexual predators" to catch.
It's sickening what this Congress is able to pass into law under the guise of thinking of the children. Unfortunately it seems like it is going to get a lot worse before it gets any better.
Heck! How the sexual predator gonna attract someone here?
"I got the fastest CPU just released from intel, wanna come to my place and have a look at it?"
"I wrote this really fast algorythm to crack unix passwords. Say, wanna check it out?"
"I think MS really suxx, do u want to?"
Please, think of the children! I can only assume that anyone disagreeing with this obvious protection has some sort of sexual deviation that needs to be corrected. Your either with us or against us.
They want to prevent terrorists from using the cited sites to prepare and coordinate attacks. However the threat of terrorism has been so overused that nobody takes is serious or as a personal threat anymore. Hence the cover-story of "sexual predators". I bet in a few month they will have overused that as well, and then need something new. I wonder what they will come up with.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Anyone who voted Republicrat or Democan, shut up and go sit on the sidelines.
You've already demonstrated that you want an intrusive, activist government, you have no room to complain now. You ASKED FOR THIS!
A vote against a Libertarian Candidate is
a vote toward the right direction 'BTW BOB ROBERTSON is a fcktard.
I know, I know, "lobbyist" is a dirty word. Many people are turned off by the idea of organized groups attempting to influence politics, yet the legislative process was never meant to take place in a bubble - it's designed (or at least intended) to respond to the people's needs, and one way of expressing those needs is through lobbying - getting out there, meeting with and educating law makers, persuading them, and sure, perhaps supporting those that support your views financially.
Slashdotters, et al, shouldn't be too surprised that their views aren't effectively represented in legislation - they are effectively making them known, aren't effectively organizing, and aren't working to acheive their goals. Much of this is obviouisly due to the lack of organization that exists amongs the tech savvy - which is certainly not a monolithic group - but I would also argue that much of it has to do with an intense dislike for lobbyists and the perception that, somehow, "interfering" in the legislative process is dirty. Well, it's not. It's a part of the process that's always been around, always will be around, and people ignore at their own peril.
I agree with most that this legislation - while perhaps having good "protect the children" intentions - is ineffective and more than a bit ridiculous. But simply e-mailing your congressman isn't really going to be effective. A group needs to be formed that handles these matters before and as they arise. I would also argue that this group would not only be used to block ineffective legislation, but to propose and promote ideas that could actually help protect children from material inappropriate for their age and, more importantly, those who would prey on children on the internet.
That won't happen until some group of tech-savvy people with both the background and demeanor required for lobbying steps up and takes action. It also wouldn't hurt if the perception of lobbyists as a necessary part of the process rather than simply evil (well, ok, lots of them are "evil") changed in the tech world.
There are dozens of groups out there lobbying against what the techies want - the techies should make their voice heard in that forum effectively or quit complaining.
Here are the ones that voted against this bill.
Conyers
Grijalva
Hinchey
Honda
Kucinich
Lee
Lofgren, Zoe
McDermott
Payne
Schakowsky
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Stark
Watson
Woolsey
And the ones that didn't vote.
Capito
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
Evans
Istook
McKinney
If your representative voted for this bill, you might consider smacking them upside the head come the election.
...said the guy with the blogspot link... in a slashdot forum.
Ill second that statment. I wish I could mod it up.
Ok, so I still have to RTFA, but this is, if true, pure bullshit.
The Constitution says we are free to peaceably assemble. It doesn't put restrictions on it.
Adults SHOULD NOT have to ask for permission to access protected speech.
I thought the adults were in charge in DC. That's what BushCo told us back in the day...
Mmmmmm... Bold, yet refreshing!
The uneducated idiocy of bills like this boggles the mind. Any web site in which you register, have a profile, and are allowed to message other members is a social site. Slashdot is a social site, granted it has a higher educational value than MySpace, but so does smashing one's self in the head with a bat. Some high school students these days are maintaining Blogger accounts as their english class writing journals. Under the new rules Blogger would be among the taboo sites.
Add to that, the risk of pedophiles is minimal at best. More kids are molested at church than by predators found online. Should we ban all priests from public places? Then of course there are the kids who disappear from the mall so we need to shut those down. Then there was that one kid kidnapped at a gas station right in front of a video camera so we have to close those now. If parents would step up and take a real interest in their kids none of these things would be an issue. In fact, pedophiles are often a result of either parental abuse or abuse a parent could have prevented by taking proper precautions so parents doing their job would actually decrease the overall number of sickos.
No animals were harmed in the making of this sig.
Well, there was that one puppy, but he is all better now.
...is an outright lie. Because it claims that the bill was primarily backed and created by Republicans. And Republicans are for LESS government, not more dammit!!!
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
No touching
No close proximity
No gathering larger than 2
No turning off telescreen
2 MINUITE HATE!
Like the Chicago Tribune and the Springfield State Journal-Register. Both these papers have forums; the Tribune on some editorial pages (forum linked) and the S-JR on every single story posted online (story about 2 stupid politicians linked). I wonder how Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-ILLINOIS) is going to vote on this?
It seems that any site ALLOWING for a profile is off limits. Since Google allows a profile and user interaction via Google groups, it seems like it would be off-limits as well.
House: OMG!!! Teh internet if full of pr0n!!! It's time to do something about this!!! Flitter the intarweb!!!!111111EVELENTY!!!
Me: "When you cocksuckers can set up and maintain a proxy server for every school and library in the country, we'll comply. Until then, sit and spin".
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
You're not allowed to visit AMAZON? From a LIBRARY?
I'm trying to come up with something more outrageous for comedic purposes, but I'm at a loss...
With unvalidatable electronic voting how can you say wtf ANYONE voted for. Fuck you!
You've done NOTHING TO FUCKING FIX THIS PROBLEM.
You fucking libertarians better get your ass down to http://bradblog.com/
And get educated.
Meanwhile, the PNAC / religious freak fuckers are talking nukes.
Nothing will fucking matter pretty soon.
Paper ballots hand counted.
One more time of this election corruption and we Americans are fucking DONE!
What ya wanna bet that they will soon classify newspaper sites and other news sources as social sites, and block them.
So, you can go the library and read the paper, but you can't go to the library to read the paper online.
Regardless, it'll be nice for those school kids going to the library to use the computer and Internet for a report only to find that certain sites that Google says have the info are blocked or censored or denied access in some other fashion.
Makes me wonder when they'll start censoring commercials from my TV during public broadcasts.
Things you can say to your dog that you can't say to a girl: "How about a nice bone?"
Some things just don't need to be written into the law of the land.
That's essentially what is happening here.
They are banning speech with strangers at a library-- because it's on the internet.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
if I ask for any filter to be taken off something, they're legally obligated by federal law to comply.
No. They are not obligated by federal law to comply (under terms of this bill) they could decide they don't want to, or they could take all day about it. What rubbish, "as long as it's not illegal in that jurisdiction" -- this bill throws open the doors for each individual custodian of a public terminal to decide what is and is not objectionable to them. They could simply be pricks about it and you'd waste time and breath arguing it.
