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"?"
Won't somebody think of the children?
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.
Luke, I am your father.
-- www.globaltics.net
Political discussion for a new world
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.
Choice 1: Teach them about the internet, then hope the lesson sank in and look the other way.
Choice 2: Hover over them every second they're on the computer to make sure they never break the rules or do anything dangerous.
Choice 3: Teach them and use monitoring software to routinely check up on their activities and see if they're doing anything wrong that you need to address.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
Commodore64_love: I don't comprehend people who're so frightened of death that they'll bankrupt themselves to stay alive
I guess parents will have to go down to the their office. That's the only way to know for sure. Kids can steal credit cards.
and to provide for penalties; to make it a felony for a registered sex offender to access a commercial social networking web site;
How the hell are they going to enforce that until after the fact.
to increase the penalty for certain offenses of solicitation of A child by computer to commit an unlawful sex act;
Yeah whatever.
and to make it a felony to lie to a sworn SBI agent conducting
I can just see it now, some predator online actually saying, "I'm a sexual predator. I have to tell the truth. I'm really 45, fat, ugly, and I actually think some 15 year old girl or boy will see me and say, "Oh, baby! Give it to me! I just love beer bellies!'"
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
Choice 4 the kid finds on the internet how to disable the program you installed. Then sells the solution to others kids and (wait for it)...
PROFIT
then, in your opinion, at what age does this immaturity magically disappear?
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
Nor are they, in the US, adults (and I dont just mean legally). Hell most 21yo in the US dont act like adults and as my father always used to say "If you want to be treated like an adult, act like one!"
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 then they turn 18, and God fills their souls with maturity, and all is well.
You're 17?
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
Perhaps when this generation has grown up, they will be determined not to "become" like their parents, by rejecting invasive spying, and encouraging trust and responsibility. Or perhaps the opposite may come true, since they won't know what trust is, they won't ever be able to trust anyone else, and simply perpetuate their own parinoia onto the next generation.
Does the law say because its a sin or is this your swag?
Want to get a NC drivers license to replace your out of state be prepared to:
Bring your old license Ditto for NY and MN (Unless you want to take a full drivers test)
Your SS card Most states have id verification which consist of a combo SS, mail, Passport, and others
Birth certificate See above, you want the DMV to hand out licenses without ID of any kind?
Car insurance Many states have insurance and there is no catch 22 as insurance does not require a license
Until you have been through a NY DMV you have no idea what bad is. I spent three house *turning in my plates when I left the state* no drop box could be used because you have to pay for the privileged of returning the plates you had to pay to take in the first place.
The first night they spend in prison after doing something incredibly stupid while drunk.
Monstar L
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
While I'm sure you had a interesting time at the DMV in North Carolina, there are good reasons for the hard requirements. It wasn't long ago that to get a NC license all you had to do was wait in line at the DMV. NC became a haven for false identifications in illeagal immigrants and criminals. In fact law enforcement should be extra suspicious of NC ID's and licenses issued more than three years ago.
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.
Unless you've changed your name (and you'd have documentation for that), your birth certificate WILL have your full middle name. It's not your name, otherwise.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
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.
You can create good policies, you can create great efficient and useful documentation on policies and procedures for users, and you can have info sessions to help personally education users. None of these things is a substitute for good traffic monitoring and anti-virus software. Of course you need to educate kids, empower them to grow and mature, turn control over a little at a time but you have stewardship over their lives for a season and while you cant make them good people or protect them from everyone you sure as heck should try..
Never. The ones who are older and more irresponsible just die at a faster rate when mommy and daddy aren't there to look after them.
to spy on a 17-year old in this manner is basically giving them a day-by-day countdown until they're rid of you, at which point they will have good reason to rebel and unfortunately maybe go a bit too wild. Anyone who's ever seen the first 2 weeks at a freshman dorm at say, 1 am, after the 30-kegger's get going, knows what happens to kids like this.
stuff |
I mean you can still create a fake profile, right? So you can lie about your age and no one will know the wiser? Do they just not understand how this works?
Come the revolution, the Bourgeois, Capitalistic, "A PARKING STICKER HOLDERS", will be first against the wall!
It's a good thing we log everything you post to Slashdot, because your attitude is unacceptable. Just wait until your father CtlGrendel gets home, then your backside will learn what it's like to be "desensitezed to the idea of not having piracy". your mother DelGrendel.
Is the zoo-like Minority Report world in which children are growing up in today doing more harm than good?
They have to get used to being spied upon so that they can find ways to cheat early enough.
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
Parents are beginning to use the net, as well as games, for a babysitting device and with the time kids spend on the net, the more options they'll discover. Though they feel that changes to myspace can help lock down the reigns on their children, there are 200 other sites that they can be targeted on. If they're on the internet, they will be chased down in some way, shape or form.
If you have a hungry fox trying to get in a chicken coup, you can only fence it up so much to keep the chicken OUT. From that point on, you've got to take care of the predator.
Stronger laws must be enforced, more effective measure have to be taken care of and heavier penalties must insue. If you put a proven online pedofile away for 40 years on any charge, you'll definitely start warding them off... especially with the use of decoy children at hand.
This shit was going on WAY before myspace in yahoo, msn and aol chat rooms. Not only that, but that was the only thing it was used for, by THOUSANDS of sick bastards looking for kids. You don't hear many incidents at all about those cases because internet crime was not as popular.
Locking down myspace is like sending your child to the down by themselves, but only accompanying them when the go into ONE specific bar.
"Please, shut up. Just when I think you can't say anything more stupid, you speak again." -Archie Bunker.
With any luck, they will turn out like me: Aggressively opposing any kind of surveillance whatsoever, up to the point of going out of their way to sabotage any attempt to invade their privacy, since they learned just how obnoxious and belitteling that invasion can be.
