Slashdot Mirror
Parents To Block Kids From Joining MySpace
Reservoir Hill writes "A New York Times blog notes that attorneys general of 49 states are announcing a partnership with MySpace to fight sexual predators on social networks by letting parents submit the e-mail addresses of their children, so the company can prevent anyone from using that address to set up a profile. MySpace will also set up a 'closed' section for users under age 18 so only their established online friends can visit their pages. MySpace also promises to hire a contractor to identify and delete pornographic images on the site. 'This set of principles is a landmark and milestone because it involves an acknowledgment of the importance of age and identity authentication,' said Connecticut attorney General Richard Blumenthal." Blumenthal also actually said "If we can put a man on the moon..."
I've seen on Slashdot all month. Parents can submit email addresses all day long, and their kids will create disposable addresses all day long.
Pointless, but I suppose it makes the parents feel like they're doing something.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
And exactly how many rapes and molestations occur because of MySpace? How about we place the same restrictions on schools and churches, where you are certainly more likely to end up being molested.
Also, since when did we place the responsibility on the WEBSITE to prevent an IP address from reaching it? And what about DHCP? What about the next person that gets your IP in a few months? Why can't you filter out access on your own rather than placing the burden of your absurd paranoia on websites that have nothing to do with your ridiculous "my baby gonna get raped" fantasies?
And no, I didn't RTFA. Look at my UID. I'm old school and that's how I roll.
well I don't know about you, but in my house, everyones email login and password is saved locally on every machine in the house.
My son could bypass any system to verify parental consent easily. However, in my house we practice this apparently rare thing called, 'mutual respect' whereby he doesn't do such things, and I don't invade his privacy. It's all about trust really, and that has to be taught, it can't be either assumed or enforced by stupid schemes like this one.
"Your honor, I trusted myspace to verify the age of the people I met online. I know she only looks 13 your honor, but her profile said she was 19!"
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
Most of the people that I know who are old enough to have kids on MySpace know a LOT less about using the Internet than their kids do. (Yeah, I know; there will be a few
Any "security" measures designed to "protect" kids don't have a chance of working unless either:
Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
Parents have choice over the content their children view; children do not. It is part of the parenting process; this is just a tool for such, like the V-chip. Different parents hold different values, and children mature at different rates, so such tools are not really that bad, given that once somebody becomes of legal age, such restrictions are gone. For example: I've been able to watch R rated movies since the age of 5, yet in the early 90's when we first got a computer and the internet, my old man kept draconian enforcement over it; it really wasn't a big deal in the long run and I never grew up deprived as a result.
Much better idea is to include info about internet predators, etc. in sex ed class. If done right would do much more to prevent problems than trying to tie My Space to email accounts which many respondents have pointed out is so easy to bypass. Forbiding kids from doing something just makes it more enticing. Realistically explaining the dangers of things is more effective than prohibition.
That takes me back. I used to scam my parents all the time too, and it won't be long until my kids are old enough to look me in the eye with a straight face and lie through their teeth. They grow up so fast. :(
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
This won't work for all of the above reasons. I think parents are going to have to learn that if they want their children to not do bad things on the computer that they are going to have to monitor their children themselves. There simply isn't anyway to pull anything like this off without some major governmental privacy violations. So I think we should stop wasting millions and let parents raise their children. I'm sure parenting children is a tough job, but I think it's one best left to those that made them.
This is just another attempt by some politicians to claim that they are fighting to protect our children. Later on, when nobody actually remembers any of this, these politicians can tell a cheering crowd, "I worked hard to give parents the ability to limit their child's MySpace access, and help shield their children from sexual predators online." Of course it is idiotic, and children will find a way around it in less than a minute, but if this were really about protecting our children, it would be an educational program, not another pathetic attempt at technical measures to block their access.
Palm trees and 8
For what you say in the first sentence to be true, the rapist's target has to be chosen randomly, and it most certainly is not. Therefore behaviour by the victim modifies their chance of becoming a victim, and hence they play a part in becoming a victim.