No, it takes away nothing. Ignoring the almost certain fact that it was passed merely as a promotional ploy with the full intent being that it be struck down with the first court challenge, anybody interpreting the educational clause that strictly would be easily overruled by even the most idiotically anti-freedom judge.
Here's a clue for you. For years there were laws on the books, Jim Crow laws, which were finally all struck down in the 1950's and 1960's. Nothing wrong immediately goes away just because it is wrong. Even this Gitmo anti-Geneva Convention fiasco has denied people Due Process for years. These things need to be fought before they are passed into law.
The time to fight is now, by writing to your senators and advising them to drop this like a bad habit before Dubya puts pen to it surrounded by a bunch of doe-eyed waifs on the White House lawn.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
It's not a "Black list". It is merely that any site meeting certain, very broad definitions would not be viewable from public libraries/schools if this bill passes. The article was merely pointing out how broad the wording of the bill was, and how it could potentially force libraries to block sites that we consider 'harmless', like Amazon and Slashdot.
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
Ugh. I just finished making a curriculum for using myspace in the foreign language classroom and now congress has to go and ban it in schools.
in other words, the US House passes law to infringe upon the right of the people to peacefully assemble.
Actually, now that the smoke has cleared in my mind I see the real reason behind this. I've been saying for a while now that the government wants to take away the "power to publish" on the internet from the average person. Too many bloggers that have gained enough popularity is of concern to them and their business partners. This is a large step towards that under the guise of "protecting the children". Expect to see even more ISPs preventing the common man from running servers too. Still think we are going to have the last vestiges of freedom of speech in the near future?
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Perhaps we should ban Disneyland. It is all but certain there are a number of pedophiles trolling DisneyLand, DisneyAorld & other Amusement Park's too.
At least the kids will be safe from child molesters when they're at school and in the library because they can't go on myspace... ...oh wait.
Also wouldn't the world be a better place without myspace anyway. I can remember a time before myspace became popular when people used to go on this thing that was better than myspace, it was called "outside", but child molesters used to use "outside" to have sex with children so parents thought it would be better if they're kids stayed on the internet all day.
Have you been paying attention to the courts lately? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
I am in charge of the network here at the library. I can see myspace . Most libraries block myspace becaus eof the potential lawsuit. If a child gets abducted because of Myspac eyou know the parents will sue the library for letting her view it wich is stupid because the library uses your taxes so if you sue the library your taxes will go up and you will be paying your own lawsuit lol. But I do not see the need for a federal bill on this.
If this passes, it needs to be shot down by reason of Freedom of Speech. I guess they are basically wanting it to be impossible to do anything online anonymously (not that you really could ever be anonymous really since IP logs are on servers and stuff)...
What the hell is this country turning in to!?!
You got laws-to-come like this + AT&T spying on all of us using the NSA to cover their butt so that they don't have to tell us about it, and the Pres. going around calling anything that doesn't go his way terrorist related... and you got Military Officers harrassing and violating all sorts of rights going against Geneva Conventions because Bush says so with a Presidential Order instead of looking to have people actually follow laws... We need to stop all the crap, elect a Democrat to President again for two terms, get the hell out of heck out of everybody elses business, whether it's being in the mid-east violating rights, being online violating rights, or anywhere else, and get back to running this place the right way.
Democrats may not be perfect, but at least some of them aren't looking out for their own big business profits, driving up gas prices and inflation and making the entire country just a bit more socialistic/communistic... they may love to hug trees, but they want you to be able to do so also, or do whatever you do, without massive intrusions by big brother watching over your every move with the GPS in your cell phone, taps on your phone lines, and logs at ISPs keeping tabs on any website you ever visited and every google keyword you ever typed...
It is inappropriate (and illegal by First Amendment) for Congress to restrict speech. It is legal and appropriate for Congress to restrict how federal dollars are spent, and to put whatever strings they want on it.
The reason we have this conflict, is that there are "public terminals."
Think about this, the next time you vote for a candidate that says they will use government to solve a problem or provide a service. You are giving politicians and avenue to control something, and it may be something they otherwise wouldn't have otherwise legally been allowed to control, or wouldn't have been responsible for.
This is why some parts of science (e.g. biotech (embryonic stem cells) or weather (global warning)) are now politicized, why references to religious topics are sensitive in school settings, etc. And now we have (in a limited form) internet access becoming caught up in this bullshit.
Do you really want these to be political issues? If not, then vote against government funding. Your local library should not be relying on federal money, thereby subjecting itself to meddlesome manipulation.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Given the war in Lebanon and the stuff going on in North Korea, etc, should the Congress be voting on library rules? What's the next the bathroom pass allocation bill? I don't understand why the librarians can't make up their own rules for this stuff that take into consideration of the local issues involved.
No Sigs!
The bill leaves way too much to the FCC, out of the hands of elected officials. But if the FCC decides that Amazon and Slashdot are under interdict, I'd expect Jeff Bezos and the EFF to sue the bejeezus out of them.
To come under this bill you have to meet a bunch of requirements, including "elicits highly personalized information from users" (which Slashdot doesn't do) and "enables communication among users" (and you'd have to be really perverse to believe that describes Amazon).
This is a stupid bill, and I need to look up the names of the 15 non-stupid Congressmen who voted against it. (Probably not mine, I'm afraid; he's not stupid but he's not that brave, either.) Even the intended purpose of the bill, banning MySpace access, is of dubious merit. In a sense I hope they'd start with Amazon and Slashdot, because that'll make the court challenge that much more obvious. But I'm pretty sure they won't, for precisely that reason.
Damn. Seems to me this bill will quite effectively undermine the ability of parents to choose what their children are allowed to do online. There are a lot of quality sites devoted to science, art, religion, hobbies, etc., that have "social networking" components. If little Timmy's parents decide it's appropriate for him to participate in an online forum like Slashdot, or a community devoted to muscle cars, weightlifting, fusion cuisine (I don't know what kids like these days), it's nobody's fucking business. And they should be allowed to have that choice, instead of being told that, because other parents don't step up, their right to choose has been taken away. Or, more likely, Timmy's just going to have to lie about his age or sign up under his dad's name if he wants to chat about wasabi hollandaise.
Reminds me of that Onion article, "Cool Toy Banned After Dumb Kid Dies," but then most social engineering legislation is exactly that.
Couldn't we just pass legislation banning parents from raising stupid children?
What?
to spend the money that it will take to enforce this on actually working to catch these "online sexual predators"?
That way everyone still gets to use these sites and they are safe(r) no matter where you access them from, be it a public terminal or from home. Surely if it is such a problem from public terminals it is still a problem from everywhere else as well?
Or is the government just concerned that they will get the finger pointed at them if it happens from one of their public terminals? Sounds like some good old fashioned arse covering to me.