The most valuable thing I have now is privacy. I had none when I was a kid and, damn, how did I want some!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
As a former high school teacher and current new parent, I actually think this is a good idea. Children (and yes, HS kids are STILL children, emotionally, cognitively and in every other way that matters) are not small adults. Kids have poor impulse control, they don't consider consequences before acting, and they do not have the same rights as adults in the eyes of the law. Parents have a right and responsibility to know what their children are doing both on and off line. This is not spying, its Myspace actually acting responsibly and verifying that a child has the permission of a parent to use the site's services. The same as a school requiring a permission slip for a field trip (forged signatures aside) The parent is morally and legally liable for the actions of minors under their care. It should be up to the parent to decide how much responsibility, freedom, etc. is given to a kid. How a parent uses that technology: eg. to spy on the child, or as an incentive for positive behavior is up to them. North Carolina is simply giving parents the tools to be responsible for their children's activity on line. This isn't even that ground breaking, its the same standard that was applied under federal law to kids 0-13 under COPPA.
"Does the law say because its a sin or is this your swag? "
The law says unmarried couples can not share insurance here in NC. Yes of course it does not say because it's a sin (and I don't think any law as the please insert reason for it in column A so people can see why the law was passed) but my insurance carrier did state NC is known for preventing unmarried couples from a lot of things. If an unmarried couple getting married soon is ok but not for an unmarried couple not getting married soon doesn't take a lot of guesses as to why.
"Until you have been through a NY DMV you have no idea what bad is"
I have many times. I lived in NY state (Poughkeepsie and in way upstate). My DMV experience was never bad like that. Either you got unlucky or I was lucky.
"See above, you want the DMV to hand out licenses without ID of any kind?"
No, what I want is not to have to bring every piece of beyond valuable original documentation I own to one place. What I don't want is to have a government issued ID or other state documentation denied because it doesn't have my frickin middle name on it. Yes you can leave the country, yes other countries have let me in, oh sorry NC says no. What I don't want is to stand outside the DMV with all this info and hope nothing happens. Lets reacp what I had on me (all original mind you they don't accept anything else):
SS card
Birth certificate
Passport
WI drivers license
Insurance info with all my details
If something happened (aka someone gets smart and goes to a DMV before it opens and robs people) my ability to prove who I am is gone.
Other states I have lived MA, NY, CT, WI all you need is your old license, copy of insurance, and SS card. Seems a little more reasonable. "Many states have insurance and there is no catch 22 as insurance does not require a license"
I'm not aware of all the rules but wouldn't an insurance carrier not cover you for auto insurance if you haven't been able to prove you know how to drive? But to prove you know how to drive you have to take a test which requires you have insurance in the first place? Unless you can get insurance on some sort of you have 15 days to get your license clause? Which is useless anyway because once you get your license you could cancel the insurance?
Ah, I remember seeing that panhandling license! I was attending NC State and just getting into my car in a lot across from the main campus, when I was approached by a panhandler. He took the liberty of showing me his license, which he kept with him to show that he took his vocation seriously and was doing it properly, under the beneficent auspices of the state government. I had no idea if the license was legitimate, but I figured for all that effort, genuine or not, he deserved a couple of bucks.
Well, according to the auto insurance companies, age 25 is statistically a good indicator that they better understand risks. I also believe that there is some sort of evidence that brain maturation isn't complete until around that age.
I have worked with several kind of children and adolescents throughout my lifetime, both from the best and worse of parental backgrounds.
What I have come to learn is that even young adolescents from bad parental backgrounds are more mature that full grown adults from a good parental background. This is mainly due to the placement of responsibility on the child that occurs when there aren't no parents around to take the blame ore be held responsible for the adolescent's behavior.
Once a kid, able of abstract thought (see Piaget on this one), is placed under conditions in which he/she suffers the consequence of his/her actions, he/she learns VERY QUICKLY to become responsible. And once they learn that, they are no longer children but young adults.
It strikes me as incredibly cynical that societies that 100 years ago considered a 14 year old mature enough to marry, have kids, go to war and, in some cases, become the ruler of his nation, now consider a 14 year old as a retard unable to conduct the simplest of social actions unattended.
Your post sounds to me like someone who doesn't like to read directions or likes to post a generalization of things but not "why" it's done. So let me address them. First I've lived in Raleigh, NC for 31 years. They have one of the more difficult methods to obtain a new drivers license because frankly... people from other states can't drive for shit. In NC, in general, people let others in, don't cut others off etc. Compared to NY when I go through... that places sucks. NC wants to make sure you meet THEIR standards and you need your SS card, Birth Certificate anywhere you go when first moving states. This includes banks etc. You do NOT have to have your old license, it just makes things easier. You have to have proof of insurance on you at all times (or at least in your car) so if you're too lazy to get it out of your car... talk to the hand As far as documentation that's your job to make sure that ALL your information about you is correctly done. This includes your middle name. Don't bitch at them because you didn't verify that people got your correct information when you had your passport done. Don't blame them if you want to change your birth middle name or they didn't put it there. Go fix it. Don't blame the wrong people. As far as panhandlers go... the reason they do this is to decrease the number of panhandlers on the exit ramps. Control the numbers. It also gives them better statistics on the number of panhandlers out there. They are issued a vest so that people can see them. They do NOT pay taxes... where you got that I don't know. But... it's been shown that it encourages a panhandler to find a job instead of panhandling. Sure it makes it harder but once they can put forth that effort, then they move on to a job etc. Btw... that's only in Durham, NC. Raleigh and Cary forbid panhandlers so most of the time you won't even see them.
Not everyone has a middle name. Not every state puts it on the birth certificate. I'd hate to be that guy...but my parents didn't love me enough to give me a middle name.
DMV Person (in soup nazi voice): Too bad, no license for you!