Naturally this of course has nothing to do with the sentencing of rapists, but is just common sense. Denying it in the name of PC will not help the situation.
Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
You must EDUCATE kids. Hiding them in a bubble solves nothing. It is an insult to their intelligence, and it teaches them falsities about the world. Ratings on media can be a beautiful thing as it can act as a warning sign for parents who may need to sit down and have a talk with their child before injecting them with the media. On the other hand, systems like the V-Chip, or in this case, "banning" children from "myspace", end up with children missing something without the understanding as to why. The perfect way to brew defiant kids who lie is to start by lying to them first. These defiant kids will end up seeking that missing bit, no matter what stops them, completely rejecting important advice at the moment where it is most important.
I'll be the first to admit I have no experience here (neither a parent or a psychologist) but this seems like common sense to me.
Oh well, we haven't encouraged parents to actually speak to their kids about this stuff for a long time, opting to shield children from anything deemed harmful by anyone.
Palm trees and 8
Today, the Attorneys General of 49 states took another step towards running for governor by knocking down yet another straw-man.
There, fixed that story for you. No need to thank me.
Blogging Weight Loss, Distance Education, and more at verlin.com
So? Fake problem, fake solution, everybody's happy.
...but myspace will be able to say "hey, we are doing our best to stop them". I'm assuming that I'm one of a million ofOn the bright side, the effect may aid start-ups...
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
When I was younger, I told my mother I was "chatting" with someone in Germany with a Shell account and she had no idea what I was talking about. When I'd tell people about the Internet, people would look at me cross-eyed.
Most of my e-mail was done with TeleMate over FidoNet. I could plagiarize CD Based encyclopedias and nobody knew the wiser.
It must suck to grow up in the Internet Age.
On a related note, I think sending in your kids' e-mail addresses isn't the worst idea. It would at least keep very young kids from creating accounts on there.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
I bet your parents weren't capable of putting a sniffer on the network and recording all of your traffic, either.
...and don't give me crap about "kids have a right to privacy." They don't, especially when it comes to communication with strangers.
You, on the other hand...
Love sees no species.
Its about myspace getting some publicity and paying lip service to doing the right thing.
I disagree. This was all about elected politicians getting publicity and paying lip service to make it appear they are doing something about a "problem" that was way overblown by the media to begin with.
Myspace is going along with it because they have to--but the horse and pony show belongs to the state attorney generals, not Myspace.
Just keep telling yourself that.
FEAR FEAR! Hide your precious Children away! Terrorists, SEX, HACKERS!
They might learn something about the Internet! They might be exposed to the outside world! They might learn something from their experiences! They might compete with the rest of us in the global economy!
FEAR FEAR! Hide your Children away!
If I had mod points today...
We were doing so well at the end of the 90s getting everyone to acknowledge the need for sex education. Then the 'Abstinence Only Education' people started showing up, making a worse mockery out of 'education' than the 'Intelligent Design' people ever dreamed of.
Parents: TALK TO YOUR DAMNED KIDS ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO FUCK THEM! It'll do a whole hell of a lot more to keep them safe than any kind of monitoring software or any absurd volume of legislation.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
So rather then deal with many times a day actual sexual abuse of young people AGAINST THEIR WILL by adults, they're choosing to put all attention, and diverting everyone else's attention, to a problem that is at least 50% the fault of the young person and happens maybe twice a month at the most.
Occasionally, adults 18-25 "lure" young girls 14-17 into sexual encounters. What usually happens is some socially inept 18-22 year old spends several weeks/months talking to a 14-16 year old online, the usually talk on the phone a bit, sometimes talk via web cam, etc. then they meet. If the older person isnt' arrested before the meeting, they sometimes have sex and everything blows up.
