'Dangers of the Internet' Resolution Passed By Senate

destinyland writes "Apparently June is national 'Internet is Dangerous' month. The U.S. Senate unanimously passed a resolution urging Americans to 'learn more about the dangers of the Internet.' And what counts as a danger? Disabling censorware, or making friends online if you ever plan to meet them in real life. Its extreme negativity is disappointing. But remember — it passed unanimously. From the tech blorge article: 'It's not just a resolution. A few corporations are actually trying to cash in on this misguided disinformation campaign, including BSafe Online, a Tennessee company which markets a PC filtering software. (I wonder if it's one of the ones that can be disabled by 31% of America's teenagers...) Their CEO has an encouraging message for parents about safety on the internet. "This is a battle they must fight everyday with their children in order to keep pornographers, sexual predators and cyber-bullies at bay." And keeping those pornographers and sexual predators away will cost you a mere $70 a year...'"

Comments

I don't know what's worse

[Pojut]

That there are people and companies out there taking advantage of things like this, or that there are people that are ignorant enough to actually fall for it.

Re:I don't know what's worse

[megamerican]

There is a large market for products that make bad parents think that they are doing a good job at parenting.

Re:I don't know what's worse

[dintech]

Why are we allowing people to pass laws on things they completely don't understand? It seems politicians are even worse than children in their propensity to be manipulated with scare tactics. I guess it's the only language they recognize.

Re:I don't know what's worse

[Anonymous Coward]

In 1910 people were buying "comet pills" to protect them from Halley's. Same shit.

Re:I don't know what's worse

[Pojut]

Judging by the way a lot of those products are released, it appears they are being designed and marketed by bad parents as well

Re:I don't know what's worse

[Colin Smith]

10 PRINT "You are a good parent."
20 GOTO 10

What d'ya reckon?

Re:I don't know what's worse

[Anonymous Coward]

You're the one who's ignorant! That or you are an evil-doer. Anything involving pipes or series of tubes is evil. Period. Haven't you been reading your bible? Not trusting the federal government is terror thoughts. The Iraqies are terror-pipe people, that's why we've had to kill 712,000 of them. Terror-pipe people hate us for our freedom. And we hate them for their terror pipes. These people will mastermind terror-pipe-plots and terror-pipe-bombings if we don't bring their war to them. They have terror-pipe weapons of mass-terror-pipe!

Re:I don't know what's worse

[Yoozer]

You forgot something:

30 PROFIT

Re:I don't know what's worse

[unlametheweak]

The simplest solutions are the easiest to understand. Take a complex problem and start giving your average human being the thousands of variables involved, and explain to them the weight and statistical significance of each of those variables, and they will not be able or willing to try to understand. Even worse, they will more than likely label you as a freak. Give them a simple hard-nosed emotional solution, and they get an immediate neuro-chemical response, their adrenalin rises; it is like a cocaine rush, it is positive reenforcement. Politicians understand this, and they exploit this. They understand this not through the study of psychology, they understand this intuitively.

Unfortunately there are no educational pre-requesites for being a politician. There are only economic pre-requisites. No IQ test necessary. It is an inherent fault of the democratic system, as it is structured at the present time.

Re:I don't know what's worse

[leonem]

Er, you mean they'll never make any? ;)

Re:I don't know what's worse

[Hijacked Public]

Because it would be impossible for the people who pass laws to 'completely understand' every single thing they legislate about.

Here is part 85.6 of the Code of Federal Regulations. It concerns itself with the Interstate movement of pseudorabies vaccinate swine, except swine from qualified negative gene-altered vaccinated herds, not known to be infected with or exposed to pseudorabies. It has 500 words or so and it is the 6th part of a 13 part section specifically about Pseudorabies, all of which is a small part of subchapter that makes up Title 9, which is specifically about Animals and Animal Products and has somewhere around 70 of the previously described parts organized into something like 15 subchapters.

And these are just the Federal regs for animal related adventures. States, municipalities, and whatever else we've organized ourselves into also have regs about animals and animal products. We have a lot of seats to fill in the governmental machine and I doubt we're going to find enough animal experts who will show up on the right day to go over all this stuff.

The idea that legislators or judges or whomever should be experts, or even more familiar than the average person, with a subject in front of them is just not viable. Turn on CSPAN. See if you can watch that crap for 8 hours a day or however long legislative sessions last, and pay attention the whole time. The only reason I can imagine a human being voluntarily subjecting themselves to a lifetime of that would be because they see an opportunity to rob us all blind in the process. And people like that really aren't motivated to understand what a routing table is unless there is a pot of gold at the end of the routing table rainbow and they can't figure another way to get hold of it.

There is a tremendous amount of money to be made by making people afraid. The internet is just one of the many angles on that and we've hired the best professionals money can buy to legislate that fear into existence.

Re:I don't know what's worse

[BoberFett]

I realize full well that there are people out there stupid enough to fall for this. What's disheartening is that all of our senators are in that group.

Re:I don't know what's worse

[TapeCutter]

Figuring out sane answers from rigourous enquiry into esoteric details is supposed to be the job of the public service, and they are supposed to deliver those answers "without fear or favour" - instead we have a system where people like Hansen are harrased by political arse kissers. Perhaps there should be a ban on senior public servants running for political office, maybe we would get a bit more of the "without fear or favour" stuff?

Re:I don't know what's worse

[Talahaski]

This is why legislature needs to seek out experts in the field before blindly passing laws. But for some reason it appears when technology is related, they are not consulting with experts, or at least not the correct experts. Anyway its all about politics and making yourself look good. The average voter does not know much about technology so all they hear is that their legislator voted in favor of something that might help "protect children". With your example of farm animals, the public really does not care either way about farm animals unless they are farmers, so their is no media attention drawn to it. The public does care when you pull in the catch phrase of "to protect children", but the public does not have the technical understanding to know if the proposed legislation achieves its goal, nor does it understand any other negative impacts the proposed legislation may impose. Imagine what the media would do to a legislator that voted against, even if the person had good reasoning for voting against like the goal would not really be achieved and the proposed legislation would result in freedom of speech limitation. The media will not present the world with the information and reasoning behind why the vote against was made (and 90% of the world would not even be able to comprehend it), instead the media will say "hey this guy voted against something to protect children" and that person can forget about ever getting elected again. Protecting children is important, but we must ensure legislation made for this purpose truly has the potential to achieve this goal while also not overly infringing on our freedoms.

Re:I don't know what's worse

[Red Flayer]

15 GOSUB 30
...
35 RETURN
40 REM FTFY

Re:I don't know what's worse

[iamacat]

Fortunately, this time it's not really a law. No adult or teen will be punished for not fearing the Internet. In fact, that's perhaps how it should be - parents told about what can happen and then making sure their son knows where to find clean, safe porn sites rather than tubgirl. It does make me sad that Democrats - and Obama in particular, who I thought was decent otherwise - moved on from ending the war to wanting to control our private lives and morals so quickly. I guess that's about all I can expend from a guy who made me hand over my id and sign papers to get some cold medicine from Longs.

Re:I don't know what's worse

[lymond01]

I agree, but this is why our politicians have advisers: people who's only job is to make sense of or actually create meaningful regulations, present them to the senator who will say, "And this is what the people want?"

Re:I don't know what's worse

[DM9290]

"The idea that legislators or judges or whomever should be experts, or even more familiar than the average person, with a subject in front of them is just not viable."

The Courts have access to expert witnesses, and an adversarial system whereby all parties to the question can bring forth experts to testify on the expert stuff which lay people can't understand.

At any time if a judge believed that the evidence was too technical and a reasonable person could not understand it he is duty bound to rule the evidence inadmissible. On the other hand an incomprehensible law is legally impossible to resolve in court as no experts may be called to interpret the law.

There is no excuse for lawmakers to simply wash their hands of responsibility. If they dont understand what they are agreeing to, they should vote NO and say the law is incomprehensible to them. The whole point of science (and the law) is that any reasonable person can understand it if they put in the effort. Once science (or law) becomes incomprehensible to anyone except certain special individuals then we've gone beyond science or justice and entered the realm of mysticism, the occult and theocracy/technocracy.

Moreover, the courts, when interpretting laws presume that legislature knows exactly what the law means and wants it to mean that.

moreover, if politicians are too stupid to understand the law, then how the hell are judges, juries, lawyers supposed to ever understand it?

At the end of the day, the scenario that there are valid laws that judges, lawyers and politicians can not understand is legally impossible; it violates the fundamental principles of justice and would render any such law unconstitutional and of no force or effect.

"The only reason I can imagine a human being voluntarily subjecting themselves to a lifetime of [politics] would be because they see an opportunity to rob us all blind in the process."

alternatively they are a monarch and feel it is their obligation to their nation, and the community of sovereign nations, and it defines the very core reason of their personal existence. Of course, you dont have that in the US, so pure greed, corruption and kickbacks is probably the actual justification.

(there is also the remote possibility of an honest person being elected but that rarely ever happens)

Re:I don't know what's worse

[VWJedi]

You can't get to PROFIT before you actually do the job you're supposed to be doing! What are you trying to pull?

Re:I don't know what's worse

[Red Flayer]

You can't get to PROFIT before you actually do the job you're supposed to be doing!

Haha! That's a good one. I don't know about you, but I know many people who made killer profits in the 90s without ever producing anything that their business plan siad they were supposed to produce. But, that's personal profit, not business profit.

Anyway, if you're profiting from printing "You are a good parent" then that condition is satisfied before the gosub executes... just a reminder, 10 comes before 15.

Re:I don't know what's worse

[The Spoonman]

The Courts have access to expert witnesses, and an adversarial system whereby all parties to the question can bring forth experts to testify on the expert stuff which lay people can't understand.

Okay, then, how do we determine the legitimacy of the experts? For example, I'm of the personal belief (after having worked for 20+ years in the field) that a good 90-95% of IT people are completely incompetent, and yet they continue to get hired. Why? Simple..they get a job in the field and spend a year or so screwing it up. They then move on to another company who sees they have a year or so of experience, and hire them for a higher level job. The process continues until you've got a field of people with tons of experience but not a lick of skill. If the hiring managers can't sort out who's qualified, how is a layperson like a judge or congressperson? Rely on referrals from other laypeople? At the end of the day, your typical judge is going to see "expert" witnesses with competing arguments, and in the end they have to base their decision on who's best at convincing them that their version of the truth is reality. The decision is made on charisma, not technical merit.

A fine example of that is the DOJ's "expert" witness in the Microsoft debacle a couple of years back. In his "expert" testimony, he listed 7 different ways IE would still be used even if Netscape Navigator were set to the default browser. All but 6 of his claims were complete bunk, and the 7th was only partially true: IE was used because Navigator doesn't support reading CHM files. All one had to do to confirm that was to set NN as the default browser and duplicate what he did. A large portion of that case hinged on that testimony, how much different would the outcome been if MS had bothered to put any effort into the trial (or there had been an impartial judge)?

I would find it highly unlikely that this is simply limited to IT folks, which is why I consider suspect any advice I get from any expert until I've had a chance to confirm the accuracy myself.

Re:I don't know what's worse

[VWJedi]

Anyway, if you're profiting from printing "You are a good parent" then that condition is satisfied before the gosub executes... just a reminder, 10 comes before 15.

Re-read your previous post. I read it to mean that you are adding line 15 before all the other code (which goes where you put the "..."). Many BASIC interpreters don't require line numbers and execute the lines of code in the order they appear.

Re:I don't know what's worse

[Red Flayer]

Many BASIC interpreters don't require line numbers and execute the lines of code in the order they appear.

Sorry, I didn't include a leading "..." to signify that there's something in the beginning; I assumed that was understood because of the line numbers; the "..." I did insert was to indicate that existing lines between my additions were not to be removed.

Also, sorry for forgetting that modern BASIC compilers don't need line numbers. I haven't really used BASIC in the past decade or so, I originally learned it on a PET 25+ years ago.

Re:I don't know what's worse

[xENoLocO]

And how is this different from any other topic they pass laws on?

All they know is to do what people tell them to, and when they get paid more they do it faster.

Re:I don't know what's worse

[VWJedi]

It's been about 10 years (since I last used BASIC) for me as well. I'm not sure how long before that I last wrote code that required line numbers, so that's probably why I didn't think to check line ordering.

My first experiences with BASIC were on an Apple ][c... [grumpy old man voice] In my day we didn't have those snazzy hard drives! A floppy disk should be more than enough storage for anyone!

Re:I don't know what's worse

[aichpvee]

It's not a law. It's a resolution. Like when they congratulate the troops on getting shot up in Iraq or condemning the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for upholding the Constitution.

Re:I don't know what's worse

[earymir]

Unfortunately, it's not positive reinforcement... reinforcement implies a change in behavior... these resolutions don't do crap!

I agree, though.

Re:I don't know what's worse

[aichpvee]

He supports subverting public schools by providing vouchers to religious ones, too. Great speaker though, which is more than you can say for most candidates these days.

Re:I don't know what's worse

[iamacat]

I want a voucher to take my daughter to a non-religious private school with emphasis on overall personality and life skill development. Why should I subject her to all the bullies that can not be expelled because "education is for everyone"? Why should she spend so much time learning math and spelling - useless for me, even as a software developer, beyond calculating a 15% tip - and not fitness, leadership skills, world cultures, personal money management...? Why should she be subject to anal-retentive political correctness, demonized for occasionally cutting a class to go to beach, taught to suppress natural sexuality?

The thing is, I can not say that I want to raise my children according to my values and then deny the same opportunity to other parents. Let them teach their son that Earth is 6000 years old if they want. The next generation will be composed of people with different ideas about life rather than a bunch of mindless drones.

Re:I don't know what's worse

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately there are no educational pre-requesites for being a voter. There are only living/breathing pre-requisites. No IQ test necessary. It is an inherent fault of the democratic system, as it is structured at the present time.

Re:I don't know what's worse

[captainClassLoader]

unlametheweak says:

Give them a simple hard-nosed emotional solution, and they get an immediate neuro-chemical response, their adrenalin rises; it is like a cocaine rush, it is positive reenforcement. Politicians understand this, and they exploit this. They understand this not through the study of psychology, they understand this intuitively.

They also understand that, were they to respond rationally and perhaps not go along with this, their opponent in the next election would have a campaign attack ad that would have the headline "Rep. Joe Rational Refused To Protect Your Child From Internet Porn and Sexual Predators!" Which would go quite a way to putting a dent in Joe Rational's future in the legislature.

FUD for politicians isn't only a weapon they wield against their constituents. It's more frequent use is against other politicians.

Re:I don't know what's worse

[fucksl4shd0t]

You damn kids. In my day we did it with tape drives! (granted, those were very early days even for me, but still!) Nothing beats waiting half an hour for a 5k program to load.

Re:I don't know what's worse

[fucksl4shd0t]

Eh? Lots of honest people get elected all the time. They just don't stay honest very long. The business of politics does something to you. It's not just the corruption, it's a hard job. The honest politicians are to be found typically at lower levels, some state politicians (not many), mayors, city councils, county courts, etc. Again, I don't mean to imply that they are all honest, or that even most are honest, just that with as many positions at such levels that come open every election and as many honest people that run for them, it seems likely that some honest folk get elected every time.

Re:I don't know what's worse

[VWJedi]

Tape drives?! What happened to good old punch cards?

(OK, so I never used punch cards... but my father told me some wonderful stories about them!)

Re:I don't know what's worse

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh - considering who got elected president, I really don't have high hopes for the intellect of our great country.

Damn flip-floppers are now against him...

Re:I don't know what's worse

[unlametheweak]

It's also why politicians have lobbyists.