There is nothing on the internet that my kid needs protection from. I worry if he's taken the bicycle out in traffic or something like that but being on the internet? Yes, he can discover a lot of weird stuff but that's actually a good thing, contrary to popular fear mongering... won't someone think of the children! I do... I want him to explore the world on the internet.
While "spying on your children" is not a replacement for good parenting, what's wrong with spying on your children in /addition/ to good parenting?
/not/ use technology to help me keep tabs on what my child is doing? It's called being /involved/, and I consider that /good/ parenting.
It's my computer, my internet, and my house. I have every right to know what my child is doing on my computer, using my internet, in my house.
Why
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
When my child is old enough to use the computer, my instructions will be simple:
You may use this computer in any manner you like. There will be no attempts to block or filter content.
But I will be monitoring everything you do with it.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
I work in the real world, and I see post 17-year-olds all the time. They're still children, they act without considering consequences to them selfs and others. Many still are irresponsible and generally stupid, again with few exceptions.
(vi Powered)
I know about the no-middle-name thing. It happens. (Personally, I have a middle name and I think it's just a way for pretentious rich people (or faux rich people) to name their children 'better' than others. My proof of this is people with 4 middle names... Like my niece. Her mother doesn't have 2 cents to rub together.)
... Name one? Because seriously, that IS your name, even if it's misspelled. If the state doesn't put it on there, you don't have a middle name.
As for 'every state'
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
"...YUM-YUM: What good would that do? He's my guardian, and he wouldn't let me marry you!
NANKI POO: But I would wait until you were of age!
YUM-YUM: You forget that in Japan girls do not arrive at years of discretion until they are fifty.
NANKI-POO: True; from seventeen to forty-nine are considered years of indiscretion....
The MIKADO - W. S. Gilbert and Sir Arthur Sullivan
When I was a young teen I was banned from BBS's and the internet due to all the predators that were supposedly lurking online. My computer was placed in a central area of the house where my parents could easily check up on my actions and occasionally monitor my activity. The computer was locked (internally, 286 AT case) which I learned how to disconnect. This turned me into a sneaky, paranoid kid who constantly had to look out the window and over his shoulder to make sure his parents weren't around while he furthered his knowledge in programming and music creation, while learning more about the world around him. Even worse, I almost had a close encounter with a real predator but fortunately for my quick wits I was able to deal with the situation before it reached a dangerous level and my parents never found out about it - because I was afraid they'd find out I'd been using BBS's and the internet, and would be punished.
How will this affect a 14 year old, much less a 17 year old "child"
Not too well:
1) It will create people that are used to being spied on. When they grow up and more spying comes along, they will accept it without blinking an eye.
or
2) It will backfire. When they become teenagers, they will want to strongly oppose all kinds of authority just for the sake of opposing authority. When done by a large number of irresponsible people, that could do more harm than good, and result in further spying.
or
3) It will create irresponsible people. They will grow up, suddenly lose the overreaching parental control, and go wild. Suddenly, all that was controlled and forbidden becomes accessible - so let's get/do it! Without a parent to guide them, these young people will not have developed their own judgement for acceptable behavior. They will cause problems, and the natural reaction to society will be to impose spying further into adulthood, in order to prevent (in reality - delay) this outbreak.
Pick whichever you like, but one thing is certain: spying always leads to more spying. I think parents should be there for their children but also let them get into trouble a little - it's usually fine while they are young and that's the only way they'll learn.
Hell yeah, there are a lot of 17 year olds that are kids by any kind of standard. Immature, self-centered, lacking responsibility or any kind of forethought... just like a fair lot of 19 year olds. Or 21 year olds. Or 30 year olds...
I have a big problem with those "magical" ages. I rememeber well when I turned 18. It didn't feel so different from the day before that mythical date. Generally, I was the same person. Nothing had changed. No greater spirit suddenly filled my head with sensibility and responsibility. There was no sudden snap and playfulness was replaced with seriousness. Both are still where they were before.
Currently, I'm a 30ish kid with a credit card. Fear my spending capacity!
Quite seriously and on a less light hearted note. Why do people think that something magically changes with age? Age doesn't determine jack. I will remain childish for as long as I can, while at the same time being a quite considerate person, essentially the way I've been since I was about 14. And it's not just self centered observation (because, of course, you're always mature enough for everything in your own mind, hell, ask any 12 year old if he's old enough for whatever), I have actually met quite a few "kids" who are more mature than many so called "adults".
There are people who are allowed to drive a car and even vote, i.e. allowed to ruin their own lives and that of those around him, whose intellectual capacities and maturity level doesn't even come close to that of some 16 year olds I know. Where's the sense in that?
Age and maturity aren't tied to each other. With age doesn't come insight. The only insight I gained from growing older is exactly this.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If he's smart enough to do that and not get caught, he can handle anything the net throws at him. Besides, it's idiotic to attack the vast Plains of Myspace when you can face your enemy at the Chokepoint of Reality - when your 14yo goes out dressed like a ho, you just have to know something is wrong.
Global warming is a cube.
I have the odd feeling you just proved God doesn't exist...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Im sorry I was under the impression you RTFA. The state is not spying on anyone the state is requiring that a parent open up the account for the kid.. "The North Carolina legislation takes this lesson to heart by requiring that parents or guardians first sign up and verify their ages; only then can their children register for accounts."
You do realize marriage is also a civil institution, the law is not about sin.
I lived in NY state (Poughkeepsie and in way upstate). My DMV experience was never bad like that. Either you got unlucky or I was lucky.
I lived in NY 25 years, My wife lived there close to 20 and you were very lucky. The NY DMV is terrible.
Brain maturation doesn't stop you're senile or dead. Those infantalizing teens have seized upon studies showing that the brain is still changing after 20 to support their agenda, but if you look more carefully there's a lot of dodgy reasoning in there.