Those darn librarians seem to think it's their job to give the great unwashed public unfettered access to information. It's about time someone reigned these unabashed libertarians in, and if Congress has to dream up seem dubious theory that libraries are a major contributor to child predation, well ya gotta do what ya gotta do. Thank god we've got government to keep us straight on these matters.
As somebody who has used every rebuttal as a place to lob insults at others, it is not surpising that you cannot see one of the potential educational uses of social sites is in gaining experience in interacting with others. Many otherwise intelligent people end up not reaching their full potential in society due to their horrible social intelligence.
Write and call your senators letting them know exactly why this is a bad idea. If enough people
make their opposition clear, we may still have a chance of getting it stopped there.
Here are the representatives who voted against the bill:
Conyers, John; Michigan, 14th
Grijalva, Raul M.; Arizona, 7th
Hinchey, Maurice D.; New York, 22nd
Honda, Michael M.; California, 15th
Kucinich, Dennis J.; Ohio, 10th
Lee, Barbara; California, 9th
Lofgren, Zoe; California, 16th
McDermott, Jim; Washington, 7th
Payne, Donald M.; New Jersey, 10th
Schakowsky, Janice D.; Illinois, 9th
Scott, Robert C.; Virginia, 3rd
Serrano, Jose E.; New York, 16th
Stark, Fortney Pete; California, 13th
Watson, Diane E.; California, 33rd
Woolsey, Lynn C.; California, 6th
All Democrats, I believe. If your representative's name isn't on the list, it's time for you to make a phone call.
There were a number of books that the school board had determined were too mature for young minds, but they didn't want to ban them outright.
Meanwhile, there are those who want to ban Harry Potter because it portrays witchcraft in a positive light. Never mind that there is the classic battle of Good vs. Evil taking place in Rowling's fantasy world and some of it implies violence on persons (Nearly-Headless Nick, not quite beheaded and the moaning ghost of the girl in the lav who commited suicide.) We have children 8 and 9 years old reading 900 page books, ffs!
Then there's the Holy Bible, all sorts of bad things in there, you can't read it without proper supervision, right? Might take away the wrong message and then where would the world be?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Every fucking one of these people that voted for this shit have broken their oath of office.
It is domestic terrorism.
Our un-elected officials are TERRORISTS! NOT US!
With Diebold you can not validate WHO was voted for.
Where is our Constitution and Bill of Rights?
Nothing to do with the children, when you now post something politically or otherwise objectionable, they know where to find you. And the free internet proxies ? - they are in the list too.
It sounds like the thought police want to try to shut down one of the main avenues of semi-anonymous web access still available. Controlling and monitoring what people do on the web makes us "safer".
A possible argument against the law is that forcing people to ask permission to use online commerce sites smacks of interfering with interstate commerce. Invoking the commerce clause is one of the favorite ploys by the government to gain nexus, since it works in so many situations. On the other hand, the government judges and lawyers may feel that the invocation of the commerce clause by joe citizen is "frivolous".
By the way, I wonder who will maintain the "no-view list" of sites? I ask because in other cases of government maintainted lists, things have not gone so great.
Didn't the Chinese government try this with Google? What's to prevent (other than the law) from having a thousand "myspace" proxies set up on other sites? Are they planning to content filter? Something in the browser? A guy with a big stick (no pun indended) standing near the computer, waiting for you to go to /.?
Seriously, this is messed up. I can see blocking pr0n, etc from public terminals, but Amazon?
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. --Nietzsche
The greatest revenge in life is massive success.
"exploded in popularity" ...
"corners of the web"
Which is it? I'm pretty sure these sites are at the forefront of web usage, and shouldn't take too much to police with traditional methods.
From the bill as it passed the house (http://thomas.loc.gov/)...note the and:
It's so obvious! Freedom's dying proportionally to BSD!
Does this make the US Government Linux?
Because everyone knows that sexual predators hang out in parks,
people dump bodies there, and they are dark at night. Using the
same logic as this bill, children should not be allowed in
public parks without adult supervision, and adults should ask
permission of an authority figure before going there as well.
I can't imagine people are coming here to find people to have sex with... isn't this the haven for people society has determined nobody wants to have sex with you? ;)
p.s. I'll show you my Commander, if you show me your Taco...
Dear Sir,
I am writing this letter in regards to Bill H. R. 5319, the "Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006". Unfortunately, I only became aware of this legislation on Friday, July 28, 2006, by which the bill had already passed the House. Therefore, I hope that this letter reaches you in time to consider before the vote reaches the Senate floor.
I strongly urge you to consider all aspects of this site and to consider voting "No". I understand the title of this bill makes it extremely appealing, and difficult to argue against. After all, who would not want to eliminate online predators and protect our nation's youth? But when reviewing this bill, consider:
1. Will this bill truly protect children?
2. The potential ramifications, including limiting educational opportunities and infringing on civil liberties
By limiting access in public areas, such as libraries, are we truly providing any protection? Are children likely to undertake risky behavior when under the watchful eye of a librarian or technology education provider? Are online predators likely to ply their trade in a public location that is subject to electronic monitoring and access control? By restricting access in public places, we would in fact force children and predators to seek out Internet access at other, more private locations, which actually results in greater probability of unsafe and illegal activity.
Also, consider the fact that by preventing social networking via this world-wide portal, we are in fact preventing our children from communicating with other children in other countries and other cultures, thus limiting their world view and preventing them from gaining firsthand knowledge and experience of other cultures.
Furthermore, I am concerned with the civil liberties issue. This appears to be another step towards the "slippery slope" of restricting our citizens' rights. This potentially opens the door towards other infringements. Do we also restrict which books are available in the library? Do we restrict who is even allowed to enter a library? The true way to educate our children, and thus ensure a bright future for this country, is to encourage as much reading and information as possible.
Thank you for taking the time to read this letter. I hope you will seriously consider what I have stated.
Sincerely,
xxx
"You cannot find out which view is the right one by science in the ordinary sense." - C.S. Lewis on Intelligent Design
There's a perfectly good word, same number of syllables.
Infuriate left and right
I'm not a lawyer, but isn't this a bit unconstitutional? These republican douchebags really have to go.
Incidentally the text of the bill is at the Library of Congress. It defines a "Social Networking Site" as follows:
I would note that clause (i) appears to exempt political websites from this as well as school sites while clauses (iv) and (v) are entirely undefined indicating that they have neither been thought through nor are expected to be any time soon. Is a handle personal? If I use my real name is that "highly-personalized". What about if I lie?
These same issues hold true with respect to the "technology protection measure" requirement in 3.a (see text). Strictly speaking turning the computer off entirely is a technology protection measure as is a printed sign saying "Don't do bad things" or an overpriced filtering service that can be easily circumvented.
