Slashdot Mirror
Restrictions On Social Sites Proposed In Georgia
A state senator in Georgia, Cecil Staton, has introduced a bill that would require parents' permission before kids could sign up at a social networking site such as MySpace and Facebook, and mandate that the sites let parents see all material their kids generate there. Quoting: "[Senate Bill 59] would make it illegal for the owner or operator of a social networking Web site to allow minors to create or maintain a Web page without parental permission [and require] parents or guardians to have access to their children's Web pages at all times. If owners or operators of a company failed to comply with the proposed law, they would be guilty of a misdemeanor on the first offense. A second offense would be a felony and could lead to imprisonment for between one and five years and a fine up to $50,000 or both." The recently offered MySpace parental tools fall short of the bill's requirements. This coverage from the Athens Banner-Herald quotes Facebook's CPO saying that federal law forbids the company to allow anyone but the account creator to access it..
And when the parents give their permission -- OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
This demonstrates the battle between two competing and mutually exclusive legal approaches to minors: 1) as citizens with the same rights as any other, and 2) as the property of their parents.
While I don't think the law is a good one it seems to me a workaround for the federal law saying only an account creator can have access is to only allow minors to create pages on accounts their parent creates.
First post!
using namespace slashdot;
troll::post();
the Athens Banner-Herald quotes Facebook's CPO saying that federal law forbids the company to allow anyone but the account creator to access it..
This isn't at all what the article quotes. It says:
Under the Federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act, we cannot give anyone access to or control of an individual's profile on Facebook
I don't see how this would preclude rules that require all future account creations to be done by an adult...
Funny this from GA. Southern states have a rep for "close" familial relations. I doubt that most child-sex-crimes are perpetrated by outsiders anyway no matter what state we're talking about. Sure, the "be afraid of the internet" cases are the ones that get the headlines, but for the most part, it's mom or dad who are directly at fault. So why not just ban parenthood? Parenthood seems much more risky to children than the net.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
I was about to respond with the typical "parents' responsibility" blather, but then I thought about it some more and realized it's more insidious than that.
It really is about parental control, and parents should be up in arms about this. As it stands (in America, at least), once your kids are waiting on the corner for the public school bus in the morning, your kids belong to the State. A child student has to have parent's permission for an asprin, but not for an abortion.
Parental rights are increasingly in jeopardy in America.
This is one step down a slippery slope, and a good time to make a stand. The bottom line is that your kids are yours to raise -- no matter how much some may disagree with your parenting tactics -- and we are standing to lose that right. This is only the first step.
Sony ha
Time to receive another insincere reply from my state representative!
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
illegal for the owner or operator of a social networking Web site to allow minors to create or maintain a Web page without parental permission
/., Digg, and Fark as well? And of course, this does nothing for a site based offshore somewhere.
And how, precisely, do you intend to enforce that? One of the reasons the CDA, in 1996 and 1997, and the COPA in 1998 and 1999, were shot down was because this concept is unworkable. Then and now. You simply cannot verify who is sitting at the keyboard.
And then of course we get into the weird definitions. What is a 'social networking site'? Just Facebook and MySpace? Or
From TFA:
"Staton said the bill does not tell the companies exactly how to ensure that minors don't log on without parental permission. The companies can figure that out on their own, he said."
There is no real way to do that. Who is liable if the minor works around the security and makes a page? What if said minor created a page and NOTHING happened aside from a parent finding out the page exists? What is an acceptable form of verifying parental consent?
This proposal is a prime example of people who don't know jack about how the technology works trying to legislate it.
... requiring parents permission anytime kid wants to get on the bus? How about letting kids in the mall only with written permission?
you know, shit can happen on the bus....
in fact, shit can happen anywhere.
How about a site hosted in Romania or Israel?
State laws can not and will not replace neglecting parents.
I don't think My Space a net negative. IMO it's nice for the idiots to have their own place to hang out, instead of running around molesting the real internet.
Porn sites technically must require proof of age, and none of THEM ever get any visits from children.
What a yutz. Let's say this guy gets his law. What practical method is there for a state legislature to require a website based on servers in some other state to verify the identity of people who want to edit pages there?