As for auto insurance companies, they raised the "pond scum" age to _30_ a while back for unmarried males.
There's also an implicit and, I think, erroneous judgement in your claim that younger people don't understand risks. While they certainly _take_ more risks, this does not mean they understand them less well. Conservatism is not synonymous with wisdom or maturity.
It's a good thing Luke's parents didn't let him have a MySpace page, otherwise his father might have found him with one Google search, and essentially ended the series right there.
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
The human brain learns and develops from exposure. Parents attempt to limit children's exposure to the very things they need to learn to cope with and comprehend. They are unable to understand childrens increased ability to deal with these issues because they themselves were censored as children and have trouble. Even those that get the concept are afraid of how the other parents who don't get it will react when their child shares traditionally censored material with the other children.
Parent's want to keep children as children as long as possible. To that I challenge you to find many adults who would willingly become children again. You might say ignorance is bliss but nobody willingly chooses ignorance. Childlike innocence is nothing more than ignorance and by prolonging it you are doing nothing but giving children less time to accomplish their goals and achieve their dreams. Enough with the romantic nonsense. This is the only life and the only chance your children have. If you want them to spend a greater portion in ignorance babbling nonsense and blowing bubbles for your amusement I guess that is your call. If that is what you want support bills like this and censor your children from adult material. I am going to prepare my children for adult life by helping them learn to cope with both adult and child situations as soon as possible.
"You do realize marriage is also a civil institution, the law is not about sin."
Maybe that's how its supposed to be but I don't believe that's always the case.
How does me being married or not married have any bearing on me putting my finance on my auto insurance? Two grown adults saying to a private company we want insurance with you and want to be on the same policy and we are willing to pay, and the insurance company saying we would love to but because you aren't married we can't do that in NC but if you lived in all these other states no problem.
1) Loli
2) JB
3) Pedobear
fix'd
Teenagers will turn out in one of those three ways regardless of whether this measure becomes generalized or not - it's just part of growing up. It's a generational cycle that has never skipped a beat since the beginning of the modern era.
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
Oh lets start with shared legal liabilities that spouses share which soon to be spouses do not.
It might be more useful to ask how much "freedom" you have at eighteen.
Most kids - if they are lucky - will be moving on to college, trade-schools, the military or an entry-level job. They will not be "on their own" in any meaningful way.
That's a bunch of crap. Otherwise, marriage could occur between persons other than a man and a woman.
Marriage is about two things: property rights, and religion.
The laws regarding marriage are a clear and obvious violation of the first amendment to the constitution, as they are laws which respect a particular establishment of religion. (While the same beliefs on homosexuality are shared by possibly a majority of world religions, whether measured by number of religions of number of members of each religion, they were inserted into our laws specifically due to the Christian influence.)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
So, how will I, an adult with no children, be able to create a myspace page? Will I have to register with myspace and show ID? Isn't this overly burdensome? What if I want to create an anonymous myspace or social networking page? This b.s. is totally unconstitutional and will be struck down, since there are less detrimental alternative means to keeping children off of social networking sites without parental permission, such as asking for verification, as is the case now.
""Oh lets start with shared legal liabilities that spouses share which soon to be spouses do not."
Sure and lets get rid of the notion that non married people can not enter into any legal contracts with 3rd parties that have legal liabilities and risks. You can get a mortgage together without being married (well in other states [NY,MA, WI, to name a few] I haven't looked in NC yet). Hmm that has greater legal liabilities then auto insurance. You can sign a document saying she gets the protection but assumes the legal risks too. I can legally give her power of attorney, be my life insurance beneficiary, etc.
Maybe there is a massive risk to NC for unmarried couples getting auto insurance together that if something went wrong the whole of NC would implode? Yet this same risk doesn't apply to other states?
Why? We set an age for voting, we as a society often say that you must be this to avail yourself of this institution. You many not agree with the sate saying you must be a man and a woman but that does not exclude something from being a civil institution.
The laws regarding marriage are a clear and obvious violation of the first amendment to the constitution
Maybe the 14th but the first? I think the founders better knew what they meant when they wrote the first amendment (and the contemporary marriage laws) than you do. People of any religion can marry and people of no religion can still go before a secular judge and get married it in no way establishes a religion.
The poster has his own "think of the children" problem. "Poor kids are tracked a million ways and have no privacy today, boo hoo."
Today kids have all kinds of freedom compared to yesterday in a small neighborhood where every adult knew them and both wouldn't get in trouble for disciplining a fellow townsperson's child themselves, and would phone the parent and say "you know what you kid did" when the result would be some very unwanted punishment. Today's parents want to be their children's friends and don't dish out discipline. Kids know it and aren't afraid of misbehaving, tracking or not.
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.
"Don't bitch at them because you didn't verify that people got your correct information when you had your passport done. "
Passports do not put the full middle name. How is that my fault? The US govt says you only need your initial. So govt. says this ID is good enough to get into most other countries and get back in but not good enough for NC as proof of who I am? Ya that makes PERFECT sense.
"Don't blame them if you want to change your birth middle name or they didn't put it there. Go fix it."
So state documentation form state A is good enough for them but not good enough for NC so we should make the person jump through hoops? I believe states are supposed to accept other states documents.
"They have one of the more difficult methods to obtain a new drivers license because frankly... people from other states can't drive for shit."
Your statement makes zero sense. They show me a sign it says stop on it. They say what's that sign. Why it's a stop sign. Ya that prevents bad drivers. How does me knowing the amount of points I get for violation X make me a better driver. It doesn't. I took 5 mins to read the manual got a perfect score, too bad its no indication of how well I drive, just how well I memorize. Now if they gave me a road test that would support your statement but they don't if you have an existing license.