The law is bad because it leaves many aspects undefined while at the same time further restricting online activities for both children and adults. One of the known problems with COPA is that many adults cannot get things turned on. More importantly it places blame in the wrong places, and places effort there as well. It attacks the social networking sites on the assumption that a) they are entirely to blame and b) poor "technology protection measures" will prevent bad things from happening. Sexual predators exist in the real world and molest kids in the real world. If we spent more time and effort educating parents accurately (which I note this bill encourages but does not pay for) about the dangers their kids face and how best to protect them this might work out. As it is this bill is (at best) a band aid that teaches kids and parents to fear the online world not learn to protect themselves in it. It also places one further burden of censoring information on understaffed underfunded public libearies who, as a rule, exist to share information not hide it.
This is essentially an election year problem. This bill is being voted for becuase the reps think that it is free. By voting for this they can claim to have "struck a blow against online predators" even though this blow is all hot air. In my experience such things get done because the politicians think that it will a) make the
Whod'a thunk that lurking among us is a sexual predator, determined to lure some unsuspecting teen (or younger) to meet and hook up with them.
How many 12-yr-olds do we have on this site? How many teens visit here and would be stupid enough to fall for this? How many adults won't be able to visit their sites from public terminals when they don't own their own pc?
Banning slashot? Banning AMAZON of all places? WTF?
While I agree to limiting internet access in schools, this is just another step in the gub'ment telling us what we can do when doing so isn't illegal.
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
inovation stifiling.
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
While Moaning Myrtle was an incredibly depressing character, she didn't commit suicide. She was murdered by a basilisk controlled by Voldemort. There. I've thus admitted not only reading, but paying attention to and liking the Harry Potter books. HAH! I FEEL FREE!!
That is all.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
So in other words - things like blogger, typepad etc. are all going to shrivel up. And of course you know what proof of identity will be, a credit card. But it sucks for adults like me who don't have a credit card. I refuse to have one.
If only George Bush could use a signing statement on the Constitution, then the republic would be saved! Oh, and I guess the terrorists will have won.
I think these politicians are just jealous of the kids because they [the politicians] don't have any friends on Myspace.
But really, if it's a public terminal (like in a library or hotel), shouldn't it be the decision of the manager as to which websites are blocked?
Politicians are going overkill with banning things. What's it going to be next? No working class citizen will be allowed to have a computer that's connected to the internet?
I mean come on, I'm almost 16 (joined Myspace when I was 13), I've got a Myspace profile (actually 2 personal ones and about 4 misc. ones) and my AUNT is my friend. It helps me keep in touch with her because my phone company loves to charge $.45 a minute for important phone calls.
Basically what these politicians are saying is, "You can't talk to your friends, family, or anyone on the intarweb cause we don't have any friends! Rabble rabble rabble! N00BZ! Har har! We're 1337!" Not only that, but come on--blocking AMAZON? Since when does America NOT want us to buy crap? This is all so ridiculous.
And another thing... if these politicians care so much about kids, then why don't they just execute the child predators (rather than allowing to REGISTER THEIR RESIDENCE AS THE HOME OF A SEXUAL PREDATOR)? It makes a lot more sense (and does a better job at PROTECTING the youth) than to just block kids from social networking sites. Besides, to whomever said that just because a parent doesn't pay attention to what a child accesses doesn't mean no one else should--I agree. If a parent won't stop their kid from talking to a child molester, then why should a librarian sit on the curb and do nothing?
The United States government is abusing its power and it's eventually going to ruin EVERYTHING... especially since the internet is becoming increasingly popular.
Dear People of the World,
It has come to our attantion that it is a LOT more difficult to keep you all under our control when you are well educateed and well connected. As such, we, the corrupt career politicials (that really have only our own interests at heart), all 410 of us, have decided to stop letting you connect with each other so easily.
We've decided that it would be best if the big corporations decide how much people should pay to have access over the shared global computer networks. We've decided that public services that offer Internet connections should restrict sites that allow people to connect and share information. You see, when all you "people" (plebs) out there keep sharing information and educating each other (for free) about what we're doing -- it makes us look REALLY bad. It erodes our ability to craft the message we want you to hear. It prevents us from keeping the food locked up and you worried about how to survive, so that you'll work real hard.
We're not going to stop this pattern. Each time it looks like the people have too much freedom, understand the world too well, or have too much information about how the state operates, we are going to pass more laws that try to keep ourselves in power. We're not even going to consider rational debate on how we should be paid, or really who we work for - we work for our own self interest!
Sincerely Yours,
The Senators and Representatives, leaders and crooks, cronies and career jackashers who have the world by the balls and have no interest in letting go...
I often go to the library, log into Slashdot and stalk little boys on there.
Maybe we should address the perverts, pedophiles, and adulterers that are in the House and Senate instead of going after some vague and probably non-existant threat?
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Does MySpace, et al, have interfaces for Mobile web browsers? If they don't they should. That way little Timmy can use his cell phone to surf MySpace instead of just texting his friends.
Why don't we ban DINOSAURS from holding elected office? That would solve a lot of problems.
Sheesh - I know a lot of old folks who have a lot of wisdom about the human condition, but it seems like none of them penetrate DC unscathed. It's just the lopsidedness of the vote (400+ !?!?) for this stupid law that im/de-presses me.
There is a floor on how young you can be to be a congressman or senator (30, I think?) - perhaps we need a cap as well. Solve term limits indirectly as well.
If politics mattered so much to you, you'd take the time to vote
Voting is not a panacaea, and is actually the last stage of political activism. If you only talk about voting, then you are eating someone else's "dogfood". If you look closely, you may start to feel that voting leaves something to be desired, like real choice.
What you can vote on is limited. You are limited to voting at certain times, for certain people, for certain parties, for certain ballot measures, etc. These limited items to vote on are chosen for you by other people, people in politics. They have organized themselves into parties that choose who will get money to run, money collected from their "friends".
If you live in a state with referendums, there are many hoops to jump through to get your proposition on the ballot, but they have been an effective way for the people to gain some power over the process. Lately though, the referendums seems to be another avenue for private interests to push their usual agendas.
People should vote, but only as part of a more extended political exercise. Voting by itself means you are being controlled by someone else, but if a lot of people got active in politics all at once, they could make an actual difference in the process.
There should be a law against having 7 music videos try to load when you load the page. The default MySpace page layout isn't bad. But text the same color as the background is a common occurance.
Nothing I hate worse than my peace being interrupted by a music video that totally dominates all sound for three blocks because it adjusted my volume via hacks.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
Is this a hint towards whats to come with the Network Neutrality bill?
If they pass a bill like this with that type of majority, I'm willing to bet the ignorant, computer illiterate, WEALTHY politicians are willing to screw the US.
With all the assorted bitching on here about this bill, people need to realize something....
The Senate IS NOT going to bother with this bill.
The Senate takes alot longer to do things. _maybe_ 10% of what the House passes is ever brought up on the floor. Add to that the short time Congress is in session before they all go home to campaign and the real purpose becomes clear.
1. the Senate too slow to take time with frivolous legislation.
2. there are only a few days left of the session before everyone goes home to campaign.
3. therefore the House is free to pass any kind of retarded crap it wants, knowing it will die on the way down the hall.
