Slashdot Mirror
Connecticut Wants to Restrict Social Networking
csefft writes "According to the Hartford Courant, Connecticut became the latest state to want to restrict the use of MySpace and other social networking sites. The proposed bill would require that all such sites verify the identity and age of users, as well as get parent's permission for those under 18. Sites that failed to comply would be subject to a $5,000 per day fine. Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said of the proposition, 'If we can put a man on the moon, we can verify age on the Internet,' but quickly followed with the acknowledgment that there is no foolproof method."
'If we can put a man on the moon, we can verify age on the Internet,'
And just like putting a man on the moon can be faked, so can you fake your age on the Internet.
PS: I am not implying the moon landing was faked.
God spoke to me.
So the question is, is the government willing to pay the amount of money it would require to make that kind of age verification system, much like they were willing to pay the money required to put a man on the moon? Oh wait, no, the companies have to pay for it.
I suspect any site that allows message posting could be considered a social networking site under a poorly-crafted law and this will surely be poorly-crafted.
We can put a man on the moon, so we can verify ages on the Internet? Yes, that makes a great logical leap there. We can build a car, that doesn't mean we can create skynet.
Why don't we also require some sort of age verification before anyone can call 1-900 numbers? There is no verification for that, and yet it's accessible to minors. OMG!!! Won't someone think of the children??
Oh wait, it's to stop older men from hurting younger women. I guess that means that someone is, just not the parents. Seriously, where does parental responsibility start these days?
Now, if that makes sense to anyone, could you please explain it to me? I think I've confused myself.
Maybe MySpace will change their signup process so that when you select "Connecticut" as your home state, you go through some verification process.
What if you pretend to be from another state, create your account, then change it to Connecticut? Does MySpace have to go back and verify your age?
Ontop of all that, how the F**K are they supposed to get your parents permission?
How do they verify that the "parent" actually is your legal guardian?
Trying to find technical solutions to a social problem is an uphill battle.Note how he uses words like "might" and "perhaps". The politicians have no clue how it could possibly be implemented.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
There's enough of this "think of the children" crap when the majority of it could easily be solved by parents actually monitoring their children instead of relying on technology and things such as this. It's simple. All of these MySpace lawsuits and whatnot are complete bull, because every one of them could have been avoided if the parents actually paid attention to what their children were doing.
Accurate age verification essentially requires accurate identity verification. And if this is mandatory, then anonymity is completely impossible.
Anonymity has long been a valuable component of free speech, and eliminating this is disastrous.
clearly you have neglected the inevitable 'eye bleach required' entries.
turn up the jukebox and tell me a lie
There's one big difference, Mr. Blumenthal, between putting a man on the Moon and verifying someone's age over the Internet: when you're trying to put a man on the Moon, the laws of physics aren't lying to you at every turn.
You know what the biggest problem is with the old "If they can put man on the moon, why can't they [X]" cliche? People who use it don't limit it to reasonable and/or humorous accomplishments, like "make a blister pack that doesn't cut you to ribbons opening it". No, instead we get an incessant parade of morons who can't tell the difference between a collaborative effort towards a single narrow goal, and a huge, distributed task with multiple causes. We get idiots wondering why we can't "fix the slums", "stop drunk driving", or (in this case) "positively verify age over the internet". I say we work together to stamp this out. The next time someone utters the "man on the moon" comparison in a non-humorous context, we all agree to rush them and punch them in the stomach until they shut up.
If they can put a man on the moon, then why can't we stop them from comparing stuff to putting a man on the moon?
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
...in other news Montanna has outlawed those under 18 from speaking to anyone else under 18 citing cases of extreme violence caused by children teasing each other. President Bush has applauded this move saying it's about time a state take steps to stop needless violence in America.
Aside from the general control agenda they have with the internet, from the socioforming
perspective I wonder why they are moving against these social networking sites. I always
went with the theory that these sites actually immobilize people socially with surrogate
chatroom buddies they will never meet in real life. Could it be that these sites actually
cause people to meet up face to face in real life? (That would explain their upset).
Don't blow up at me or call me names. I'm just curious.
If the state could stop me from buying alcohol under age 21, it would have, but it didn't. Didn't stop it from trying, though.
Instead, my parents raised me right, and I learned to drink without driving or anything else stupid.
Making sure kids are exposed to only healthy environments is the parents' job, not the state's. Because the state will only get it awfully wrong, while parents can get it right for the specific kid.
The state might have to punish parents when their kids actually damage someone (or themselves) by taking more risks than they can handle. But starting from the point that no parents can allow their kids to do things they are ready for, even though they're not at the arbitary state age, just damages another generation of kids who should be learning from those actually responsible for them, not some official puritans and their nerveless, clumsy bureaucratic hands. Even if the scaredy-nannies want to vote for the latest buzzkill-in-chief.
--
make install -not war
That argument is the most stupid one I've heard in ages. Someone please establish a connection between NASA getting someone to the Moon and MySpace verifying users' authenticy*. I'm really curious.
* What really creeps me out is that someone WILL find one and be modded both funny and insightful.
My 0.02 cents
Mod parent +1 That's EXACTLY what I was thinking. We should be spending more time educating stupid parents about what their children are doing, not essentially banning people from the internet. AIM is considered social networking, MSN is considered social networking, video games could be considered social networking ('o hey where u from?'). All for the sake of the children.
What these idiots don't realize is that sites like myspace are only there because of popularity -- if they ban people from social networking, they're just going to find something else either equally as 'bad' or possibly worse to do.
If I didn't have the capability to converse with people outside my immediate area, I'd be smoking a lot more than marijuana.
Someone saying "if we can put a man on the moon, we surely should be able to do X" is a certain sign that this someone does not have the faintest idea of what he is talking about.
Someone saying "if we can put a man on the moon, we surely should be able to do X" is a certain sign that this someone does not have the faintest idea of what he is talking about.
What is even funnier is the fact that right now, we can't readily put a man on the moon. However, back when we could put a man on the moon, we could also readily verify the age of everyone on the internet.