Slashdot Mirror
MySpace Age Verification - for Parents
unlametheweak writes "North Carolina is thinking of the children by passing a law requiring parents to verify they are parents before letting their children onto social networking sites. Notwithstanding the whole concept of an Internet ID for people in general; children are now being tracked by cellular phones with GPS, spied upon with Parent Controls (MS Vista has built-in parental spyware), and also strategically placed Nanny Cams, keyboard loggers, etc. 'Few of the proposals we've seen so far seem like good ways to [protect children], but North Carolina's approach at least has the virtue of novelty--unlike most video game legislation, which relies on similar rhetoric but has been almost universally struck down by the courts, sometimes at great cost to the states.' Is the zoo-like Minority Report world in which children are growing up in today doing more harm than good? How will this affect a 14 year old, much less a 17 year old "child"?"
When will people learn that spying on your children is not a replacement for good parenting? The fact that there's actually a demand for this sort of thing is depressing.
As soon as a kid shoots up a school, people ask "Where were the parents? Why didn't they see the problem?" We're very quick to point the finger at parents when something goes wrong. And then I see posts like this asserting that parents shouldn't be able to monitor their childrens' activities.
Fifty years ago, parents didn't have to watch so closely. There was far less media coming into the home, and what was available was far easier to monitor (and far more regulated, as it was all under the watchful eye of the FCC).
Now, we've got the internet. We've got a half-dozen game consoles. We've got cable and satellite television, dirt-cheap movies and music available for purchase, and a barrage of information everywhere we look. For parents to keep the same level of attention on what their kids are doing, they have to use tools like "spyware" (you know, software that lets them know what THEIR computers are being used for) to keep track of their kids and look for dangerous behavior.
I've got to say, though, that I object to nanny cams unless there is a very specific reason to have one. If you smell pot in your living room, maybe it's a good time to put in a camera to see if your kid is using illegal drugs. But putting up a camera *just in case* is paranoid.
Parents have to monitor their kids. Every generation has done so in some fashion. So long as kids know the rules, know they are being watched, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. I wouldn't let my kids go certain places in the city without me being around because it's risky for them; the same goes for the internet.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
...parents have every right, responsibility even, to monitor their children's actions/behavior. That's not to say that it should be 24/7, but the summary's implicit suggestion that "spying" on children is inappropriate displays a vast ignorance of/indifference to responsible parenting.
As Ronald Reagan said, "trust, but verify". There is nothing wrong with knowing what your child is doing on a home computer. There is nothing wrong with knowing where your child is. A child doesn't have the right to conceal their activities/whereabouts from his/her parents.
Again, I think legislative efforts like this have it all wrong. I just object to the summary's use of "spying" as applied to what I call "responsible parenting."
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Once they are desensitized to the idea of not having privacy, it will get easier to get them to conform to whatever the people in power want.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
I work at a school district. I see 17-year-olds all the time. Yes, they are children. They act without considering the consequences to themselves or others. They are irresponsible and generally stupid, with a few exceptions.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
Ban on name changes by sex offenders.
... Or maybe Hack our Kids' brains'... I got it... How about government sponsored Parenting Classes that teach parents how to get involved with their kids' lives...
Funny how politicians will throw anything into the political arena during crunch time (races...). Just how do they propose to keep track of "name changes" from a sex offender. For starters they can't even maintain their own equipment, can't secure the FBI infrastructure, a company for MySpace is already reporting false positives.... Should we wait for the FBI's new and improved Carnivore?
Infiltrated dot Net
That stupidity doesn't magically go away when they turn 18, but the "protection" they're afforded under the law does, so how do you reconcile those two things?
I think the point is since we expect people to be adults at 18, they'd better be pretty damn close to it by 17. Close enough that we shouldn't have to spend so much energy protecting them from themselves.
They act without considering the consequences to themselves or others. They are irresponsible and generally stupid, with a few exceptions.
They sound just like adults, to me...
and today is one of those days.
We have the most brain-dead General Assembly in the world. This lot couldn't pour
piss out of a boot if the instructions were stamped on the heel.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
Vista has parental controls to control access to specific accounts at specific times, etc. This gets twisted in TFS to say that Vista has parental "spyware". Nice FUD.
There is now a small, but growing movement within the psychological profession to abolish the concept of adolescence. All I can say is, IT'S ABOUT DAMN TIME! Teenagers are not children. They are physically closer to adults both in terms of their physical/sexual maturity and the ability of their brains to function. In other words, a 14 year old is physically capable both in their brain and the rest of their body of assuming a position as a young, but real, adult in modern society. We just don't let them do it!
