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."

25 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 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
    2. 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)
    3. 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.
  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 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.
  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.
  4. 1984 much? by jshriverWVU · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Orwell must be looking down and shaking his head.

  5. 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.
  6. 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?

  7. 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
  8. 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.
  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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!

  12. 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.
  13. 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!

  14. 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.
  15. 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//
  16. 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.

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

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

    --
    (\(\
    (=_=) Bani!
    (")")
  18. 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

  19. 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?
  20. 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
  21. 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.