"As far as panhandlers go... the reason they do this is to decrease the number of panhandlers on the exit ramps...they don't pay taxes"
Well they pay a fee to get from what I have read. They have to renew it and pay so pretty much makes it a yearly tax (like the wonderful excise tax of cars here).
I'll go out on a limb and predict that the false positives will eventually get Sentinel sued out of business.
MySpace has a little protection by outsourcing, but I'm guessing we'll see a few richer lawyers when all is said and done.
then, in your opinion, at what age does this immaturity magically disappear?
Usually by 40 years of age.
YMMV
On the other hand, there are people who go the opposite way...I had some family issues growing up (tons of alcoholism), and I had to start making meaningful decisions for myself before I even hit my teens.
I made some bad choices, and some good choices, and by the time I got to college I'd pretty much evened out. My freshman semester I had some of the best grades of my life, because I'd already come to terms with my own freedom to act without restrictions, and so college wasn't a shock to me. Likewise, working, living alone, having to budget for food and utilities...It was all stuff I understood.
Really it comes down to being able to make meaningful choices, and having to live with the consequences. I'm not saying kids should be thrown to the wolves, but they need to be able to stretch their minds, and learn to be responsible for their own mistakes. As parents we should try and make sure that their mistakes aren't HUGE mistakes, but going all big brother and trying to make sure they have no mistakes at all does them a disservice.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Tomarrow: Think of the citizens
If you are about to mod me down, keep in mind that this post was most likely sarcastic.
What you apparently don't understand is that virtually everyone in the states at the time at which the constitution was authored was religious. While there was certainly some atheism it was much less widespread than it is today. What they wanted was freedom from particular religions. "Freedom from religion" is a disingenuous way of putting it.
As such, the law as written came from a particular religious background, since in reality almost all of those people wanting freedom from individual religions were some form of Christian.
Some people, of course, came here just for money, and didn't give a shit about religion. Most of them were some type of Christian as well.
I think that the founders, being some type of Christian almost without exception, were unable to be entirely rational about their reasoning.
No one said it "establishes" a religion. I don't think you understand English very well.
People of any religion may go before a justice of the peace and be sworn into holy matrimony. It's not really that secular a process. Add to this the number of laws (most of which have been abolished) which said that you could only legally fuck someone to whom you were married. The combination of the two concepts is pretty clearly designed to enforce a religious ideal.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Either ban it or criminalize it or shut the fuck up already.
Yes, eleventy 3 billion trillion% of everyone on the internet is a high on crack hardon in one hand mouse in the other child rapist with his evil sites on your virgin sons and daughters. Clearly we need to criminalize everyone's access to everything and ban the use of the internet forever. By everyone. Everywhere. For the children.
All of this crap is political grandstanding for the soccermoms, the security dads and the other assholes who think that being a paranoid insane repressive asshole is possibly the best thing since the invention of the wheel.
I give up - let's devote every last dollar and every last functioning brain synapse in America to the final solution of the massive torrent of billions of child sexual assaults and murders now occurring every second, everywhere. Simultaneously.
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.
And I don't think you know the difference between the 14th and the first amendment. Nor do you understand why the first is branded the establishment clause. An atheist can get married in a civil ceremony there is no religion involved therefore the relevant question is does the state ever (is it ever valid) to restrict who can enter into a civil status? The answer to that question is clearly yes (voting for example) The next question would be: in the civil institution of marriage is it ok fo rhte government to restirct the age, gender, or number of people involved in thei contract? and, my son, I am not touching that today with a ten foot pole.
Actually, I am surprised in general how easy it is to get a driver's license in the USA. The requirements are very minimal considering the license allows a freshly-minted 16-year-old-driver to pull out in a 2-ton-gasoline-bomb-on-wheels and hit the road. Why do we (and the state governments) deem this acceptable, but then have a hissy-fit about gun control?
Maybe it's because we trust kids not to want to blow themselves up. It's in their self-interest not to die. And for the most part, the system works when the parents are involved. I would suspect a similar approach, modified slightly, would work for training kids on the appropriate use of the Internet.
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.
Could that have something to do with the fact that we neither expect nor demand better of them?
Or that we basically prohibit them by law from assuming any responsibilities of consequence?
Methinks this entire 'adolescence' concept is a failed idea that needs to die.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
You got to shoot guns and play with chainsaws in your living room? Cool!
Man, you really need that seminar!
That's pretty much what I'm saying. A friend of mine is a social worker, and I tend to spend a lot of my spare time with him (some kinda supervision, which they don't get anymore since the budget was cut down), so I get to hear a lot of stories like this. Some kids have to be adults by the time they hit 14, some even earlier than that, often with added responsibility for younger siblings loaded onto their shoulders.
And no, not in south American slums. In the "civilized western" world.
Raising kids doesn't mean to put them under the cheese cover 'til they're 18 and then kick them out into the world. If you do that, you end up with exactly the kind of young adults that I see a fair lot today: Irresponsible, unable to handle a budget, unable to get their act together, in short, unable to lead their own life.
What kids need is guidance and a safe harbor as a base of operations. Being a kid is about learning, and that doesn't just consist of those 6-8 hours a day you spend at school, far more important is to learn how to "live". How to deal with problems, most of all, a quality our kids simply don't learn today anymore. The overbearing parents of today, who are so terribly afraid to do anything wrong, either coddle their kids and keep any possible obstacle "safely" out of their way or instill fear and distrust in their kids by teaching them that whatever you do, DO NOT go to your parents because you will get no help but only a lecture that doesn't help you at all.
And that's exactly what they don't need.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
What this bill is attempting to accomplish (others have already pointed out the loopholes, so I won't bother), is to make it so that a kid can't set up a myspace profile without his parents' knowledge.
