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."
Sure, no better way to stop people from wanting something is prohibiting it.
Wait a sec...
There is simply too much glass..
If we can put a man on the moon, we can verify age on the Internet
Too bad the moon landing never happened!
great, now people will be faking THAT too.
'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.
Pay the 1.825 million a year fine or just drop Connecticut?
Tim Smith - Ramblings from Nerd Land
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!
Without teens on myspace where will I get my anti-emo rage from?
We should encourage them to whine and mop about how life is sooooo tough in middle-class suburbia.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
'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."
Foolproof method of what? putting a man on the moon?
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
You simply cannot stop people who are intent on circumnavigating the law in order to achieve their goals. But this does not mean that good policy won't make it easy to do the `right' thing and hard to do the `wrong' thing. The focus of such a policy will be to stop most people, not to stop all people. And since people are lazy, almost any non-trivial method of age verification such as requiring a fax or scan of a driver's license will prevent most underaged people from having accounts.
Not that I think this legislation is necessarily good. I'm only pointing out that not being 100% effective shouldn't be considered a barrier to adoption. Condoms have less than a 100% success rate. But that shouldn't stop most people from using condoms if using a condom is in line with their goals.
Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. -- Ronald Regan, February 4, 1986
... Free nation ehh.. where?
so true..
Rep [r]: Whats this MySpace thing Bob?
Rep [d]: I dont know but its unregulated so it must be illegal.
Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
Circumcision is child abuse.
I suppose we could give everyone on the internet a user name and password, then the government could have a database of every user and their age. Websites could connect to the database to verify information. Of course we would have to get all the other countries to go along with it or your website would have to turn people from other countries away. Would it be worth it? I say no.
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
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.
WTF don't we just send all the politicians there?
We just have age verified via a webcam, typically by viewing the secondary sex characteristics that come with puberty. Other visitors to the site can rate the newbie as "MILF", "jailbait", or "hot coed". Obviously the jailbait applicants can't actually "register", but will instead have their images archived off as counterexamples to future applicants.
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.
It seems this would be Federal(FCC) turf like all other telecom.
Finally I understand why JFK was so keen on getting us to the Moon! It wasn't for science, it wasn't to win the space race or intimidate the Soviets, it was so that, in the future, once the Internet was usable by the masses, mankind would have the knowledge to be able to find out how old people are! Just think, if we hadn't gone to the Moon, we might not be able to do that, not over the Internet at any rate...
---GEC
I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand
"If we can put a man on the moon, we can verify age on the Internet" ...
But we can't proove either worked
You take it, I don't want it...
We know how well the physical age verification works at bars, tobacco/liquor shops, etc.
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.
Is this even enforcible if it gets passed?
What if MySpace simply decides to not do business in Connecticut (as in, have no office nor servers there). Can they enforce the $5000 fine? What if MySpace simply doesn't pay up? Connecticut isn't simply going to filter MySpace, is it?
I think it's just going to be like those Russian servers hosting warez. The stuff on there may not be allowed in many countries, but while it's in Russia, the only thing the US and European countries can seem to do is take action against the actual users.
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.
This won't stop people from doing risky and dumb things and posting it on the internet only to get caught or get hurt in the process. Maybe CT should fine parents $5,000 every time their kid does something illegal and posts it on myspace/youtube. Politicians always look for the easiest scapegoat when a problem arises, which is usually some form of media that isn't the news. This is no different than blaming video games with violence for violent behavior.
If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
It sounds to me as if the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution almost certainly overrules the Connecticut bill.
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
Pointy Haired Boss: "If we can put a man on the moon, we can '
Dilbert: "All that proves is that other people can do other things."
PHB: "Maybe we should find out how they did it."
Dilbert: "Maybe they used good analogies."
(note: Done from my infinitely fallible memory, might have paraphrased a teensy bit, but that's pretty close I think to what was said.)
...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.
>Under the bill, networking sites that failed to verify ages and failed to obtain parental permission before posting profiles of users under age 18 would face civil penalties of up to $5,000 a day for every day of noncompliance.
Hahahaha! Stuff that fine where the sun never shines! It will never reach my sexy Swedish butt, I can assure you.
Rule #1: If you want to work with media: Do it from another country than the one you're targeting!
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.
I contacted Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal's office and was advised that the initiative is being handled by the General Law Committee. I contacted their office on 09 March 2007 and was informed that the proposed legislation would likely be attatched to House Bill #6981
-PHiZ
Pretend I said something meaningful or insightful here.