Some online services marketed to adults take a credit card as a way of proving you're an adult. They place an authorization on your card, perhaps even charging some nominal fee, which if accepted by the card issuer is sufficient proof of age. How hard is it for a teen to slip Mom's credit card out of her purse, write down the card number, expiration date, and the verification number on the reverse, knowing that if it's just an authorization, she'll have no way to know, and if it's a one-off charge of a buck or three, she still probably won't notice. Or maybe Precious Child has his own Visa Buxx, and uses that to prove he's an adult.
So that's clearly out. Is he going to create some state agency to give online credentials to adults? Uh-oh. I just realized that in posting this comment, I'm within the definition of 'create or maintain a Web page', and I don't believe I've shown anyone my drivers licence here.
The internet provides fertile new ground for evildoers, whether they're pedophiles or politicians.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
Pretty much reminds me of this.
This story has no place on Slashdot, as
a). we don't have kids
b). if we don't have any kids, then we're certainly not married
c). social networking? What is this adjective "social" you are talking about?
I kid, I kid [sorry].
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
I find no compelling argument here; rather, there is no argument of any kind.
Sony ha
"I disagree with what you have to say but will fight to the death to protect your right to say it" - Voltaire.
Myspace might be horrible in your opinion but this is when if you truly believe in freedom of speech you would still support them.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Possibly, but the world is screaming out for parents to control there children since they end up shooting people and when laws are put in place to help them do that in today's high-tech society every one screams children's rights are being trampled. Which is it, do you want parents to be involved or not? A law like this could be abused by some parents but others might be able find problems and deal with them better than if they didn't have this in place. Personally I don't think this law will make it, maybe for good enough reason, but stop telling parents to watch their kids and then tie the parents up and blame them when their kids do something seriously wrong.
I may be in the minority here, but I do have kids. When my 9-year old discovers whatever passes for MySpace at the time we begin to give him access to the web, he's not going to be using it independently of the direct oversight of my wife and myself. He won't be freely using any other web site, for that matter. His right to absolute privacy begins only when he moves out of my house, 9 years from now. If he insists that he is not going to tell me his password, I expect we'll start taking away privileges such as his internet access; if he insists on abusing our trust by using such sites outside our home, other privileges will begin disappearing accordingly.
This is no different than our current approach to discipline (which by the way is apparently working well): his rights currently extend only to being fed and clothed and healthy. His privileges (including toys, visits with friends, computer games, television, etc.) are given in direct proportion to his responsibility. As he acts responsibly, they expand. As he abuses our trust, they contract until he rebuilds our trust.
You may ask, how will you monitor his activities away from home? Naturally we're still figuring that out, but we already have a good start when he visits friends' houses, where he already knows that we expect him to follow our home's rules. For example, he knows (and obeys) our restrictions on what television he may watch, or video games he may play; we verify his obedience with parents. I expect our monitoring will include frequent vanity-Googling-by-proxy - searching for his name, and seeing what pops up. I also expect it will include a healthy dose of two-way trust. He already knows that he can trust us, and that we have his best interests in mind, and we will work together with him to build an appropriate presence online, as part of his responsible upbringing. As attentive parents, I also fully expect that we'll have a very good idea of his avatar choices and will be able to find them on any popular sites. Furthermore, since his rights to privacy don't yet exist, we will not hesitate to install keylogging and screenshot software on his computer, which will continue to live only in the common family room, will continue to be locked to system changes, and let him know that we monitor everything he does - just like we already often listen to his phone calls with less-responsible friends, and we make sure both parties know that we're listening. This is all part of parenting. I would never turn him loose in a city by himself, and letting him loose online is no different.
I'm quite certain that this post will generate some "are you nuts" or "what kind of fanatic are you" replies. Yes, I am a fanatic, in that I'm absolutely convinced of my beliefs (including trusting that God will change my mind if I'm wrong). I am raising my children according to my own beliefs, and teaching them everything I believe, because honestly, if I didn't believe it enough to pass it on to my most dearly valued family, that would show that I didn't really believe it.
--Brandon / Split Infinity Music
It's not only a stupid idea, it's an unworkable stupid idea that's going nowhere. Yeah, it's been "proposed in Georgia", but it might as well have been proposed on the moon. It has no support in Georgia and shouldn't reflect on Georgia.