Despite shows like "Catch a Predator", 13-15 year old girls who have casual sex with 40 year olds they've talked to for a few hours online don't show up in news articles or in victimization reports-I'm betting they're rare to the point of extinction. More importantly, I SERIOUSLY doubt that 13-15 year olds are inviting strangers they've never talked to over the phone or seen via web cam to their homes for sex. Even the dumbest teen girls seem to have some ability to read body language and facial expressions via video and/or hear tone, inflection over audio. I don't think they're inviting total strangers to their house.
BUT, this is what we've been led to believe. We've been told there's a problem based solely on the existence of demand. We know there's no shortage of adult men willing to engage in casual sex with 13 year old girls, but we haven't been shown that there's even 1 girl willing to reciprocate for every 1000 guys.
Everybody goes nuts over this manufactured problem and take attention away from real victimization-that is young people being sexually abused against their will and without their consent. Real abuse is ignored in favor of virtually non-existent abuse.
Even worse is the fact that any teen girls meeting men online for sex is going of her own free will, whether her consent is informed or not is another issue. It seem that she would bear at least 40% of the blame for anything that happens.
The persons most likely to sexually abuse young people are the same people being constantly implored to monitor their teens every move-parents, step parents, aunts/uncles, grandparents, teachers, priests, coaches, neighbors. Strange guy on the internet is somewhere above that guy that works the 7-11 on Tuesdays and Thursdays between noon and 5pm.
You are right. I only wish it was possible for parents, you know, take away the kids computer privileges (or the computer itself).
Too bad it is impossible.
morcego
If we're teaching kids that they don't have a right to privacy, it's no wonder they don't value it as adults. Now I see why there's been so little uproar over Big Daddy Government listening in our phone calls.
Sure, newborns have no right to privacy, couldn't even understand the concept. But the right of privacy doesn't suddenly switch on at 18. It's a continuous function of maturation.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Given the presence of computers at schools, libraries, friends' houses, workplaces, and even some restaurants...
yes, cutting off a child's access to computers is pretty much impossible.
I'd argue that that's probably a good thing for society.
vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
Considering the fact that there was no such thing as a "home network" to monitor until sometime in the last 20 years, not having the skills to do so actually seems quite reasonable.
But I don't know why you think that kids don't have a right to privacy. If you seriously expect your kids to share everything with you, then you're a moron of the highest degree. If you try to invade what privacy kids attempt to make for themselves (I.E. "tell me what Janie said or you're grounded") then you're setting yourself up for one hell of a rebellion later in their life. It will not be pretty, to think it might turn out all right is naive.
I can understand not wanting your kids to not talk to strangers, but that's better handled by teaching your children not to talk to strangers than attempting to monitor their communication. You can either punish a kid every time they talk to strangers, or you can teach them that bad things can happen because there are bad people out there.
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
When my kid has that figured out, he's grown up enough to use it.
I told my kids (now 12 and 15) what Snort was, I showed them a session once, and told them that I can and will record everything that goes over the network. They're smart and well raised - I'm not worried. I saw a few Playboys when I was 14 - it didn't ruin me. I suspect that I've got less than 15 months before my son discovers youPorn (he's the younger one).
I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
However, in my house we practice this apparently rare thing called, 'mutual respect' whereby he doesn't do such things, and I don't invade his privacy.
Actually, in your house, you practice this thing called willful ignorance, where by not checking you let yourself believe he's not doing anything.
I used to be a kid, so I know the only way you can know what your kid is up to is to trust, but validate.
paintball
Why do kids not have a right to privacy?
And why would such a right magically turn on at 18?
Tell you what -- before I had a computer entirely my own, I was certainly allowed to have a pencil and paper. And I was allowed to keep it in a secret place, if I wanted to. And my parents did not read my various diaries (though there weren't many attempts).
When I went out, I could go pretty much anywhere, I just had to tell them where I was going, and not stay out too late (most of the time). When I got a cell phone, they didn't screen my calls, they didn't have access to my call logs.