Our ancestors knew this. That is why even the advanced societies of the classical age regarded teenagers as adults, rather than as children. Even our own legal system on some level recognizes that teens are capable of functioning identically to adults because it allows them to be tried as such in violent crimes cases.
Your parents didn't have Slashdot, yet they turned out alright. GASP! Sometimes, when new activities are available, people partake in them!
Maybe these kids like to go online. Facebook can be a useful site for organizing events, like parties or trips. But OH NO! CHILDREN ON THE INTERNET! Obviously, legislation should be passed to waste taxpayers' money to "protect" them, because obviously the internet is a DANGEROUS place, because it's SCARY, and the only the government should choose how kids spend their time!
For what it's worth, I hate MySpace because it's too ugly and customizable (which just makes it uglier), and Facebook is becoming another MySpace.
This whole thing about facebook and all these sites is just ridiculous.
Right, because the government should have better things to do than to interfere with things, just because people are inherently scared of those kids and their JAZZ MUSIC or whatever happens to be new at the time.
I put the 't' in electrical engineering.
I totally agree. Computer utilization should be monitored by the parents but, -get this- while they are on the computer. I wouldn't (as in I don't have kids yet, but can understand that contemporary "parenting" will not cut it with me) want my kids exposed to the sick stuff on the net while I selfishly neglect them to further my own pursuits.
The TV was the 90s babysitter. Myspace is this decade's. You can call it censoring the internet on their behalf and impinging on their freedoms- I don't really care. They're your children- you have a responsibility to raise them and protect them. Tell your kids to get off the computer, get some excercise, and socialize in a correct way with kids that you approve of.
Why will you be monitoring it? Will there be acceptable behaviour lines that they won't know about until they cross them?
Will you talk to your children about what is acceptable first? Will you let them use the Internet before you trust them to behave themselves? Or are you just trying to train them to avoid surveillance (probably a useful skill in modern society)?
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I've raised three kids who now range in age from 24 to 31.
I'm not and never have been my child's peer or friend - I'm a parent and the relationship between me and my child is and always will be asymmetrical.
As a parent I reserved the right to investigate any aspect of my child's life when I had reason to believe that the child was at risk - and investigations into my child's sexual activity or drug or alcohol or internet use are IMO appropriate.
Minor children have an inherent right not to be physically, sexually or emotionally abused - every other right a child has is granted by that child's legal guardian. My responsibility as a parent is to protect that child until (s)he can fend for itself.
My house, my rules. Doesn't matter if the child is fifteen or thirty-five - as long as they're under my roof I will determine what does (and does not) go on in my house. For example my imaginary twenty-five year old kid is legally able to smoke cigarettes. He's still not gonna smoke them in my house. He can pretty much come and go as he pleases - with the caveat that if you're not gonna come home that night you give Mom and Dad a call so they don't stay up worrying about whether you've wrapped your car around a tree or something. Don't know about other parents but I can't go to sleep if I have a child unaccounted for.
I trust my children and always have - that doesn't mean I didn't verify where they are (and with whom) from time to time. The internet was really only an issue with my youngest but I can and have used tools to determine what he was doing on the net and wouldn't hesitate to do so again if I had a kid in the house.
The parent poster mentions spying on your children - monitoring is not spying. My kids knew their entire lives that I might call to verify their whereabouts from time to time, check their homework, call their teachers to see how they were doing in school, occasionally check the odometer in the car and yes, even monitor their internet use. As I said in the title, trust but verify.
My children also know how much I love them. They're not peers or friends and never will be - they are my children and that relationship brings both additional benefits and additional responsibilities. Doesn't mean I don't hoist a glass with my kids or seek their counsel sometimes - they're adults now and in charge of their own destiny and even though sometimes I don't agree with their decisions but I have learned to STFU and allow my kids to grow from their own choices - good or bad.
we see things not as as they are, but as we are.
-- anais nin
I just want to point out the bitter irony in your question. Here we are, utilizing the internet (mankind's greatest achievement) in order to have a [mostly] reasoned discussion about privacy, and you're using this moment to ask whether children even need to be able to utilize it for communications - the purpose for which the network was designed and the thing that makes the internet great.
No, by all means! Children should only be allowed to use the internet to do research for homework, and to play flash games! Why should we let them communicate through it?
Your proposal is a bit like restricting the use of the telephone to calling the talking clock.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Not the didn't, but the last time I checked the predators didn't come looking for minors on Slashdot, or through the TV, or Usenet but they do take advantage of the kids on facebook and myspace.
