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.'"
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.
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
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?
I think a more appropriate quote would be, "They who don't pay attention to what their kids do on the Internet, deserve neither kids nor the Internet."
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.
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.
Indeed, his inability to understand the meaning of simple English words does make me wonder what he's doing making legislation for the most powerful country in the world.
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.
"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?
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
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); }
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!
I expect this sort of nonsense from the Repubs, but there must have been a lot of Dems that went along with it, too. They probably voted for it knowing it was a stupid and almost certainly unconstitutional law, only because they were afraid of giving their opponents in November a chance to attack their "support" for child molesters et.al.
This is what drives me nuts about the Democrats, actually. We rely on them to oppose the wingnut Republicans and bring some semblance of sanity to government, but when push comes to shove they vote with them anyway because they're afraid of being criticized if they don't. It happens again and again, and I'm sick of it.
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.
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.
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.
That qualifies as stupidity to me.
You know what the other boot looks like, don't you? After they have banned these sites and the move offshore, they'll pass another law, like Internet Gambling, to ban access to foreign internet social sites from public terminals.
All these years I wondered why the Librarian shushed people from talking in libraries. I didn't realise the plan was to prevent them from socially networking in a public place.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Oh, politicians know full well who the real sexual predators are. They also know what will get them elected and what won't. Which do you suppose is going to go over better with the voters:
"We're going to protect your children from you and your sicko borther in law. You know, the real predators."
or:
"We're going to protect your children from scary psychos ON THE INTARWEB. They're EVERYWHERE! My GOD, they're hiding in the TUBES!"
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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...
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
Zackly. My first thought on this was, hm: 410/425 = roughly 96.5% of the representatives voting have no clue how absurd and ill-defined their intention is, or just flat-out don't care that it's not even practically enforceable.
That's why we also have the word "figuratively", which is what the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania really meant.
Oh well, I could care less.
(And yes, I mean that literally, just as I wrote it.)
Chelloveck
I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
That's OK, the Appearance of Doing Something Useful to the Internet Act of 2006 will be amended by the Slightly Less Harmful Appearance of Doing Something Useful to the Internet Act of 2007.
Congress has long since stopped worrying about having any effects whatsoever (except for the financial benefits of their corporate overlords, er, constituents, and buying their next election), and have concentrated solely on the appearance of doing something useful to those 90% of people who only hear the 6-second sound bite of what they have done.
It's a rare thing when legislation doesn't make the problem it is supposed to solve worse... and you can forget about it fixing anything.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Ding! You hit it on the head. The appearance of doing something is more important than actually doing it.
The big problem is that Congress has only one tool to work with: they can create new legislation. And they have to appear to be doing something about any given problem, so they do the only thing they can, regardless of whether a legislative solution is appropriate.
"Congressman, why did you vote against this bill that protects the children?" It's as loaded a question as, "Have you stopped beating your wife?", and can't be answered in a 10-second sound bite.
Chelloveck
I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
The legislators are so stupid they just banned their own websites! Example: http://www.whitehouse.gov/ask/question2.html
"...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.
...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?
On some unconscious level, that isn't considered as bad. Look at the Texas woman who drowned her 5 children. A jury let her off easy - innocent by reason of insanity. Do you think that Florida guy who killed a single child will get off like that? Even after the police totally screwed up the case? Of course not, he'll die. The key is: touch someone else's children, you fry. Kill several of your own children, you need help. We're a society that is terrified of other people and extremely protective of our own. We really don't care about all the kids who are killed by their parents, or the black kids getting murdered every day in inner cities. As long as our white suburban kids could be touched by some stranger, that's the real crisis, and all our attention will go to it.