My parents apparently did a good job teaching me mutual respect. And the process has nothing to do with the Internet. I suspect this sudden Puritanical paranoia has much more to do with the tendency of people to suspend all reason when it comes to computers.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Wow. Sounds like you've just abandoned your parental responsibilities altogether. Are you ever in for a rude surprise. Mutual respect or not, teenagers do stupid things. Period. Turning a blind eye to it in the name of "respect" is just enabling the behavior. Juvenile court is filled with the shocked parents of "my precious snowflake would never do that" children.
And if your children NEVER did anything wrong... that's an even scarier thought.
Not to mention the fact that many parents today...heck, even the ones that were parents of little ones when my own son was little...don't take the time to assist their kids with their homework, speech, reading, or math skills. Now the politicians believe they're going to take the time to police email addresses and a computer system that they're 4-year-olds are teaching THEM how to use? Please!
And MySpace says they're going to assist where? When? I've spent the past 3 weeks sending their contact folks emails to change my email address and it's STILL not done. I'll be sure to put my nieces, nephews, and future grandchildrens' online safety in the hands of MySpace and a government that can't figure out health care and education issues....NOT!
How about this one...It's going to cost a ton of money to program, implement, monitor and protect today's children from the predators that are out there. How about we use that money to get employment and wages up, gas and healthcare prices DOWN...that way families can afford to have one parent around at all times and THEY can do the monitoring and protecting!!
I know...sounds outrageous....
[b][url=http://AttitudeForLife.net]Finding the Cure in All That We Do[/url][/b] [b][url=http://attitudeforlife.net/onde
I saw a "GetOutta MySpace" T-shirt on a young teenager yesterday. I think that's a pretty good sign that MySpace isn't considered "kewl" any more. Something about laserless sharks, and jumping, I think.
Hell, I'm 55 and I've had a (unupdated) MySpace page for a couple of years, that alone should make it uncool.
You're right about the publicity and lip service. There is way too much attention paid to the internet, when there are greater dangers close to home. I wrote a journal about that very topic last year, no popint in repeating it here.
-mcgrew
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
You'd be amazed how many PS3 owners live there. :p
It's not just the old days. The old workaround of downright lying about where you live still works fine.
Stop treating kids like "kids," and start thinking of them like little people; you know, people with rights, the ability to think for themselves, etc.
If you don't treat your kids with respect, do you expect them to suddenly develop it for you at that mystical date when they turn into adults?
If they do not deserve privacy, why is it you will give your growing child his or her own room? Or will you install cameras in the walls without telling them? Will you monitor your daughter's phone conversations? Put a speed-recording GPS in your son's car? Routinely pick their locks (and with a parent like you, they will lock their doors) and search their room for drugs? Grow up.
Same here. Our computers are all in an open common area, visible from the kitchen, living room and dining room. Preventing him from using the internet won't teach him how to use the internet wisely. He has to have room to explore, and a watchful eye to keep him from getting into trouble.
That said, I have every intention of keeping tabs on my son's browsing habits using what ever tools are necessary. I don't intend to spy and attack, but to use it as a tool to better understand my son. I know when I was a kid, back in the BBS days, I had friends online that I would discuss stuff with that I never would have told my parents, and really, life would have been better if I had discussed it with them.
Fact is, my son will with all likelihood smoke a joint, and drink booze, both well before he turns 18. If I know about these events in his life, I can use them to ground lessons of responsibility. Whether it's planning a nature hike the morning after a planned under-aged drinking party, or maybe a viewing of 'Train Spotting' after the first joint. Both of those would put us in a position where we would be together, in a good position to talk, and have an immediate relevance to him. And that to me is worth 1000 times more than being able to scold him for looking at porno.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Wow. And yeah, since drugs are available in school, from friends, etc. etc. etc. might as well give up on that argument.
In fact, let's just throw up our hands and let the children do anything they want with no limits, responsibility, or guidelines. I mean, they're just going to do it anyway. Right?
If you are a parent, I have to say you're a very bad one. If you're not, don't have kids. We don't need to protect and insulate our kids from the world, we need to educate them and raise them to be aware of what's around them.
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.