Most parents and children are clueless as to how public their information is and how vulnerable they become. At no point in time before was it possible for the kids to expose their personal stuff to so many people. Internet is great, I don't doubt, but it is a tool that one has to know how to use. Why not give your kid some pot to smoke as well, heck in college they'll probably try it anyway, might as well get them used to it.
And I am normally against the government interfering but in certain cases it is appropriate. In an ideal world parents would be smart enough to know enough and protect their offspring but as it happens there are a lot of stupid people who make babies and therefore there are a lot of stupid parents who do not know how to protect their children from harm, so at least Uncle Sam can try and do something.
Facebook can be a useful site for organizing events, like parties or trips
And before Facebook everyone was stuck at home without the ability to organize anything, nobody had parties and nobody went on trips. Thank God for Facebook!
Not the didn't, but the last time I checked the predators didn't come looking for minors on Slashdot, or through the TV, or Usenet but they do take advantage of the kids on facebook and myspace.
Predators also look for kids OUTSIDE! Let's make all visits to the park require parental supervision!
Most parents and children are clueless as to how public their information is and how vulnerable they become. At no point in time before was it possible for the kids to expose their personal stuff to so many people. Internet is great, I don't doubt, but it is a tool that one has to know how to use. Why not give your kid some pot to smoke as well, heck in college they'll probably try it anyway, might as well get them used to it.
Or maybe people could educate their kids not to put their addresses online, although their addresses could also be found in the phone book! And predators can see kids with their EYES!!
And I am normally against the government interfering but in certain cases it is appropriate. In an ideal world parents would be smart enough to know enough and protect their offspring but as it happens there are a lot of stupid people who make babies and therefore there are a lot of stupid parents who do not know how to protect their children from harm, so at least Uncle Sam can try and do something.
Odds are, if these kids are stupid enough to meet predators over the internet, they'd run into them without internet access too.
And before Facebook everyone was stuck at home without the ability to organize anything, nobody had parties and nobody went on trips. Thank God for Facebook!
And before phones everyone was stuck at home without the ability to organize anything, nobody had parties and nobody went on trips. Thank God for phones! Obviously, kids should not be allowed to use phones because they could CALL PREDATORS WITH THEM!!!!
I put the 't' in electrical engineering.
The odds of your kids finding a sexual predator on MySpace are vastly less than them finding one in their own circle of family and friends...The younger the child, the higher the odds that any sex crime against them will be perpetrated by a family member or a close family friend, and at NO POINT do assaults by anonymous strangers become more common than assaults by acquaintances.
So saying, "ZOMG MySpace is rife with sex predators!" is essentially meaningless; they're no more prevalent there than anywhere else. People love to cling to the illusion that the bad people of the world are all faceless evil people lurking ion the shadows, and it's just not true. But the media is pushing the idea, and parents are eating it up.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Perhaps we should just apply the simplicity rule to the whole mess: Parents should be involved in their children's lives (and no, not the "be their best friend" type).
When I was growing up, I had to prove that I could safely and sanely handle something before I was allowed to use it unsupervised. It did not matter what it was; be it a phone, a computer, a gun, a chainsaw, a hammer, or a toy. When something new came into the picture, it would be allowed in the living room, where a parent could watch at first. Once I had shown the ability to use it properly, I was allowed to use it in other areas. Very simple, I knew the rules, and I knew how to obtain freedom: be responsible.
When I was very young, the only phones were in the public areas of the house, and my parent's bedroom. When I first showed an interest in calling friends, I was allowed to do so in the main rooms. After a while, I was allowed to use the one in the parent's bedroom, knowing that they were'nt listening, but that they might walk in anytime. After that, they allowed me to have one in my room, because I had earned their trust.
The same applied to the family computer(s). The first one was in the main room, and eventually it migrated to my room.
Trust must be earned, and responsibility taught.
You can have it fast, accurate, or pretty. Pick any 2.
The government is notoriously inept at stuff like this, and I can't help thinking any attempt that is made will end in failure...They just don't understand the system. They think making the parents sign in is going to change something, but the reality is that only a tiny percentage of parents will want to do this; after the 20th time they get dragged away from the TV to enter their password so their kid can blog about their new hairclip, they're going to click "Remember Password", and that'll be the end of it.
Or kids will sign up for accounts as 18 year olds and make the whole issue worse.
When it comes right down to it there is no substitute for knowing what your kids are doing. Sure, keep an eye on 'em, but don't pull some sneaky, underhanded crap, because then you turn it into a contest; your ability to spy vs their ability to evade, and they'll probably have more time and motivation than you do, which puts you at a serious disadvantage.