Re:I don't know what's worse

[Anonymous Coward]

So, when is "Dangers of the Sidewalk" month? The sidewalk serves as transport for pedophiles and I can get to porn using it. It also makes about as much sense.

Heck, sidewalks are even more dangerous. Never heard of somebody killing you from the internet, but I sure have heard of killers on sidewalks before.

Re:I don't know what's worse

[Captain Sarcastic]

There is a large market for products that make bad parents think that they are doing a good job at parenting.

Why do I keep thinking of the young lady in "So Long And Thanks For All The Fish"?

She was the "lady of the evening" who asked if Ford Prefect were rich, because she had a special service for people who were rich. She was a college graduate who majored in economics, and so her special service consisted of convincing rich people that it was OK to be rich, and that they didn't have to feel guilty.

So, you buy a service for your computer that keeps track of every single place where your child has been, and duly notes every E-mail that the child sends, and carefully records all instant messages and chatroom transmissions... so you can either ban your child from the computer until you can figure out what all this stuff is, or do nothing until your system shuts down for lack of empty disk space. Either way, you throw money at the problem and feel better.

Whether you've actually solved anything -- or traded one set of problems for another -- is another matter.

Re:I don't know what's worse

[dapsychous]

Punch cards? Have you ever tried to load a 2K program on an abacus? You could slide those beads around for hours...

Re:I don't know what's worse

[DM9290]

"Okay, then, how do we determine the legitimacy of the experts? "

by the same magical process the trier of fact (the jury, or judge where there is no jury) determines the veracity of any witnesses. In the case of experts you can also compare their credentials, and unlike regular run of the mill witnesses, usually the credentials of the expert must be disclosed in advance so the other party can be prepared to challenge their expertise. There is usually a voir dire to determine whether a witness is or is not an expert.

never the less. The law itself, which is the real issue here, must be comprehensible to judges, lawyers and politicians or else it is constitutionally invalid. And the contention that it is unreasonable to expect lawmakers to understand the law that they vote YES to is legally absurd.

"which is why I consider suspect any advice I get from any expert until I've had a chance to confirm the accuracy myself."

the judge is free to ask questions and demand the accuracy to be confirmed in whatever way he deems necessary to allow the jury to make an informed decision. And the jury can also ask questions. If the evidence is unclear they are going to disregard it. thats their duty. The onus is on the party trying to get the evidence in to make it convincing. This may involve teaching the jury the rudiments of just what is going on. Science is not magic or occult. It can be understood to any reasonable person (which legally jury members are supposed to be).

yes unfortunately.. charisma is part of it... this is a problem that legal scholars are not oblivious to.. and they argue with one another on how to address it. but that is all going to evidence of FACTS, not evidence of what the law says. The law itself is interpreted by the legal experts: judges and lawyers. they call no other witnesses.

Re:I don't know what's worse

[VWJedi]

Have you ever tried to load a 2K program on an abacus?

That sounds difficult. If we're talking the traditional Chinese abacus, the beads on each rod can represent numbers 0-15. That means you need two rods to represent a byte. So... 2 rods * 2048 bytes = 4096 rods necessary to hold 2K worth of data.

Where do you get an abacus that big?

Re:I don't know what's worse

[compro01]

reinforcement implies a change in behavior

how so? reinforcement simply implies "that was good. keep doing it"

Re:I don't know what's worse

[Jerrry]

Punch cards? Hell, when I started working with computers, we keyed programs into memory using toggle switches.

Re:I don't know what's worse

[noidentity]

I think you mean

15 PROFIT

otherwise it'll never be executed and you might as well have written

30 REM PROFIT

Re:I don't know what's worse

[zolaar]

You must be new here... Welcome to Software Development!

Re:I don't know what's worse

[lpq]

And how do you care for your kids with your wife being a doctor and yourself being a 70 hour/week engineer? Where did you learn your parenting skills? How do "good" parents differ from "bad" parents? How do bad parents become good parents? Are their courses?

Re:I don't know what's worse

[dapsychous]

China, obviously

Re:I don't know what's worse

[VWJedi]

OK, that was easy... the next question is, where do you get a computer that can work on the data stored in an abacus?

Re:I don't know what's worse

[Anonymous Coward]

... and make good parents think they're doing a bad job at parenting...

Re:I don't know what's worse

[dapsychous]

Uhh... China? I'm sure they have one in some forgotten basement from the Ming Dynasty or something.

Re:I don't know what's worse

[VWJedi]

Sorry, I give you a -1, Predictable

Re:I don't know what's worse

[Anonymous Coward]

Well.. Judging by the comments here... well.. nevermind :p

The captcha by the way was "FUTILE" lol.. How fitting with idiots like these :p

Re:I don't know what's worse

[Tacvek]

Out of curousity, what happens if the very existence of a law is one of the disputed facts? In that case the interpretation of the law, and the matters of fact become intertwined. Perhaps a more realistic example: somebody attempts to enforce a very old law. It turns out that law was repealed, but records of the repeal were lost in a fire at the statehouse. The defense has "witnesses" to testify about the repeal of the law, which the prosecution will be trying to discredit. That sort of thing can really mess up the clean separation of law and fact. What happens in those circumstances?

Re:I don't know what's worse

[TapeCutter]

"The business of politics does something to you." - It comes from trying to keep everyone "happy", sorta like a neurotic housewife with an overbearing husband and whinny kids.

Re:I don't know what's worse

[Hijacked Public]

And the contention that it is unreasonable to expect lawmakers to understand the law that they vote YES to is legally absurd. I agree that that is how it is supposed to be. But in a world where everything works as it is supposed to this thread wouldn't even exist. Congress would just legislate that birds sing and flowers bloom and all the water in the land was pure and drinkable, and it would just be so. Janjaweed soldiers would wake up and think This kill everybody who isn't Janjaweed thing is just fucking stupid and then they'd go back to sleep.

But in the real world, lawmakers don't even read a good chunk of the laws they pass, let alone understand them even if they could. It is absurd no doubt, but it is what it is.

Re:I don't know what's worse

[DM9290]

"Out of curousity, what happens if the very existence of a law is one of the disputed facts? In that case the interpretation of the law, and the matters of fact become intertwined. Perhaps a more realistic example: somebody attempts to enforce a very old law. It turns out that law was repealed, but records of the repeal were lost in a fire at the statehouse. The defense has "witnesses" to testify about the repeal of the law, which the prosecution will be trying to discredit. That sort of thing can really mess up the clean separation of law and fact. What happens in those circumstances?"

The existence of a law, and its interpretation, is not a question of fact. It is a question of law.

Technically the The Court has final authority over questions of law. The only "experts" of any reliability on questions of law are lawyers. And the highest most qualified and reliable of those is the Judicial Branch of the government itself (whatever the highest court in that legal jurisdiction is).

If the court believes the law is in effect. It's in effect. Tough luck sherlock. If you still think its not in effect have the legislature repeal it all over again. You and your "witness" are in error if you think the laws says X and the highest courts think it says Y.

You would not want a judiciary which simply accepted "evidence" of laws from people walking in off the street. Thats absurd. It would give such witness godlike powers to make up laws willy nilly.

Re:I don't know what's worse

[DM9290]

"But in the real world, lawmakers don't even read a good chunk of the laws they pass, let alone understand them even if they could. It is absurd no doubt, but it is what it is."

it isn't what it is, because at the end of the day these laws must be comprehensible to lawyers and judges. And if they aren't the courts will either impose some interpretation or strike it as void.

congress has an obligation to pass laws that "reasonable people", the judicial and the executive branches can understand. Whether they read it or not. end of story.

We aren't discussing whether lawmakers read and understood all the laws. We are discussing whether they couldn't even read and understand the laws if they wanted to, because the laws are too confusing even to legal experts.

Are you aware of a single case, which wasn't ultimately overturned on appeal, where a judge admitted he didn't understand the law and then go ahead and enforce it.

Its only about money

[svendsen]

"And keeping those pornographers and sexual predators away will cost you a mere $70 a year...'

Well you don't think they would care about and/or protect our children for free right? I mean it may be think about the children...but the end of that quote is...only when cash is involved.

Re:Its only about money

[cno3]

Won't somebody please think of the profit margins?

Re:Its only about money

[Lumpy]

How much for the opposite?

Hey some of us are a little wierd. We LIKE sexual predators after us, and funneling all that porno to my machine makes life easier.

now to make sure the wife doesntknow I am saying this... I'll post Anon...

Re:Its only about money

[SighKoPath]

Want to know the best way to protect the children from pornographers and sexual predators? It's easy - stop paying for access to the Internet! This can even save you $500/year, or more!

Seriously, though. If a parent is unwilling to monitor their child's internet time themselves, they have no business even allowing that child access to the internet at home.

Re:Its only about money

[TFGeditor]

"Well you don't think they would care about and/or protect our children for free right?"

Assuming that is sarcasm, who *should* pay the costs associated with shielding children from goatse et al?

Re:Its only about money

[EggyToast]

I love how this reads like an extortion racket. Who's to say that these pornographers aren't the same people creating the filtering software? After all, they would know exactly how to filter out what they sell.

"Hey lady, those are some nice kids you got there. T'would be a shame if they happened to see porn, wouldn't it?"

Re:Its only about money

[svendsen]

The parents! Oh wait that was way too easy. :-)

Seriously though put the computer in a public place, watch your kids when they are on it, don't allow them to use it when you aren't home, etc., etc. Paying for a yearly service for the program to baby-sit kids is not a good idea IMHO. Once they grow up and are teenagers then a parent has a lot more to worry about then if they see porn.

Re:Its only about money

[nomadic]

Seriously, though. If a parent is unwilling to monitor their child's internet time themselves, they have no business even allowing that child access to the internet at home.

I have never really understood that proposition, which is repeated constantly on slashdot when these kinds of stories come up.

What exactly are parents supposed to do? Anytime their kids go online, to sit there, right next to them, for the entire time, watching them?

Re:Its only about money

[mrogers]

Of course not, just set up a CCTV camera with a loudspeaker that barks "I CAN SEE WHAT YOU'RE DOING!" at random intervals. The kids will police themselves and you can go to the pub.

Re:Its only about money

[Verteiron]

Every router on the market has connection logging functionality, along with blacklists, whitelists, and password-protected access. It's all the tools you need to keep your kid from seeing what you don't want them to see, provided you're willing to spend the time to set things up.

Or you can practice what my mom did: Pop into the computer room (no computer in -my- room, my parents knew they'd never see me again) at random intervals to see what her rotten kid was up to.

Of course this was all back before the general internet was "dangerous" and at that time only AOL chat rooms were the source of all that was evil in the world. Funny how the magazines never mentioned the far more evil IRC... I suppose before that it was Usenet, and before that it was BBSes. Wow, what was the source of all evil before there were BBSes? Was the world just a good and happy place?

Re:Its only about money

[Chrisq]

What exactly are parents supposed to do? Anytime their kids go online, to sit there, right next to them, for the entire time, watching them? Hell yes. And don't forget to listen in to them when they are on the phone. You should always take them to and from school, and refuse all permission requests for school trips or to go off site. Of course if the kid is under 18 you need to be even stricter than this.

Re:Its only about money

[SighKoPath]

What exactly are parents supposed to do? Anytime their kids go online, to sit there, right next to them, for the entire time, watching them?

No. It means have the computer in a common area of the house, preferably one where it is easy for a parent to wander by and see what's going on. Do not allow the kid to access the computer when you're not at home or asleep - can easily be done through router configuration or a password on the computer. Talk to the kid about what he/she does online. Discuss the dangers of the internet with them.

There are also some more technical things that can be done with some open source projects, but I would not expect most parents to be able to do these - for example, monitor computer activity remotely using VNC.

Re:Its only about money

[Ash Vince]

I know it sounds a bit impractical, but it is the only sure fire solution.

My parents tried many methods to stop me using a PC and modem when they were not around, I foiled all of them. DrWatson startup log was too easy, the keyboard lock could be picked easily, BIOS passwords could be seen by watching what keys they pressed when entering it. This did however give me real world skills I have found useful ever since. Much better than the useless cack I was supposed to be learning in school at the time.

A more practical solution though might be to just make sure the only internet PC in the house is in a very public part of the house where the kid has no privacy. If they want privacy, they can go to their room, just not with a PC.

Re:Its only about money

[Yoozer]

Every router on the market has connection logging functionality, along with blacklists, whitelists, and password-protected access. It's all the tools you need to keep your kid from seeing what you don't want them to see, provided you're willing to spend the time to set things up.

I've highlighted the important and difficult terms. Your intended audience will not have a clue. I repeat - they will not have a clue. All they know is that the little black box provides 'm with Internet and E-mail and Youtube and Google.

Regardless of the time spent, people generally will feel stupid and incompetent if they have to mess with this, especially seeing that most routers are cheap and have abysmal interfaces to work with. At best they'll know power cycling is preferable to running around screaming that the internet has been broken. I recommend doing a few jobs of tech support for your family.

Plus, it'll be useless, because a router can be reset with a paperclip. Even less work than trying to get around NetNanny or what the protection software du jour is.

Re:Its only about money

[unlametheweak]

I think the point is that if a child is intelligent enough to know why censorware is setup, and how to disable it, then they already know the dangers out there. Knowledge can be a powerful tool.

Also, it's more a matter of knowing your children, than it is about monitoring them 24/7.

Re:Its only about money

[Poltras]

In fact most of them are happy to see their teens watch porn ("hey! t'least he's learning!").

Re:Its only about money

[statusbar]

I developed the The Internet Filter back in 1995. We have a 'transparent' list policy so you know what is being blocked and what is not being blocked.

You can see our entire database at research.vision-options.com. Apparently, a lot of people use our list as a jumping off point for their porn adventures. This causes a lot of bandwidth usage...

So we put ads on our list page as well as more information about porn addiction, internet filter circumventors, and other topics.

Without people being scared of porn on the internet there would be no need for internet filters.

--jeffk++

Re:Its only about money

[nomadic]

Well from a philosophical perspective that seems like the same kind of thing as censorware.

Re:Its only about money

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you can practice what my mom did: Pop into the computer room (no computer in -my- room, my parents knew they'd never see me again) at random intervals to see what her rotten kid was up to.

Given that the future is cheap mesh networks made of TLPCs (ten laptops per child), it is not likely that monitoring online activity will be so simple in the future. You might need a scanner to look for originating broadcasts or have daily searches of rooms or just learn to deal.

Re:Its only about money

[unlametheweak]

If my understanding of the American school system is correct, then that would probably be the only form of sex education a lot of American kids get (notwithstanding the pro-abstinence education).

Re:Its only about money

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, what was the source of all evil before there were BBSes? Was the world just a good and happy place?

Yes, except for all those dangerous phone chat lines.

Obviously, it is the ability to communicate with strangers that is the source of all evil; after all, didn't your parents teach you to never talk to strangers? Obviously, in order to make the world a good and safe place, we need to ban all forms of communication that allow people to exchange ideas and information with people that they don't already know.

Re:Its only about money

[Verteiron]

I've done tech support for years for family as well as professionally. It's true that there are a lot of people who remain ignorant of the features their bought-and-paid-for gizmos provide because they can't be bothered or don't have the time. I refuse to accept that as an excuse. Non-technical people -can- learn to work their own stuff, or they can call someone with the technical knowledge to do it for them. I've had dozens of parents bring computers or other equipment into my shop to do just that. These are non-technical people that still take responsibility for their children. If someone is serious about keeping their kid away from the bits of the internet they don't like, then they will do this. Otherwise, they obviously weren't that serious about it to begin with.

Oh, and as far as resetting the router with a paperclip and then blaming a power outage, that's a great way to lose one's computer-in-the-room privileges, as my friend's son found out.