4. therefore House members are totally free to vote for blatantly unconstitutional AND retarded bills so they can say they support protecting our children from the boogeyman.
5. tout said dumb bill in campaign commercials
6. win
7. ??? (think duke cunningham)
8. profit!
Why won't let kids do anything, this coddling is out of hand and crazy. This isn't the only thing though, kids today are finding less and less to actually do. Why don't we as a society let kids learn about the real world? Why does this society try to grow children up inside of a bubble of ignorance. Gone are the days when children could just be themselves and play, now we have to watch out for the phantom pedophile behind every bush and tree. This country is living in constant fear and this has to stop, we are almost trained now to not help anyone (potential terrorist), suspect everyone (everyone is a terrorist/child molestor apparently), not talk to anyone (everyone is out to get you), why not just have everyone in chains wearing gas masks? This decade has been trying to make everything "kid friendly", kids are people too they deserve to know the truth about the world. Why can't we go back to where "the only thing to fear is fear itself"
Sound like home grown predators are more common that terrorists. So why haven't the feds spent $100B making sure all schools, playgrounds, and daycares have airport style screening? Why isn't the FBI/CIA/NSA monitoring all communications in and out of those facilities. Why isn't their a Department of SchoolYard Defence? Why isn't there a SchoolYard Predator Threat level system? Think of the children!
I will stop now, this is getting silly (the world that is).
Is this sort of legislation fundamentally different from the way the Chinese government views the Internet?
-Blake
"Dude, it was so funny I literally shit my pants!"
"Well, what did you do?"
"What do you mean, dude? I was laughing..."
"I mean, what did you do with your shitty pants?"
"No, dude, I didn't REALLY shit my pants, I LITERALLY shit my pants!"
Cheers,
Ari
Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.
It seems to be that blocking children from accessing MySpace or a site like that at a library isn't exactly the right response. I think the stalkers are going to use the public library computers more than the kids are -- and the stalkers can ask to get to the sites! This law does nothing -- if a creep wants to stalk a kid online from a public library terminal, he can -- as long as the kid isn't at the library. The kid, however, can use alot of other computers -- at school, their best friends house or even at home. I think it's blocking the wrong half of the stalking equation.
In related news, Congress has outlawed all trips to Africa. It has been decided that the continent is not safe for visitors, since creatures such as "lions" have made large areas of the landmass their hunting ground. "Can we really let our citizens travel to an area with tens of thousands of hungry beasts?" asked Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick. "Think of the children!" In response to criticisms from African tourism agencies, he only replied, "Packs of lions have literally exploded in the last few years. Think about that."
Bad evil people are on there, ready to molest and kidnap your kids!
It's 11pm. Do you know what channel your kids are in?
Love,
1995
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Clearly you have fallen hard from your turnip truck and struck your head quite forcefully. I see you as a complete apologist for those who are happy to legislate our freedoms into oblivion. Perhaps when they take away something you treasure you might at least grunt coherently before rolling over anyway. Not I.
The concept of fighting these sorts of violations of basic rights in court, rather then defeating in in committee or vote before house and/or senate is far more desireable as it eliminates the period of suppression prior to overturning, futher it eliminates any artifacts which may remain in place (as this will affect programmings, filtering and structure of information access) after subsequent overturn by a court. In these cases an ounce of prevention is truly worth more than a pound of cure.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
You, Roody Blashes, certainly are naive and a bit new to /. so I'll cut you some slack. Here's a question for you: have you ever seen links on /. to goatse.cx? What about GNAA first posts? How long do you think /. would stay on such the whitelist of allowed sites?
blog
- George W. Bush
In related news, Congress has outlawed all trips to Africa. It has been decided that the continent is not safe for visitors, since creatures such as "lions" have made large areas of the landmass their hunting ground. "Can we really let our citizens travel to an area with tens of thousands of hungry beasts?" asked Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick. "Think of the children!" In response to criticisms from African tourism agencies, he only replied, "Packs of lions have literally exploded in the last few years. Think about that."
They cannot be expected to monitor their child's 4 MySpace accounts (1 they know about and 3 they don't) to keep their little girl from posting pictures of herself for all the world to see. Nor can they possibly know why their child would do such a thing -- seeking all that attention from strangers.
Why, the parents give their children all the things their two 14 hour a day jobs can buy, let them go to whatever mall with their friends all the time (though they haven't had time to actually meet these friends), and they leave them alone all afternoon (to get their home work done). They even have all the Hot Pockets they want for dinner.
Why can't these kids just behave? What do they need that their parents haven't given them?
Please, think of the parents. They need these kinds of laws to keep predators away from their children. The bad guys are sooo tricky, getting their kids to reply to email and such. If only the schools would teach the kids to be responsible. Perhaps there's a summer camp for that? Then there could be a law requiring the kids to attend... That's the ticket!
</sarcasim>
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Don't you have something called the constitution that prevents laws being made like this?
Senators may often be narrow-minded and sometimes corrupt, but they don't rush into something like this.
The House is like a bunch of little children. Given the evident state of maturity of 415 members of the House of Representatives, I think those people should be barred from accessing the Internet, except under supervision of some adult.
With just a small religious rider, the bill could be broadened to protect even more children. A little re-write of Fitzpatrick's quote rings more true:
"Now, he added, those churches 'have become a haven for sexual predators who have made these churches their own hunting ground.'"said Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick, a Pennsylvania Republican.
With all of these pushes to "protect our children" from internet predators happening over the past few years, why do AOHell chatrooms still exist?
I'm not sure of the statistics, but having experience with police/crime records, I'm pretty damn sure kids are more likely to be sexually molested/offended by people living in their own homes than any other people. Hell, I would put my bank on the estimation that legal guardians are more likely to harm a child than anyone else.
So let's do it. Let's ban guardianship and emancipate all children today!!
This is very bogus. How about a popular blog site? would that be blocked also? how about linkedin.com that I use a lot to keep contact with old colleagues? how about Wikipedia and other wiki sites? can somehow that fall also in the "social" category because multiple people contribute to the same content? think kind of sh*t makes me want to move to Canada. Really.
H.R.4472? Where exactly in the bill is this covered?
The masses are the crack whores of religion.
who wanted to stifle personal freedoms. I'm an indepenedent myself but to those who were saying "those damn Republicans again" I'd like to point out that given the 410-15 vote, nearly all the Dems voted in favor of this ludicrous bill.
And if we're on the topic, does anyone know where I can find a fiscally conservative and socially neutral party?
Oh, I see. They're going to give the internet a tubal ligation!!
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
I have a friend who got kicked out of his parents house for throwing a party a few months ago. (It was a good party)
So he was living out of his car for a little while there, and being an internet junky, found his way to the library for his daily surfing. At times all of the library computers were taken, and it usualy involved at least half of them with kids on myspace.
After that happened a couple of times my friend learned how to edit a windows HOSTS file, and well, there has always been plenty of free computers at the library ever since.