I guess what they can do is hire people to do this... since this is Conneticut's idea, it seems they should be footing the bill to pay the wages of the people who will have the responsibility of doing age verification.
Computers aren't smart enough for the task to be automated, so people will have to do it.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Dilbert: "Your flawed analogy only shows that other people can do things."
Boss: "Maybe you should call other people and ask how they do it."
Dilbert: "Maybe they use good analogies."
The nature of humans is such that, with sufficient desire to access something, they will do anything in order to do so.
... Or take a more viable approach, that of educating children and parents about the impending dangers of these social networking sites?
This does not just affect technology, either. Just look at any child whose ball went into the street. He has the desire to access the ball again, so, even if it's in the middle of the road, he will try to reach it.
Similarly, in high school, it is considered "cool" to drink beer, and smoke pot. Many students succumb to peer pressure, and in order to access these forbidden substances, they will get someone who is over the legal drinking age (oh noes!) to get this kind of access for them.
Getting back to technology, little kids under 13 will say they are over 13 to play some games that abide by the COPPA. Black-hat hackers try to use vulnerabilities to break into the Govt's computers.
And users of MySpace will lie about their age.
Unless (and until) the state of Connecticut creates and maintains a database of biometric data associated with its residents, and forces every one of them to have the scanner associated with the data collected (retinal scan, fingerprint etc.) to register with MySpace, let's face it, inaccuracies will still arise.
And after that, we will complain that we don't have privacy.
So, I must ask: Protection of the children, or Big Brother?
Please sir, do tell us when *exactly* you've been to the moon and when *exactly* you intend to write the code necessary to identify a child on a community system with a subset of people who pride their anonymity?
I love how politicians claim abilities beyond their own capacity.
You are checking your backups, aren't you?
No, you *used* to be able to put a man on the moon, way back when the Soviets would otherwise have done it. It was nothing more than an extension of the arms race.
"Social Networking Site" is a buzzword, not a legal categorization. What would make MySpace a target for this law, and Slashdot exempt? The fact that you can have a page of your own (Slashdot has journals), add friends (Friends, Freaks and Foes) or send private messages (on Slashdot your email can be publicly visible?)
Unless the law specifically named the sites to be restricted (which of course would not be possible) or they figure out a way to specify exactly what separates MySpace or Facebook from, say, a forum for a Warcraft guild (which would be possible, I suppose, but probably not by anyone fool enough to come up with such a law) then no site will be safe from the repurcussions.
Oy, don't give them ideas!
Coming to you live from another dimension.
I gather their target is large sites with explicit emphasis on social networking, but a lot is going to depend on how any law is worded. It could apply to anything on the internet which invites user submitted content. Like Slashdot. Or Joe Blow's Blog. Or whatever.
Canada has a large, sparsely populated, territory called Nunavut. The US should negotiate a deal with Canada to set up camps where America's children could be raised in a safe, non-networked environment, with tight control on any and all content coming in from the outside world. That could solve so many of the 'won't someone think of the children' type problems.
Loose lips lose spit.
[] I agree that I am not in any place that forbids me to check this box.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If this law is passed, we must all protest. By putting on our robes and wizard hats.
Don't forget... there's also no good way of web servers to be sure where their clients are located geographically. You couldn't do it on a state-by-state basis. Oh well, I guess this law won't work. That's a real shame...
I don't respond to AC's.
"Richard Blumenthal said of the proposition, 'If we can put a man on the moon, we can verify age on the Internet,'"
Dick,
We cannot put a man on the moon. I hope that doesn't upset your wacky internet age thing.
Signed,
Reality
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
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
If the company takes reasonable efforts to simply block users from the states implementing these laws, they most likely can't be held responsible for any of it.
First, block IP ranges known to be entirely within the states.
Secondly, employ something similar to the "bump out" trick that's used to avoid COPPA liability: offer in your registration form the ability for people to select one of these proscribed states, but when they do, inform them the site is unavailable to them (only after they make a selection and submit a completed form), and set a cookie on their computer preventing them from trying to fill out the form again.
From a technological standpoint, the above is ludicrous and trivial to work around, but legally it's sufficient. (The law is often ludicrous and trivial to work around; this is a good thing.) Employing the "bump out" trick places the legal onus on the user, not on the site -- the site made a good faith effort at compliance, and if the user is trying to get around it, it is he who is breaking the law, not the site. Hear no evil, see no evil.