Re:Its only about money

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn, today's local paper has a story about four people getting busted for child porn. One lives two blocks away from me, right down the street!

Even thoiugh the internet was involved, had there been no internet these sick perverted excuses for human beings would still be trafficing in child porn. Don't blame the internet; you might as well have a "mall danger month."

As the father of two now-grown girls, I can tell you that "think of the children" goes straight to any parent's heart, and the politicians know it and pander to it.

-mcgrew

Re:Its only about money

[JohnBailey]

OR..... and this is the completely off the wall innovative bit that nobody has ever thought of before..... !! Teach the kids to be responsible on the net.. Generations of kids have known better than to go off with the guy with the puppies in his van, or take sweets from a stranger, so why not apply the same logic to the net?

I know.. It goes against every scare story around.. BUT KIDS ARE NOT STUPID!! If it is explained to most kids what the real dangers are, then they will understand. Thus you avoid the infinitesimally small risk that actually exists instead of trying the impossible task of blocking any possibility of the hugely over rated and blown up out of all proportion pretend risk.

Re:Its only about money

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. Porn was the only useful sex education I ever received. It wasn't great for all the details, but it definitely showed what to do. Of course, it didn't touch on the biological aspects of it, but I had already picked those up.

Re:Its only about money

[cdrdude]

Without people being scared of porn on the internet there would be no need for internet filters.

I'm scared of not being able to find porn on the internet. While of course that will never happen, it's clear to me that the only filter we need is for our government so that they can live in happy ignorance (until they try to find their favorite porn site) so that we can all enjoy our porn in peace.

Re:Its only about money

[Dragonslicer]

who *should* pay the costs associated with shielding children from goatse et al?

The government. Stopping the spread of goatse is definitely in the public interest.

Re:Its only about money

[TFGeditor]

Mod parent +5 hilarious!

Re:Its only about money

[dapsychous]

What about the old "put it in a box with a lock on it" method?

We had to do this with the stereo way back when I was in high school drama. People kept popping in their tasteless (c)rap cds, and then were surprised to find out that everybody in the auditorium was looking back at them because the stereo was tied into the school's sound system. So, we took some wood, and make a box with a few vent holes around it. Viola! No more problem.

I went back for a musical with my little brother a few weeks ago, and there were the box and stereo, still right where they were, working perfectly years later.

Re:Its only about money

[Yoozer]

I've done tech support for years for family as well as professionally.

Then you have an intelligent family or generally clued-in customers ;).

It's true that there are a lot of people who remain ignorant of the features their bought-and-paid-for gizmos provide because they can't be bothered or don't have the time. I refuse to accept that as an excuse.

You will refuse - rightfully. They'll just see it as another useless hurdle because hey, internet works, why mess with it?

Non-technical people -can- learn to work their own stuff, or they can call someone with the technical knowledge to do it for them.

And so can the kids; with the advantage of them having the time and the most to gain from learning to work around any restriction. After all, technical sites usually don't have the naughty bits.

I've had dozens of parents bring computers or other equipment into my shop to do just that. These are non-technical people that still take responsibility for their children. If someone is serious about keeping their kid away from the bits of the internet they don't like, then they will do this. Otherwise, they obviously weren't that serious about it to begin with.

I still think the interface of the machines could use a good overhaul. Right now you have to worry about blocking certain IP addresses. We made people stop worrying about these numbers with DNS, yet we force them to use these numbers with a router. A router mfg might have an option to download a blacklist directly from their site with one click on a button - in the router interface itself. Dumb it down to having certain security levels (my kids are 13 and 15 so they can look at X but not at Y, or my kids are 6 and 8 so they can only look at Z), let the router phone home from time to time to update the list, and it will take off way, way faster than trying to make the non-tech people with their excuses learn how their hardware works.

Then again, that brings you back to the NetNanny idea, only this time an external hardware box is doing the work.

The worst danger of all:

[Anonymous Coward]

The worst danger of all: reading opinions that offend you.

Re:The worst danger of all:

[jimstapleton]

That's what's great about slashdot.

It's dangerous to everyone.

Re:The worst danger of all:

[morgan_greywolf]

The worst danger of all: reading opinions that offend you.

Hey! I'm offended by that, you insensitive clod!

Re:The worst danger of all:

[Anonymous Coward]

No, greatest danger of internet: not enough porn!

Re:The worst danger of all:

[sjwest]

Im scheduling book burning for January Feburary and March.

Volunteers required.

Re:The worst danger of all:

[mrogers]

Sorry I can't make it, but I'll delete some e-books if that will help. Just email them to me.

Re:The worst danger of all:

[Viper Daimao]

This title remind anyone else of The Terrible Secret of Space?

Priorities...

[Hucko]

Iraqis will be relieved now the occupation force is going to protect them from being called nasty names online.

Only 70 bucks a year??

[Magycian]

I'd be willing to pay that.. if it actually worked.

The only way to "protect" our kids is to educate them on the real dangers. Waiting until they are 18 so they can be allowed to access the web as they want to is a mistake. Filtering of the internet, other than porn sites, at school is also a mistake. Let them surf away, but put consequences in place when they mess up.

Some 80 year old congress critter, who's never used a computer for more than surfing porn and ordering interns, doesn't know what the dangers out there are. My daughter probably knows more about where not to go than they ever will.

But nanny-states are the wave of the future I guess.

Re:Only 70 bucks a year??

[mpe]

The only way to "protect" our kids is to educate them on the real dangers.

Thing is that these real dangers include "leaders" who have no life outside of politics. A simple metric would be "if it's newsworthy it's unusual" too.

Waiting until they are 18 so they can be allowed to access the web as they want to is a mistake.

On the other hand making 21 the minimum age of driving might not be a bad idea. Cars being many more orders of magnitude more dangerous than computers.

Filtering of the internet, other than porn sites, at school is also a mistake. Let them surf away, but put consequences in place when they mess up.

Though a lot of fuss is made about porn there are other far more troublesome issues, such as bandwidth and disk space hogging games and similar junk.

Re:Only 70 bucks a year??

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it'd be safer to ban new drivers from driving during daylight hours. At night, there is less traffic on the road so when they decide to become a candidate for a darwin award the accident will more likely be a one car accident. Darwin is appeased and no one else is hurt, win-win.

Re:Only 70 bucks a year??

[hesiod]

> Actually, it'd be safer to ban new drivers from driving during daylight hours.

During most of the year, "new drivers" are in High School during the day...

Re:Only 70 bucks a year??

[Anonymous Coward]

Though a lot of fuss is made about porn there are other far more troublesome issues, such as bandwidth and disk space hogging games and similar junk.
Filtering all that stuff is probably not a good idea. At my high school the filter they use (Bess) blocks things like Slashdot (Technical/Business Forum), any gaming site, any webmail site, and any "personal" site. Just this year they switched from a blacklist system to a whitelist. So yes, most of the Internet is blocked. I think there's probably a freedom of speech issue involved somewhere, but I just graduated so it doesn't really affect me anymore.

Re:Only 70 bucks a year??

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm just coming to the end of my training year as an ICT teacher. As such I've been to several schools in the UK and seen the type of filtering mechanisms in place at different institutions.

The school I'm at right now uses nothing but a blacklist of URLs, the only people who can't access anything they want are the teachers. I've actually seen one ask a student "I need to show something on YouTube for class, can you tell me a proxy? I promise I won't get it blocked afterwards".

Most schools do some kind of variation such as blocking key words, the really smart ones actually block google cache as well *roll eyes*.

However the one school that had zero problems with students going on sites they shouldn't during lessons had a very simple Internet policy: "If I see you on something you shouldn't be on, it's an instant 1 hour detention".

The moral of this story applies to parents as well.

Re:Only 70 bucks a year??

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, BSafe does work very well because it integrates itself into Windows' networking stack. I use this filter for myself, paying only $50/year for the filter-only option, because I want to spare myself from the exposure to or temptation from porn. Having my best friend and girlfriend read my weekly web usage reports helps immensely. The service has an extremely klunky and counter-intuitive interface, but it is a reliable filter, and (as far as I can tell being a reasonably computer-literate and Slashdot-reading individual) impossible to circumvent... other than booting off of a Ubuntu Live CD, of course. They even have two versions, a family version that picks a conservative set of static filters, and a professional version that let you pick and choose the categories that are blocked.

It's true that some parents use software like this as a cop-out from monitoring what their children do on the net, but I see it as one tool in the array of tactics parents can use to protect their children from smut and educate them on how to think critically about what they consume on net. I look forward to the day when I have kids and can discuss with them why a filter might choose to block a particular site.

Even though I use a filter, I still don't agree with all the propaganda about internet dangers, even from the CEO of a company whose product I have used for three years. For now, though, it is helping me in my quest to avoid porn, which is a habit that would destroy my relationship with my girlfriend, who doesn't want to be compared to images of air-brushed, surgery-enhanced sluts.

Re:Only 70 bucks a year??

[kinglink]

But what about us who hang out with pornographers and predators. They have great stories and then you can watch them being carted off by the undercover cops. Won't you think of the snitches?

...extreme negativity is disappointing

[$RANDOMLUSER]

Yeah, Mark Foley wanted us all to know the dangers of teh interwebs...

Re:...extreme negativity is disappointing

[Anonymous Coward]

I will stick to the World Wide Net.

Cyber Bullying...

[Broken scope]

So.. how do you stop them? Block all IM software? Block all social networking sites? Do they have a fucking rational explanation at all?

How do you stop a cyber bully? Escalate it. When they start a fight with you, they rely on the fact that you won't fight back. Push them past the point where they are comfortable, they will back down very quickly.

Re:Cyber Bullying...

[Travoltus]

Where I came from, that led to more than one drive-by shooting, stabbing, or serious injury (of the bully or the bullied, in equal ratio).

The solution is to identify the bully and apply parental control upon his butt. You know, like we do with adults. Felony assault/stalking/etc. = jail time and all that.

Re:Cyber Bullying...

[speaker of the truth]

The problem with applying parental control is the parents often don't care and see what their child is doing as "a necessary act for the betterment of society." They're the sort who will often make claims that they were bullied growing up and it helped them become stronger people. It really is sick seeing how American society not only tolerates the bullying that occurs, but justifies it. Often its like seeing rapists and rape victims coming together to proclaim that rape is a necessary part of life that will make people stronger as they overcome the psychological trauma.

Absolutely sickening.

Re:Cyber Bullying...

[Broken scope]

Where I came from waiting for the parents to get involved got the victim in suspension then got him beat up again the day he got out.

Where I came from waiting for the adults to get involved got someones face smashed into a locker. It's not cheap to replace teeth sometimes.

That was only in middle school.

After a while you start to realize that you get the same punishment for fighting back that you got for being a punching bag.

Then again this was a predominantly white middle class suburban area. Parents don't give a fuck till there little angel is in trouble, then they get involved just long enough to scream how their angel wouldn't do a thing.

Re:Cyber Bullying...

[TheRaven64]

A lot of the problem is that (here in the UK, at least) the term 'bullying' has been expanded to mean 'any behaviour that makes the victim feel uncomfortable.' There are some situations in which 'bullying' should simply be dealt with by the 'victim.' Others are beyond the ability of a child to handle, and need intervention. Some of my parents' contemporaries were expected to deal with the kind of bullying on their own that really should have been handled by the school or some other adult authority. Some of mine were able to run to teachers and have them intervene for incredibly minor things; a seven year old being told that there was a monster in the toilets by some eight year olds was classed as 'bullying' at my school.

If you coddle children too much, then they won't grow up at all. I don't want to live in a society where 'run to authority' is the solution to any form of mildly antisocial behaviour any more than I want to live in one where vigilante action is the response to any criminal act.

Re:Cyber Bullying...

[Nimey]

You and me both. I would get picked on, I tried to fight back[1], I got suspended. Every time. Fucking pinhead principal kept telling me to go fetch a teacher when someone did that.

Yeah, I'm supposed to walk off when someone's following me and hitting me, look for a teacher when the nearest may be a ways away[2], and tattle. /That/ won't get my butt kicked after school for being a rat. Gods forbid I try to be manly enough to defend myself.[3]

Fifteen years later and I'm still a little bitter. At least I'm in a different town and don't have to see any of those fuckers anymore.

[1] As much as I could, since I have no depth perception and thus can't accurately throw a punch.
[2] Nobody's stupid enough to start a fight where a teacher might *see* you.
[3] Did start carrying a Swiss army knife for just such an occasion. This was before ZOMG Columbine!, and I only had to wave it threateningly once outside of school.

Re:Cyber Bullying...

[jc42]

Sounds just like my upbringing.

The internet does have one advantage over Real Life [RL] when it comes to bullying and other aggressive types: You can usually just not reply. With a lot of software, you can "killfile" them, and then they never bother you again (or at least not until they learn how to get a new login id ;-).

It's difficult for a bully to do physical damage to someone via the internet; the most they can do is waste your time as you hit the Delete key.

I've even used this approach here on /., in the occasional cases where a reply has contained threats. But when I casually ignored them and didn't reply at all (and/or flagged them as a foe), I never heard from them again. This doesn't work so well in RL.

Re:Cyber Bullying...

[Broken scope]

Please don't take that as "Kids should handle it themselves"

What Im trying to say with that is, kids should be taught to be self reliant. Yes, authority does need to change the way bullying is handled, but authority isn't alway present, just like the police isn't always there. Ignoring a threat/ head in the sand/ letting them do what they want can be just as dangerous as trying to stop everything yourself. Its all about judgment and using it.

Re:Cyber Bullying...

[coolGuyZak]

[2] Nobody's stupid enough to start a fight where a teacher might *see* you.

Oh, contraire, my friend. I know just a person stupid enough to do that: me. An acquaintance of mine pissed me off in lunch one day, so I slugged him--right in the middle of the cafeteria. Not only did it attract the attention of every one of my peers, but also 2 teachers and a security guard, who removed both of us from the caf.

Luckily for me, I am a weakling, so the kid I hit didn't care. He was more surprised that I could get worked up enough to hit anyone. Furthermore, I have a habit of making friends of authority figures*, so the guard let me off the hook. The really odd thing is the other students began treating me with more respect after that**. I guess it's a "that took balls" type of moment.

* While this has served me quite well over the past 23 years, it attracts bullies like bees to honey.

** including the kid I hit, whose remarks were reduced to my inability to fight--something I was quite comfortable with.

Re:Cyber Bullying...

[Anonymous Coward]

Back in school (10-15 years ago) my backpack was filled with all sorts of useful things for kids like me who did many extra curricular activities and sports and such before and after school. I had the usual bottled water, snacks, extra changes of cloths, books, calculator, stapler, staple puller, tape, rulers, protractor, etc. Also things like scissors/pocket knife for removing taped shoes and sports protection gear, mag flashlight, push pins, paper clips, etc. Everything i would need from when i left my house in the morning, til i got back late that evening. I couldn't imagine what would happen if a kid tried to bring my backpack to school today. I'm surprised they haven't gotten rid of pens and pencils because of how 'dangerous' they are.

To play devil's advocate...

[beavis88]

Had any of them voted against this resolution, it would have immediately been held up as proof that they loved pedophiles and hated America - and a substantial portion of the electorate would have bought it hook, line, and sinker (just like this resolution). C'mon, you think I'm trolling, but you know I'm right.

Re:To play devil's advocate...

[dintech]

No you're clearly not trolling and one hundred percent correct. Polititians will almost always take the easy option. "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

Re:To play devil's advocate...

[gd23ka]

I like to believe that people like them are mostly pedophiles and hate America.

Re:To play devil's advocate...

[deblau]

Had any of them voted against this resolution, they would have had to:

1. Care, and
2. Be in the room at the time the vote was called.

Likely, neither of these two things were true, because this resolution is just blowing smoke. Unanimous consent votes happen ALL THE TIME in Congress -- they're the equivalent of the chair asking whoever happens to be in the room (usually a small handful of Senators) "does anyone object to this". 99.9% of the time, no one objects, because it's not important enough to exercise the vocal chords.

Re:To play devil's advocate...

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's stop caring if they think we hate america, we all know we're right. They're just out of touch, what with all of their BS politics.

Re:To play devil's advocate...

[Anonymous Coward]

Fox News would've said your Congressman wants your child to see boobies.

Re:To play devil's advocate...

[Neo_piper]

I agree, this is just a resolution to make another "National ***** Month".
The only criminal thing here is the waste of time, money and paper writing it up.
It's just like "National Soft Pretzel Month" does anyone care that April is N.S.P.M.? No, not MOST people at least.
Will N.S.P.M. be the end of peace, justice and the crunchy way of life? I seriously doubt it.
Will we hear advertisements, see commercials, get junk mail about this? Yea probably.
Does it make one lick of difference? Yes but only to the people who compose, print and deliver the junk mail, commercials and advertisements.

Re:To play devil's advocate...

[Anonymous Coward]

I beg your pardon, but that rationale is nothing but an apology for groupthink. The pressure was on to vote "yes", and the penalty for not doing so was severe. And so they all voted "yes".

Let's think about this for a minute.

Couldn't this rationale ("groupthink made them do it") be used to justify basically ANY power grab? There's certainly nothing special about this particular power grab -- it's only the latest in a long line of expansions of government power -- and certainly nothing special about groupthink being used to advance the agenda of the power elite. Hell, it's probably the most important tactic in the game of politics.

Why in the world would anyone want to give them the benefit of the doubt, for ANYTHING they do? We are talking about government, the organization holding the special right to employ coercion as their business model! Now I like to give people the benefit of the doubt too -- I'm a nice guy -- but for christ's sake, don't be an apologist for the power elite.

The ongoing fear campaign

[TripMaster Monkey]

It's a truly sad state of affairs when the U.S. is so transparently motivated and coerced by fear.

Re:The ongoing fear campaign

[Anonymous Coward]

But Bush recently came out and said it was sad that the Democrats are using fear for political purposes. Im so glad we have such a level headed commander who tells it like it is.

Re:The ongoing fear campaign

[Lumpy]

No you are way off.

It is truly sad that America is fine with seeing a human being ground to bits alive in a meat grinder or other horrific violence acts but freaks out and starts screaming if a child sees a breast.

If a child it taught to be freaked out about nudity it teaches them to hate themselves and their sexuality as well as causes a crap load of social and mental problems in them as an adult. It was proven that puritan lifestyle is detrimental yet idiots in this country force it upon everyone they can.

That is what is truly sad.

Re:The ongoing fear campaign

[timon]

The current state of affairs in the US is a paranoid's wet dream.

Re:The ongoing fear campaign

[ColeonyxOnline]

It is truly sad that America is fine with seeing a human being ground to bits alive in a meat grinder or other horrific violence acts but freaks out and starts screaming if a child sees a breast.

And they should freak out, specially since the "show" in which the breast appeared was not rated TV-14.

The problem here has nothing to do with the wardrobe malfunction. It has to do with parents wanting a cheap babysitter on the Internet. They already get free child care from the state on the schools, on TV, now they want the same thing out of the Internet, but unlike the schools and TV, there is not way to regulate the Net in order to achieve that without taking everyone's rights away.

The problem here is, the Internet is not a place for kids to stay alone. If a parent cannot supervise his kid, he should not allow the kid to use it.

Re:The ongoing fear campaign

[japh-to]

Agree, but that the average person is buying this 'fear agenda' after all this time makes me weep for my country. We have lost so much in the past six years in terms of international standing, respect for basic rule of law, etc. just because we're scared. It will take decades to repair the damage done to America.

Now the Senate votes to protect us from the Internet 'tubes'. Just something else for the average American to fear. We don't need more laws, we need parents willing to talk to their kids.

I have two teenagers. My son is 14 and my daughter is 13. This is how I protect them from the Internet.

- My wife and I talk to them about the crazies they might 'meet' online. BTW, we have also talked to them about sex, STDs, preventing pregnancy, dating, etc.

- They have full access to the net from behind a firewall. The firewall does not filter outgoing traffic. They can explore any topic that suits them. They're not into chat rooms, but they are not blocked from using them.

- If they come across anything 'weird', they know they can talk to us about it in an honest manner.

Re:The ongoing fear campaign

[Anonymous Coward]

dude, most of the world you go to the beach and you see bare breasts everywhere all the time.

If you freak out about boobies, or children seeing boobies then you really need to grow up.

Heh, I said boobies!

Re:The ongoing fear campaign

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's truly a sad state of affairs to find that you still have a legion of fanbois who waste their mod points on your inane one-liners. Meanwhile, far more interesting and insightful comments will have to go without the potential for being modded up because your fanbois wasted their points on your drivel.

Re:The ongoing fear campaign

[BBLocker]

It was proven that puritan lifestyle is detrimental yet idiots in this country force it upon everyone they can. For the sake of argument, when/where was this proven? I'd like to read the study.

Re:The ongoing fear campaign

[jvkjvk]

I think you have that backwards. Showing naked people on tv shouldn't necessarily be rated anything. Everyone is naked under their clothes. Everyone is naked at some point in their life. People do have bodies, let's not teach them to be ashamed of them.

Re:The ongoing fear campaign

[dcam]

Yes. You've come a long way.

Re:The ongoing fear campaign

[Thing 1]

If a child it taught to be freaked out about nudity it teaches them to hate themselves and their sexuality as well as causes a crap load of social and mental problems in them as an adult. It was proven that puritan lifestyle is detrimental yet idiots in this country force it upon everyone they can.

That is what is truly sad.

I am truly grateful to whoever it is that put the MGM bill in their signature. I would not have known about it otherwise, and started asking questions like, why is this still done? What would sex be like if I had those extra ten to twenty thousand nerve endings? Why would doctors go to jail if they mutilated a female infant's genitalia, but boys are fair game?

You hit the nail on the head: this country was founded by a bunch of Puritans, who mostly hated themselves and their sexuality.

I mean, c'mon, "it's tough to clean so we should remove it" -- it's also tough to clean behind the ears, but advance the idea that we should cut off our children's ears to keep them clean and it would be ridiculed like the absurd proposition it is. But instead they fall back on religion to continue their campaign of scarring the helpless for life.

I agree with you. It is truly sad that Congress can raise a shitstorm and pass laws banning the Internet, but can't be bothered to pass laws banning monsters with knives. The latter most definitely affects our children, whereas the former is questionable at best.

Re:The ongoing fear campaign

[vuffi_raa]

I think that depends on whose body we are looking at....

Free Speech

[palewook]

#1 danger. stay away from the net. run, its bad.

Re:Free Speech

[mikiN]

In the '50s, they told people to "Duck and Cover" in the event of a nuclear explosion.
Should people now, in the 21st century, just "Unplug and Cower" when something on the evil Internet rears its ugly head and comes for them?

Critical Thinking!

[OpenGLFan]

Yes, the Internet is full of things that can be dangerous. Fortunately, all that's needed to save you is applying a little critical thinking.

Curiously enough, that's also the cure for cutting through most of the BS that Congress tries to pass off every day. Two for the price of one!

Re:Critical Thinking!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the Internet is full of things that can be dangerous. Fortunately, all that's needed to save you is applying a little critical thinking.

So basically, you are saying that you think Congress is right, that Americans do need protection?

These people govern for _all_ , not just techies

[tezza]

I'm sorry to point out the obvious, but slashdot is very skilled in technology and the implications compared to the wider populace. The government deals with all peoples of all capabilities. Some are young, some unable and some just uninformed. But they still need some help sometimes.

There are people who need protection, occasionally from themselves. They deserve every opportunity to be informed. Those who need protection:

* Don't read blogs
* Don't shred their bank statements
* Don't read lifehacker, digg, reddit, slashdot
* Don't read mainstream press or Wired
* May believe they are protected by "Guardian Angels", karma, astral-projections and generally need help with everything
* Native communities who don't have a mainstream existence.
* The list goes on.

But the internet can be a place for bad people to take advantage of others. Why pretend people should not be informed that it can be perverted that way??

But the internet really is dangerous.

[Anonymous Coward]

The internet is not corporeal, but aside from that, it is a playground for children and a brothel, a church and a warzone, a school and a propaganda machine, a pharmacy and a drug dealer, a boutique and a counterfeit dealer, a town plaza and a dark alley - all in one place.

Corruption through encouraging stupid people.

[Futurepower(R)]

One way those who want corruption in government achieve their goals is finding ways to prevent intelligent people from being elected, and helping un-intelligent people be elected.

We are seeing now the effects of years of effort by the forces of corruption. The people who are supposed to be leading our country are ignorant and mentally weak, and don't even hire smart people.

This resolution says, "We in the senate are stupid, and we think you are even more stupid, because we think we can manipulate you to get votes."

Re:Corruption through encouraging stupid people.

[jc42]

This resolution says, "We in the senate are stupid, and we think you are even more stupid, because we think we can manipulate you to get votes."

And for most of the people involved, they're right on both counts. ;-)

Re:Corruption through encouraging stupid people.

[bayankaran]

We are seeing now the effects of years of effort by the forces of corruption. The people who are supposed to be leading our country are ignorant and mentally weak, and don't even hire smart people.

Every country gets (or elects) the government they deserve.

It passed unanimously...

[Elemenope]

But I'd be curious to know just how many senators actually showed up to vote for the damn thing. I didn't read TFA so I do not know if that info is available in the article (this is Slashdot, after all), but usually for this sort of nonsense, reps and senators don't go out of their way to vote on resolutions if they have something better to do.

Re:It passed unanimously...

[Anonymous Coward]

The first thing I thought after seeing that this passed unanimously is that a certain 7 presidential candidates just flushed their campaigns down the intertubes. Either (a) they were too busy nearly campaigning a year and a half before the elections to show up, (b) they were too worried about their image to vote against a stupid resolution, or (c) they voted for it and just lost all confidence from the geek voters. Any way you slice it, this bodes poorly for Biden(D,Delaware), Brownback(R,Kansas), Clinton(D,New York), Dodd(D,Connecticut), Hagel(R,Nebraska), McCain(R,Arizona), and Obama(D,Illinois).

What????

[EuroMike]

The internet is dangerous? Oh, for Zog's sake. Yeah, and cars are dangerous too if you allow unqualified people to drive them with several litres of beer in their systems. Is the next step in this crazy world to announce a "Cars Are Dangerous" month? I can really see Ford and GM going for that one.... More proof, if needed, that those who legislate often have no idea about the subjects they are talking about. And if it's something new, that counts double. But of course, what we don't understand we fear, and what we fear we try to destroy, or ridicule, or ignore in the hope it'll just go away.

Re:What????

[mikiN]

Life is an extremely dangerous and deadly disease. No matter how long it lasts, it has a 100% mortality rate.

Re:These people govern for _all_ , not just techie

[frogstar_robot]

I'll stand this on it's head: Why should the technically competent or even just those with a lick of common sense be penalized for the actions of the stupid?

Just Remember

[angrist]

The "Three Rules of the Internet"

1) Every guy is ... some dude.
2) Everyone claiming to be a woman is ... some dude
3) Everyone claiming to be a small child is ... an FBI agent

Re:Just Remember

[SighKoPath]

I believe you mean:
3) Everyone claiming to be a small child is ... an FBI agent or from Dateline.

I'm not sure which is more frightening.

Re:Just Remember

[Anonymous Coward]

4) Judging from this "joke," on the Internet it's always 1996.

Offensive opinions...

[TheFlyingWonka]

Fortunately thanks to the Reversal of Freedoms Act of 1994, offensive opinions will no longer bounce around the internet, confusing our children and frightening our old people! The current administration (having just discovered that said law was in fact not just a joke invented by the "Simpsons" writing staff) has decided to create several "freedom camps" in various abandoned prisons around the country, in order to free us all from this tyranny of offensive ideas...no more will you have to hear that the United States isn't the greatest country on Earth, that corporations may be ripping us off, that the President resembles a chimp of some kind...Operation Freedom From Ourselves is now underway! And don't worry, future freedom camp guests, we haven't forgotten about you either! Bill Maher will be doing his standup act at Freedom Camp "Moral Virtue" (formerly known as Alcatraz) starting next week! And Michael Moore will be taking his "human pinata" act on a tour of all the camps! Also, anyone that would be so kind as to forward the location of that Stephen Colbert person will be entered in a raffle to win a Chrysler PT Cruiser (red) and a month's extra supply of rations.

Counter with a positive campaign

[syousef]

How about we counter with a positive campaign highlighting everything good about the net.

In no particular order
1) Information at the tip of your fingers. From rare medical problems to gossip about soap stars it's all at your fingertips
2) Positive for the economy.
3) Broadens your horizons
4) Meet and connect with people you'd never otherwise be able to
5) Develop your writing and arguing skills
6) Find people with common intests
7) Scientific collaboration and data transfer on a scale never before possible
8) Avoid queues by taking advantage of electronic payment

The net is great. If idiots want to scare monger, sane people should counter.

Re:Counter with a positive campaign

[speaker of the truth]

Here's the full story on your examples....

1) That will hurt hypchondriacs and make soap stars' lives even worse as bloggers become paparazzi.
2) As more jobs move online allowing people to no longer be in a physical workplace which allows the jobs to be offshored to India.
3) As you discovery what tentacle rape is along with NAMBLA.
4) As criminals from jail get internet access.
5) With jihadists who wished you were dead.
6) Who then turn out to be complete psychopaths revealing to you just how sick you truly are.
7) Allowing the terrorists to make new strains of anthrax.
8) That require your details to be entered over an unsecure medium which is then given to hackers.

The net is great, for the criminals. If idiots want to hide their head in the sand, sane people should counter.

The net isn't great, it isn't terrible. Its simply a tool that can be used for both good and evil. Unfortunately many use it for the latter while many others use it for the former, you must be careful to avoid the latter. Most clueless people simply aren't informed enough to efficiently avoid the latter.

Re:Counter with a positive campaign

[Anonymous Coward]

The net isn't great, it isn't terrible. So that's sorta like democracy?

Re:Counter with a positive campaign

[jafac]

No.

The number one great thing about the internet is:

DIS-INTER-MEDIATION.

The violent death and destruction via obsolescence of the greatest evil man has ever known: The Middleman.

(unfortunately: only to be replaced by other middlemen)

Re:Counter with a positive campaign

[jafac]

Its simply a tool that can be used for both good and evil. Unfortunately many use it for the latter while many others use it for the former, you must be careful to avoid the latter. Most clueless people simply aren't informed enough to efficiently avoid the latter.

Well, that's been true about human use of tools since the first caveman set a forest fire to flush out game.

I mean, tell me, who's never used a screwdriver as a prybar?

Re:Counter with a positive campaign

[Chandon Seldon]

Powerful tools are a good thing, not something bad because they can be "used for evil". Criminals are a relevant social problem, but the belief that everyone should be denied the use of powerful tools because some few people might be able to use them to accomplish something you don't approve of is absurd. Accomplishing things is much more important than thwarting people.

Re:Counter with a positive campaign

[syousef]

Well of course a sharp knife can be used to carve a meal or to kill a mah, but the Internet isn't "simply" a tool. It empowers people. If I don't have a knife or any one simple tool no biggie, I find my way around it. The Internet does so much more than any one simple tool.