I think he got runescape while he was at it too =D
Nathan Friedly
The subject line of this post is all that needs to be said about this subject
I tried and tried, but the VG industry still died
All or nothin' baby, pick a side and write your government reps http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/ cuz they don't care what you post here!
I was going to attack you on the basis of party ratios in the house, saying that the republicans don't outnumber the dems by such a large margin, so saying that "several" of the against votes are dems isn't proving your point, but...
ALL (except the 4 who didn't vote) republicans are for!
In other words,
Rep Dem
Yea 98.26% 91.04%
Nay 0(!) 7.46%
NV 1.77% 1.64%
All the data is availible in the silver bullet format here
As to the subject of this post, did anyone notice that the bill is called Deleting Online Predators Act? After Operation Iraqi Lib^H^H^HFreedom, it seems to me that they deliberately chose the names just one letter short of comedy gold. Here, all they needed to do is use a synonym to the word "act", such as "edict" or "enactment".
Isn't this bill going at things the wrong way?
l .networking.051006.pdf ) I noticed that there is an exception for computers that are being used for 'Educational' purposes... so doesn't that exempt the primary target of the law? Or did they only want to block social networking sites that students are visiting from school computers after 3PM?
There are far fewer predators than there are children, so it would be easier to regulate their behavior than to force filtering technologies onto every primary/secondary school and library in the nation.
Also, after reading the text of the bill (available in PDF http://www.politechbot.com/docs/fitzpatrick.socia
Bottom line is that it is unconstitutional. It will be challenged and overturned. That is if it gets passed.
This is stupid legislation for the purpose of stupid legislation. Don't the DC socialites have enough to do with their late night dinner parties and other social affairs to do other than to create legislation that does nothing but enact laws that are in violation of our constitution?
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
There was a rash of news stories a few months back up here in the Great White North. Some poor kid got abducted and as it was a slow news day (WWIII hadn't broken out yet), the media was awash with abduction stories.
Apparenly last year in Canada there were something like 30,000 cases of child abduction. Might not be the exact number, but it was in the tens of thousdands. OMG THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!! The news stories focussed on what laws we need, how we can save the children, how the Internet is a bad place, don't let your chilren do anything in public without you, blah blah blah.
In only ONE of the news stories did ANYONE talk about just who was doing the abducting. Of course, it was pretty much always the parents or some other family member. This story had a very short summary of how many kids in Canada last year were abducted by complete strangers:
5.
That's right, FIVE. We're about to re-write our laws, do some stupid reactionary crap, demonize the Internet, lock our kids in protective bubbles, because 5 kids got abducted. Never mind the 29,995 taken by their parents, we don't have to worry about those!
Incidentally, we just had our first Amber Alert(TM) here in Calgary. The city used the Emergency Broadcast System for this. Considering we've had several tornado warnings lately, it scared the hell out of me to hear that blaring from the TV.
Turns out, the kid was abducted by her mother, and as almost always happens in these cases, was returned safely. *sigh* I remember the days when the EBS was used for things like incoming nukes or earthquakes.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
Why stop at banning those sites? Let's ban ANYTHING a sexual-predator might turn in to a "hunting ground."
Why not also ban...
- Playgrounds & Parks
- Zoos
- Pools (Of Any Kind)
- Children's Museums
- Libraries
- Arcades
And this is just a start. If we want to ensure that sexual predators are not turning the Internet in to hunting grounds, why not ban children from accessing the Internet completely? Get real.
I would love for this guy to tell me what percentage of sexual solicitations of minors have taken place using public library Internet access.
In my opinion the real problem is kids accessing these site at home, with no adult supervision. Don't believe it happens? Spend some time on youtube.com and see how many unsupervised pre-teams are making videos of themselves. My wife and I sat down and looked at a few and were quite disturbed. Our kids don't have private access to the Internet, and we monitor their activity closely. It's not perfect (what happens at friends houses?), but we need to do what we can.
Instead of passing usless laws that have no hope of protecting children, I propose this: We (as techs/geeks/admins/programmers) should teach our neighbors they shouldn't let their kids use the Internet behind closed doors for hours on end. Maybe you can offer your tech services and run tcpdump on their network for a few hours during their kids' "private" time. The parents might be in for a shock. Or maybe, if you are really gung-ho, teach a neighborhood class on how parents can protect kids on-line.
"...have become a haven for online sexual predators who have made these corners of the Web their own virtual hunting ground."
The hunting ground is anywhere prey can be found, as matter of fact the library itself can be a hunting ground. Even if you lock minors inside there houses some are going to be victims of sexual pretators. I don't think this kind of legilation solves anything at all.
And I also note how your sig seems eerily appropriate...
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
I agree, but it's funny that you would say that, and then use "wonderful" to mean "awful."
Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
...think "I wonder what liberties will be gone today?" when they first awake?
This doesn't really affect me - yet - but who knows how far this will go. Is this the beginning of a system where the would-be victim is punished for the would-be crime?
Looks like a wonderful foundation for the Great FireWall of America
The bill only affects access to commercial social networking sites. This is regulation under the commerce clause, so Congress is limited to regulating businesses.
This will be a boost for non-commercial sites like free-association.net, which was founded by Tribe members unhappy with the Murdoch buyout and subsequent censorship. It doesn't take a company. After all, the users are providing all the content.
So, what prevents me from setting up dozens of mirrors and ssl tunnels into the social site that I run?
Good luck blocking all of them.
I think the whole problem with child predators and meeting people in chatrooms and the like has been seriously overblown by the media. News stations like CNN run stories about how to keep children safe on the internet, and the kids that have met predators online, but not once in my entire course of using the internet have I actually met one of these people. Due to the weight that news stations are allowed to give to stories, and the fact that the internet is a relatively new invetion, many stories about it get blown out of proportion by those who don't understand it.
...the intersection of government boobs and internet tubes.
Remember, lots of people in the US (who mostly live in hotter climates) still believe that beating is a good child-rearing technique. Why would they vote for something (or someone) that (who) would make them recognise their own fallacies? Politicians recognise this and use this to keep themselves in office; that's why they pass such bills.
"And if we're on the topic, does anyone know where I can find a fiscally conservative and socially neutral party?"
http://www.lp.org/article_85.shtml
9/11 Eyewitnesses to Explosive WTC Demolition 1 of 2
Good chance that Bush will add a signing statement which will make certain that the good folks back home won't have to enforce this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement
This law is all about PR and stoking up the conservatives with righteous pride. It has as much chance of getting enforced as a law banning swearing on Sunday.
Please. This is just more feel good legislation... As if we need more.
DISCLAIMER:
I don't believe what I write, and neither should you.
As the saying goes:
Anything the Republics can agree on is evil.
Anything the Democrats can agree on is stupid.
Anything that both Republicans and Democrats agree on is both evil and stupid.
I would say that the vote count that passed this bill (410-15) pretty much proves the saying true. Both Democrats and Republicans agreed to this stupid bill by massive margins and what is the result? A bill that is both stupid and evil.