In addition to the above, on the "Sorry, we're not available in your state" page, make it clear to the user that the only reason it's not available is because the state has a law preventing the site from operating in its jurisdiction. This would raise awareness of the law and hopefully put pressure on the state to repeal it.
Of course, as was already pointed out, MySpace is owned by Rupert Murdoch, so the company is probably complicit in this whole thing. Expect to see a lot of self-righteous noise emanating from MySpace spokesmen (like the quotes in the article), and then watch as they "reluctantly" concede and go along with it.
Liberty in your lifetime
Why are these guys talking like this as if Myspace is a pron site. You never had it for email then y here.
Please, anyone but the EFF. You know, sometimes I think these organizations are founded or at least encouraged by the very groups they oppose, so they can put up a good show-fight and prevent the emergence of a real opposition.
Liberty in your lifetime
You might as well ask Myspace to verify pedophile status in people who sign up. Their success rate will be the same.
Anyone else think it's a coincidence the state is called connect-icut?
*slaps knee*
What gets me is that we have countries like Russia where it appears people are being silenced by death for speaking out against certain individuals, or even for no obvious reason. Or China or even the United States, or how about the case of Canada or Germany, where they have hate crimes laws, where if you want to say something like "sodomy is a sin" its a hate crime against homosexuals (maybe not, but it could be taken to that step) .. It's just a step towards restricting people from criticizing businesses, people, governments, and so on. It scares governments and corporations and media that the internet can be used against them. They want you to use the internet on their terms. So you can only go to certain websites, so you cant use internet telephony or download tv shows or music because it destroys their monopoly, and limits how many politicians they can buy off and how many laws they can buy. They're taking the first tentative steps right now it seems pretending its for the common good, when in reality its a subversive attempt to assert control over the new online society.
Mark Twain, Lewis Carroll, Ann Landers, Dr Seuss, George Orwell, Cat Stevens, Elton John, Charlton Heston, Milli Vanilli, Coolio.. not their real names!
The internet is a communications medium, just as literature, newspapers, movies, all have their own instances of using false names, so does the internet. You know what, I think its perfectly fine. If you want your kid to not be lured by child predators online, don't restrict my rights to talk on slashdot or on a blog using a pseudonym.
I lost my point by the end of this but hopefully I've expressed my feelings on the matter sufficiently.
Just require a valid credit card as proof just like the p0rn sites do... :/
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
New mod option wanted: -1 DrunkenRambling
I get it. Get a Mac, get hot women around you no matter what you do in life?
Oh wait no. I need to make crap music with turntables and a mac, take photos all day, write dime a dozen poems, or be a math major?
Sorry dude. Those people were cookie cutter too at my university, mac users or not.
I'll stick to my dime a dozen engineering work, I'm all set on the masochism of apple ownership and the enscription involved
-TheViking
Sure, why not? its no different then restrictions on *children* in the physical world.
I agree it would be nearly impossible to enforce, but does that mean its a bad idea? I dont think so.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Cars harm more youth and teenagers per year than do social networking sites. Restrict Cars (from every one) further than they are already restricted before "protecting" your children from phantom bad guys you think are chasing your "special little girl".
Oh, you think we train our kids to survive as drivers and passengers sufficiently? Well, then, we definitely train our kids well enough to not get raped over the internets. If not, train your kids more.
But seriously, we COULD put man on the Moon back in 60's, but now we can't even land a freaking space shuttle.
What the state of Connecticut should do is hand out electronic scales that connects to the computer and if the kid is too fat he can't log in. Or the kid can log in but he can only visit www.weightwatchers.com.
I call this technology "FatAss.NET". Not a bad idea, ehhh???
Create debt. Maintain debt. Keep people in debt. Work them until they die of debt.
Asserting, even somewhat humorously, that the government should pay for the age verification does nothing but lend to the debt system. If the government is asked to pay they'll simply find a way to milk it out of the taxpayers--further selling them into debt. The Senators and Representatives will also, most likely, be much closer to the profit pile from whichever company receives the government contract to verify internet age. That's the way a pyramid scheme works--take from everyone and give back only to a priveleged few.
