Slashdot Mirror
FTC Regulates Kids' Privacy Online
If you have the time you might also want to read the actual rule and public comments. Most online news services have covered it; Wired has a lengthy analysis sourced to an anonymous Republican staffer, but News.com has one without the Republican political spin. Fundamentally, the act regulates those commercial websites that target themselves to children (12 and under) and collect personal information about them - if you aren't commercial, or don't target yourself to children (even if you collect personal information from people) or just don't collect personal data from the kids, you aren't affected. Nevertheless, it is a significant step in privacy regulation - businesses must contact parents before collecting such information from an individual that they have actual knowledge is a child (for instance, by asking their age), but have no duty to ask the age of the general population. Thus most websites, even commercial ones that collect personal information, will have no change in day-to-day operations - they target themselves to a general audience, don't care about their visitors' ages, and need not take any steps under the new regulations.
Sites which do target kids for marketing will have to get parental permission before doing so. Parents also must be offered the option to prevent their kids' information from being shared with third-parties - to prevent the sale of that data, in other words. Parents can also opt-out entirely on behalf of their children and the site must honor their request. In school situations, teachers can give the requisite permission for their students so school activities won't be hampered.
The law and rule are likely to put a significant damper on online marketing to kids aged 12 and under. Specialized kids' sites will have to get parental permission to collect the data that is their primary reason for existence, and presumably many parents will prevent these sites from selling it. How well will they be enforced? That's uncertain. According to EPIC, the FTC has received hundreds of privacy-related complaints and has investigated only three.
"Self-regulation" of privacy concerns is an obvious failure. TrustE, the leading light of the businesses trying to prevent consumer protection on the internet, spends more time covering up privacy breaches by its members than investigating complaints... Will targeted government intervention have any better effect?
The deal is, that this wasnt needed this way. The way this thing reads, they WANT kids online and giving information out about who they are, where they are, parent's names, and credit card numbers. Gee, could we have used regular old "Parental Guidance"? Not only that, but schools can take the place of the parent?! What kind of BS is that? Now you can have some Flaming transvestite Hitler with anagenda concenting for a kid to be doing all kinds of crazy things they couldn't get to before! -And before you say that wouldn't happen, I know of a teacher like that in California. Somebody should speak up about this.
My dogma ran over your Karma....My Karma's a Greyhound: ugly, but strong. -You may think you know what, but I know who
How does this restrict a company from having an EULA like MS in that you cannot view this webpage unless you allow us to collect information on you. Like how it's in violation to run Windows if you do not agree to hold MS responisable for crashes etc.
All spelling mistakes are mine and mine alone.
The whole Self-regulation concept failed miserably a long time ago. I wonder if I can request that the law also requires them to contact my parents before selling my personal info, even if I am 31! Either that, or make it a law that I get a cut of any money made from selling my personal info. Then I would not have a problem with it. Them damn leaches make millions off selling my info, yet I get nothing in return. I supposed there's a small worth to recycling the junkmail sent to me, but that just don't cut it! I am way sick of junk mail!
The FTC didn't issue the act; it simply wrote regulations that Congress authorized it to write under the act.
(Which explains why the FTC didn't do anything about the previous complaints: because it didn't have the statutory authority to do so. Without the statutory authority, it's illegal for the FTC to do anything [not that they wouldn't, of course, but the bureaucracy's doing something illegal is a little harder than doing something with Congress's blessing].)
My Blog. Sela Ward can sell me long distanc
>Effective April 2000 Certain Web Sites Must
:-)
>Obtain Parental Consent before Collecting
>Personal Information from Children
Clearly this is an April fool joke. Right?
Seriously, though. If web sites have to have parental concent for kids under 13, doesn't that mean that they have to validate everyone's age? Or is this gonna be like at the movies where if you don't ask for a student ticket you don't get carded? (That works some places, kids. Go try it
--Ben
There is no foolproof system to ensure that you are who you say you are online - as the old saying goes "on the net, nobody knows you're a dog".. or for that matter a cybernetic being running a news for nerds site (how else does he put in 20 hours a day?!)...