Good job guys. I am glad you could not agree on balancing the budget, fixing social security, streamlining the tax code, dealing with healthcare, or any number of things that need addressing, but you dumb fucks managed to agree on crippling public access to the Internet to ensure that people without private Internet access stand not a slimmest chance in hell from getting equal access.
Awesome.
If I did much praying, I would pray for gridlock each and every election. Our worthless government works best when it doesn't do any work at all. Better the fucked up status quo then letting these idiots find bigger iceberg to crash into.
I wonder if the courts would interpret these social sites as an on-line version of "peaceably assembling", as protected in the first ammendment of the US Constitution?
"Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire." -- William Butler Yeats
Republicans control the house, but not all of the house. Yeah, so 15 that voted nay were dems. The other 183 dem assholes (not to mention the 226 republicans) are the issue. So yeah, the democrats have a slightly better record then the republicans on this one issue. They are however far from spotless. If every single Republican had not voted this stupid bill would have still passed by veto proof margins by democrats.
Stop defending the democrats just because they are not republicans. Yes, republicans suck, but that doesn't prevent the democrats from sucking ass too.
...er, no, wait, you can have it.
So help me, this is funny. Those most common lament I hear on /. is that nobody is gettin any.
Perhaps the complainers aren't doing it right, I'm 71, and early stage 2 diabetic, a roundabout way of saying that it takes 20mg of levitra to keep me from peeing on my shoes. But I have a cooperative missus and I'm still getting all I want even w/o the chemical help. Its a two way street kids. Whats the excuse for the rest of you younger geeks?
--
Cheers, Gene
This is why I get irritated when people (particularly on /.) are so abusinve to the Republican party as if things would have been different had Gore/Kerry whomever been elected. 410-15 means bipartisan support for stupidity.
Want to make a difference? Voting Democrat isn't going to do it. I don't know the solution but whatever it is I'm pretty sure it hasn't been offered to us yet.
So I am really getting a kick out of all these replies.
But seriously, I do work for a lobbying group--the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Hence the AC since I DO NOT speak for the organization in an official capacity.
I could not agree with the parent post more. There is a lot more to effective lobbying than just sending an angry letter every now and then. Effective lobbyists are in close contact with House and Senate offices on a continuous basis, and can find out about stuff like this ahead of time. For instance the Chamber sent up a letter opposing this bill before the vote. Effective lobbyists can also work affirmatively to get legislation introduced or worded in a way that is advantageous to your cause.
A lot of this has to do with who you know and how well you work with others. This sort of schmoozing is anathema to a lot of tech geeks, maybe because a lot of tech geeks are introverted and are uncomfortable interacting with people they don't know well. But the fact is that getting things done relies on personal relationships--that's true in any field. A conversation with a well-informed former colleague (staffer turned lobbyist) can be worth hundreds of grassroots letters when it comes to changing a Senator's mind.
Some tech companies get it. Microsoft gets it now that they have seen first hand how dangerous it can be to ignore the government. Google gets it--they have opened a Washington office and hired lobbyists. But the most powerful lobbying groups are always those the represent large numbers--lots of people and lots of money. That's why it's important to not only do your own lobbying well, but to constantly seek common ground with other organizations--coalitions are a big part of successful lobbying.
Politics does make strange bedfellows. The Chamber and the labor unions fight tooth and nail over issues like the Davis-Bacon Act, but also align in coalitions over issues like immigration. This sort of thing is possible when you focus primarily on the issues and not the people and personalities and political parties.
Amazing! A caucus for the rights of Congressional victims!
Where can the American people join up?
Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
Most sites that let you blog could be considered social sites.
But no, there is no way they're going to ban public blogging they're using that this election year to get your votes. They just don't want you to hear a blog rant on Myspace that could convince you not to vote for them.
"To be is to do." --Socrates
"To do is to be." -- Aristotle
"Do-Be-Do-Be-Do..." --Sinatra
dude the ACLU should get on this. This completely limits the freedom of anyone under the age of 18 that does not own a computer at home. Also it allows for the gov't controlled access points (schools and libraries) to track usage of adults, yes they do this already but theres enough of it in place. Almost all the sites i visit in a day including Yahoo and Google can fit into this description. The claim is so broad that its ridiculous. had to rant, sry
Running from the law definitely wasnt as easy as they made it look on the Dukes of Hazzard --Joy, My Name is Earl (2006
Most sites that have public blogging could be considered social sites.
But no, there is no way they're going to ban that. They're going to use blogs to get your vote this year. They just don't want you to read a blog on Myspace that could sway your vote away from them.
"To be is to do." --Socrates
"To do is to be." -- Aristotle
"Do-Be-Do-Be-Do..." --Sinatra
http://tor.eff.org/
voted against it. I'm shocked. My elected representative has actually done something that requires a spine??? I guess I'm lucky. Mr Honda, you just dramatically upped the likelihood that I vote for you in the next election.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
At least as far as preventing access to minors. We are in a society in which parents will sue anyone who doesn't keep their kids safe for them. If a school or library lets Little Susie on MySpace and she meets a pervert, will the parents blame themselves? No, they'll scream that the school or library is at fault and should be sued. So the govornment is having to step in to do the job for parents.
An alternative to banning kids outright would be to allow parents the option of signing a waver, in person, when a kid gets a library card releasing the library from all liability associated with the kid's use of the internet, including, but not limited to, potential contact with child sex offenders. As it is, in most, if not all, libraries, kids can get cards without a parent, and from there can use the internet unmonitored. But allowing parents the option of signing to allow their kids access to sites that would otherwise be banned could assist parents in keeping their kids away from sites they may not want their kids to go to. Signing to deny access wouldn't work because a parent wouldn't necessarily know the kid even has a card.
Have you ever been stuck going to a library to use the internet for something like research or work (it really sucked waiting for cable to be installed here), and had to wait around because all 55 of the computers were full of kids playing around on MySpace, walking away from their machine to look over a friend's shoulder, a few gathering around one machine? And you don't get to go take it just because the kid moved? And you're not the only adult waiting 90 minutes for a terminal to open up? If you have, you've probably wished that the US would ban these little pests known as kids on the internet.
School computers are meant to be used to school work, so by all means, just ban the sites. Kids should be doing, you know, school work, while at school.
Now, about banning adults, this is just rediculous. It is our tax dollars that fund these things. And if all we have to do is ask, then what could be an excuse for the librarian to say no? Are they going to check Megan's List to see if we're each registered, when only about 1/3 of offenders are even registered? If in doubt, treat us like the criminals we aren't? This isn't just over-the-top censorship, but a misuse of authority to even attempt to deny us access. Yes, continue to ban porn sites in libraries as you have to be 18 to view those, or better yet, set aside a section of computers for adults only with the monitors facing such a way that passers by (like kids and adults with poles up their asses) won't be exposed to what's on the monitor.