This is not spying, this is just giving the parents a chance to sit down with the kid, before he sets up his profile, and have a talk about how to be safe online.
When you look at it that way, it almost starts to sound like "good parenting", hmm?
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
Children have parents for thoughts, protections, and random governance. Legislators like to target children because as a voting block, none of them (0%) of them vote along with 67% of their parents who can't be bothered with something so archaic as voting. Some quick math reveals that only 33% of the country's population is interested enough in our policies to vote. Assuming there are two sides to every policy (for and against), legislators know they only have to appeal to 16% of the freaky people motivated enough to vote :)
Of course we don't need one of those fancy schmancy computers to type our homework. We can use a Dactylograph or Writetyper or whatever those things were that our Grandparents used to do word processing on before they had electricity and computers.
None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
"Your post sounds to me like someone who doesn't like to read directions or likes to post a generalization of things but not "why" it's done. So let me address them. First I've lived in Raleigh, NC for 31 years. They have one of the more difficult methods to obtain a new drivers license because frankly... people from other states can't drive for shit. In NC, in general, people let others in, don't cut others off etc." Untrue. Coming from New England, NC drivers are pretty damn awful. They NEVER EVER use their turn signal. It's not a big deal when the car I'm waiting to go buy turns out to be turning, that just inconviences me. However, for example when changing lanes on the highway, most people don't use their signal either. This makes a game out of it! "When I merge right into the middle lane, is the person in the right lane ALSO going to go for the middle at the same time?" No one EVER moves out of the right lane when approaching a highway on-ramp. This results in people often being forced to halt at the end of the on-ramp, one of the most dangerous things which can happen on a highway. I've seen a lot of extremely dangerous highway situations in this state in 3 years.
I am seriously tired of people spouting that the founders were "some type of Christian". THIS IS NOT TRUE! Some people were, but not those who we generally consider the "fathers".
The Constitution never once mentions a deity, because the founding fathers wanted to keep their new country "religion-neutral." Our Founding Fathers were an eclectic collection of Atheists, Deists, Christians, Freemasons and Agnostics.
George Washington, the Father of our country, and John Adams (Second President of the USA) CLEARLY stated in the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli: "The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion."
Washington rarely attended church and instead followed a popular 18th century philosophy called Deism -- a Star Wars-esque philosophy that believed in a cosmic energy or big-ass universal "Force." The dictionary says that Deism is "a system of thought advocating natural religion based on human reason rather than revelation," that had nothing to do with Christian principles. A Spinoza-esque pantheism - NOT CHRISTIAN!
James Madison, original mastermind of our Constitution, was an Atheist to the core who loved skewering Christianity. In 1785 he wrote, "What have been [Christianity's] fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."
Thomas Jefferson, who sat down and authored The Declaration of Independence, rarely missed an opportunity to laugh at Christianity. In a letter to John Adams in 1823, he wrote: "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus...will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
In 1814, Tommy J. wrote about the Bible's Old and New Testaments, "The whole history of these books is so defective and doubtful -- evidence that parts have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds."
In fact, it was President Jefferson himself who first wrote (to a Baptist church group in 1802), "The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between Church and State." Therefore, when Jefferson talked about "Nature's God," the "Creator" and "divine Providence " in the Declaration that he wrote, he was being a hippie and referring to a general cosmic energy, a pantheistic god -- not the Christian God.
America is not a Christian nation. Period. Our Constitution derived from the post-Christian Enlightenment values of reason and truth - not from Christianity!
Track your TV Shows with your iPhone - FREE
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...
I suspect it is a little of both..
For the whole world up to the 19th century (or 18th, I'm not sure now), and for part of it still today, there were two, and only two, ages for a person: childhood and adulthood. No middle ground. The precise age varied, but usually a male human was a "boy" until his 13th anniversary, and a "man" afterwards (12th anniversary for females). Did it work? Yes, it did. Marvelously. Faced with adult problems, the "children" of the time matured at an incredibly fast pace.
There were no reasons for things to change, except one: if you accept the invented concept of a middle ground, the so called "adolescence", you are suddenly faced with the "problem" of young adults wanting to act as, well, adults. And how do you "solve" it? Hell, by asking for government regulation, of course! Politicians, who are mad but not dumb, jumped in the bandwagon and devised all sorts of regulation to be applied to "adolescents". After all, why not? More laws always means more power.
The only solution for this kind of BS would be for a complete dismissal of the whole concept. But neither people nor politicians are able to think that much out-of-the-box. For the decades and maybe centuries following us, "adolescence" will still be seen as obviously existing, as will laws regulating it be seen as obviously needed. For a long, long time, those disagreeing with this will be only a minority.
On a side note: the same can be said regarding marriage. For most of human century it wasn't a legal matter. No government had anything to say on it. But this also changed in the 19th century, when some people began demanding for relationships to be regulated. And now we must deal with all the problems resulting from this desire. If the whole idea of civil marriage were dismissed, where would the discussion on the prohibition of polygamy (think Mormons in Utah and Muslims immigrants) be? Where would the recent same-sex marriage discussions be? Nowhere. "Marriage" would remain a purely religious concept, completely ignored by secular governments, who would simply see people living together and sharing property without any interest whatsoever on what they were doing between themselves and in relation to said property. No legal discussion would exist for lack of substance.
But go talk to anyone involved in these disputes that they (all sides: heterosexual monogamous, homosexual monogamous, polygamous etc.!) shouldn't be asking for more government interference in matters of interpersonal relationships, but for less of it, for the elimination of all or almost all laws defining and regulating marriage, and see what happens. Almost no one gets it. Marriage as a legal matter is here to stay, as much as "adolescence".
Those who know better? Their only option is to endure the whole madness. Sad, but true...
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
And because George Washington and John Adams signed their names to it, you believe it?