--
The mere thought of the FTC and FCC makes me want to punch someone. This country has the nerve to call itself a democracy? Did anyone here happen to vote for the head of the FTC? The last time I checked the Constitution, the Executive branch of the government was supposed to execute rules passed by congress, not make their own. Congress may have given them some power 50 years ago, but 1.) That was a long time ago and a different congress, 2.) I don't want Congress giving away the power of my vote to appointed bureaucrats anyhow.
Don't even get me started on the FCC, unless you have a day or two to spare listening to my ranting.
-- I don't really have anything useful to say. ~Tuts
Maybe I'm missing something, but the FTC seems to be thinking it terms of selling a child's address along with marketing data, rather than just reporting demographics to marketers. I don't think prevening demographics collection was the intent of the FTC. Regardless, I'm still opposed to this. Although it's not as bad as most examples, it still takes responsibility over children away from their parents and gives it to the rest of the world. If a parent gives their child unsupervised access to the internet then they should trust their child enough to either make those judgements on their own or ask a parent's permission on their own ("this is important Timmy. Never give anyone on the internet your address or phone number with out Mommy's permission").
Of course, there's a big difference between someone that wants to kidnap children, and a web site aimed at kids. But there's still the same possibility that things could happen. Example: If a web site aimed at kids asks an 'innocent' question such as "Do you go home to an empty house after school?" and the answers were matched up with the address and name, that could lead to robbery and maybe kidnapping if the right person got a hold of the info. There's also the idea that many kids might inadvertantly answer "yes" to something that they should say no to , which can open a number of doors either being advertizing or personal or property threat, which might have been stated in a way most children would not understand.
This bill basically seems like a natural extention of what most media does with stories that revovle around children: the names are protected to prevent further harm.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
The statute and rule apply to commercial Web sites and online services directed to, or that knowingly collect information from, children under 13. To inform parents of their information practices, these sites will be required to provide notice on the site and to parents about their policies with respect to the collection, use and disclosure of children's personal information. With certain statutory exceptions, sites will also have to obtain "verifiable parental consent" before collecting, using or disclosing personal information from children. The rule will become effective on April 21, 2000, giving Web sites six months to come into compliance with the rule's requirements.
So, is this to mean that the kiddies will have to get their parent's permission to sign up with Slashdot? Does anyone have the text of the actual act, and can comment on WHAT has to be collected to count? Do cookies count? Username/password registration? What?
Sigh, more "protect the kiddies" legislation. Would someone please run for office on the "please don't protect me" agenda?
The thing is: 1. I have no kids and 2. I am in a different area. So, that kind of makes me useless in that dept. In response to people voicing the opinion after the fact, if you look at any of my other posts, my opinions are generally fact. The problem is, they are in advance of other people's realization of what's really going on, and whatever I bring to the table is thrown out with the trash. (look at my moderation scores). After the event occurs, then somebody says.."oh, why didn't somebody say something?"...how much can a person do? Ignorance, selfishness and tunnel vision abounds.
My dogma ran over your Karma....My Karma's a Greyhound: ugly, but strong. -You may think you know what, but I know who
I'm working on a kid's website for a client, and the FTC regulations aren't making my work any easier.
The client knew that these regulations have been coming for a while, so we have been actually dealing with these issues for the past two months.
Implementing the parental consent process has actually been quite easy. The hard part is trying to figure out out how to spin things so that the parents want to sign the consent form! Granted, it's kind of hard to put a spin on using kids for market research data.
The strategy we ended up using was the same concept drug sellers use - give the kids a free hit or two on the web site, but to keep using it, they have to register. Hopefully by then, they are addicted.
I'm not sure if I morally agree with the purpose of the web site (no it's not evil or anything, but I don't like tricking kids/parents into revealing their shopping habbits online), but it pays pretty well!