Finding kids to molest is much easier at the local mall where the odds of finding a 'child' are better.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
Speaking as a parent who has raised children, I don't think watching your kids means being invasive in every aspect of their lives. It doesn't mean pre-emptively reading their diaries. It doesn't mean saying that they can't have private phone conversations. And to me, that's what saying you have to have access to their myspace account amounts to. Watching your children means spending a substantial amount of time with them. Going to all of their school functions. Volunteering to be their coach. Talking to their friend's parents. Setting curfews and sticking to them. It isn't so much watching as participating.
I understand t hat there are currently problems with minors o nthe internet, but within 20-30 years all of these problems iwll be resolved with parents that are technologicaly sound.
No, they won't. Firstly because those parents won't be "technologically sound" and secondly because they'll think they are and, thus, that they can ignore their parenting responsibilities by letting the machine do it for them.
Currently, parents have no idea how to use parental controls or how to supervise their kids, and I know my parents can't figure out what I'm doing.
Guess what ? If/when you have kids, the situation will be exactly the same.
Any responsible parent can't leave a child on his own and perfectly entitled to use as many tools as his disposal as possible in order to ensure the child does not get in harm's way.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
It's nice that you are conditioning your child to grow up in the society he'll be living in: Ubiquitous monitoring, trust through surveillance (you have "two-way trust" - that's a good one), blind obedience to Authority.
In doing what you are doing, you are not only teaching him your beliefs and values but instilling a distrust in you, his parents, that runs much deeper that you think. You do not trust your son. Get over it. Saying you trust him is not the same as actually doing so. You do not trust him at all, in the slightest. Not one bit. No matter what you say your actions belie your words. In fact, the contradictions created in your own mind by this dichotomy are in themselves damaging to your children as well as yourself.
You say your son trusts you. I can go along with that, considering he's 9. It's much easier to bend your mind to such contradictions when you're young. However, I don't expect that this will last until he's 18. Unless you are able to stunt his growth, he should consciously see the glaring obviousness of your lies in a few years, 5 max i would say.
If he does, you will have created someone who is able to succeed in the modern world of Catch-22's. If he suppresses this knowledge, you will have created a damaged and defective human being (quite possibly schizophrenic). Either way it seems like they will be appropriately paranoid.
Hmm, I guess I take that back. I figure you have probably a good chance of producing someone who is able to cover their tracks pretty well therefore has the skillz to avoid the much more lax authoritarian regimes currently called governments (after all the big G can't afford the extensive monitoring you engage in).
So, how do you expect God to change your belief structures if you won't listen to his representatives on Earth? Do you expect some miraculous experience like Paul (nee Saul) had? I find the best way is to open myself to the possibility that I might be wrong. It's called faith, you know, the actual bleeding edge of it. Faith that your core belief structures will still be there as you question the axioms, roots and branches of it and discard or modify your beliefs. Faith that even if you determine that one or a cluster of beliefs are incorrect (i.e. you change your mind), you will still be in God's loving eyes and are still able to continue the Great Work here on earth.
It doesn't even have to be an active thing; just the sensitivity to know that real world experiences can, and should, send ripples through your belief structures, shaking out the bugs. I guess this, then, depends on the ability to see your beliefs as a gestalt of multiple different ideas.
I am wondering where this Paranoid Surveillance trip comes out of your Faith. You need to find that ideological plank of your belief structures and examine what's wrong with it, because something sure is. While I agree that one's actions should stem from one's beliefs (which is why I am bothering writing this), I think your path to right action has been diverted by extraneous belief structures.
That is, you have some irrational Fear that is haunting you. This, in turn, enables an environment where the seeds of paranoia have grown to blossom, since you have not rooted out this fear. A subset of your belief structures is actively engaged in finding a set of patterns in real world examples to assure your self that you are on the correct path. Judging by your actions, these structures are under control of your paranoid tendencies. They have hooked into your Religious structures at some level such that you believe your behaviour towards your son is both necessary and in his best interest at a fundamental level when in really it's mostly just Paranoia having it's way with you.