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..

Comments

Perfectly Noxious

[mfh]

And when the parents give their permission -- OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!

people or property

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:people or property

[gfxguy]

Such is the life of a slashdotting parent. When a predator victimizes a child, the parents get blamed for not better protecting their children. When a parent uses parental controls (because we cannot monitor our kids 24 hours a day) we get blamed for taking away their "rights."

Well, as a parent I'm legally responsible for my kids, so NO, they DON'T have the same rights as adults. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Re:people or property

[KKlaus]

Well you may not be able to monitor them all the time, but they have brains of their own so you can hopefully teach them so that you don't need to. I'm young enough to have been a minor on "the internets" and as long as you aren't ultimately meeting someone in person, its about as safe as you can get. I mean you're in your damn house for chrissake. All of that internet related paranoia comes from watching to much scaremongering news. Teach your kids not to meet strangers out doors (the don't get into any vans for candy lesson), and it'll be fine. If your real fear is that they might lose some of their innocense become you can't control what they see, then that's a different issue entirely. But there are hardly any real safety issues.

And careful what rights you take away. Few would argue with limiting access to (say) firearms or tobacco, but sheltering your kids so they don't grow up faster than you want them to can be unhealthy. Unless they're really too stupid to make the right decision even after you explain it to them, don't just invoke authority and tell them too damn bad on what they want to do or see. Makes them bad citizens when they grow up and the govment does the same thing.

Re:people or property

[gfxguy]

None. If you'd bother reading the AC I was responding too, it had nothing to do with this actual proposal. He was asking if we treat the kids like "citizens" with all the freedoms of everyone else, or like property. While I'm legally responsible, they DO NOT have the same rights as adults.

I agree with him on the level that they should be doing more to catch the predators and less to incovenience the victims, but sometimes that's just not practical.

You'd get on my case if I complained someone stole my cell phone out of my car when I didn't lock it. You'd get on my case if someone stole my TV when I didn't bother closing the doors on my house. You'd get on my case if someone stole my bike when I didn't bother chaining it.

Why are you going to get on my case when I use some parental controls to attempt to help keep my kids safe?

So no, I don't necessarily agree with this law, but I also don't agree with the attitude that kids should have all the rights that adults have, including viewing all the content they want on the internet without restriction, when the parents are responsible, and the attitude that parents are some kind of Nazis when they restrict what their kids can do.

Uhh... what?

[JanusFury]

Staton cited statistics on dozens of teens who have been molested -- or murdered, in some instances -- by people they met through MySpace.com, according to law enforcement officials.

So, wait... dozens out of what, like 10 million myspace users? That's less than a hundredth of a percent. If anything, these statistics should indicate that he should be solving more dangerous problems, like car accidents or parental child abuse or teenage drug use, not chasing after imaginary problems.

Re:Uhh... what?

[the-amazing-blob]

Abuse, rape, torture, molestation.

They get headlines.

They get politicians elected

Thus, they get attention of politicians

Re:Uhh... what?

[42Penguins]

And what if they're both child molestors?
The FBI should have video stations set up in each room the child is expected to be in, since many crimes happen within the home.

Re:Uhh... what?

[PopeRatzo]

Wait 'til the Georgia parents figure out that almost every one of those kids who were molested or murdered also listened to some form of pop music. A very high percentage of them also went to school, so it's time we take a look at radios and blackboard erasers as causes.

It's about time we crack down.

Re:Uhh... what?

[c6gunner]

They also claim that only 35% of these abuses are reported, so unless I'm getting the math wrong, his would mean that something like 100% of females and 40% of males are molested before they're 18. Seems a little high, eh?

why not ban parenthood?

[anagama]

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.

Re:why not ban parenthood?

[anagama]

Indeed, a quick google search turned up this: http://www.districtadministration.com/pulse/commen tpost.aspx?news=no&postid=18080

Choice quote:

[chart showing 40% decline in sex abuse between 1990 and 2000]
All forms of child abuse, not just sexual abuse, are undergoing a dramatic decline. Of course, you'd never know this from the hype the media is giving the cases of online related sexual abuse that they can trace back to MySpace or Facebook.

[chart breaking down sex abuse by relationship]
The amazing and sad statistic that is so often overlooked and rarely discussed is that 95% of Child Abuse and Sexual Abuse is perpetrated by family members. 79% of perpetrators are parents. Other relatives accounted for 7% and unmarried partners of parents and "other" accounted for 4% and 5% of abuse.

Re:why not ban parenthood?

[happyemoticon]

Just as a side note, the biggest problem with rooting out or finding child sexual abuse is that children under the age of 10 can be made to say anything if goaded long enough, and eventually they will fabricate elaborate false memories to supplement these statements. If you put any determined adult in a room with any 8-year old, given enough time, they could eventually have that kid saying up was down or Uncle Benny touched him this way or that way, which, ironically, could be classified as abuse. Many law enforcement agencies have done exactly that, because at best the officers or attorneys in question were simply convinced they were right and that the kid had repressed memories or some other such bullshit, and at worst they were corrupt jerks out to catch bad guys - who cares if they have to brainwash a few little shits in order to catch em?

Mind you, I have no special knowledge in this subject beyond some college psychology classes.

Kneejerk reaction

[Skadet]

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.

Re:Kneejerk reaction

[jumpingfred]

I don't remember the schools doing abortions. Have things changed?

Oh boy!

[Lord Bitman]

Time to receive another insincere reply from my state representative!

As usual...idiots

[YrWrstNtmr]

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 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 /., Digg, and Fark as well? And of course, this does nothing for a site based offshore somewhere.

Re:As usual...idiots

[mongoose(!no)]

The definition problem could be very problematic.

If they say any sites with interactive, user created content, that leads to a lot of problems.

If they're very specific. Sites might find ways around it.

In the first case, what happens to all the small sites like PhpBB forums and the like when they have to deal with implementing this?

QFT - idiot.

[Irish_Samurai]

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.

How about...

[frakir]

... 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.

Re:Normally I'm on the side of civil liberties...

[mobby_6kl]

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.

Because, y'know...

[Veinor]

Porn sites technically must require proof of age, and none of THEM ever get any visits from children.

Which has no place on Slashdot

[electrosoccertux]

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].

Re:Which has no place on Slashdot

[Achromatic1978]

c). social networking? What is this adjective "social" you are talking about?

Don't get cheeky. We know perfectly well what social networking is. Social networking sites are what /we/ build so other people than ourselves can get dates!

Right to teach

[The Monster]

How about parents who want to teach their childred from birth that religion X is th eonly true way and that everyone else is a sinner and needs to be converted? What about parents who teach their children to be sexist? racist?

When they pick up weapons and try to translate that philosophy into reality, we'll just have to kill them. Meanwhile, we'll muddle through under this wacky idea that parents are presumed to have the best interests of their children at heart, and understand that hate mongers from Westboro to Wahhabi are the price of religious freedom.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Let's not blow this out of proportion

[dangermouse]

Cecil Staton, as another poster has pointed out, is kind of a known idiot. He's also all by himself on this. The response of the rest of the State Senate, and just about everyone else, has been: "What?"

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.

Re:responsibility or control

[hrvatska]

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.