Scott Severtson
Applications Developer
Scott Severtson
Senior Architect, Digital Measures
I want my privacy protected too .... how come only kids under 13 have to give permision first .... I want that right too .....
Of course, there's a big difference between someone that wants to kidnap children, and a web site aimed at kids. But there's still the same possibility that things could happen.
So, there's a big difference, but "things could happen"? Things could happen when a kid walks down the street. Let's require people to be pulled over, and their cars searched every time they drive through a school-zone too!
If a web site aimed at kids asks an 'innocent' question such as "Do you go home to an empty house after school?" [...] that could lead to robbery and maybe kidnapping if the right person got a hold of the info.
Oh, yeah, of course! So, the obvious solution is to make collecting the information illegal. Gee, if a site is collecting this sort of information in order to break into someone's home and steal their stuff and maybe kids, making an HTML form illegal will certainly be a major deterant....
On the other hand, if you simply monitor the Web (not packet snooping, just visiting the same sites that the kids do) for such suspicious activity as people asking kids if they go home alone, maybe you'd STOP these crimes. Actually, this law is unenforcable, since anyone who wants this sort of information can get it in subtler ways (e.g. a site for "Kids who are home alone", which does not require any information be given, but has a chat forum in which you can then ASK questions, which is still not illegal).
I get so sick of "protect the kiddies" as a battle cry for minimal-effort regulation that actually does more to hurt kids and the Net than help....
The statute and rule apply to commercial Web sites and online services directed to, or that knowingly collect information from, children under 13.
Sounds like cookies to me.
If guardian allows child to store cookies from certain "parent approved" shopping site, is it then illegal for another "unapproved" site to look at these cookies?
Why do we always feel like the kids in our society need so much protection all the time. Ever notice that the only people that can open child proof locks are kids? The same thing applies here, while grandpa can't figure out how to open his email, the 9 year old grand child will explain to him how to get around child-protection on some restricted site. Any kid who wants to badly enough will have no trouble convincing the site that they are more then 12 years old.
OFTC: By the community, for the community
Disney, Nickelodean, they have money, employees, etc that will allow the to comply with this act. It is the small guy who loses by government intervention such as this. Imagine a person trying to market a product made for ADD elementry school children--any information he collects via the Internet is now subject to more paperwork than it is worth to him.
That same principle applies to those newcomers who would wish to provide games and entertainment for 11 year olds. Any information they gather would be subject to miles of red tape, and a small company simply cannot afford to send time dealing with that.
This was NOT a random regulation implemented by the government. This is a reasonable response to the way that corporations have acted.
AN ANALOGY:
Let's say I run a toy company, and so I need demographic information for children. Now, let's say that, in order to get the information, I got to a playground and start asking kids their names, their address, and all other kinds of personal information. In order to get kids to give me this info, I gave them candy. How long do you think it would be before somebody's creep-dar went off, and someone called the police (or just kicked my...)? Even if I explained my legitimate reason for wanting this info, I doubt I would be allowed to continue.
What many companies did was equivalent to this, except they used the web. They put forms on web sites geared towards kids, and they often gave kids incentive for providing info. The only real difference is that kid's web activity isn't so closely supervised that a parent would notice a kid filling out a form. Few parents would not notice a stranger talking to their child at a park.
This is, in my opinion, good legislation. It doesn't prevent companies from doing anything, it just makes them responsible for their actions, and it prevents them from using kids' trusting nature to violate the kids' (and their families) privacy.
-Josh
I can already hear people screaming over this, because it sounds as if the first waves of profound censorship is making its way unto the Net. Actually, I think it's quite different. This is not about censoring Internet content, it's about giving the parents the legal means to censor the Internet themselves.
As such, it's a little like NetNanny. It means parents have some form of control over what their children do. Well, that works wonderfully well for me. Think of the Internet as a giant video rental store. The idea is not to censor some movies, but to make it clear to everyone what each section contains.