You can show examples of a small handful of men making statements against Christianity. But even those men who were not themselves Christian or even Religious were tasked with creating a document which people would sign.
In addition, there are many additions to US law which have nothing to do with the constitution other than that the agencies which drafted them or enforce them were given their authority through the constitution.
The laws on marriage are not within the constitution, and as such, it doesn't really matter what the constitution says, except in the cases in which it would seem to conflict with current laws.
Now, if you could show evidence that a majority of the founders were anti-Christian, you might have something.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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
I'm a college student and see early-20-year-olds all the time. Yes, many of them are children. They act without considering the consequences to themselves or others. They are irresponsible and generally stupid, with a few exceptions. Why? From my experience, these are the kids who had their parents locking down everything they could have access too. Once let free, they have no bloody idea what the hell actual limitations they should put on themselves. Honestly, age has very little to do with it. If the children are taught properly, and shown by their parents that these children understand whats best for themselves (through trust), when they are left to their own devices they may actually make an educated decision. If you have NEVER been allowed to make a bad decision by constraints put on by your parents, how are you supposed to react once your parents aren't stopping you anymore? Age has very little to do with it.
"A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
I never brought up the marriage part, I was only responding to the "our founding fathers were Christian" part, which is something I can find no evidence for.
If you could show evidence that a majority of the founders WERE Christian, you might have something. Or even a statement stating that a large chunk of them were. But I cannot find a single one that states openly that they were Christian - only statements that say they aren't. Until I see a statement saying otherwise, I'm going to believe that they weren't Christian, as that's what they've gone on record as saying. As such I don't like people stating the founding fathers were Christian unless they can provide some previously undiscovered evidence.
Track your TV Shows with your iPhone - FREE
Easily. At 17 I'm legally responsible for your safety and well-being. At 18 I'm not.
we see things not as as they are, but as we are.
-- anais nin
I agree completely.
But - rather than just bringing an issue to the table it'd be nice to have a solution as well.
With all respect, we're gonna leave it to you to come up with an indicator that demonstrates a person is mature enough to
- decide when his secular education is complete
- consume alcohol or other mood-altering substances
- support himself away from his parents' home
- marry someone else
- enter into an enforceable contract
without relying on the person's age. What indicator would you suggest we use? As an old boss told me long ago, don't bring a problem to the table without also bringing a solutionwe see things not as as they are, but as we are.
-- anais nin
Never in the history of mankind have children been monitored so heavily from so many different points of observation. By participating in such actions, we've effectively criminalized our children and all people in the world around them. In some ways, it's almost a perfect representation of a post-9/11 United States... only to a far more extreme level.
If you think we've already lost much of our civil rights to our government under the guise of "protection", just wait until the next generation, who have never even had the chance to experience true freedom and also see constant monitoring/surveillance as normal, begin to take over. Our limit of "acceptable" loss of freedoms in exchange for security will likely end up being dwarfed by whatever legislation our children come up with. Be prepared for nothing short of curfews and martial law with severe penalties for violations.
We're just seeing the tip of the iceberg here...
8==8 Bones 8==8
I wouldn't expect to get off that easily if my wife caught me cheating...
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
But when laws or requirements put restrictions on minors, there aren't exceptions, and those few minors who are responsible and intelligent are often forced to break rules and even the law in order to do things that no rational person, considering the situation, would deny them (I remember, for example, one person who had to hide from OSHA for years in order to do research in his lab), and are often punished and restricted in entirely unjust ways (if a black person were thrown out of a college merely because of his colour, the country would be up in arms, but when one of the top students at a college is thrown out entirely because of his age, it is simply avoiding liability; the same situation exists for many courtrooms).
This is, of course, a problem with the government, but it is hard to change laws when one has no vote.
17 year olds are not children. They may act like children because that's all that's been expected of them. They act impulsively without regard for consequences because in most cases, there are no consequences. Tomorrow, I have to go to court with my 16 year old son for two traffic infractions he received when he rummaged through my bedroom and found my hidden spare set of keys, drove my 4wd pickup truck with a manual transmission into another truck in an intersection. He did not have permission to drive my truck, in fact, he has never taken drivers education nor does he have a drivers license. In short, he stole my truck and totaled it and found out the hard way that driving is a little more complicated than it looks. Besides the obvious liability nightmare I had to go through, he was cited for failure to avoid a collision and driving without a license. Regardless of what the court says, he has blown his opportunity to drive, at least until he is 18 and can get a license on his own. He is also going to reimburse me for all costs incurred by his disregard for safety. This includes my insurance deductable, time spent on dozens of phone calls, trips to the courthouse, impound yard and insurance company. Even the full tank of gas that was in the truck when he wrecked it. I am going to see to it that he suffers personally, socially, and financially from the decision that he made to drive with no training or permission. Am I being too harsh on him? I don't think so. He is going to learn that actions have consequences, good and bad. I lost my truck, he lost his opportunity to obtain a driver's license on my dime. This is my point - I am going to hold his feet to the fire on this, he is not going to get a break from me.
Excessive drinking is fine...in moderation.
This lot couldn't pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were stamped on the heel.
Hey, at least be proud of your incisive local sayings.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
You know, the more you try to restrict someone from doing something, the more they want to do it. Furthermore, parents should realize that kids don't learn entirely from advice. They learn from failure many times, just as their parents had. I don't know if this would be a better or worse world if everyone actually took advice seriously, but that's dependant upon the people that mould it then. I think the extent that these things are starting to show up on the 'net is a little bit alarming.. I guess the thing that gets to me nowadays is the amount of "disinformation" in the world. I don't know what to believe anymore on most political levels, business levels, and lately social levels, as the world becomes more cut throat, all the more I feel as though I'm stuck sitting in a chair facing The Wall. Maybe this is for the better though, perhaps less people will use MySpace. Any page I've seen on there thus far is a horrible display of layout and "crap" that is supposed to represent someone's inner being.. cute, huh? These kids need to start learning to create some real, meaningful content :)
Yeah, being in jail would likely be SAFER and MORE PLEASANT than dealing with the wife one cheated on.