As long as you show an interest, and can keep your cool and not lose your fricking mind when they deviate from what you would wish that they would do, they'll keep you informed. But if you make them feel like they can't trust you to know about their lives without trying to completely control their lives, they'll lie to you, and they'll lie to you specifically about the stuff you'll most need to know about.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
I grew up with completely unfettered, unmonitored internet usage from 11 years onward. The only thing my parents ever told me was "There are a bunch of freaks on the internet, just like in real life. Be careful." Neither of them understood the intricacies of the internet or computers in general well enough to monitor what I was doing or keep tabs on me. Hell, I was the one who maintained the internet connection and computers.
Yes, I downloaded porn - terabytes of it. Yes, I used the internet to look up everything I wasn't supposed to know about. But you know what? I wasn't a complete fucking moron. I knew better than to tell random strangers information about myself. I had a few online friends who I carefully observed and tested before slowly sharing details about myself as I verified that they were safe.
Teach your kids not to be dumb asses, and then let them go and not be dumb asses. It's a remarkably effective parenting strategy I hope to pass on to my children someday.
God, I downloaded so much fucking porn...
Maturity is a social construct, not a biological one; Joan of Arc was 17 when she led the French to victory against the English. The longer we treat our adolescents as children, the longer they will act like children. It is only when they make decisions for themselves that they will mature into adults. You cannot keep people "innocent" and ignorant forever.
We have computers and monkeys that can simulate adult humans already, so I doubt a teen will have any difficulty in "authenticating" they are a parent.
Example: What profession did everyone want to be when you were 10 (born in 1960) - Astronaut.
Anyone can look these up.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
> Is the zoo-like Minority Report world in which children are growing up in today doing more harm than good?
/. articles. If that were in a reply, at least it could be modded as flamebait, if not troll.
It's definitely harmful to them to have to read such hysterical FUD as that sentence. For that reason, they should not be allowed to read
Children are, for the most part, smart enough to know what to ignore. It's adults playing power games who use children in their arguments for reasons that really have nothing to do with children, and everything to do with not having faith in their ability to make their point without appeal to emotion.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
Right, and your solution to this is to get rid of the cyberworld? Or just wall it off?
The others poster's point remains. This is not a new situation. This happens all the time when new technologies break onto the world. Historically, technology changes faster than people do. In truth, people can change much faster, but they rarely have any need to. During the industrial revolution, factories changed life in astounding ways. It took decades for people to catch up. The first mass-produced food had a tendency to be of lower quality, some of it bordering on dangerous (sawdust in the sausages, anyone?). The number of problems and dangers people faced because of factories has been the subject of thousands of doctoral papers. Do you really think we should have outlawed them back then? Or maybe we'll just prevent our children from ever going near them or using anything that came from one. While it might have been good advice to keep your kids from working in one, segregating them from the segment of society best suited to adapt to the changes produced by them is a pretty horrible idea.
Let's take a situation that's easier to understand. Did you ever learn how to drive? No matter how great you thought you were at it, you were unsafe. Even for the first year or more after getting a driver's license, your chances of being in a fatal accident on the interstate vastly exceed a child's chances of meeting a predator online. So how should we solve this problem? I know: Since people are dangerous drivers when they are learning to drive, let's forbid people from ever learning how to drive.
Stupid, isn't it? You have to learn sometime. Maybe we should just make them wait until they're older... because that's one sure way to completely avoid solving the real problem. We could dissolve the interstate system. Or drop the speed limit to 30 mph. These are all great ideas that are doomed to completely fail.
People have to learn. People need to learn. The world needs them to learn. This is how things change and get better. Wall your kids off from the Internet and you'll have kids who aren't adapting to the world as quickly as they should. Yes, I know the same old If you had kids... idiocy is on its way. The problem isn't with the internet. The problem is with the kids. If they are doing something unsafe, teach them. They'll learn. They'll learn faster than you will. They'll adapt with frightening efficiency if you help them.
It's very simple really. I don't put up a billboard showing the world my life in the real world, but I'm not a hermit either. My friends know more about me than the rest of the world. I feel safe talking to them because I know who they are and I recognize them. I don't go sharing details about myself with strangers. The Internet is no different. I have friends and I talk with them openly because I know who they are. If all they are to me is an alias, then that's all I am to them. It's really very simple.
This illustrates my point exactly. By now everyone knows to avoid the guy giving out candy. If we teach children how to be safe, in five or ten years everyone will know to avoid the guy who goes around asking people what their address or real name are. Of course, the more people we have who choose to (cowardly, in my opinion) hide their children instead of actually teaching them how to be safe, the longer this will take.