Of course asserting that a company should pay for it is the same up-and-over loop but doesn't reach the height of the government. Eventually the cost is always passed on to the general consumer while the profits are funnelled most prominently to the executives, directors, and VPs.
the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
Create debt. Maintain debt. Keep people in debt. Work them until they die of debt.
The Federal budget deficit creates debt for parents. Parents must work to pay debt. Children are allowed to find trouble because the parents are working to pay debt. Legal action resulting from the trouble creates more Federal budget debt. The Federal budget deficit creates more debt for the parents.
The system is to simple to be a coincidence. Somewhere there is an organized group of accountants who planned this whole thing out.
the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
Dude, blaming politicians for stupid laws is like blaming sewer workers for shit. People want the government to do all kinds of stupid stuff. Politicians are just pandering to that.
As much as it's a bad comparison to anything, we don't seem to be doing a very good job of putting men on the moon either.
Credo sim. - I think I am.
Government cant protect freedom. They can only take freedom away.
Government does not, and can not create rights, rights do not come from them. Without being too religious, our rights come from our property.. sine we own our bodies and our lives (that come from a god or w/e you believe.) We may choose what to do with that body or life. Just as you have the freedom to decide what to do with other things you own.
Government can only create permissions.
They allow people to own a business via a business license. However you are not free to do so because the government can remove your permission.
In this country today you need permission in the form of a permit or license to do just about anything.
beyond this..
There is no such thing as a "limited" or "shared" right. You don't have permission to speak "sometimes" you always possess this right and it never goes away. Many deny this and a classic example of the argument is "You don't have a right to yell fire in a crowded theater". This is false. You very much have a right to do so and if there actually is a fire it may even be a good idea to yell "FIRE!" What you do not have a right to do is to injure other people.. since people may get hurt by your actions you are responsible for them.
Rights and Permission are the opposite of each other. One is freedom the other is control.
Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
Is illegal in most states.
Hmmmm. And what does that make the law?
there isn't even a foolproof method of putting a man on the moon, let alone a method at all
</conspiracy>
the fascists are hard at work I see. It seems people were so concerned about things swinging too far left (which ends at socialism) in the 90s that there hasn't been a check in place to keep the boom swinging to the extreme right (which ends at fascism).
It would not only interfere with the children's rights. The bill would abridge everyone's the right to free speach, insofar as it would require everyone to identify themselves before using social networking websites.
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
Rather than requiring websites themselves to verify identity, this process should be done at the user's computer! Yes, you heard me. We should require users to obtain personal licenses before using a computer and/or the Internet. Not unlike a driver's license, in fact.
If this were the case, then (1) not only will the user's age be verified, but their entire identity will be, too, thusly eliminating the need for typed passwords and other similar authentication; (2) you will have to go through training to use a computer, so not only will users' computer skills be improved, but people in tech support will no longer be plagued with such infamous situations as "it says 'to start, press any key,' but I can't find it" or "it said it was a virus but I downloaded it anyway and now everything is slow"; and (3) since the computer itself will verify the user's identity on the client-side, when the users visits a website that has an age restriction, the computer can simply tell the site that the user does or does not meet the requirement, so the website won't get to collect all of the user's personal data and effectively ruin their anonymity.
In Soviet Russia, dot slashes YOU!
Wait.. Are you seriously claiming that this guy wasn't/isn't a geek?
Y'know, I don't think you really are a Mac user at all...
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Whether or not the logistical nightmare of internet age verification is something that Myspace could deal with is one question, but this whole situation raises others. Most importantly, what will be the definition of a social networking site, besides Myspace? Facebook, certainly. Personals sites, like Yahoo Personals, or eHarmony? What about anything IM-related, which would include Google/Gmail? Craigslist, or even Angieslist? Slashdot? Any site with any sort of a forum or bulletin board can act as a social networking venue, no? Does this mean that if I want to have a guestbook on my band's website I'll have to verify ages and get parental consent for minors who want to say "hi"? This doesn't look doable, and I doubt any such legislation would survive multiple courts once it was tested.
This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
I have an idea. Why don't we use Social Security Numbers to tell how old everyone is. That is the safest method ... right? Why don't we start by having all of the lawmakers from this state start by giving us their SSNs so that we can test and verify them? Anyone else up for this?? lol What these lawmakers don't understand is that it is virtually impossible to verify the age of someone. Sometimes what looks good on paper doesn't acually work out. Here's another idea. Why don't we become a socialistic society ... that looks good on paper and doesn't work too!!