It's a girl!
They've censored the Web 2.0, as simple as that.
You can contribute some money to Mike Fitzpatrick's opponent, Patrick Murphy, here. Patrick is a fairly young guy who actually, you know, uses the Internet, and he has a sensible strategy to combat online predators.
It is likely that the Senate will overturn this ban considering that Facebook.com is intertwined with many college, university, high school, and stand-by military activities.
My university in particular uses Facebook to announce many event that occur on campus through the help of the dean's office.
What this ban means to these institutions is that you can't promote the campus carrier fair or the special guest speaker who has come to school to give an enlightening lecture. And forget about parties, club meetings, sports, communicating with your classmates.
Secondly, this bill may threaten Net Neutrality, another bill the House passed that the Senate is likely to toss out.
It is quite clear that the lobbyist from AT&T and other large communications and mass media companies, are in full force buying out elected officials and government agencies in Capitol Hill. This story should be paid close attention to over the next few weeks.
The Rapture is NOT an exit strategy.
Well if you're ever up in Canada, you can come and use Slashdot at my space.
(And I promise not to have a hidden video camera staring over your shoulder.)
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
There are organizations that collect old 2nd hand computers and retro fit them to make em good again if
their ram is crap or old slow hd, or are dirty.
These are given to poor people or sold ultra cheap.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Every day I grow more estranged from my country. I read things like this and wonder if the average intelligence of a US representative is above 100...and I think its probably not.
I'd like to sponsor a bill...the bill is called "Don't confuse day care with the library" bill. It will detail how the library is a source of raw information, how it has information that could potentially be dangerous to your children. It would detail how it covers the spectrum of information, and as a repository it has things as harmless as doctor seuss and as dangerous as violence and guns. It would explain to adults that you cannot drop your kids off there and expect it to be a daycare for them.
It would also create a designation for a "christian library", which only contains jesus stories and information that is approved by pastors. It would be run by daycare workers who could baby sit your children. It would have computers that only open yahooligans web sites. And it would require that these libraries have large signs that say "Not appropriate for legitimate research. Materials are censored and can not be considered representative of the culture or authors of our nations".
I remember seeing some stastic where someone compared the number of users on MySpace to the population of California, and how many pedofiles were convicted on each. The point was, stastically, you're safer being on MySpace than living in California. But our weather is nicer.
A/S/L ne1?
Since I'm currently a Candidate for office with a presence on Myspace, should this thing pass before my Primary, I've got great standing to seek injunctive relief.
Ben Masel: 51,282 votes for US Senate in the Wisconsin Democratic Primary
Ben Masel: 51,282 votes for US Senate in the Wisconsin Democratic Primary
As I post this, there is still time. Email your senator right now
The message this bill sends to the kids, IMHO: "Being social is bad kids! We do not want to be social. It is much better to be Anti-social. Withdraw from other people, and be afraid, be very afraid of them. The masses have to be kept under control, so let us teach from the beginning, that they are supposed to be only passive receivers of the mass communication media, and not active social participants in the active discources of the society."
I can understand that many geeks&nerds get a real kick out of their favourite O.S. / arcane programming language / overclocked C.P.U. ..... but I did not think that it would get to be compared to porn. Yet I can imagine such a IRC message
[neubee] hi my PC has liquid cooling but it leaked my CPU is all wet what should I do?
We know that the CongCrits aren't *personally* worried about sex predation, since they're all INTO it. So MAN ... they must be under some SERIOUS pressure after a summerload of that social-engineering TV show!
"You must try to forget all you have learned. You must begin to dream." -- Sherwood Anderson
We have to stop this ugly dirty reproduction thingy!! better buy some rifles from us and shoot everyone you see !! go 'way, nothing to see here!
The fact that the ruling powers even cared to restrict the citizens' abilities to associate anonymously during the election year makes me optimistic. It means that they considered it a threat, implying that the possibility still exists for the citizens, associating freely, to cause substantial political changes.
Do they fear the election results, or something entirely different I wonder...? The US elections seemed so nicely tamed already.
if a quote in funny in the context of a movie, it must be funny everywhere else you can use it, neh?
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
Just like these idiots thought going to war with Iraq would be the cure for terrorism, they think banning MySpace will be the cure for sexual predators.
They'd achieve far more if they instead spent some money on awareness campaigns to teach people the most common signs of abuse, and to make people aware that strangers isn't the greatest risk to their children.
In general, Americans don't like for their government to spend money. Rather, they don't like their government spending money on the common good.
I think it's a shame, but that's the American ideology.
1. How is this anything other than a smoke and mirrors publicity stunt for politicians?
This places the burden of policing social irresponsible behavior upon organizations simply providing access.
2. How can this provide anything other than a false sense of security?
If there is an implied sense of security, what encouragement is there to educate people on appropriate conduct? The world is not a child friendly place. There is little we can do to successfully alter that...
3. What happened to responsible parenting?
Adults can ask for permission to access the sites? What kind of horseshit is that? The most basic risk analysis would steer an organization to ban access to all--fearing slip or accidental access. Public access points will institute the least cost solution to adhere to the letter of the law. What incentive is there to do otherwise? Demand certainly won't step up to the challenge... Why would someone wish to waste their time in pursuit of access when there are a plethera of alternatives available for those of means. This travisty of legislation is an attack on the poor and less privileged in our society. Information and the free flow of ideas is the the most valuable commodity of a healthy society. Any restrictions on providers of access is an attack on our society.
The solution is not in curtailing access. The solution is educating youth in the acceptable use of the technology. Parents must accept the responsibility of parenting. Parents are charged with the duty of preparing their youth for entry into our society. Appropriate warning about sexual predators should be no less important than, "Don't talk to strangers..." or "Look both ways before crossing a street." Parents should also know who their children are talking with, interacting with, socializing with, and know them well. "Where are you going?" "What adult will be there?" "What time will you be home?" "Take your cell phone." (The cell phone with the GPS tracking!) Parents can not stick their head in the sand and pray that God or the Government will keep their children safe.
Additionally, predatory behavior should be classified as a terrorizing activity. Predators (and I am speaking of pedophiles) should be hunted down and punished in the strongest terms. This social challenge can not be met with demand-side economics. The victims or would-be victims should not be shielded, they should be educated. They should be educated to report questionable or inappropriate behavior and/or walk away from the keyboard.
Finally, public access providers (libraries, internet cafes, etc) should not be required to police the behavior or activities of those that use their services. The telco's do not restrict access to phone-sex lines or limit ones ability to phone a hate group. The public access providers should be encouraged to participate in socially pragmatic advancement.
Rich W.
You let your sister be homeless? Did you at least offer her a place to stay?
Found out what this fucktard's password is! W00t w007
If you want to eliminate this account so we won't have to listen to this sh!7 anymore
User Name Anon. Libertarian
Password - oWd5qMpX
Got this from it's hotmail account
Username - anonymous_libertarian
password - qwerty1
Go tear into it - WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT