Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Senators Call for Universal Internet Filtering

Posted by samzenpus on from the welcome-to-your-new-child-friendly-web dept.

An Anonymous Coward writes "US senators today made a bipartisan call for the universal implementation of filtering and monitoring technologies on the Internet in order to protect children. Their statement came at the end of a Senate hearing in which civil liberties groups were not invited."

112 of 628 comments (clear)

  1. Ok, the end of the Internet is here... by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is Freenet ready yet? What do you mean they're still coding it in Java?

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:Ok, the end of the Internet is here... by Longtime_Lurker_Aces · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Every time one of these stories comes around (and some politician proposes some ludicrous internet filtering/logging/restriction every few months it seems) I always wonder the same thing:

      Are they completely out of touch with technology (it is often a guy in his 60s or 70s proposing the law) and they really see it as a menace and thing these things will solve it, or

      Are they completely aware the program won't do one damned thing to solve any problem, but the propose it anyway just so they can put a blurb in their campaign ads about how they protect children.

    2. Re:Ok, the end of the Internet is here... by HomelessInLaJolla · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's more closely tied to your second point but even that's just PR spin and campaign hype.

      The majority of the push for this sort of thing is money. The allocations of taxpayer money to devote to these pet filtering and monitoring projects will be huge. One particular military subcontractor, Battelle, was already building an _ENORMOUS_ datacenter in Aberdeen, MD, when I left in '07. Why were they building? Most people working at the (existing) tiny site new that it would be mostly devoted to computer science technology but few people knew exactly what. The inside word was that there were going to be enormous contracts coming down the line for processing, indexing, storing, retrieving, and minin gargantuan amounts of data.

      Politicians and top-level businessmen work together for years to figure out how to grant themselves a huge chunk of the taxpayer pie. When the news releases start making it to the headlines it's not a matter for debate anymore--it's after the fact justification. The insider trading knowledge that these folks have, by being able to both write the laws and determine the size of the checks and decide to whom the checks are written, is a golden gift from God for the gravy train.

      --
      the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
    3. Re:Ok, the end of the Internet is here... by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 4, Informative

      I don't give 'em that much credit for savvy. Both parties in the states are still pimping for the "moral" voters, and support of a sure-to-die, nearly impossible to implement or pay for measure like this is a great way to get you name attached to a moral agenda without actually having to do anything.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    4. Re:Ok, the end of the Internet is here... by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The slowness of Java is something Java programmers just accept. Unfortunately, as a result, many Java programmers just ignore the problem of performance at all. The best form of optimization is algorithmic complexity reduction.. it has nothing to do with the language you use. You can use the slowest language in the world and still get massive performance if you optimize your algorithm suitably. Thing about Freenet is they don't optimize. They're interested in slow-but-safe browsing.. so the day you see them switch from Java to something faster is the day you know that the focus has changed.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    5. Re:Ok, the end of the Internet is here... by dircha · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Are they completely aware the program won't do one damned thing to solve any problem, but the propose it anyway just so they can put a blurb in their campaign ads about how they protect children."

      Well you don't have to look far, when voting against a measure like this will guarantee that next election cycle your opponent will run a black and white ad with ominous music saying, "Sen. Jim Bob wants to protect the rights of sexual predators to contact your children on the internet!"

      House races especially are dirty like this. This crap happens all the time, I've even seen it in live debates.

      And you want to know the really sad part? A lot of voters eat this stuff up. If you're average Soccer Mom Susie, all of a sudden you're not sure you can trust the candidate anymore, and if you already hated the candidate, well now he or she is the devil himself.

    6. Re:Ok, the end of the Internet is here... by Danse · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The inside word was that there were going to be enormous contracts coming down the line for processing, indexing, storing, retrieving, and minin gargantuan amounts of data. That's kind of the thing I thought about when they started talking about handouts to the telecoms to get them to keep more data on their customers. I don't know the exact numbers involved, but you can bet that taxpayers are going to be shelling out orders of magnitude more cash than it would cost them to keep the data. All for a system that will be put in place ostensibly to track down terrorists, but which will certainly be abused in short order. The temptation is far too great.
      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    7. Re:Ok, the end of the Internet is here... by shaitand · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yup and don't forget the flipside. Large sites that can afford to buy political muscle will have an ace in the hole once the great firewall is in place. After all, nothing shuts down a competitor like a state enforced denial of service.

    8. Re:Ok, the end of the Internet is here... by Arthur+B. · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I mostly agree with you but what has insider trading to do with it? Who needs insider trading when you can directly pick pockets... why expose yourself to a dangerous lawsuit when you can legally steal.

      --
      \u262D = \u5350
    9. Re:Ok, the end of the Internet is here... by iminplaya · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...what has insider trading to do with it?

      It's not that kind of insider trading like you hear about in the high drama of Wall Street. Though there is plenty of that also. Most inside traders don't get caught. 10% maybe. This is a whole 'nother economy in and of itself. Off the books and running parallel to the "official" economy. All business of this magnitude operate with more than one set of books. As long as the government is involved, and you can't sue it, none of these pirates will be held accountable, outside the one or two that will be thrown in front of the bus for good PR. And the government won't be held accountable because 99% of of you keep handing the power right over to them over and over. How are you going to deal with the crooked bankers that make all this happen as long as these same bankers hold the mortgage on your house? You're not going to do anything. It has been this way for thousands of years. There is no indication that it's going to change anytime soon. For them the risk is nil.

      --
      What?
    10. Re:Ok, the end of the Internet is here... by jollyreaper · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Slashdot has really hit rock bottom when people like HomelessinLajolla, who have no idea what they are talking about, are modded to +5. Thank you for not just modding the guy down...or do you not have any mod points? Instead of just claiming the guy is wrong, why don't you explain it? An AC snark accomplishes nothing.
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    11. Re:Ok, the end of the Internet is here... by Kadin2048 · · Score: 4, Informative
      Well, consider the people involved. From TFA:

      Commerce Committee Chairman Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii) and Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee Vice Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) both argued that Internet was a dangerous place where parents alone will not be able to protect their children. For those not keeping track at home, that's Daniel "1.3%" Inouye* and Ted "Series of Tubes" Stevens. Not exactly the two sharpest knives in the drawer, particularly on technology issues. They're both 'zombie politicians,' kept around by their respective constituencies only because their seniority puts them in positions to funnel pork-barrel projects back home.

      * Referring, of course, to Inouye's absolutely dismal record at actually getting anything passed, or for that matter, even supporting anything that gets passed. Of 289 bills he sponsored since Jan 21, 1997, only FOUR have become law. And for that, I think we can all be grateful. (source)
      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    12. Re:Ok, the end of the Internet is here... by Mathinker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > that tens of thousands of child molesters are grooming their children right now

      Presumably you meant that as the number of child molesters actively using the Internet for "grooming children". Can you point me to a source for that statistic? I was under the distinct impression that the modus operandi of the vast majority of child molesters was to molest children who know them personally (e.g., their own children, or children they meet in their work).

    13. Re:Ok, the end of the Internet is here... by darkpixel2k · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I hate it when they try and pass it off as a 'save the children' load of crap.
      Think of the children!
      Yeah--go ahead, install a huge monitoring and filtering system. I'm sure no one will abuse it by monitoring and/or filtering other content.

      Zark off senator asshat. I am a responsible parent. I can watch out for my own children.

      --
      There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
    14. Re:Ok, the end of the Internet is here... by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly. Government is never a good substitute for parenting.

    15. Re:Ok, the end of the Internet is here... by rtb61 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      What they are really opposed to, is of course a children's only version of the Internet, that has completely restricted access and content and is completely separate from the open Internet. If you are looking at the Internet for children it is not what you filter out is all about what you let on. Blocking some of the worst content, promotion of alcohol, self destructive behaviour, junk foods and gambling.

      The reality is, if you are really concerned about what children have access to on the Internet, you should be able to activate a setting the would lock access to a separate DNS service and a set series of IP addresses that only provides content that has be accessed, reviewed and approved as fit for children web sites, as the web sites would have to be applicable to each of the age ranges for children, obviously what is fit for a young adult is not suitable for a toddler.

      The stupidity of the senators is made obvious just be that latter part, come one, lets filter the Internet so that it is suitable for toddlers, a kindergarten grade Internet http://www.funnyhub.com/pictures/pages/elephant-sl ide.html, a republican congressmen's version of tubes that run the republican Internet.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    16. Re:Ok, the end of the Internet is here... by Kadin2048 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Every once in a while when there's a discussion about the latest ".xxx" or ".porn" TLD, the idea of a ".kids" or ".kids.[countrycode]" domain comes up. (Actually I think ".kids.us" already exists, there's just very little there.)

      While I still think it's a conceptually flawed idea, it's at least better than trying to either censor or round up all of the 'smut' and put it into some sort of a blacklist. Fundamentally, if you're trying to make a 'clean internet,' whitelists are the way to go; not blacklists.

      Putting the 'kids' domain under the CC TLDs is even better, because it avoids having to create some sort of international consensus on what's appropriate for children, which isn't feasible. Whatever the Congresscritters decide is OK for kids (violence = okay!, sex = bad!) in the U.S. can get into .kids.us, and what's OK for kids in France goes in .kids.fr (though I doubt they'd call it "kids"...) and people can restrict access based on their personal values. Enforcement takes place at the name-registrar level; if you don't comply to the standards for that domain, the registration gets pulled.

      The problem with this is is that it's a solution looking for a problem that most people really don't seem to care about.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    17. Re:Ok, the end of the Internet is here... by ResidntGeek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What constitutes getting a life, then? Most people I know who consider themselves to have lives spend their weekends getting drunk with friends and their weekdays waiting for the weekends. Is that better in any way than posting on slashdot, and using the tools available to find patterns in the discussions?

      --
      ResidntGeek
    18. Re:Ok, the end of the Internet is here... by Stanislav_J · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The reality is, if you are really concerned about what children have access to on the Internet, you should be able to activate a setting the would lock access to a separate DNS service and a set series of IP addresses that only provides content that has be accessed, reviewed and approved as fit for children web sites, as the web sites would have to be applicable to each of the age ranges for children, obviously what is fit for a young adult is not suitable for a toddler.

      Leaving aside the fruitless bang-your-head-against-the-wall argument that it is the parents' responsibility to decide what is "fit" for their own children....."accessed, reviewed and approved" by WHOM? If it's the current administration, I smelleth a "faith-based" outsourcing here to insure that kids can only view appropriate history ("America is a Christian nation"), science ("We didn't evolve from no monkeys") and morality ("sex=bad and dirty; abstinence=good") to insure that the little tykes grow up to be good Republican Christians (and not agnostic Democrats or Wiccan Libertarians).

      --
      "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
    19. Re:Ok, the end of the Internet is here... by Weedlekin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Not to worry then, all these old guys will be dead in the next 10-20 years, if all goes well. Everyone seems to forget that all of us, the younger generation (which is obviously a huge span of years) is next on the list for power."

      And the people who are in their teens and 20s today that eventually opt for a career in politics will be technological ignoramuses who will be passing legislation which is every bit as out of touch with the social issues surrounding emergent technologies from 40 years in the future as our lot are with what's happening now, and the equivalent of Internet forums from that era will contain the same claims about how it will all change when the old sods die off. Check out what things were like when Richard Stallman, Tim Berners-Lee, and Steve Wozniac were teenagers, and you'll see a period of notable political upheaval when youth activists could count on vast numbers of like-minded people to attend rallies and demonstrations, organise mass sit-ins, publish "subversive" magazines and newsletters, and generally stick it to "the man" despite heavy-handed and often brutal attempts by the police and government to stop them. They make today's youth look like a bunch of disorganised, cowardly whiners, yet their conviction that things would definitely change when the old guard died off turned out to be completely unfounded, and the same will happen again, and again, and again.

      The reason for this situation is a simple one: those who tend to choose careers in politics mostly come from backgrounds in law, political science, business, and / or extremely wealthy and influential families (and increasingly, film and TV actors), none of which are renowned for their high level of technological awareness. Very few of today's young people in these categories have any real idea how venerable technologies such as steam engines, "land-line" telephones, radio and TV, or suspension bridges work, let alone complicated modern things like computers, cellular telephones, or the Internet, and it is they who will be governing in 30 years, not the sort of people who read Slashdot.

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
    20. Re:Ok, the end of the Internet is here... by AndersOSU · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Here's where I'm confused, the senators appear to be looking for tech to combat child porn. But the argument they're using to get there (according to TFA) is that the parents need help protecting their children.

      Well which is it? Those are two separate problems with very different solutions. Even if you accomplish the one, you don't necessarily make progress on the other.

      Either you enable a passive filter, and essentially tag (to use a web 2.0 term) the net to help parents with their parenting, or you actively scour the dark corners of the net trying to find predators and child pornographers. How likely do you think it is that a child pornographer is going to get caught in a passive filter? If they were that easy to find they'd be shut down already.

      So which is it senator, do you want to combat child porn, or do you want to help parents parent? If it's the latter lay off the child porn red-herring. Oh wait, you won't get any support from your porn surfing colleagues if you want to filter everything? Too freaking bad, make an honest argument for god's sake.

    21. Re:Ok, the end of the Internet is here... by ajs · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...what has insider trading to do with it?

      It's not that kind of insider trading like you hear about in the high drama of Wall Street. High drama? Wall Street is mostly pretty boring. It's lots of people shuffling around lots of paper. You clearly watch too many movies.

      Most inside traders don't get caught. 10% maybe. 97.342% of statistics are made up. Source, please.

      This is a whole 'nother economy in and of itself. Off the books and running parallel to the "official" economy. You seem to have jumped the rails, here. Are we entering tinfoil hat territory?

      All business of this magnitude operate with more than one set of books. Source please.

      As long as the government is involved, and you can't sue it, none of these pirates will be held accountable, outside the one or two that will be thrown in front of the bus for good PR. And the government won't be held accountable because 99% of of you keep handing the power right over to them over and over. How are you going to deal with the crooked bankers that make all this happen as long as these same bankers hold the mortgage on your house? You're not going to do anything. It has been this way for thousands of years. There is no indication that it's going to change anytime soon. For them the risk is nil. Once again, perhaps if you could be specific and back it up with some sources, we could understand what you're trying to get at.
    22. Re:Ok, the end of the Internet is here... by BVis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How likely do you think it is that a child pornographer is going to get caught in a passive filter? If they were that easy to find they'd be shut down already.
      Things like Freenet, TOR, and open anonymizing proxies make finding these people using filtering or other content-based examination technically impractical already. Sure, you might catch a careless one here or there, but the truth of the matter is child pornographers are probably the most sophisticated users of available privacy enhancing technology in existence. (Hmm, I better keep quiet about that. After all, clearly people who provide and/or sell this technology are supporting terrorism by not allowing the government to know that I'm going to Wikipedia to look up flower arranging.)

      It's hard to filter something when it looks like "(*#U(*YkaJH(*&F()*&G(SER". (Clearly that's a naked 12 year old boy.)

      If the legislators in question REALLY wanted to do something effective they'd allocate funds for more traditional investigatory agencies, like the FBI. Social engineering is how these people get caught; their pursuit of their perversion is ironically their greatest weakness, which can be exploited. But I'm assuming that Congress isn't a logic-free zone, and that they actually want to do something useful.
      --
      Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
    23. Re:Ok, the end of the Internet is here... by mdwh2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As U.S. District Court Judge Lowell Reed said: "Perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection".

    24. Re:Ok, the end of the Internet is here... by tinkerghost · · Score: 2, Informative

      Social Services stats indicate 80%+ of the perpetrators are family members or known to the family.

      Focusing on the internet as a breeding ground is just a way to ignore the fact that it comprises less than 5% of the events. Put another way - 100% elimination of the molestations that occur because of the internet will result in less than a 5% reduction of the overall number of molestations. Is this really the cost effective means of saving the children?

    25. Re:Ok, the end of the Internet is here... by BVis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That perception needs to be fought against. I believe in an absolute right to privacy. If the government thinks I'm engaged in illegal activity, it can bloody well get a warrant and investigate. Until then, my web traffic is none of their business.

      Incidentally, it was brought to my attention recently that the government doesn't need a warrant to know the sites you've visited; it only needs a warrant to determine the content of those communications. This goes back to a "pen register" precedent that was set decades ago regarding phone wiretaps.

      --
      Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
    26. Re:Ok, the end of the Internet is here... by shaitand · · Score: 2, Insightful

      'I can understand not wanting to filter the internet itself, but what about if the government just had a database of labels for sites, and one of those labels was "not-kid-appropriate"?'

      Still a problem. It gives the government the ability to censor content the government finds objectionable for anyone using the software. That could be millions of people. Plus, once adopted and accepted you would eventually see the same people who are suggesting this suggesting it be mandatory in schools and libraries and later all government systems. Eventually they would start holding people liable if a child saw content they shouldn't have and create a de facto requirement that everyone who might ever have a child access their computer use the database.

      Once you give the government a sanctioned way to censor information it will be abused. It is always a bad idea, just as it is a bad idea to give the government ways to track its citizens and their actions (they like to use law enforcement this way).

    27. Re:Ok, the end of the Internet is here... by edmicman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I still don't understand where "Christian==Republican" and "Non-religion==Democrat" came from....and where do other religions such as Muslim fit in? Can they only be Democrats? Or don't they actually belong to any political parties in the US? You do realize there are shades of gray and things don't fall into a black/white paradigm, right?

  2. What should be legislated... by Tuoqui · · Score: 5, Insightful

    is that any argument that invokes 'Think of the Children' automatically loses. We grew up in a dangerous world, so will they. Its up to the parents to monitor what they're doing not the state.

    --
    09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
    +2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
    1. Re:What should be legislated... by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We grew up in a dangerous world, so will they. Its up to the parents to monitor what they're doing not the state. "We" grew up in a dangerous internet enabled world.
      "They" (Senators/Congress/most parents) didn't.

      Parents used to know the locals in their neighborhood and that was enough to adequately monitor their children. Now the neighborhood is everyone on the internet.

      Some of their fears are legitimate, so don't dismiss them out of hand.
      "We" just need to make sure they don't do anything rash.
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    2. Re:What should be legislated... by jonwil · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem is that all of the "think of the children" people are concerned more with stopping the kids accessing porn (never mind that those same people used to trade porn magazines behind the shed at school when they were that age) and less about tackling the REAL dangers like identity theft, privacy, fraud etc

    3. Re:What should be legislated... by Tuoqui · · Score: 2, Informative

      Is the world really that much more dangerous? OR are you just being fed the crap and lies of the media political machine that has for years been the means to control the populace through fear?

      The fact is any sort of child molester story ends up on front page news nation-wide. Just because some pedo in California abducts a 12 year old girl/boy does not mean that you in Florida are any more or less safe than you were the day before this was reported. The PERCEPTION is that you are less safe by hearing about someone that was in a potentially similar situation to yourself.

      Its just like 9/11... Sure it was a tragedy but are you any more or less safe the day after? Not really. Its the news coverage that gives you the PERCEPTION of being under attack and that big buildings = big targets for terrorists who hijack big planes. What are the odds of that happening again? Pretty slim most likely. The terrorists pulled a sneaky trick, after years of conditioning people to assume terrorists hijack planes to get people to release prisoners and shit, they took them and suicide attacked into some buildings. Now people are going to be conditioned to fight back when terrorists hijack planes because they do not want that to happen again.

      --
      09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
      +2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
    4. Re:What should be legislated... by TapeCutter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When I was a kid in the 60's one of the first books I remember reading and being totally absorbed by was called A wrinkle in time. A few years ago I was dismayed to find out that it was #32 on a list of books most frequently banned by US schools.

      The thing I remeber most about the book is that it was an excellent and entertaining introduction to basic physics and geometry, apparently the thing that the "censors" disliked the most was the fact that witches were involved.

      Seems to me that this kind of censorship can only end in tears. I could see an exception being make is for explicit (pre-pubecent) kiddy-porn, snuff-films and the like, since the material itself is evidence of a vile crime. OTOH: Leaving that material up has proven to be an excellent way to track down highly organised child abuse (re: Denmark in the 90's).

      As a parent who kids are now adults, I agree that parents do/did have ligitimate concerns but somewhere in the back of my head is a voice that says Murdoch has more to do with this than your average parent. ("29,000 perverts deleted from MySpace" - today's coincidental headline).

      As for growing up in a "dangerous world", I can assure you that what was "normal" behaviour in the 60's towards kids would now land you in jail.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    5. Re:What should be legislated... by Firehed · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh big deal. If you can't teach your kid not to get in a stranger's car, you've failed at parenting. The threats haven't changed, just the rules. Learn them, and teach your kids accordingly.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    6. Re:What should be legislated... by Eggplant62 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The real problem is the parents who would rather let their children surf happily on the 'Net as an electronic babysitter. They are only providing themselves with a bit of peace and quiet for a few short moments of their too-busy lives. They're too busy and/or too lazy to actually learn anything about computers and how to properly implement filtering systems; they expect their computers to be as safe as their refrigerator or microwave oven without realizing that the computer is so much more than either appliance.

      You can't set children loose in a world of adults and expect them to be safe, whether that world be electronic or meatspace. The same dangers exist on the 'Net as in the Real World. These parents who think they're doing their children favors by setting them loose on the Internet without any sort of supervision should be set up in stocks for all of us to jeer and throw tomatoes at. That might be very fitting punishment for another stupid, archaic law meant to babysit "The CHILLLL-dren," which is ass coverage for, "I'm TOO BUSY to be an ATTENTIVE PARENT." The bloody thing has an on/off switch, and power cords don't grow on trees. If you're that worried about Junior seeing too much of Pam Anderson and Tommy Lee, use one or hide the other.

      This is the same reason why I'm sitting here at 11 p.m., watching Ferris Bueller on VH1, a channel that I couldn't access without *paying for it*, and the bloody movie is censored to keep these same people from screaming too much about protecting "The CHILLL-dren." Fuck "The CHILLL-dren." You want them protected, they're your children, YOU PROTECT THEM. It's your job, stop pushing it off on the government and the rest of society.

    7. Re:What should be legislated... by OldManAndTheC++ · · Score: 2, Informative

      And now look what tops the bestseller lists - Harry Potter.

      ...which is number 7 on the list of most frequently banned books.

      --
      Soylent Green is peoplicious!
  3. Say what now? by Verteiron · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From TFA:
    "While filtering and monitoring technologies help parents to screen out offensive content and to monitor their child's online activities, the use of these technologies is far from universal and may not be fool-proof in keeping kids away from adult material," Sen. Inouye said. "In that context, we must evaluate our current efforts to combat child pornography and consider what further measures may be needed to stop the spread of such illegal material over high-speed broadband connections."

    How does he jump from kids seeing pr0n to pr0n of kids? Is this a special type of logic you learn when you get into politics?

    --
    End of lesson. You may press the button.
    1. Re:Say what now? by greg_barton · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Is this a special type of logic you learn when you get into politics?

      Yep. It's called juxtaposition. See "Al Qaeda in Iraq"
    2. Re:Say what now? by wytcld · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How does he jump from kids seeing pr0n to pr0n of kids?

      He doesn't understand that the computer's not watching him. So then if "kids are being exploited online" ... and as an occasional porn surfer I can testify that the kiddie porn is nowhere some curious kid is at all likely to find it, or adult is at all likely to stumble on by mistake - which is to say I've no idea where it is because obviously those who trade it are well aware they need to hide and keep their groups small. But I digress. In the senator's mind the computer must be directly exploiting kids by luring them to sites where dirty old men instruct the kid to disrobe in front of the computer, while they beam the kids performance out to all their dirty old friends. Or something.

      In other words the senator has no friggin idea what being online is actually like. The worst that happens is some 13 year olds find a few videos of adults at orgies. I've overheard the neighbor kids talking about that as they walk down the street. It's a curiousity, but obviously doesn't mean a lot to them. It wouldn't bother me if that stuff was blocked from such kids, but it doesn't bother me that it's not. It was just in the news that porn site revenues have taken a steep drop in the last year. It seems that our culture's been so saturated with the stuff that people just aren't motivated to buy it like they used to. Maybe the senators figure if they can create a more restrictive environment again, it'll revive the porn industry.

      After all, that's worked well with recreational drugs.

      --
      "with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
    3. Re:Say what now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How does he jump from kids seeing pr0n to pr0n of kids?

      Maybe because he is a child molester.

      If congress was serious about internet pr0n, they would require all pr0n sites to use an "XXX" TDL.

      Likewise, if they were serious about combating phishing, they would require all FDIC insured institutions to use a TDL of ".BANK".

      The fact is they don't care about either issue, but merely in giving the appearance of caring about the issue.

  4. 1984 much? by jshriverWVU · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Orwell must be looking down and shaking his head.

    1. Re:1984 much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Orwell must be looking down and shaking his head. More like spinning in his grave. If you wrapped copper wire around his corpse and put a magnet on his coffin it would probably yield enough kilowatts to light up your entire neighborhood.
    2. Re:1984 much? by simcop2387 · · Score: 2, Informative

      better to strap the magnets to him, makes it easier to wire up, since then you can just wind around the coffin

  5. Children and terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Children and terrorists
    What a nice blessing for any power hungry totalitarian government

  6. My Announcement: by JimXugle · · Score: 5, Funny

    I would like to make a bipartisan call for the universal firing of every congress critter who supports this idea in order to protect us from stupidity. Congressmen are not invited to comment on this request.

    --
    -jX

    Don't you just love politics? It's like a comedy of errors.
    1. Re:My Announcement: by frdmfghtr · · Score: 4, Funny

      We already do that periodically. They are called "elections."

      --
      Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
  7. Ironic Tubes by Digitus1337 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Anyone else notice that this is being headed by Senator Ted Stevens? Why is anyone listening to him about this kind of a thing?

    1. Re:Ironic Tubes by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why is anyone listening to him about this kind of a thing?

      Hopefully nobody. But Ted has to keep talking. He's got some interesting things going on right now and it's best for him to keep the topic on children.

      It would be so much nicer if corrupt oil companies were to do a better job of wiring up unethical politicians' houses for Internet when doing them construction favors. We could have been spared all that tube talk. At least put in a kiddie filter for the guy, he's old.

    2. Re:Ironic Tubes by e9th · · Score: 2, Informative

      The committee is headed by Inouye, D-HI. Stevens is the vice-chair.

  8. COPA Part Deux? by RancidPickle · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They tried this, and COPA was gutted after the civil liberties folks got back in the loop. I wish Ted 'Series of Tubes' Stevens and Senator 5-0 would stop trying to govern parenting. Heck, isn't Stevens up against the wall for some illicit activities in Alaska? Looks like he can't even protect himself from himself, let alone watching out for other people's kids.

    Let parents deal with kids. If the parents can't do it, there are local resources that can help. Legislating to the family unit won't work. There are more important national things begging for attention, like getting a bridge built to a barely inhabited island in AK.

    --
    "First things first, but not necessarily in that order."
    - Doctor Who
    1. Re:COPA Part Deux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This once again shows that Ted 'teh Tubes' Stevens simply does not understand the technology of the Internet.

      For every content blocking filter you put up, I can simply encapsulate my content and go right through. Or will SSL/TLS, IPSec, SSH tunneling, PPTP, PPPoIP, L2TP, and a myriad of other available methods of encapsulation suddenly be outlawed?

      Then comes the question of seeding the content filters themselves. How will it be done?

      IP filters are a horrible method, since many websites utilize virtual hosting. The elimination of thousands of virtual hosts just to block a single bad host will simply anger too many people. Worse case scenario is that people stop using virtual hosting, causing an even greater need to the few remaining IP addresses available.

      Image fingerprinting is also worthless. Simply take a lossless format such as BMP, IFF, GIF, PNG or TIFF and move the bitplanes around. Looks like garbage to a filter, but a simple restore will render a hidden kiddie porn surprise inside.

      Heck, bittorrent the stuff. You can't filter what you can't see since the kiddie porn is simply bits of bits coming from all directions when you pull from the torrents.

  9. Yes, we MUST catch up with China!!! by intrico · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Freedom is a THREAT to national security! //end sarcasm

  10. Won't somebody think of the parents? by lilomar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "While filtering and monitoring technologies help parents to screen out offensive content and to monitor their child's online activities, the use of these technologies is far from universal and may not be fool-proof in keeping kids away from adult material," Sen. Inouye said. Or, to rephrase that:
    "There are ways for parents to keep their kids from the stuff we want to censor out, but we don't trust them to do it. Also, those darn kids are to sneaky for their parents to stop."

    Whatever happened to letting the parents do their job and parent?
    --
    The creator of this post (Jacob Smith) hereby releases it, and all of his other posts, into the public domain.
    1. Re:Won't somebody think of the parents? by morari · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Whatever happened to letting the parents do their job and parent? Most parents don't want that job nowadays. They know that television makes a much better parent than they ever could, so they can go out and be career-oriented instead of nurturing! Or the other side of the coin are the crack whores that pop one out after another simply to get more money from the government to further fuel their addiction. Clearly women's liberation is to blame for most of it...
      --
      "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
    2. Re:Won't somebody think of the parents? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have a lingering feeling that I've been trolled one of the subtlest trolls I've ever seen. Hello, "Velvet Flamebait".

      I remember hearing on the radio that children as young as ten years old are learning how to bypass filtering.

      I find that to be somewhat encouraging, actually. Children as young as ten already know more about the Internet than Ted Stevens ever will! So maybe, in another 10 years or so, he'll lose his job and the world will be a better place.

      Perhaps we need ISPs willing to filter the web on their end for certain customers who request it?

      Mine is, actually, but that's not a solution. What that does is it means your kids will go to their friends' house, where you can't monitor them yourself. Or they'll get a DS or a PSP ("Playstation Pornable" was the sensationalist headline), even a laptop (for the schools that give them laptops), and hop on the neighbor's open wireless access point.

      Really, as a parent, you have three choices when it comes to "bad" influences:

      • Isolate. This is what you're trying to do. At one point, it worked -- you could move to Suburbia, where there's all kinds of friendly neighbors, and you could hide Playboy in the sock drawer, where the kids would never find it (or so you thought). You really could create a little bubble of security for them to grow up in, never mind that they'd be less equipped to deal with the real world.
      • Inoculate. Teach them your values. Actually teach them right from wrong. How you do this depends on your parenting style, but the idea is that even if they are exposed to material you don't approve of, they will know the correct response. In other words, a good kid might find that Playboy of yours, know he wasn't supposed to read it, and actually not open it.
      • Ignore. Don't sweat the small stuff. Maybe your kid finds that Playboy and reads it. Fine, it'll make the whole "birds and bees" talk easier. You don't have to like it, but it won't kill them, and this way, they will take you seriously when you tell them to stay the fuck away from child porn, snuff, drugs, etc.

      There's a lot more to parenting than that, of course. But you do need all three of those things.

      It's a lot harder to raise a kid in the inner city than it is in the suburbs, so you do want to at least do some geographical isolation. That way, even if they know about hookers from GTA, there aren't any around, unless you're really looking.

      More importantly: If they're really looking, they will find gangs, drugs, and sex. (Sex, drugs, and rock & roll.) Same with the Internet. If you are trying to fight a battle to keep them isolated, you will lose. The only sure way to prevent them from being corrupted by all the evil out there (or whatever you think will happen) is to make them incorruptible, and that is what I mean by "inoculate".

      And even more importantly: Give it up. I don't care how diehard of a Christian you are, I don't believe in a God who will send them to Hell just for looking at a naked body, or the act of love. (Well, sex, really, most porn isn't about love...) You also have to figure there is a fair chance that they will not become Christian -- or Muslim, or whatever your faith is, but that's really the point. And the list goes on...

      It's up to you where to draw the line, but I think if your child grows up to be happy, considerate, honest, productive, and successful -- maybe I forgot a few, but it's pretty simple -- in other words, if your child grows up to be a good person, you've done your job. For example: they may play violent videogames that you don't approve of -- but never even come close to hurting someone in reality. I call that a win.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  11. Who filters the filterers? by mariox19 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We have Republicans in Congress propositioning their same-sex underage pages, others sleeping with prostitutes, and a Democrat president a few years back getting frisky with his intern and a box of (contraband) Cuban cigars -- and all this makes it onto the news.

    Who's going to protect the children from being exposed to the examples from these pinnacles of morality?

    --

    quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.

    1. Re:Who filters the filterers? by symbolic · · Score: 2, Funny

      You do if you're Ted Stevens.

  12. The first thing they'll filter... mp3 downloads. by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This has nothing to do with the children... It has everything to do with complete control of YOU.

    VOTE 3rd party immediately.

  13. Great Firewall of China by ndogg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wasn't the Great Firewall of China implemented to "protect the children?"

    Hmm...

    --
    // file: mice.h
    #include "frickin_lasers.h"
  14. Re:The first thing they'll filter... mp3 downloads by Khomar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No need to vote 3rd party: vote for Ron Paul. He is basically a libertarian running as a Republican. The more I listen to the guy, the more I like him.

    --

    I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!

  15. Our only hope ... by The+AtomicPunk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is still Ron Paul.

  16. Absolutely Outrageous Proposal by nhz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is this really how the U.S. government thinks it should regulate Internet communication and content?

    Let us ban internet content deemed obscene to save our sensitive childrens' eyes. What standards should we use?...Oh, of course, we already have the FCC's handy guidelines for obscene content on over-the-air TV and cable TV broadcasts. Let us just use a similar definition of obscene content to filter out the internet. That is very convenient since the FCC already has a lot of experience in this area, and of course we can apply old laws to new mediums in which they were never intended to regulate.

    Oh, but how will we enforce these new filtering laws? We need to remove anonymity with internet postings (technologically, almost impossible, and if implemented this will essentially remove the best form of communication for whistle blowers that exists). Also, we need to block all foreign internet content if that is obscene, so maybe we should build a whitelist of sites without offensive content...

    ...and after 6 months, let's add certain political speech (i.e. views of those not in power) to the definition of obscene.

    End sarcasm.

    ...and we continue to slide down the slippery slope...

  17. And people think the second amendment is outdated? by m0nkyman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Apparently so are the rest of them. Specifically the first and tenth....

    It's becoming increasingly apparent that the second might need to be taken out and exercised in the near future. :(

    --
    ~ a low user id is no indication I have a clue what I'm talking about.
  18. Study Proves by PenGun · · Score: 4, Funny

    Having stupid friends makes you stupid.

  19. The same can be said of the postal system by dircha · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "While filtering and monitoring technologies help parents to screen out offensive content and to monitor their child's online activities, the use of these technologies is far from universal and may not be fool-proof in keeping kids away from adult material"

    And the same can be said of the fucking postal system.

    While it's true that parents can screen the letters that arrive at and are sent from their home post office box to somewhat guard against their children using the postal system to solicit, receive, and exchange adult material, the practice of screening by parents is farm from universal and even when applied may not be fool-proof.

    We had better start filtering and monitoring all domestic mail as well. And, my God, what about international mail? We'll have to screen that for sure, maybe even just stop it all.

    And, and, ...oh God no!! What about satellite dishes and even shortwave! Those porn terrorists could be beaming it directly into our homes. Why if a minor were to come into the possession of a electro-magnetic wave receiving device, it could be the end of civilization as we know it!

  20. this is why by woodchip · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is exactly why I think being "bi-partisan" is overrated.

    1. Re:this is why by ScrewMaster · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Or as Lewis Black put it: "Republicans and Democrats, working together. The only thing stupider than a Republican, or a Democrat, is when these little pricks work together."

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  21. Re:I'm not a father by mbeans · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I am a father, and I'd rather see my kid go out, get drunk, get laid, and even *gasp* experiment with drugs than sit around in his room alone in the dark, jerking off and downloading pr0n all day.

    Don't get me wrong, this internet filter thing is stupid, but your priorities need some adjusting.

    --
    "It was a billion times better than cobol, but still really retarded." -AC
  22. Ha! by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You said "Research" and "Ted Stevens" in the same sentence...I don't know if you remember, but this is Ted "The internet is a series of tubes" Stevens, the guy knows flat nothing about technology...Hell, he probably thinks this is technically feasible, when anyone with a networking background would just start laughing.

    Hopefully fossils like him will just die off or (even better) get thrown out of office and replaced by people who aren't utterly clueless. Our only hope in this situation is for him to kick off, unfortunately, because he'll never stop winning in Alaska as long as he keeps up with the "Bridge to Nowhere" pork projects.

    --
    ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    1. Re:Ha! by markov_chain · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hopefully fossils like him will just die off or (even better) get thrown out of office and replaced by people who aren't utterly clueless.

      You're new here, aren't you?

      --
      Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
  23. Re:What a Crock... by wiredlogic · · Score: 2, Funny

    What are they trying to do? Emulate China?

    Part of the "No Filter Left Behind" policy.

    --
    I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
  24. Might This Be.. by BlueStrat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Might this be the first step towards legislating mandatory adoption of Trusted Computing as a way of controlling the internet and content, using the tried-and-true "think of the children!" method of bulldozing reasoned opposition by those that prefer their computers do what *they* want, instead of what corporations and the government wants?

    For those unfamiliar, here's a link to an EFF page on Trusted Computing.

    http://www.eff.org/Infrastructure/trusted_computin g/20031001_tc.php

    Here's another link to an excellent piece by Ross Anderson.

    http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html

    Not trying to be all tinfoil-hat-like, but it seems these days that it's trumped-up issues like this that precede an attempt to limit freedoms and increase control of the population. Awareness of these possibilities is the first and most important step to preventing a world none of us wants to live in.

    Cheers!

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  25. You people aren't cynical enough! by Software+Geek · · Score: 5, Interesting

    RTFA! The senate did not, in fact, pass a law banning or filtering anything. They commissioned a study to propose alternatives. That is the politician's polite way of saying "I'm not going to do anything meaningful for you today. Come back in two years, after I get re-elected."

    Vote Quimby!

    --
    http://xkcd.com/756//
  26. Threatened by Howitzer86 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As a 3d artist I feel threatened by this desire to filter and monitor the internet. Look on CGTalk, there are tons of nude 3d girls and other characters on there. If they start this up then we might have to censor ourselves if we want to post our work online.

  27. Let me be the first to say... by Foamy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    F--- the F'in Children already.

    Parents.

    Do

    Your

    F'in

    Jobs

    or better yet, don't breed 'em if you don't want the responsibility.

  28. kids are seeing boobies!! by SQLz · · Score: 4, Funny

    Kids are seeing boobies. Is that the world you want to live in!

    1. Re:kids are seeing boobies!! by WeblionX · · Score: 5, Funny

      As long as I don't have to see the kids.

      --
      (\(\
      (=_=) Bani!
      (")")
    2. Re:kids are seeing boobies!! by falconwolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Is that the world you want to live in!

      Not just yes, but Hell Yes! The human body is nothing to be ashamed of, though specific people should be ashamed of thier own body.

      Falcon
      --
      Should there be a Law?
    3. Re:kids are seeing boobies!! by Lavene · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Kids are seeing boobies. Is that the world you want to live in! Sometimes I really wonder what's going on inside the heads of those deciding whats inappropriate or not. I watched an American program about an animal clinic on TV the other night and they blurred the dogs penis and anus???? Who, for the love of Jebus, will suffer any damage from seeing a dog's penis? Who would, unless he/ she already is greatly disturbed, even think there is a need to blur animal genitalia?
    4. Re:kids are seeing boobies!! by Knutsi · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I sometimes wonder if all the drama and secrecy surrounding such things are worse for the kids than actually seeing the real deal. It makes it tempting, and fosters an unnatural attitude towards if. There are loads of cultures where kids grow up seeing boobies, sex and all kinds of "taboos" without going mental.

      It's like when parents get divorced. I, and most of those I know with divorced parents lived happily with parents in separate places, but the _drama_ surrounding the actual divorce hurt some. Those where the parents split up as friends had no problems, since they had a relaxed attitude towards it.

      When we treat something natural as sacrilege, we get messed up! Just look at all those priests abusing kids...

      On a semi-related note, I also remember seeing a great play called "Blackbird" once, that talk about a sexual abuse case. The question raised by the play is whether the court case, the police interrogation, the parents crying, the need for discretion and forcing the kid to lie to his/her friends did far more damage than the act itself could ever have. Worth having a look at when you feel like screaming "Somebody think of the children!" (thank you, South Park, for this amazing quote).

      Note to those who wish to derail the argument: the last example is not to condone abuse of kids, but rather to poke at the way we go about handling such things once they happen.

    5. Re:kids are seeing boobies!! by toQDuj · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I've seen it worse than that. I've seen a university page on water striders (the insects) deliberately blotting out the exact spot where two insects were copulating. I mean, INSECTS.

      B.

      --
      Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
    6. Re:kids are seeing boobies!! by whoisjoe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I hear ya. I was watching the first Austin Powers flick on cable the other day (I forget which non-premium channel). I caught the scene where he's unfrozen and retrieving his personal effects (including the Swedish-made penis enlarger and related items). They bleeped out the word "penis"!!!

      I would really like to know what purpose this serves. If they're pandering to parents who don't want to explain what a penis enlarger is, why include the scene at all? But to bleep out the formal reference to a body part, just because it happens to be a reproductive organ, makes me sick.

    7. Re:kids are seeing boobies!! by jez9999 · · Score: 4, Funny

      But to bleep out the formal reference to a body part, just because it happens to be a reproductive organ, makes me sick.

      There is an upside to this. You won't ever have to hear someone talking about Bush & Dick again.

      --
      == Jez ==
      Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
    8. Re:kids are seeing boobies!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Worth having a look at when you feel like screaming "Somebody think of the children!" (thank you, South Park, for this amazing quote)."

      It was in The Simpsons, spoken my Mrs. Lovejoy multiple times in the "Much Apu About Nothing" episode, although the phrase is common in other contexts. It wouldn't surprise me if it was in South Park too.

    9. Re:kids are seeing boobies!! by ElleyKitten · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm disturbed by doggie penis.

      Maybe the blurring people got bored. If I was a blurrer, I'd blur out random things, like people noses or apples, just to confuse the viewers.

      --
      "What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
    10. Re:kids are seeing boobies!! by thanatos_x · · Score: 2, Informative

      Was that south park, or the simpsons?

      Upon a little research, I think the simpsons started it; Reverend Lovejoy's wife, Helen, says it in multiple episodes, most likely predating south park by several years.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Lovejoy#Helen_L ovejoy

      --
      I am not an expert. If I am misled in something, please correct me.
  29. Help us, Obi Ron by Tony · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'd love to be a libertarian, but it seems I'd have to believe that the free market works, and corporations are free to do business however they wish.

    I wouldn't mind, assuming we returned corporations to a public charter system, in which a corporation may have its charter revoked if it is found to behave illegally. And, I'd like to see some vengeance against the to executives, and make it so if Kenneth Lay dies, we get to see his body so all the ex-Enron employees who were fleeced out of their retirement funds can piss in his cold dead mouth.

    'Cause I don't think he's dead.

    If the libertarians can promise me that, I'm a convert. 'Cause except for the whole trust-in-the-free-market thing, I'm mostly there.

    Actually, I'm a liberal anarcho-constitutionalist. But that's pretty damned close.

    --
    Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
  30. Where are the parents at? by bakana · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why do people think it is okay to put the responsibility of the parent onto the government? The parent isn't supposed to just take away access to a TV or Computer; they are supposed to instill discipline and judgment into their child. Even if I was in a room with three TVs and two computers; if I were told by my parent not to turn either of them on, I didn't. Not because I was the model child and didn't get into trouble, but because I was taught that every action has a consequence. We had the old Tandy 1000s in my school, and if you didn't follow the rules you didn't get to play. When the rules were broken there were consequences and we quickly learned to try to not break the rules. We were also taught about dangers and why we shouldn't do things. Stop trying to put your parental responsibility on the government. Do it yourself or don't have children.

  31. Re:freedom a threat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But freedom is a threat to national security. Freedom of the people is the only real threat to the security of any state. Always has been, always will be. Some people don't seem to understand that those same personal freedoms are the only real security the people have. Again, always has been, always will be.

  32. Protecting Children Is Just An Excuse by NeverVotedBush · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's the same thing as all the Patriot Act crap wasn't really for fighting terror, it was a wholesale monitoring of the US public by a paranoid administration. It's like calling wrecking the educational system "no child left behind". It's like a whole lot of what is going on these days -- call a violation of our civil liberties or Constitutional rights something that sounds patriotic or like it is protecting kids, or protecting 'Merca.

    Maybe they should just go ahead and call this what it really is - just another step towards a totalitarian police state.

  33. Sponsored by two Senators in their 80s. by superdude72 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Two Senators in their 80s find the Internet kind of scary. What a surprise. I wonder if either of them has ever used a computer or even knows how to type.

  34. Re:The first thing they'll filter... mp3 downloads by Khomar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If you listen to his speeches and read more about him, you will see that he is staunchly against any regulation of the Internet. He believes that the government should try to stay out of the lives of the individual as much as possible. Check out his stance on personal liberty. He is also the only Republican candidate against the war in Iraq. He opposed it from the very beginning because he felt that we must actually declare war if we are to invade another country. He basically is calling for a return to a government dictated by the constitution -- namely that any powers not specifically given to congress by the constitution should be left to the states.

    If you want to learn more, you can search for Ron Paul on YouTube and see his campaign speeches. I think you will see that he is quite a bit different than most of the Republican candidates -- especially the front runners.

    --

    I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!

  35. To Die from Over Eating by Shihar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We grew up (Rather I did [I'm 22]) without the internet. Even when it really started to boom it was not near as bad as it is today. The world is alot more dangerous today then when I was a kid. Hell I could walk to school without fear or rape or something like that.

    This is a good hearty laugh. You are safer today than you ever were. Your generation will live longer then any of the humans that came before you, you most likely you are going to die of a very mundane and boring age related disease. Want to talk about scary? Imagine a world where stepping on a nail is potentially lethal, a scrap can lead to an amputated arm, you can die of a sore throat, or you are a few minutes away from nuclear Armageddon.

    What do you have to worry about today? Over eating or smoking. Yeah, that is right... the thing to most likely kill you is stuffing too much food down your gullet or a voluntary behavior. Oh god, the horror... the horror. Your pool is dramatically more likely to kill you than a terrorist. You stand a far better chance of being killed in a car accident than being murdered, and the rate of murder and rape in respect to the overall population has been on a nose dive since the 80s*.

    The only thing that has changed in this world is that you are far safer and far more likely to live to be a crotchety old bastard than ever before. We don't need politicians "protecting the children" and more than we ever have.

    *http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html

  36. Re:"normal behavior" by TapeCutter · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I was thinking more along the lines of violence inflicted as "corporal punishment" (and I'm not talking a slap on the behind, I once witnessed my headmaster punch a 12yo kid and break his nose for "giving lip", he remaind head for another 2yrs after expelling the kid).

    But yes I see your point and yes my parents would order a "shandy" (50/50 mix of lemonade and beer) for my brother and I when we went out for dinner. Here in Australia it is still legal for a gaurdian to order wine/beer for a child provided it is served with a meal. - But since few people know about the law it's a rare occurance these days.

    The statistic that puts a lie to the "think of the children and cripple the net crowd" is that in 80+% of ALL cases of criminal child abuse, the child's tormentor is related to, or known and trusted by, the child's family.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  37. Re:I'm not a father by tftp · · Score: 4, Insightful
    YMMV or "it all depends", as they used to say in ancient Egypt. Physical activities come with a serious chance of lasting physical harm, whereas a virtual entertainment is as safe as it gets. Teens are driven by hormones and not by knowledge. A kid may get involved in something that police later calls a rape, what do you do then? (regardless of the gender of the kid in question.)

    It is definitely up to you to prefer one way or another for your children, but in my unqualified opinion there is nothing wrong with satisfying the temporary chemically induced desire with mere patterns of pixels. Even the most burning need can not withstand viewing of 10,000 pr0n photos that are easily available on Usenet or elsewhere. After the pressure dissipates the kid would be able to actually think before making a commitment. Hormones are a poor substitute for a well considered decision.

    It is, of course, possible to argue that one-sided attraction to computers (or their screens) is unhealthy. It may be so. But anything one-sided is unhealthy, and a parent should ensure that dangerous activities are done in VR and reasonably safe activities are done in real life, and not the other way around.

  38. Re:And people think the second amendment is outdat by geminidomino · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "It's becoming increasingly apparent that the second might need to be taken out and exercised in the near future. :("

    The really sad part is that your probably right. No, the REALLY sad part is that, no matter how much NEED there might be for it, it won't happen. Americans have made apathy an art-form.
  39. Why protect children. Just ban them from the net by zymano · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Do not allow children or right wingers to connect.

    Go form your own network. call it Kids-net. Right wing christians could use it too.

  40. There's less happening here than it appears by Animats · · Score: 4, Informative

    Sens. Stevens and Inyoue had a similar hearing last year. Not much happened.

    This year, they heard fewer witnesses. A summary:

    • Lauren Nelson, "Miss America 2007": "I am here today to ask you to please implement mandatory education on Internet Safety for all of our children."
    • Dr. David Finkelhor, Director, Crimes Against Children Research Center Horton Social Sciences Center, University of New Hampshire: "Online Sex Crimes against Juveniles: Myth and Reality" -- "Our research with youth suggests that giving out personal information is not what puts kids at risk. Nor does having a blog or a personal web site or frequenting My Space. What puts kids in danger for these crimes is being willing to talk about sex online with strangers, and having a pattern of multiple risky activities on the web -- going to sex sites and chat rooms, and interacting with lots of people there."
    • Ernie Allen, National Center for Missing and Exploited Children: Our mission: to follow the money. This new initiative is the Financial Coalition Against Child Pornography. First, we will aggressively seek to identify illegal child pornography sites with method of payment information attached. Then we will work with the credit card industry to identify the merchant bank. Then we will stop the flow of funds to these sites.
    • Christine Jones, General Counsel, GoDaddy: We do use our Universal Terms of Service broadly to cancel privacy when the Go Daddy Abuse Department determines it is being used for ANY improper purpose.

    The witnesses heard are reasonable ones. We used to see a big presence from the religious right at these things, but that's not happening this time. Nobody was asking for much on the legislative front.

  41. The USA isn't the Universe by janrinok · · Score: 3, Insightful

    [Link down - so I cannot read the article] I take it by 'universe' he actually means the USA? If not then he should just butt out. The rest of the world didn't vote for him or the Government he is part of. We do not need, nor do we want, his interference in what we are allowed to do in those countries which are outside the small proportion of the world that he represents.

    --
    Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
  42. Re:And people think the second amendment is outdat by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Apparently so are the rest of them. Specifically the first and tenth....

    Nonsense, the third amendment is still going strong. You're not asked to quarter troops in your home, just support them with your taxes... and put bumperstickers on your car... and silence all political debate because it would embolden the enemy and put our troops at risk.

    Nevermind

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
  43. Bodies by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Hey, think about who's passing these laws: ugly-ass dodecagenarians -- the very people who should be the most ashamed of their flabby, liver-spotted old hides. They don't want any competition from a bunch of slinky twenty-year-olds going around without clothes. You think that the average senator wants his wrinkled little finger puppet to be compared to the swinging Bologna of a guy who hasn't passed the half-century mark yet? What about the golfball-in-a-sandwich baggy that a woman of Hillary Clinton's age has attached to her chest?

    No, the only way that our elderly politicians will be able to retain their shabby dignity is if they're allowed to keep the bodies of attractive young folk safely hidden away, out of the public eye.

    1. Re:Bodies by hummassa · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hey, think about who's passing these laws: ugly-ass dodecagenarians 12-year-old ugly people?

      --
      It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
  44. Look to Scandinavia by andersh · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actually we've had this kind of filtering for years now here in Norway and most ISPs are connected to the filter run by the national police. It's easy to get around it of course if you know how.

    The other thing is of course the filter does not work the way it's supposed to! Lots of people have reported on internet forums and newspaper debates that their legitimate surfing has incurred the wrath of The Filter. Some of the just reported that legal porn sites were included. It's not like we feel sorry for them.

    But the principles of free speech versus censorship should obviously be considered very important! They are central values in our constitution as well. But wouldn't you know it? The public does not know, care and did't get to vote on it. Welcome to democracy!

  45. Senators Should Take a Page from RIAA vs P2P by CodeBuster · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The senators might as well pass a law saying that gravity and common sense are not in effect in Washington DC, at least they would be right on one count. It should be clear to everyone that *if* effective filtering of Internet content on a global scale were possible then it already would have been done by someone. Even the great firewall of China is not completely effective and those people live in a police state. Also, consider the massive financial incentive that has been in place for the music industry to fund discovery and implemention of this type of technology. The only thing stopping them is the near impossibility of the task. This proposed legislation will not change anything. If the free market couldn't provide effective global filtering despite massive financial incentives then how much less will such a system magically spring into being from legislative fiat?

  46. Re:That's a terrible point by StewedSquirrel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because raping a 17 year old is also a "sex offense" and so is a 16 year old snapping a picture of herself on the cell phone.

    Absurd?

    OK, we agree.

    A 15 year old?

    Abusrd?

    A 14 year old?

    Absurd? Questionable?

    a 12 year old? EXECUTE THE FUCKER!

    wait... what about a really big 12 year old.

    What about a really stupid 17 year old?

    Execute the fucker.

    Wait, I have an idea, lets take an extreme case (a 2 year old) and then use it to justify an entire argument.

    But wait... how many sex crimes are actually perpetrated against 2 year olds? 75% of "child sex crimes" are perpetrated against teenagers.

    Execute them?

    I'm confused.

    Mark Foley? Surely he's a schmuck. But.... execute the fucker?

    OK fine, but what about my best friend. He was 12 when he banged his friend's mom. He still talks about it like it's the freaking icing on the cake of his life and he's almost 30. Should she be executed?

    Where do you get off thinking there is some icon of "evil" and some glowing halo of "not evil" and you can automatically decide one gets death and the other gets a medal?

    Oh wait... your reaction was based on irrational, emotive impulse, not logic. I forgot.

    Stewed

    --
    There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
  47. First, reject the assumptions by jet_silver · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The assumption is that kids shouldn't see boobies. This is a load of crap. There are kids, right now, on beaches all across France co-existing with topless females. This doesn't seem to have hurt the French any - in fact, a call to protect kids from boobies would probably be viewed in France like a call to protect kids from wine. "Well, eventually they will have some wine, and eventually they will either have or play with boobies, so why get excited about this?"

    "Whenever 'A' annoys or injures 'B' on the pretext of saving or improving 'X', 'A' is a scoundrel." -H.L.Mencken

  48. Re:take off your tinfoil hat by iminplaya · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's that many of these sweetheart contracts are conducted in secret and marked "Friends, and friends of friends" or "No foes, they don't want you in their sandbox". We should be forcing them to hold these discussions in full view of the public. No, it's no fancy conspiracy. It's just plain ol' stealing from the cookie jar. We let them get away with it and they know we will, so they dig deeper until somebody makes a fuss and then back off a little. The really sad part is that I see the same names that go back to the Nixon era and before. And the corporations behind them go back at least two centuries, maybe twenty-two. Business is that good. Nice little lemonade stand they got there. With Vito Corleone protectin' 'em from any usurpers and keeping the riff-raff out.

    --
    What?
  49. Re:And people think the second amendment is outdat by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ``It's becoming increasingly apparent that the second might need to be taken out and exercised in the near future. :(''

    At least you understand its purpose. But I think education should come first. I mean, people actually voted _for_ Bush in the last elections, when I thought it was completely obvious that bad things had and would come of it. If you can't even get people to vote for a different candidate, what do you expect to gain by armed rebellion? Getting yourself a one way trip to Guantanamo Bay? Replacing the democratically elected government in a violent coup d'etat? You might say it's for the common good, but that's exactly what the folks proposing this universal filtering are saying.

    --
    Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
  50. Calm down--it's a stunt and no more. by innatetech · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is a publicity grab that's intended to ride the coat-tails of the news story on myspace's deletion of profiles associated with criminals and predators. The "bipartisan senators" are only barely senator*s*--there's precisely two of them: "Tubes" Stevens and Inoyue, of Hawaii. Don't hold your breath, people. The Internet will be fine. Other less insane or gerrymandered pols will not want to hop on a bandwagon that will roll directly towards a one-to-one policy correspondence with countries such as China.

  51. The Filter Gap!!! by LaminatorX · · Score: 2, Funny

    I for one am grateful to our Senators for making sure we don't get left behind by the Chinese.

  52. Do something?!? by bjk002 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "If the legislators in question REALLY wanted to do something effective..."

    How about instead of spending billions on even more police to act as parents, we get more money to the PARENTS!

    Like 2-3 year paid maternity leave for working moms/dads, benefit supplementation for part-time working moms/dads, or greater daycare/workcare allowances. Tax breaks for businesses to encourage working from home? THERE are some GOOD ideas on where we should be spending our tax monies, not adding even more damned police and making this an even bigger police state.

    And just to be clear, so as to avoid the flame wars, I do not have a problem with police. In fact, I fully support and often pity them for the shiet they are forced to go through dealing with the masses. I just have a big problem with how we are using them these days.

    --
    Opinion:=TMyOpinion.Create(Me);
  53. Re:take off your tinfoil hat by iminplaya · · Score: 2, Insightful

    People like you love to whine a lot and throw out a lot of accusations.

    Yes, well, some of us retain our memories of past transgressions, and would like to prevent future ones. Others choose to forget the the pain of, say, Vietnam(that other great war for profit) and Watergate, and "political enemies" lists, and jump right into Iran/Contra, Savings and Loans, crooked Arkansas land deals that mysteriously disappear off the radar when a fat chick enters the scene, Enron, Iraq II, and addition to that, see to to it that those criminals are able to keep their ill gotten gains, and give them their old jobs back. All so we can put on a happy face and wear the flag proudly. No, sir, I don't whine. I laugh as I watch you sink into the morass so willingly. Apparently you don't like it when the slaves get uppity. Makes you feel just a little uncomfortable, doesn't it? Just a little scared we might "ruin everything" when your life is going so smoothly? Hehehe. I like watching you(editorial) squirm, as you all come out of the woodwork to defend the monster that enslaves you. It really is quite a show from my POV. Always remember, the safest place to be is in the center of the herd. Of course that's the position you all fight each other for. Everybody knows what happens to stragglers.

    --
    What?