Re:Counter with a positive campaign

[Anonymous Coward]

5) Develop your writing and arguing skills

lol dats a gud 1

It is actually Senate Resolution 205, not 207

[acvh]

and if this is what they're doing in Washington while Iraq burns it's time for the revolution.

Re:It is actually Senate Resolution 205, not 207

[EuroMike]

If I had mod points, and I could, you'd get all five of them.

I'd imagine the US government has much more important things it could be discussing, Iraq (from either viewpoint's stance) being just one.

Re:It is actually Senate Resolution 205, not 207

[Targon]

It will take another 15 to 20 years before the people in this country are ready to fight for the freedoms that this country was founded on. The people are happy enough NOT to fight, but at the rate things are going, it will take a bit longer.

We see illegal immigrants getting more services(including health care that they never plan to pay the bill for) than those who were born here and have been paying taxes and generally following the rules. We see a continual degradation of our rights to privacy while protection goes out the window. We see no fundamental changes to the education system that would really help solve the problems. We also see more of a focus on helping those in other countries than in helping the lower and middle class citizens improve their lives(which would help the economy more than giving 2 billion dollars to oil companies).

So, they focus on stupid resolutions about the Internet, because they really have no clue about how to fix the REAL problems in this country.

Re:It is actually Senate Resolution 205, not 207

[Anonymous Coward]

I forget what the logical fallacy is called, but you're claiming that, while there's something more important to do, we shouldn't do the less important things. So, using that same logic, it's equally valid to say, "while the war in Iraq goes on, you shouldn't be eating." After all, you should be spending your time doing something stop that war, and eating just wastes time. It's obviously not as important that you eat as it is that you help stop a war, right?

Mods: just because it's anti-bus, or anti-us, or anti-war doesn't mean it's right.

Re:It is actually Senate Resolution 205, not 207

[Red Flayer]

We see illegal immigrants getting more services(including health care that they never plan to pay the bill for) than those who were born here and have been paying taxes and generally following the rules.

What?

Even including your healthcare example (and I know *plenty* of non-immigrants who welch on their hospital bills), immigrants do indeed pay for those services, via working for lower wages. It is the employers of the illegal immigrants who are getting the financial benefits of those ~free services at your expense, not the immigrants themselves. Also, can you provide some kind of citation for that? As far as I know, it's FUD, as the comprehensive studies I've seen show that illegal immigrants actually receive less benefits than poor citizens -- and are more likely to pay things like property taxes because of the fear of deportation.

We also see more of a focus on helping those in other countries than in helping the lower and middle class citizens improve their lives.

Again, what? Tuition assistance, student loans, Social Security, welfare, Medicare/medicaid? Just because a ton of the foreign programs are in the news doesn't mean that there isn't a larger fiscal focus on helping the poor here.

Oh, I agree with the gist of your post, it's just that you've picked extremely poor (and factually incorrect) examples to make your point.

Re:It is actually Senate Resolution 205, not 207

[colinrichardday]

How long can one live without eating? And if living isn't important, then what is?

Also, I suspect that the GP meant that such resolutions are of so little importance (and the Senate has more important issues), that it should not waste its time on them.

Re:It is actually Senate Resolution 205, not 207

[mikiN]

Don't forget that beach party in Heiligenbrunn, Germany, where politicians of a few rich countries discuss the fate of the rest of us...

Re:It is actually Senate Resolution 205, not 207

[mikiN]

HeiligenDAMM(n'it) :-)

Re:It is actually Senate Resolution 205, not 207

[Targon]

Check the hospitals on Long Island, NY for an example of this in action. A resident of the area who speaks English, has ID, and everything has to jump through a LOT of hoops while those who don't speak English and has no ID gets pushed through. State law forces the hospitals to accept EVERYONE who shows up, but in many cases, those with ID and who WILL pay the bill at the end get sub-par service from the hospitals.

On the east end of Long Island, those "undocumented workers" also get paid decently for landscaping work, and even those who are here legally and on the books don't get paid any less. There have also been cases of English speaking people not being hired because they don't speak Spanish because most of the other employees don't speak English.

Re:It is actually Senate Resolution 205, not 207

[accessdeniednsp]

What channel should I set my TiVo to record? I don't wanna miss it!

Re:It is actually Senate Resolution 205, not 207

[Chandon Seldon]

Tuition assistance, student loans

You call putting poor people in debt for 20 years for their BA in Art History "helping the poor"? There really isn't non-loan "tuition assistance" in the USA any more, and student loans basically just keep people poor.

Social Security, ..., Medicare/medicaid?

It turns out that old people actually vote. This is just appeasing the one category of actual voters.

welfare

Economically, welfare as implemented in the United States is an utter mess. It might be possible to get it right, but what we have now is worse than nothing - it basically just subsidizes unemployment.

Re:It is actually Senate Resolution 205, not 207

[scwizard]

We see illegal immigrants getting more services(including health care that they never plan to pay the bill for) than those who were born here and have been paying taxes and generally following the rules.

I know illegal immigrants. While they shouldn't get as much services as they do, they generally follow the rules and sometimes even pay taxes to.

We see no fundamental changes to the education system that would really help solve the problems.

Well there are always incremental local changes, but the fundemental change that really needs to be made to the public education system is to scrap it and start from scratch.

We also see more of a focus on helping those in other countries than in helping the lower and middle class citizens improve their lives

I agree with you 100% there. Why the hell are we trying to help and liberate Iraq anyway?

Re:It is actually Senate Resolution 205, not 207

[scwizard]

Oh man, I posted that comment when I was far too tired. What was I thinking...

So drop a dime

[Anonymous Coward]

If they're all in one place, how long would it take the cops to round up a brothel, a drug dealer, and a counterfeiter?

old geezers

[raventh1]

All of the old people in America either get with the program or DIE, If they'd only just learn new things, or even just about new things instead of passing laws against them.

Re:old geezers

[westlake]

All of the old people in America either get with the program or DIE, If they'd only just learn new things, or even just about new things instead of passing laws against them.

we age. we change. most of us, anyway.

the parent does not see the net as the eternally-adolescent geek sees the net.

Re:old geezers

[stormi]

+5 Insightful

Re:old geezers

[WilliamSChips]

But the people passing this law are the sort of people who think that the net is something they receive from their staff unless the tubes are clogged.

Strike a deal with me!

[Anonymous Coward]

And keeping those pornographers and sexual predators away will cost you a mere $70 a year...

Hi, I'm a professional predator and pornographer, as well as quite sexual, and I will stay away for only half as much. So, 45 USD per year it is then? Do we have a deal?

back in the day

[schlichte]

D.A.R.E. = BSafe (and equivalent)

Just Say No = Just Dont Click

Strength in Numbers = NetNanny (and equivalent)

More and more Im noticing a tremendous drop in worrying about real world dangers and a frightening increase in virtual dangers.

My parents were worried about Drive-bys, Drugs and gangs...

Parents today worry about Video-games, Cyberbullying and Porn.

I guess by todays standards... Video games would be the Gangs, Cyberbullying would be the Drive-bys, and Drugs would be the porn?

Re:back in the day

[skeevy]

Maybe it's a good sign that parents are worrying about relative trivia. Back in the day I used to worry about Nuclear Annihilation.

Then again, maybe it's just blindness or apathy to things they REALLY should be worried about.

Re:back in the day

[belg4mit]

According to the Doomsday clock you shoudl still be worried about nuclear annhiliation,
though not so much for the reasons Bush would have you believe (Axis of Aevil). No, we
just numb to any given permanent/eminent threat that's yielded no major developments
after awhile. Look at the people who live on top of active volcanoes (Vesuvius) for example.

And my Creepy Crawler molds were hot....

[AetherBurner]

Yea, and? I used to have a Creepy Crawler maker that had the electric hot plate, the metal molds, the cooling water bath, and GOOP. I knew it was hot and was careful about it. Never burned myself. Now, its a lightbulb and a temperature regulated door. Sounds like the Feds want to pull a China on the internet.

Re:These people govern for _all_ , not just techie

[lcall]

The dangers of internet porn to families is real. There was a good series of articles on dealing with the issue at the family level: http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,660213821,00 .html

give me a break

[grev]

This is a battle they must fight everyday with their children in order to keep pornographers, sexual predators and cyber-bullies at bay.

Porn is good.
Family members are much more likely to engage in sexual abuse than some weirdo from the internet.
Cyber-bullies: Internet. Serious Business.

The internet killed my best friend :(

[Anonymous Coward]

I tried to tell The Internet to stop, but it kept beating on my best friend Jake. He was beaten to a pulp, Jake's blood ran down the streets of the Information Superhighway like water down Niagra Falls. Just when I thought the beating was over, The Internet pulled out a 9mm Glock and fired two shots into the head of my best friend. The Internet dropped the gun on the floor and walked out Michael Corleone-style. On that day I swore revenge.

Innoculation?

[vigmeister]

I'd say a dangerous web is vital to those of us who learnt things the hard way. I am not uber-1337, but I learnt from experience that that downloading cracks leads you to pages with naked chicks on them and then 2 weeks later your computer slows down. I learnt to google (actually it was megaspider back then) for stuff as a means to find reliable information rather than blindly believe things people say online. To some extent, giving a kid an unrestricted broadband connection and letting him learn from his/her mistakes is the best way to make a good netizen. However, this ought to be accompanied by some tools & words of wisdom for younger kids like "Use wikipedia to verify stuff", "It's easy for you to lie on the internet" etc...

Maybe I am just wrong about this issue, but I think I was helped in becoming a good netizen by my personal sense of morality and my parents inability to understand what a computer was for and their consequent rejection of the pipes.

Cheers!

Nothing to see here folks

[deblau]

Latest Major Action: 5/16/2007 Passed/agreed to in Senate.

Status: Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent.

OK, so Lisa Murkowski (the other senator from Alaska, not this guy) introduced a bill which passed with unanimous consent. You know what that means? The chair asked if anyone objected, and no one spoke up. Entirely probable, since there were likely only three Senators in the room at the time, one of whom can't vote and one who introduced it in the first place.

Here is the entire text of the debate surrounding this bill, including the text of the bill itself, which seems to be aimed at "promoting awareness" of "online bullying."

Re:Nothing to see here folks

[Aladrin]

Granted, it doesn't mean 100% of them chose not to vote against it, but that doesn't mean there were 'likely only three Senators in the room'. You're apparently taking the bar exam soon, so you should know the importance of knowing what you're talking about, instead of just making stuff up. Was there really nowhere you could have checked to see the attendance at the time? Having actual data would make your point very strong, because it's likely you are on the right path.

Re:These people govern for _all_ , not just techie

[Elemenope]

An excellent point. My only problem is that policy makers are human beings, and as such are tempted to use the public's ignorance on subjects of concern to squeeze through what would be an otherwise unpopular law or policy agenda by attaching it to something that people are generally fearful of but possess little understanding. If you are tech-tarded parent, and you listen to the news and hear the OMG Child Pornographerz are HERE!!!!11!1! stories every fifteen minutes, you are not only scared of the big bad interweb, but you are likely as not wondering why the government isn't "doing something about it". In a state of such fear, concerns for free flow of information, civil liberties, or simply easy access to pornography for viewing pleasure take a way back seat to the protection of your child.

I think the cynic in me screams that a kind and friendly warning from our friends the Government all too often morphs into something a great deal more sinister down the road. And while it is the government's job to serve all of its citizens, not just the tech-savvy ones, I don't want that egalitarian zeal to ruin access to the various valuable experiences that can come with engaging in unhealthy and/or risky behavior. I can't even get fries with trans fats anymore, damn it!

Re:These people govern for _all_ , not just techie

[TheOldSchooler]

No kidding, I think your typical Slashdot posters overlook these problems and assume that everyone should be as knowledgable as them about technology. Just wait until someday many of them become parents with full time jobs who don't have time to read every tech blog in existance. They might change their minds about censor/nanny type software after the first time their 11 year old visits a couple porn sites.

No, POLITICIANS fail to understand technology

[d3ac0n]

Hmmm...

Seems to me it passed UNANIMOUSLY.

So that would include the Congressional BLACK caucus

the Gay and Lesbian caucus

the Women's caucus

the Asian-American caucus

did I leave anyone out?

Oh yeah, the one-man Muslim caucus, Keith Ellison.

Yep, looks like the stupidity of politicians is a universal constant, regardless of your race, religion, political affiliation, or sex.

Now take your white men bashing and stuff it.

I was raped by tubes

[StealthyRoid]

So, this one day, I'm just chillin on my laptop, like usual, and I open up some new fangled thing called a bloog? a blorg? Whatever. Anyway, so I open up this bloogleborg, and TUBES LEPT OUT OF MY COMPUTER AND SODOMIZED ME .

This is serious business people. I had a friend get his house robbed by an Internet that one of his friends sent him. The dangers of the internet are no laughing matter, I know from experience!

The above may have actually been a quote from the debate (if there was any) leading up to this senseless resolution. It kind of shows what happens when you let a bunch of people who formed their ideas about how the world works under the Eisenhower administration run everything 50 years later, and it's damn depressing. The outcome is the same as it would be if you let your grandma's nursing home bridge group make InnerTubes (tm) policy for the country. Of course, it's also the natural outcome of letting a government become so large and expansive that it's willing to make vast pronouncements from on high about things that it knows absolutely nothing about, because, well, it's FOR THE CHIRREN!!!!

Are there dangers associated with the Internet? Of course there are. Life is dangerous. You go outside, you can be hit by a car. You stay inside, a meteor could come crashing down on you. Eat some food, could be poison! There are always risks. The way to NOT get screwed by cars/meteors/poison/interwebz is not to scream about how the things themselves are dangerous, because that's silly. Cars and houses and sidewalks and computers and guns (that's right, guns) are all things that will cause no harm when you a.) know how to use them, and b.) aren't stupid about it. Yes, you should not let your children go to www.wantsomecandylittleboy.com . You should also not step on the accelerator in the middle of a traffic jam.

I don't even know why I need to explain this. Is this the end time?

Re:I was raped by tubes

[the_humeister]

So, this one day, I'm just chillin on my laptop, like usual, and I open up some new fangled thing called a bloog? a blorg? Whatever. Anyway, so I open up this bloogleborg, and TUBES LEPT OUT OF MY COMPUTER AND SODOMIZED ME

Are you sure they weren't tentacles?

$70 a year!?

[2008]

That's almost as much as I spend on pornography!

Re:$70 a year!?

[thegnu]

That's almost as much as I spend on pornography!

poseur

Re:$70 a year!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, who *pays* for porn? Just turn off "safesearch" in google, and you can get more porn than any mortal male could use, jerking off 4 times a day every day (that's about the maximum sustainable rate for the average human male. You can do spurts (snigger) of more per day, but you'll wear out) for the rest of his life.

Re:$70 a year!?

[Anonymous Coward]

...in a week!

Re:$70 a year!?

[Anonymous Coward]

amateur.

eek how did cowboy neal know the anti-spam word was "spilled", sick bastards all.

The Senate is dangerous. So is the President.

[Anonymous Coward]

The internet is not dangerous. The Senate is full of fools. They should address real dangers, like the lack of guard rails on highway off ramps. If you fly, you are in greater danger of contracting TB or other airborne disease than you are of being killed by terrorists. They should address this; since smoking on planes was outlawed the planes get less fresh air!

Danger of terrorism? Bush killed more Americans in the needless and senseless Iraq war than all terrorists combined in the last twenty years, including 9/11, McVeigh, and abortion bombers. Nothing is more dangerous to Americans than a self-serving President starting a senseless war to destabilise the middle east so gasoline prices will skyrocket and he and his oil men friends will become richer.