Cause those walls will keep her out just as they keep one in.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Luckily for the authorities, they could charge the kid as an adult for a DMCA violation and give him or her 5 years.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
"Protecting" children by monitoring them is quite an idiotic idea when you consider the alternatives. Give them knowledge for god's sake! Treat them like an adult and tell them the truth. Tell them how Myspace is a horribly made website, and how much of a waist of time it is. Tell them about how some child molester off in his trailer somewhere is just as able to visit their profile and view their pictures as their friends are.
Online messaging is not an evil thing. The only evils here are the horrendous communities that build up around shit retard-magnet sites like Myspace. The internet is a tool, designed for communication. Show your children how to communicate responsibly with responsible individuals. Show them that there are better tools to use then dangerous sites smattered with commercial advertisements and untrustworthy people. If you treat them right, they may even convey the message to their friends.
There have been a few people who have called my post FUD.
/'ers are educated enough to both understand this and appreciate this. If I thought /'ers weren't (capable of this) then I assure you I would have worded the article differently. The use of a Science Fiction movie as a metaphor for reality should be obvious in this regard. BTW, I was actually thinking of The Truman Show, but in my enthusiasm to post (my first post, and it got accepted... woohoo!), I let that mistake slip through (my bad).
c es. Ask yourself how many politicians have done indepth studies of the Internet or the Social Sciences before passing laws. I personally have had formal and informal education in both the social sciences and IT. I think my opinion is worth something. I just thought I might share it.
First off, the use of rhetorical and literary devices does not constitute FUD. They can emphasize a point of view and make a statement or idea stand out. I'm sure
Somebody also had exception to my use of the word "spyware" for describing Vista Parental Controls. While not in the conventional sense is this spyware; this tool does allow parents to see what Web sites there children view, etc. In this regard (and keeping with the theme of the article) I will stand by this statement. And yes I realize that guns don't kill people, and technologies can be used for good, but that obviously wasn't the premise of the article.
I could very well have made the article sound more dry ("dull and lifeless" - WordWeb), but I wanted to echo the sentiments of what I felt like growing up with old-world over-protective parents. I certainly wouldn't want to grow up with over-protective parents in this day and age.
Last Thoughts:
These laws and technologies will never make good parents be bad, but they will enable bad parents to be do even more harm.
In hindsight it is easy for me to see the children I grew up with who have had over-protective parents. Many of them now have criminal records (nothing serious like murder, etc as far as I know). I don't keep in touch with them anymore. I have seen the "control-freak" (for want of a better word) parents control their kids to the point of neurosis.
I think we all want kids to be safe. Taking simple and reactionary solutions usually doesn't work http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequen
I think you might be confusing brain maturation with brain ageing: a brain will, indeed, continue ageing throughout a person's life but is said to reach biological maturity around our mid-20s or so. This is the same with other parts of the body too; that's why, thankfully, we don't have to go through puberty up until we are dead also--these parts of the body also stop physically maturing (but not ageing) at around our early to mid-20s. Brain maturation is different to maturation of the mind. Mental/emotional maturation can continue indefinitely as a person gets older (or even regress!) but these are two different (albeit interrelated) concepts in, on the one hand, biology and on the other, psychology.
Parent: "I have no idea what my child's doing online so much. Can't someone help me?"
Child: "Just leave me alone, I'm playing here."
Predator: "It comes down to being in control."
Police: "You Must Conform!"
The problem is really none of the above. It's *all* of the above.
Parents want to protect their kids, but are themselves often overwhelmed just trying to get by.
Kids want to explore their own boundaries, and as sophisticated as we think they are these days, are still kids.
Predators are very confused, either by nurture or nature, and should not interact with kids lest they imprint their confusion upon others.
Police (aka our social structure) often lose track of individuals trying to protect the group.
The Parents can do more by taking the time to develop trust in their children.
The Children can do more by learning to trust their parents.
The Predators can do more by seeking - and more importantly, accepting - help.
The Police can do more by not acting like overwhelmed parents, instead treating individuals as just that - individuals, not groups. This may be the hardest task of all, as it asks them to take an active interest in each and every one of those whom they have sworn to serve, and protect.
It's not easy, but not much of the really worthwhile stuff is.
If I had a surefire solution, I'd write a book and be rich.
A possible solution could be to be "judged an adult" prematurely. Have a few shrinks find out if someone is to be deemed mature enough to be considered an adult. We already have licenses for driving, firearms and other legally binding documents that attest you some kind of (mental or physical) ability to be fit to do or possess something, why not for adulthood?
Leave the "general" age at 18 and offer the choice to be "tested" before that.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
And so you will have very successfully taught him that, should he ever do something in the future that you might disagree with, he should do his level best to make sure you never find out about it. Instead of attempting to communicate with you and acting responsibly, he'll instead end up acting without your guidance doing irresponsible things. For example...
Well, you can't know for sure, but if you keep this up for a long time, you might even end up seeing him doing crazy things like driving your truck without your permission!
I wonder why such obvious Flamebait was modded up to Insightful. Funny perhaps, but Insightful it is not.
At whatever age parents determine that their child is mature.
You're the one looking to draw an arbitrary line and say that 17-year-olds aren't children, and then you ask me to set an arbitrary line?
Some kids can handle at 13 what others can't at 17. According to my father, I was one of the former; at 12-13 years of age, he believed I was emotionally mature enough to cope with the real world and begin to loosen the reins. My brother, however, was kept under much stricter rules until he was 16.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.