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!
'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!
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.
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.
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.
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...
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
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.
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?
"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.
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
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.