I'm in far greater danger of financial ruin by the credit card companies and the formerly illegal interest they charge than I am of being scammed by a Nigerian.

I personally know people who have died in auto accidents. I know people who have been robbed at gunpoint. I knew people who were murdered. I knew people who were scammed offline by shady home contractors. I don't know a single person who ever fell for an internet scam.

Are all our Senators smoking crack?

-mcgrew

Re:These people govern for _all_ , not just techie

[tezza]

penalized for the actions of the stupid

It is personal opinion in which way anyone views this issue; and attitudes vary over time and subject matter.

The scale varies from the cold-hearted Matlusian & Randian view ; to the overpowering cotton wool Nanny State.

On this particular issue, it is my personal opinion, that our internet rights are not being curtailed by these Internet Danger Signs.

Do danger signs, required by government, stop people using:

* electricity plugs
* medicines
* rat-poisons
* or other stuff?

No. But they probably saved a few toddlers from electrocuting or poisoning themselves.

---

In Australia there is a big problem with some Indigenous Australians sniffing petrol.
So the government places restrictions on how petrol can be obtained in those parts.
Surely that is penalising car owners who do not sniff petrol?? Where do you stand on that issue?

Parents need to get involved

[pilbender]

The internet is a dangerous place. But most people I've met don't realize that the internet is adult space and children shouldn't be allowed to play there without adult supervision and involvement. I've talked to so many parents who want to do something about it but don't understand it.

We raised a teenage daughter through the uncensored, budding internet. My wife and I were on her like hawks. Same rules apply to the internet as other facets of life like don't talk to strangers, don't tell people where you live, don't play in the same places as criminals, etc. I tell all those parents that their children have no privacy as long as you are responsible for their actions and you don't have to understand all that they are doing, but you can get involved and watch them. Imagine that! Supervising your kids and getting involved. I know it's a revolutionary concept but some parents do it.

The biggest problem is education. This is a common theme with new technology or other new social issues. I, for one, would like spend some time conducting free education seminars at places like the public library to take some of the mystery out of the internet and computers in general for people. Congress is comprised of people who don't know anything about the computers, computer security or the internet and they are pandering to voters who are largely comprised of the same thinking people.

The way to beat this downward spiral is education and enlightenment. We, as the more knowledgeable members of the internet community, need to do everything we can to help communicate, educate and reach out. This is a call to arms!

So as long as we aren't stepping up to the plate or doing enough about the situation, we will continue to be frustrated by these issues.

The process of enlightenment is painful. Don't expect it to come easily. It's going to take hard work and diligence.

Re:Parents need to get involved

[LordBafford]

I totally agree education is the key. I mean my parents couldn't even turn on a computer, and I have showed them how to do all that and use applications and now my dad gets on the internet and can surf sufficiently with out much help me at all. The problem is that our "leaders" are out of touch with the times and don't know jack about what's going on. They don't want to or are afraid to learn about it.

Re:Parents need to get involved

[belg4mit]

So why don't you call them up and ask? Alternatively, try the community center, Elks lodge, what have you...
Most of them are happy to host this kind of thing. You might even try getting your local LUG, Perl Mongers
or similar group involved for additional support/guinea pigs.

Happenings of the month

[homebru]

Equally important, June is "Accordian awareness" month.

The net is dangerous!!!

[mulvane]

I met my wife online and my wallet has been terrorized ever since!

Re:These people govern for _all_ , not just techie

[darjen]

It's no more dangerous to families than alcohol drug addiction. Some people just have more of a propensity for addiction than others. The scare tactics used in articles like this don't do anything to address that.

Bert would be proud

[Applekid]

Since the internet is so dangerous, maybe Congress should recommend that we duck and cover?

I also hear that the sharp corners on the sides of buildings might hurt my tootsies. Clearly we need toe-stubbing awareness month.

Re:These people govern for _all_ , not just techie

[CastrTroy]

So then why don't we have a national "Dangers of going out of your house month"? There's lots of dangerous things that can happen to you in many places. That doesn't mean we need a whole month dedicated to them. I mean, we only have 1 day for earth day, where we're suppose to think about how we are supposed to help the environment, but an entire month dedicated to the dangers of the internet. Sounds kind of odd to me.

Three words

[blackjackshellac]

FUD

Can we get a new internet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then we can let them do whatever they want with the current one.

What's needed is... A universal FUD rating

[Colin Smith]

Some way to express the amount of FUD which is being deliberately spread by businesses, politicians and lobby groups.

I propose we group it into grades: Grade A, B, C, D and E.

Grade A FUD would be designed to and have a good chance of changing laws to the benefit of the FUD spreaders.
Grade B FUD would be just outside the scope of grade A without the likelyhood of the law being changed.
Grade C FUD is anti competitor FUD. "Theirs is crap because."
Grade D FUD is your standard off the wall lobby group FUD.
Grade E FUD is for the lone nut. Funnily enough though it's grade E it still has some potency, the Unabomber would be classed as a grade E FUD spreader.

Some FUD can migrate between grades.

Remember the good old days?

[spungo]

Remember when gopher was the sh&t -- when Joe Public didn't know dick about teh interwebs? Remember confusing a family member when you mentioned that you emailed so-and-so? You see, the net's like a drunken whore -- you take her out of her intended environment (i.e., researchy places) and let her loose, and she just ends up doing everyone and everything. It's about time we took her back. We didn't have any stinkin' censorship problems back in '87, now did we? We need to send a message to all those techno-weenies out there -- "If you can't look after it properly, we're takin' it back, got it?"

Re:Remember the good old days?

[CompMD]

If we brought a drunken whore back to our university research labs, it would be a much, much better place. I'd even agree that it should be her intended environment.

Assorted Rants

[Anonymous Coward]

For the people complaining about congress spending time on issues like this instead of 'more important' issues like war on terror, I personally wouldn't want a congressional body to ignore any issues, just divy the time based on the issue.

People comparing you're childhood lessons on the internet and how it made you a better person, you're missing a few details. The fact that you're here means you're not the average american, so you can't compare what made you a better techie with what made timmy down the street grow up to be a child molester, and admitting openly you had the internet growing up only dates your age, keep experiencing the real world for another decade or two, then let's talk.

Finally, I'll take a cyber bully over a grammar nazi any day, but that's a personal preference.

__________

If common sense was that common, everyone would have it.

My list of the top 5 dangers of the internet

[jonwil]

In order of how dangerous I consider them
1.Phishing, identity theft and the like (e.g. credit card numbers being stolen)
2.Fraud (for example fraudulent ebay auctions, Nigerian spam emails, "you have won a lottery you never actually entered" etc)
3.Viruses and malware (including the zombie bots that make up DDOS and spam botnets)
4.Spyware and privacy violations (including the stuff that tracks every website you visit and sends that information off to some scum marketing agency to sell to the highest bidder)
5.People who aren't who they say they are (i.e. "internet stranger danger" in general, going to meet someone you have only ever known online without taking steps to make sure you are safe etc)

These are the real Dangers, not "Online Bullying" or whatever crap TFA is talking about (but the senate resolution it talks about is really an attempt to say to the voters about to vote in the 2008 election "we DO care about making the internet safe for your kids, does the other guy care?")

I personally do not believe in using censor ware or controls or monitoring. If I had kids, I would just set some ground rules like "don't post our home address or phone number online", "don't touch the parents credit cards", "don't go and meet someone in the real world who you have only met online unless a parent or responsible adult is there to make sure its safe" and so on. Give them their own PC with good anti-virus and anti-spyware and their own email address and let them experience the great uncontrolled mass of information and entertainment that is The Internet.

I have been using the internet since the days when "the internet" meant dialing up to a computer with a terminal program and getting a text screen and I don't buy into all the "the internet is dangerous and must be controlled/regulated" crap.

Re:My list of the top 5 dangers of the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

>"we DO care about making the internet safe for your kids, does the other guy care?"
Not if it was unanimous

What a bunch of idiots

[Colin Smith]

What a bunch of retarded voters you have. Shouldn't there be some way to prevent such people from voting?

In Scotland we simply make the ballot papers too difficult for them to understand:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/663738 7.stm

Even with trivial to follow instructions...

Re:What a bunch of idiots

[falcon5768]

Oh we do, we do, thats why less than half of the voting population of America even DOES vote, and thats usually for the presidential elections. In a city of 10,000 voters last Mayoral election just shy of 1500 actually went out to vote. 15% of the population cared about the man who would DIRECTLY run our city... you think they cared about some Senator being sent to Washington?

Re:What a bunch of idiots

[Lockejaw]

We tried confusing ballots in Florida a few years ago. Even though people had trouble casting the vote they wanted, the votes they cast were still valid.
Guess we better try again.

Bullshit!

[MrZaius]

Barring the stats filled preamble, which likewise never really defines "dangers", here is the entire text of the resolution:

Resolved, That the Senate--
                        (1) designates June 2007 as `National Internet Safety Month';
                        (2) recognizes that National Internet Safety Month provides the citizens of the United States with an opportunity to learn more about--
                                    (A) the dangers of the Internet; and
                                    (B) the importance of being safe and responsible online;
                        (3) commends and recognizes national and community organizations for--
                                    (A) promoting awareness of the dangers of the Internet; and
                                    (B) providing information and training that develops critical thinking and decision-making skills that are needed to use the Internet safely; and
                        (4) calls on Internet safety organizations, law enforcement, educators, community leaders, parents, and volunteers to increase their efforts to raise the level of awareness for the need for online safety in the United States.

Yes, it's rather pointless, but it's not a "Da intertubez strangled my granddaughter" resolution, either. There's nothing terribly alarming going on this time.

Re:Bullshit!

[brian0918]

You're leaving out the actual speech given to the senate by Sen. Lisa Murkowski [R-AK], which is a little more alarmist:

"Mr. President, today I introduced a resolution designating June 2007 as National Internet Safety Month.

"The Internet has become one of the most significant advances in the twentieth century and, as a result, it affects people's lives in a positive manner each day. However, this technology presents dangers that need to be brought to the attention of all Americans. Consider the pervasiveness of Internet access by children and the rapid increase in Internet crime and predatory behavior. Never before have powerful educational solutions--such as Internet safety curricula for grades kindergarten through 12--been more critical and readily at hand.

"Mr. President, i-SAFE America is one nonprofit organization that has worked tirelessly to educate our youth and our community on these important issues. Formed in 1998, i-SAFE America educates youth in all 50 states, Washington, DC, and Department of Defense schools worldwide to ensure that they have a safe experience online.

"It is imperative that all Americans learn about the Internet safety strategies which will help keep their children safe from victimization. Consider the facts: In the United States, about 35 million school-aged children have Internet access. Eighty percent of middle and high school students are online for at least one hour per week.

"An alarming statistic is that 61 percent of middle and high school youths admit to using the Internet unsafely or inappropriately. Furthermore, at least 20 percent of these students have met face-to-face with someone they first met online and 23 percent of these students know of someone who has been bullied online.

Now is the time for America to focus its attention on supporting Internet safety, especially bearing in mind that children will soon be on summer vacation and will spend more time online."

TotC

[4D6963]

Apparently June is national 'Internet is Dangerous' month.

Let me be the (probably not) first one to suggest we call it 'Think of the Children' month.

On a second thought, maybe we should have a 'Don't think of the Children' month to change from the think-of-the-children-ness we get every day of the year.

On a third thought, we should rather have a 'Think of the Heart Health' month, I mean it.

Re:TotC

[NeoManyon]

Or even better how about "Grow a fucking brain month" then we wouldn't need all these special months or days.

Except "Talk like a Pirate Day", THAT was cool.

Why not just exercise some parenting?

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Take active parenting role
2. Pull plug on Internet
3. Discipline children
4. ???
5. Profit

Re:Why not just exercise some parenting?

[Anonymous Coward]

We can't watch our kids, silly. We'd have to stop working and get rid of the SUV to do that. That's what baby-sitters are for.

Neo-Luddites

[rlp]

The Senate has banned laptops in the Senate chambers. Yeah, these are the people I want to get tech advice from.

Re:Neo-Luddites

[turtledawn]

at least if they had laptops in chambers we could see which senators were playing solitaire on CSpan.. and who was IMing the pages.

We have a deal for you!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I work for a public relations company and we have been asked to build up public awareness of the dangers
of the internet in the coming months until September. Would you be available for contract work in
San Francisco and the bay area? We would require the high profile sexual predation of children and teenagers
of both sexes from 6-14 including your official arrest by the authorities. We work closely with the FBI
and you would immediately upon your arrest be released at the first expedient moment, while a suitably deranged
person taken from an institution would face further legal proceedings and subsequent incarceration.
If you are interested in this work, please contact me by replying. Thank you.

The one thing that gives me hope...

[porcupine8]

I have to assume that these middle-aged politicians do these sorts of things because they think it's what their middle-aged-and-older constituency wants. The one bright spot is that the people who grew up (or at least went to high school/college) with the internet as a daily part of life are edging ever closer to being old enough that they actually vote with some regularity. Another ten years, and the politicians will be starting to face a new constituency that doesn't run from the threat of the Evil Int0rnetz; another twenty and a lot of politicians will have grown up with it, too.

Just gotta hope they don't do any real damage before then.

Re:These people govern for _all_ , not just techie

[King_TJ]

Maybe your "typical" Slashdot poster isn't really so typical after all?

I'm a single parent with a full-time job, PLUS running my own business on the side as a second job. Free-time isn't a concept I'm too familiar with anymore. But guess what? I'm still here, reading Slashdot pretty regularly. Why? Because I like to stay informed about computer and tech. related issues, and it's interesting viewing story summaries, reading articles of interest they link to, AND getting a sample of reader feedback and additional discussion. Much more "interactive", plus ability to view topics selectively, than I'd ever get sitting down watching TV.

I installed "censor-ware" type software where I work, full-time, so I'm pretty familiar with what it can and can't do. (Using a Linux proxy here, with Dansguardian - which is generally considered "superior" to these $50-70/year commercial Windows blocking products. But I've installed CyberSitter and a few others along those lines for customers at my 2nd. job too.)

I still maintain that the "Slashdot majority" is right, if they're saying these site censoring packages are NOT the real answer. They can be used as an additional tool in an effort to keep your kid/teen from surfing where you don't want them surfing. But at the end of the day, computer and unrestricted net access is all over the place. Things your "Cybersitter" package block can be viewed from a PC at a public library, or a friend's laptop brought to a local restaurant that has free wi-fi. If you lock things down tightly at home, it just drives a curious kid to try harder to locate the content elsewhere -- because nothing generates interest like denying them access to it.

If you have a small child (like I do), I'd think the best solution is to give them their own computer, and set it up so it can't access ANYTHING on the net except specifically allowed sites. My kid cares little about anything on the web other than a handful of sites like nickjr.com and pbskids.org anyway....

For older kids or teens, you can think of it like you might think of their access to porn magazines. Adding content filters is akin to making household rules saying "I won't let you order a subscription to Playboy that is delivered to our home." But don't think for a minute you just prevented their eyes from ever seeing one of those magazines.

filtering software

[man_ls]

"I wonder if it's one of the ones that can be disabled by 31% of America's teenagers..."

This is, honestly, a pretty good endorsement. It means that a turnkey package of content filtering software will keep nearly 70% of all persons whose access is to be controlled, from going places they have been restricted from.

I imagine that proportion, 31%, represents the amount of teenagers with any significant computer skills, probably about 30% of that 30% are on Slashdot.

Teenagers don't need to know how to use a computer as anything other than a tool. Nor, for that matter, does anyone else unless they want to. It's the expert's job to ensure that people who use a computer like an appliance can do everything they need and be sure they don't get into trouble with it....