And so, we have the little doors leading to the pr0n section. That's cool by me. As a matter of fact, if parents feel they're controlling what their children will see on the Internet, they might losen up and stop calling the Internet a den of depravation.
Protect your children the way you see fit, I don't care. Just don't try to protect me.
Caveat: unfortunately, this system sounds as if it's impossible to implement. How do you tell if a person is below 18 from an anonymous email? I've seen 30-odd year-old people spell like crap, so that's not even a consideration. And heck, everyone, adult or children, visits a children site at some point. (Best example: I have my own page on the LegoManiacs webpage.) So controlling everyone won't work either.
So, it just makes it mandatory to include some sort of silly button saying, 'I am over 18'. Yeah, porn sites have been doing that for ages.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
Like it or not, parents have become very apathetic with children these days. This is why we have l33t packet kiddies on IRC and why we have the bulk of our "web site defacements" that we do. If parents really gave a rats ass what their kids were doing online, your suggestion would work.
Now, I don't disagree with you that this is the way things SHOULD work, with parents being able to supervise and guide their child in their online activities, the real world just doesn't work this way.
Instead, parents would rather whine loudly to the government until said government passes legislation that lets the parents take yet another step away from parenting their children.
Quite sad, yes?
Personally, I would much rather the government pass a law making parents increasingly liable for their child's behavior and activities online. If their child bids in an eBay auction, the parents should be liable for the costs. If their child breaks a law by way of insufficient parental supervision, the parents should be considered negligent and tried accordingly.
OK I think I'm starting to rant a little bit, but really this is just another symptom of the problem, and instead of solving it, the government is just patching up the effects, allowing it to grow worse as a result.
I don't understand why the FTC needs to enforce this control. Last time I checked, getting internet access is at least $10/mo + $300 for a computer-- that's just bare bones, dirt cheap system with a 14.4kb bottle neck for an internet connection. Most kids don't have this much money. (I'm refering to 12 year olds, not the 17 year old "kids" who already know what naked women look like and drink more than their parents.)
Parents, if you don't want your kinds to look at pr0n, monitor their computer use. It's still YOUR computer, not theirs. If they know more about it than you, it's your responsibility to learn about the computer and wrest control back. Remember, understanding is the key to true power, whether its understanding of people or understanding of computers.
-Ted
Yes, kids don't necessarily have the skills to avoid marketing traps, but neither do a lot of adults. Why do you think people bother advertising? It's cos they know 99.999% of the population thinks with it's wallet half the time. (The other half doesn't involve the brain, either.)
The legislation is clearly drawn up by someone who has some excellent thoughts and ideas, but is clueless as to how to implement them. The same has been true of most Internet regulation. Some sound ideas, mixed with flawed logic, shoddy reasoning and liquid lunches, half-baked, and left to sit in a mildew-infested cupboard.
IMHO, this is why this kind of regulation should be done IN CO-OPERATION with ISP's and computer specialists. THEY are the ones who know what would work and what wouldn't, and what would be acceptable to the population as a whole.
Legislation by force of arms achieves nothing, least of all it's intended goal, and gets everyone so hostile to the idea, there isn't a hope of anything sensible being implemented for years to come.
Which is more important? The egos of the legislators (in Congress, or wherever), or getting effective, workable, useful legislation where it's NEEDED, in the WAY that it's NEEDED, to achieve the things that are NEEDED?
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Read the privacy policies on the sites you do business with, and if it's clear that the site intends to sell your information, don't do business with them. Send them an e-mail address stating that.
how about educate the children so they can save themselves?
If anybody in washington really cared about kids they would work on reducing the age of majority, so that younger people could have a say in a lot of important areas.
Example: taxation: one of the founding reasons of the US was to get away from taxation without adequate representation, but its generally easy to get a job at 16 (flipping burgers if nothing else) and you get taxed on any earnings you make, but you have no say in how the taxes get spent. If you could vote, you would at least in theory have some say in where the taxes go.