Of course this is Slashdot, so any endorsement of a censorware product is sure to burn some of my karma, but really people. None of us are better than anyone else, we just know different things...

Re:Old white men fail to understand technology

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm 55 and I have hazel eyes. My computer at home was built from spare parts, by me. My younger friends call me when their technology goes on the fritz. I also have excellent karma at a little known web site with a masthead that reads "news for nerds, stuff that matters", because none of my posts ever get modded "troll", troll. AC today because I'm at work.

Seriously, what a crock.

-mcgrew (sm62704 at slashdot, look me up.)

Far too much credit

[slysithesuperspy]

Sorry, I don't mean to be pedantic, but I couldn't resist. I think you're giving a politician far too much credit by saying that he directly runs the city.

Re:Far too much credit

[falcon5768]

Actually depending on how your city or town government is run, its far more likely to be directly ran by one person or a group of people than it isn't. City governments have much more power than people give them credit for if they are of the smaller type. Get to the size of Newark or NYC, or Chicago then yes no one person runs it, but a population of 10-15 thousand voters? Yeah one guy is probably giving the orders.

Cyberspace is dangerous, all right

[SpectreBlofeld]

Once upon a time, back in my cowboy days, I was riding the virtual light with my Ono-Sendai cyberdeck, trying to crack the Greater Metropolitan Fission Authority, when I came across some real nasty Black Ice. The 'trodes on my forehead starting to tingle as my wetware started to sizzle. Dixie Flatline bailed me out, though, and that's how I became the only street samurai to survive braindeath.

I came back with a Kuang Grade Mark Eleven Chinese Icebreaker.

War this....

[Capt James McCarthy]

War on Drugs.
War on Terror.
And introducing,
War on Pr0n.

Yep, we are heading towards an election.

Why can't it be a War on Taxes? Or Health Care Costs? War on Environment....Na, it just doesn't sound good.

Re:War this....

[Spud Stud]

Don't forget this week's war: the War on Illegal Immigrants

Re:War this....

[WilliamSChips]

How about bringing back the War on Poverty?

Not as Spooky as You Think

[mpapet]

You don't sit over their shoulder _watching_ them.

However, you do have the computer in an area where there's lots of interaction and one of us is there doing something else. It isn't hard given the tiny house we're in, but with a modern mcMansion, it might be more difficult.

Overall, this kind of propaganda coordinates well with the telcos and entertainment conglomerates turning the Internet into another content sh!t pipe into your home.

Re:Not as Spooky as You Think

[leonem]

Damn straight, and this brings in the most important restriction on a child's use of the internet, the telly, and computer games - time.

I would have no problem with kids watching/browsing/playing, were it not for all the advertising gradually warping their brains, and the largely one-way interaction atrophying their social skills. Couple of hours a day, max.

Uhh... except of course I hated my parents not letting me play Street Fighter II every waking moment outside school hours. Mind you, four-player Wii I would not object to.

Internet Wizardry

[abb3w]

"Dangerous!" cried Gandalf. "And so am I, very dangerous: more dangerous than anything you will ever meet, unless you are brought alive before the seat of the Dark Lord. And Aragorn is dangerous, and Legolas is dangerous. You are beset with dangers, Gimli son of Gloin; for you are dangerous yourself, in your own fashion."

Sigh... can someone please point me to the part(s) of the US Federal Code that makes advocating a federal politician's assassination unlawful?

STRANGER DANGER

[SydBarrett]

Oh hay I got just an email from some guy on the internet and he's looking for his lost puppy. Also he has lots of candy and he said he knows my mom so everythings cool. Should I reply to this email? Please advise, thx.

Re:These people govern for _all_ , not just techie

[BosstonesOwn]

Rather have my daughter viewing porn and understanding that it's not real and she doesn't have to be treated like that , then have her gearing up to go blow 5 guys in a school locker room after a game.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/02/ 20/milton_academy_rocked_by_expulsions/

Id rather have my son view porn then go banging every girl he can without a condom and possibly losing his chance at life. Or better yet him going freaking nuts like they did in Colombine.

When my kids ask about sex I tell them the straight up honest truth. You can only protect your kids so much , you have to let them live their lives and hope you tough them well enough to make good decisions through out their lives. You can protect the children only so long , you need to teach them from a young age to think of the consequences of their actions.

Anything other then being a good parent is just plain and utter garbage.

Daughter 12 and Son 10

Unanimous Consent != Unanimously

[Anonymous Coward]

Technically this did not pass unanimously. It was passed by unanimous consent, which means nobody bothered to object to passage. That's not the same as taking a vote where everyone is recorded as for or against.

Being just a resolution and being basically so stupid, it makes sense to not waste time fighting it. Who would have been happy if they had spent a day debating this resolution instead of (in theory) attending to more important business? Feel free to call the co-sponsors idiots (I'm looking at you, Obama) but don't assume everyone else was happy about this waste of paper.

Meeting online

[tansey]

Look, you can't just go and read what someone says on some website and think they actually mean it. You've never even met these people, you can't trust them or believe a single word they say. They could be sexual predators for god's sake (and we've seen already that a large number of them are)! These people have no reason to tell you the truth, they just lie to get what they want from you--sometimes that means harming you.

And that's just in the Senate. Imagine what could happen on the internet!

Overreact Much?

[bcharr2]

Why does the mere mention of the internet as a "dangerous place" stir up so much angst from the slashdot crowd? News flash! From having their computer hijacked for a bot-net, their credit card info stolen, or their child lured into a real life meeting with a sexual predator, the internet IS a dangerous place. When entering (or connecting to) it, people should be cautious, aware, and on their guard.

So what, you're faulting parents for even making the attempt to keep their children safe while surfing the net? Does parental vigilance somehow threaten you?

My oldest is currently headed into 2nd grade this fall. He already uses the computer a great deal for homework, and it is sometimes (oftentimes) challenging to safeguard him on the internet from things that are simply inappropriate for a 7 YEAR OLD. Personally I welcome any help I can get in this battle. We keep our computer in the living room so we can keep an eye on what he is looking at. Can we 100% monitor what he is looking at? No, we have other children who sometimes fall or require attention or simply need a diaper change. Sometimes the phone rings and you have to pick it up. Things happen to distract you. Would I consider BSafe as a solo solution for guarding him? Absolutely not. But it may play a part in our overall solution.

I guess what I fail to understand is why slashdotters are so reactionary to such stories. I would think as advocates of "freedom" everyone here would be all for services such as BSafe, because the choices here are to either protect your child to a reasonable level, or to simply pull the plug and declare that my children cannot use the internet because the risks are to prevalent.

Personally I would prefer to allow my children as much freedom as possible, and services that help me protect my children, while not perfect, certainly help me to do that.

Re:Overreact Much?

[Darundal]

See, though, nobody here is saying that there aren't dangers on the internet. People here are really irritated by three things about this. First of all, is the fact that it is worded in a very alarmist manner by people who for the most part haven't the first clue what they are talking about, as opposed to a rationally thought out piece of legislation that could potentially actually cause some good written by someone who knows what they are doing. Second is that this bit of saber rattling by our wonderful duly elected congress critters is a possible sign of further idiocy to come aimed in this direction. Third, are the number of companies that will use this to sell their own software to families, and the number of parents who won't see them as part of the solution to regulating their child's online activity, but as the entire solution.

Re:Overreact Much?

[Anonymous Coward]

The world is a dangerous place. What would make the internet different, since it is simply an electronic subset of the world?

Parents used to say, "Don't get in a stranger's car, don't talk to strangers..." etc.
Now parents need to be updated on the internet's dangers. "Don't chat or email with strangers, don't meet up with strangers online, don't send pictures to strangers" etc.

As far as I can tell, that's all this bill is proposing. As well as informing everyone else of the dangers to them.

You know, instead of waving that 100$ bill around outside the shady bar and getting robbed, you want to be careful about throwing your credit card numbers and SSN numbers around online.

Lets not make a mountain out of a molehill.

Re:Overreact Much?

[bcharr2]

I just don't see the same alarmist reaction for similar subjects.

"Apparently June is national 'Highway Safety' month. The U.S. Senate unanimously passed a resolution urging Americans to 'learn more about being safe on our nation's highways.' And what counts as a danger? Reckless speeding, drunk driving, or giving rides to people you don't know in real life. The resolution's extreme negativity is disappointing. But remember -- it passed unanimously.
From the tech article: 'It's not just a resolution. A few corporations are actually trying to cash in on this misguided disinformation campaign, including Graco Baby Products, a Philadelphia, PA company which markets a child safety seat. (I wonder if it's one of the ones where 80% of grade schoolers can unstrap the seat belt mechanism themselves...) Their CEO has an encouraging message for parents about safety on highways. "This is an ongoing battle to keep our children safe while traveling our nation's highways and interstates." And keeping your children 'safe' will cost you a mere $150 per car seat...'"

Cue the concerned slashdotters complaining that the use of a child safety seat will encourage parents to drive recklessly and ignore other important options to protect their children while riding in vehicles.

Re:Overreact Much?

[CodeBuster]

I guess what I fail to understand is why slashdotters are so reactionary to such stories.

Because the politicians have a long history of using such fears, legitimate though they may be, to reduce the rights of *everyone* on a global scale in order to protect a few people from possibly getting hurt. If you want to use filtering software then go ahead, that is your right as a parent, but with politicians one thing leads to another and pretty soon you have nationwide censorship at the backbone level whereby big brother is blocking websites for everyone based upon what some group of political elites decides is acceptable and unacceptable. The people who argue along the lines of, "well it cost us billions of dollars and we had to shred the constitution, but at least a couple of children were saved from being slightly hurt and my job as a parent is easier..." really burn me up. They have no freaking idea of the value of what generations of our fathers fought and died for...sad really. Your seven year old will survive his first sighting of a naked breast of perhaps even some bush *gasp* on the Internet, but our democracy will not survive the nanny state stupidity being forced upon us by the politicians.

The wise parent realizes that he cannot shelter his children completely from the world and so he begins, as soon as they are able to understand spoken language, to explain to them the way that the world works in ways that they can understand, gradually building their awareness and maturity as their age and cognitive ability advance to grasp with increasing sophistication that which he is telling them. To say that, "I will use whatever tool that I can, however imperfect and however much it harms everyone else, because it helps me, even if only slightly, protect my child from harm" is the same as saying to everyone else in society, "to hell with you and any rights that you might have, if they inconvience me as parent, even in the slightest." Is it any wonder that we as a society are raising self centered and bratty kids who think that the world is their oyster and have no work ethic? So you ask why we slashdotters are so reactionary to such stories...well because there is a large group of people out there that believe that they are more equal or entitled to protection under the law then us...and nerds, hackers, computer gamers, etc are an easy, convenient, and attractive target. If we don't stay on top of things then people like that may actually get what they want and that will be a sad day for freedom in this country.

Re:Overreact Much?

[justinlee37]

because the choices here are to either protect your child to a reasonable level, or to simply pull the plug and declare that my children cannot use the internet because the risks are to prevalent.

Actually, the third option is to shelter them less, and just make sure you're there to explain things that are new to them when they come across them -- violence, sex, the dangers of internet predators, trojan horse viruses, credit card phishing schemes, etc., etc.

I'll admit that 7 is pretty young, but by 12 or 13 that kid ought not to have any more mysteries about how the world works.

Re:Overreact Much?

[HikingStick]

I think the point here is that the bill that passed is nothing more than political positioning as we run up to a major election year. Why not focus more broadly--educating people about the good and the bad on the Internet? After all, not everyone is online, and many of those (thinking of my relatives and friends who will not use the Internet) have no clue what it really is. They've bought a heap-of-dung that tells them the Internet is something with little good to offer and plenty of bad. If our government is going to promote Internet education, it should be focused on being wise netizens, and not be reduced to a firey warning with one common denominator: fear.

Wheras

[MECC]

FTFR:Whereas approximately 31 percent of the students in grades 5 through 12 have the skill to circumvent Internet filter software;

We grown-ups fear them.

Is it just me...

[zugurudumba]

... or lately there's no thinkofthechildren tag tagged on stories that really need it?

Re:These people govern for _all_ , not just techie

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, because the Mormons know all about porn and how it affects everyone that doesn't practice their religion.

BTW, I don't have a family and am terminally ill so I don't intend to start one. Tell me all about how porn is hurting me.

The internet is a large city

[Tiger Smile]

Like New York or Los Angeles. Period. Would you allow you kid to wander alone through those cities?

The Internet might only work for people over the age of 18.

But than again, maybe our reps have other priorities. Reality and law is often only an illusion. Intelligence from an Congressperson is and illusion.

The Biggest Danger TO The Internet: +1, Helpful

[Anonymous Coward]

is the world's largest organized crime syndicate.

I hope this helps the criminal investigation.

Sincerely,
Kilgore Trout

The pandora list

[kilodelta]

Hell, if you're an IT person you'll pretty much be accused of cheating.

Some of the items on that little list are ridiculous.

Re:These people govern for _all_ , not just techie

[Creepy]

I tend to think of the US Government as the slow child that got left behind as far as tech goes (or a typical PHB, take your pick), but the point of this appears just to be to expose dangers that are around on the internet and I'm OK with that. The document says there are 1 billion internet users worldwide, but that is between 1/6 and 1/7 the world population (~6.6 billion, I think), meaning there are a lot of people that may not be aware.

That said, I'd prefer it be internet awareness month instead of internet dangers month - this resolution only targets the "bad stuff" and once again doesn't promote the "good stuff" at all. Even the evening news has a fluff story or two and a sports segment to offset all the bad news. If you're going to name things to be aware of on the internet that are possibly harmful, also name some good productive uses, too - something you can point your children to (like Wikipedia, news sites, kids online games, etc).

A better bill

[NiceGeek]

How about one warning people about the dangers of morons with legislative powers?

Now that it's "dangerous"...

[fudgefactor7]

...how long before they use that as a pretense to destroy it?...

Oh please

[BlackCobra43]

Old white men accurately represents the vast majority of Senate. Only on slashdot could I find someone sufficiently anally retentive to take offense at this generalization. Go back to your politically-correct nest, you damn troll.

obvious which is Danger Number One

[swschrad]

CowboyNeal, of course.

Re:These people govern for _all_ , not just techie

[bahwi]

Reminds me of a call in question on a local radio talk show Anything and Everything You Ever Wanted to Know(which is a lot of fun to listen to by the way) and someone called in asking why he still gets viruses even if he has norton. He said from the way he understood it it was like a fence around the house and why with all this new technology he was still getting viruses. He thought he was 100% safe.

I was in the car and didn't have the number to call in and give an answer to his question but a lot of ads really point that way. "Like having a bouncer for your computer" "Your computer bodyguard" etc...

What helps is knowing what not to click on. I use clamwin with a monthly scan and have never had a problem.

Obviously...

[rizole]

I for one welcome our.....[carrier lost]

The internet IS dangerous!

[iminplaya]

It's becoming extremely dangerous for the politicians' re-election campaingns. There's a grave danger of the truth being exposed. If they convince the public it's dangerous and can't be trusted without going through a government filtering system, they can mitigate this "truth" problem. The propaganda machine is going to work doubletime for this to work and unfortunately it probably will. This is election season, and censorship is very important. Need any more convincing that Obama and Hillary are whack? They said it passed unanimously. I guess that would include who I though was the last sane holdout against such nonsense, Mr. Feingold. Please vote all these people out of office.* THEY are dangerous!

*should be as successful as boycotting the movie industry...

Re:The internet IS dangerous!

[WilliamSChips]

Actually, it passed with "unanimous consent", which means that nobody in the room had any serious objections to it, which means it didn't really matter to anybody. Feingold probably wasn't even in the room at the time.

Re:These people govern for _all_ , not just techie

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, the very people you cite as beneficiaries of this resolution are also the people who have no idea that it was even passed.

If a person is utterly ignorant of something as commonplace as the internet I doubt that they are diligently following the actions of congress.

Fear-Mongering

[DakotaSmith]

You know, the constant crises and fear-mongering our politicians engage in is getting really tiresome as I enter middle age. After 42 years on planet Earth, I've learned that every time some politician whines about a crisis or makes a resolution like this, it turns out to be absolutely pointless and generally a non-issue.

It's one of the (many) reasons I don't global warming doesn't hit my radar: if that many politicians worldwide are whining, then it can't possibly be an important issue. And besides, I remember when politicians whined that global cooling was going to kill us all ...

In terms of the actual dangers of the Internet, I refer to my good friend L. Neil Smith:

"You can't child-proof the world; you can only world-proof your child."

If you're a parent who doesn't understand that simple concept, turn your kids over to the nearest orphanage. They'll do a better job raising them than you will.

Re:Fear-Mongering

[WilliamSChips]

It's one of the (many) reasons I don't global warming doesn't hit my radar: if that many politicians worldwide are whining, then it can't possibly be an important issue. And besides, I remember when politicians whined that global cooling was going to kill us all ... The biggest whining about global warming is coming not from politicians but from the scientists themselves. About half of the politicians are whining about global warming, but all the scientists in the relevant areas(Michael Crichton's training wasn't in the relevant areas but in preparing to become a doctor) are pretty sure global warming is happening.

Progressive politics at its best

[Morinaga]

Results don't matter, it's the intentions of the legislation that matter. As long as you "care" as a politician then you've done your job. Go ahead, outlaw incandescent light bulbs and institute hate crime legislation. At least you've done something. And the best part? As a politician you've done it because you had good intentions. As long as you have good intentions in the politically correct climate then you've done your job. Who cares if it really does anything, what matters is you meant well.

Re:Progressive politics at its best

[kocsonya]

> Results don't matter, it's the intentions of the legislation that matter.

Like Lord Vetinary's very human deathrow, where the guards quietly allow the condemned to scrape the old mortar with the spoon and get through the cell wall (and then find a brand new, much harder and thicker wall behind it):

"You see, sir, what matters is not freedom as such but the prospect of freedom."

Also known as...

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

A few corporations are actually trying to cash in on this misguided disinformation campaign

Also known as "attempting to solve one of society's problems for a modest fee", or perhaps "keeping the economy running". They're all correct.

URL and a comment..

[nathan s]

You can read the full text of the resolution if you like.

What I find interesting is that a bunch of the "Whereas" statements are mostly about how teh evil children are doing things behind their parents' backs and thus we need a government resolution to combat this. Heh. Raise your hand if you were a kid and never did anything behind your parents' backs.

Dumbness

[Illogical Spock]

"The U.S. Senate unanimously passed a resolution..."

One brazilian journalist said two decades ago: "Every unanimity is dumb!". This keeps proving correct again and again since then...

If its so bad

[nurb432]

Just ban its use by private citizens and be done with it. Isn't that what they try to do with everything else that is even remotely connected to our constitutional freedoms anyway?

Oh wait, then they cant tax it.. the internet is saved! :)

Oblig Daily Show:

[Cervantes]

All this reminds me of this (mangled) Daily Show line:

One of the worst things about the internet is all the sexual predators. But one of the best things about the internet is all the sexual prey!

What month is it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Every month is The Senate Is A Danger Month.

Re:These people govern for _all_ , not just techie

[VWJedi]

There are people who need protection, occasionally from themselves. They deserve every opportunity to be informed. Those who need protection:

* Don't read lifehacker, digg, reddit, slashdot
* Don't read mainstream press or Wired

Then how the hell do they even know this legislation exists? Selective ESP? If they don't monitor any information source that covers this (I doubt it's covered in Nickelodeon Magazine or Astrology Monthly), then what's the point of doing something that is supposed to inform them?

OK, let's learn about the dangers of the Internet.

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows is a danger, since all of the viruses and malware run on Microsoft Windows anyway. AOL is a danger, since the "OMG!WTF?ASL!!!" chat rooms are where predators lure children. And of course, Photoshop is a danger, because that's what pedophiles use to alter their stash of kiddie porn so it can't be traced.

Hey, doesn't Microsoft's threat of 265 patents against Linux count as 'cyber-bullying'? I'm actually starting to like this!

Dangerous?

[Loki_1929]

"making friends online if you ever plan to meet them in real life. Its extreme negativity is disappointing"

I met my soon-to-be-wife on a text-based RPG. Only thing dangerous about that is the prospect of my genes being passed on to future generations.

These people are assholes.

Re:These people govern for _all_ , not just techie

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, then, let's just make it the 28th constitutional amendment, shall we?

Amendment 28: The Special Exception of the Expectation of Responsible Computing.
"No one shall expect any person to learn any thing about computers. They are free of all liability and social responsibility whenever they are within one foot of a computer. They may disregard the laws of state and country, as well as those of common sense and physics. They shall have as their defense: 'I don't want to know how it works, I want it to just work.'"

You know what? If people insist on using the Internet and don't read blogs, don't read lifehacker, digg, reddit, slashdot, read mainstream press or Wired, believe they are protected by "Guardian Angels", karma, astral-projections and generally need help with everything, then FUCK THEM! GET THEM OFF THE INTERNET!

Hey, let's just all storm into college and take over the classes and teach the students a lot of bullshit! "How should I know what to teach? I just want it to work!" Let's put Joe Sixpack in surgery room three for your grandma's open heart operation. Hey, it's the medical profession's fault for not making cardiovascular surgery so easy to learn that there'd be no danger! Why don't we all just go down the street with a shotgun blowing everybody away? When they catch us, we can all say "Well, I don't read Field and Stream, how was I supposed to know it would kill people?" Oh, and just have all the unprotected sex you want, and just dump the babies and spread AIDS far and wide, because your excuse is that you're not a biologist and you don't read medical journals. And be sure to hop in your SUV and mow down as many of your screaming fellow human being as you can on the way home, and just shrug and go "Well, we mainstream folk shouldn't have to know how to drive; the car should just work!"

What a lovely way to run the world. Only with computers do we justify the Proud Right to Ignorance at the Expense of Society. Like it was carved in the base of the Statue of Liberty or something.

You missed a variable

[WilliamSChips]

Age. The majority of Congressmen are far above the age mandated by the Constitution and this is not a good thing. The phrase "Never trust anybody over 30"? That includes the entirety of Congress(as mandated by the Constitution for Senators, and by "ey's inexperienced" mudslinging for the House)

The point is always missed when it comes to this

[cppgenius]

There are more dangers on the Net over which you have no control. The dangers of surfing porn sites is something inflicted on yourself, if you can't control yourself then you will need to face the consequences. But what about the junk thrown in our faces when we browse on sites when it is least expected? What about the disgusting spam e-mails, what about the nasty spyware popping up with nasty pictures all over your screen?

We need stronger laws to keep the sexual maniacs at bay. Sexual maniacs is not people who wait for you to visit their porn sites, that is a sexual maniac visiting a website owned by another sexual maniac. The real sexual maniacs is the people who pollute our mailboxes with porn spam and infect our PC's with porn promoting spyware. If we can get rid of these people we are in a situation where only people who want porn is surfing porn.

Parents need to raise their children better so that they know it is wrong and bad to visit these sites. If they want to use monitoring software or adult content filters, let them do it, but parents need to be open about this, children need to know they are being monitored. On the other hand if you really raise your children well, building trust between each other, there is no need to use software like this. The moment you consider monitoring software or censorware, then you should start working on the trust issues between you and your children.

The bottom line is: Stop arguing about how effective or ethical monitoring software and censorware is and get rid if the psychopaths ruling the Internet with porn and material harmful to children (in fact some material is so bad, not even adults should be allowed to see it). If we don't have to deal with predators like this we won't have to use any of this software in the first place. We keep shifting the boundaries allowing more and more junk to infiltrate our homes.

Let the authorities do their work, it is because of liberal people interfering and complaining all the time that we can't get proper laws implemented and enforced on the perpetrators. No wonder the world is such a crazy place these days.

Hardcore Porn Is Fuel For Spyware And Spam

Re:These people govern for _all_ , not just techie

[Chandon Seldon]

These people govern for _all_ , not just the incompetent.

There are over 300,000,000 people in the United States. There are 50 state governments, and 10's of thousands of local governments. Across all of those areas, there don't even *start* to be consistent community standards - where I live, a hoopla over a breast with a pasty on TV seems pretty ridiculous for example. My point is this - even if there are people who *do* need protecting by a nanny-state, nobody wins if that is implemented at a Federal level, because the standard that is implemented would always be wrong for the majority.

Re:These people govern for _all_ , not just techie

[Chandon Seldon]

When you over-protect your children, they end up not being prepared for the real world - and they end up being horribly irresponsible when they get the chance.

Seriously, "If someone collapses from drinking too much, roll them onto their stomach so they don't drown in their own vomit" is much better parental advice than "Drinking is bad, never do it". The latter bit of advice results in binge drinking deaths every year, especially at colleges. The same is true for sex ("safe sex" vs. "no sex").

default deny

[Anonymous Coward]

default deny 4tw!

Recipe:
one old computer with 2 nics.
a closet with a deadbolt containing the computer and cable modem
freebsd
IPTABLES
whitelist
squid

Periodically check the air for open wireless connections. Kindly offer to secure them for your neighbors after scaring the crap out of them by telling them what happens if a child pornographer decides to sit outside their house and use their connection.

It's painful at first but you know what your kids are doing, at least in your own house. As your list gets better, the hassle goes away.

Your kids are worth reading a couple of how-tos. If they need you to allow it to get to it, you know exactly what they are doing. Running net nanny on the workstation is a joke.

-AC

Re:default deny

[The Master Control P]

First rule of attempting to secure anything: You will lose if the attacker has physical access.

Wait for your parents to go off to buy something, force the door open, and reconfigure the machine. If all else fails, reinstall the OS.

BSafe

[Anonymous Coward]

My parents actually have BSafe's software installed on our computer for some time now. BSafe claims the most tech-savvy teenager could never bypass it. I say the easiest bypass is just to boot into Linux. But beyond that, all it does is stick itself into WinSock, which there are plenty of MS docs on how to reset to Windows default. Plus proxies can be used, and it only filters on port 80. Do I look at porn? No. Have I disabled the software? No. I don't think I need to bypass it, but occasionally a legitimate website (such as Google's cache) is blocked and I want to view it, and its good to know I can do that.

Not really anonymous coward, just lazy. But sure, why not, I'll remain anonymous too.

Let's face a few facts here ...

[ScrewMaster]

Congress is far more dangerous to the citizens of this great nation than the Internet will ever be. Period.

Censorware

[birdboy2000]

Any technical solution that can be used by parents to censor their children can be used just as easily by governments to censor their people. (Of the 'teach the the back button' and 'old enough to google it, old enough to know it' philosophy, myself.)

Re:These people govern for _all_ , not just techie

[Anonymous Coward]

Who is being penalized? This didn't create any law or enact any directive. It was a statement saying "we'll support educating people about the dangers of the internet."

If you already know the dangers then good for you. If you don't think there are any, then that's fine too. If you didn't know but this gets you to look into it further than something was worth while. However it's still up to you.

I find it rather ironically amusing that all these technologically minded people are complaining that the government doesn't understand how technology works when they themselves clearly don't understand how government works.

Re:These people govern for _all_ , not just techie

[zolaar]

Because it's been a tradition to do so in this country : November of 2000, November of 2004, every election in between, and every single day since.

How 'Bout a "Dangers of the Senate" Resolution?

[datastrategy]

Me thinks the Senate may be far more dangerous than the Internet (and certainly far less fun). In light of that fact, would anyone like to second the motion for offering up a "Dangers of the Senate" Resolution?

Online Dating is Dangerous

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok so online dating is dangerous!

Great guys so don't date the dangerous women online!

I'll date them myself instead!
hehehe

What this shows

[psuke]

Is that the true danger of the internet is that too many people still don't understand how it actually works.

Raising children, start with yourself...

[wilec]

Raise your children with compassionate independent minds, basic critical thinking skills and and a good dose of good old common sense and you will have much less reason to worry about them. Your children do not need a best friend or a dictator, they need emotionally stable and intelligent mentoring from one or more persons willing to invest the required time and effort.

The biggest problem with most people of all ages is due to a lack of proper 'raising'. There are all kinds of gray variations on this, but a few basic types of problems. There are those who act as an authoritarian overlord who uses mainly the 'because I said so' mentality and the fear of consequences, this produces fearful and lazy minds that rely on authorities to do all their critical thinking and decision making for them. Then there are those who try to be their children's best friend and use pleading and bribery to manipulate the responses they wish, this produces spoiled soft minds that have unreasonable expectations of life. There are a few that espouse a 'survival of the fittest' mentality in raising children and take a minimal role in the raising. Finally there are those who simply can't be bothered in dealing with the issues they need to the most. These last two methods often produce very strong independent minds, but alas just about as often they turn out emotional basket cases if not outright criminal sociopaths.

Anyone who has raised children to adulthood has at one time or another made a choice that put them in each of these bad categories. The secret is in doing the best you can as often as you can to do the right thing, good old repetition and consistency go a long way. This usually means dealing with a negative response from your child, spouse, or someone else that does not care for your decision. The main thing to remember is that it takes a lot of time, thats what they need the most, assuming of course you are not all screwed up yourself. Alas thats the biggest problem, so many parents are basket cases themselves. So a good deal of self examination and reflection would be an excellent place to start for all of us.

BTW, I have managed to raise two pretty good kids of my own, not perfect,but then I'm not either ;) Did I leave them the ability to have privacy with a computer and the internet, yea somewhat after they were were about 15 or so. Did I monitor the usage? Yep, logged the IP addresses and did random checks. Did they ever get into things like p0rn or chat, sure they did. Did they use a reasonable amount of good sense in such activities? Yea from my best observation they did, I did not raise idiots. Did I confront them in these instances? Yep sure did, but I handled it in a logical manner, I told them such was not allowed, they lost internet privileges for a reasonable time period, and I also took the time to explain the reasons for my actions. Did it work? Yea not perfectly, there were some repetitions in some cases with my eldest son, but overall they took the direction pretty well. For one thing the time they spent online was limited by other activities like personal responsibilities and outdoor entertainment. Would I change anything? Of course I would, for instance I would push them into academic efforts like reading and writing for personal satisfaction a bit more than I did.

Wabi-Sabi
Matthew

Re:These people govern for _all_ , not just techie

[lcall]

You make a good point that they are both addictions. Unlike alcohol, it can pop up without warning or initiative on the part of the consumer, such as for a child who would never drink alcohol by accident, and the images can stay in the memory for re-consumption later without further initiative to acquire.

Re:These people govern for _all_ , not just techie

[lcall]

I'm very sorry that you're terminally ill. Please don't be offended as I explain my perspective on this--it isn't intended to minimize your challenge or grief. We believe that life continues without end, beyond death, and that we will be judged according to our thoughts, intents, and actions. Our place and opportunities in eternity depend on what we've done with the knowledge we had in this life. There is a plan, the same as taught by the Lord's servants through all history, through which we can have peace in this life and eternal life in the world to come. All our thoughts, actions, and habits matter, even if no one else seems to be involved, because we will take them with us into the eternities, and they affect who we are. Since it was known in advance that we would all be subject to sin and death, the plan includes a way to live again someday, and to be forgiven in this life and move forward, clean.

I truly hope and wish for the best, for you.