Need a Catering Connection
What is the position on use of these sites by nonhuman entities such as web robots? After all, most web robots are under 13 (the Internet being a considerably smaller place back in 1986), but they don't usually have a parent or guardian. Perhaps the robot would have to get permission from its author to give out personal information.
It would certainly be damn handy, wouldn't it?
In fact, I am considering starting my own marketing company which will specifically target the PARENTS of these kids. Screw the kids, they don't have any cash to spend anyway.
~mantis
Usually I'm against anything the government does to "regulate" content of any medium, but this doesn't look like a content filter. However the article doesn't really state exactly what they are targeting...if the site requires you to enter demographic info before you can look at the site, then it does amount to content filtering. Personally I wouldn't want to look at any page that requires a lot of personal / demographic information up front, however.
But lets face it, most kids aren't smart enough to know any better until they reach a certain age. If I had kids I wouldn't want them giving away our address, email addresses, household income, etc. This age is different for everyone, which makes it important for parents to have the FINAL word on what their kids can or can't see, or what information to give out as is the case here. If a site falls into the category outlined in this bill, it could prompt the kid to have his parents enter a password, or some similar security measure. Hopefully parents would be able to disable a security measure like this, if they don't want to deal with it every 5 minutes and/or when the kid reaches an age where the parents think the kid is ready to decide for him/herself.
Somehow I doubt the gov't will allow this level of personal control, however. This bill is also vague, as are most bills related to technology, particularly relating to the internet. Thus if they try to sue a company over this, the bill probably won't stand up very well in court. It's too vague as to what specifically requires controls and how to go about implementing them, and what passes as a decent implementation.
"Seriously, though. If web sites have to have parental concent for kids under 13, doesn't that mean that they have to validate everyone's age?"
No. The regulation specifically says that this parental consent is only necessary if the site is already requiring people to state their age and if the age of the person in question is 12 or under.
~mantis
If I visit Ford's web site and Ford banner ads follow me all over the web for the next week or two (purely an example, unlike the Dell thing, this hasn't actually happened to me) - then again someone's trafficing in my identity and information about my web usage - they may not know exactly who I am - but it doesn't matter they are still passing information around about me, and money is probably changing hands - and I WANT MY CUT! :-)
Kids in the us today are often spoiled and do what ever the hell they want. Parents are often working and not supervising these kids. This will hopefully start to make parents responsible for there children.
They have curfu in DC now too. 12pm. So tell me what the hell is a child under 12 doing outside at midnight if he is not coming home from a job? Hanging outside leads to boredom. Bordom leads to mischief. Mischief usually leads to trouble.
It is terrible that the goverment has to regulate things like this when the parents should be doing this anyway, but in light of the fact that many people want to just have the kids and then have socuiety raise them, I for one am glad to see that society is saying you had your kids now it is time you took care of them!
Note this is not all children but there is a large majority out there that fall in this category. It is a shame when adults do not feel safe around there children.
Only 'flamers' flame!
"Example: If a web site aimed at kids asks an 'innocent' question such as "Do you go home to an empty house after school?" and the answers were matched up with the address and name, that could lead to robbery and maybe kidnapping if the right person got a hold of the info."
There are already laws against kidnapping and there are already laws against robbery. Why not enforce those laws instead of coming up with yet another reason for the government to interfere.
So the solution to this problem, rather then educating parents and children about issues, is to legislate? We teach kids not to open the door when their parents aren't home and we teach them not to give out their address over the phone and we tell them not to tell phone callers that they are home by themselves. Parents are responsible for this sort of problem and making it the responsibility of the business is ridiculous. It is yet another step in making the government the surrogate parents and letting parents off the hook for what their children do.
We don't even regulate GUNS IN PEOPLE'S HOMES, for fuck's sake... but we are going to regulate businesses which gather the "personal information of children"? Which do you think is more dangerous?
~mantis
"Web sites... directed to, or that knowingly collect information, from children under 13"?
Mark my words... this makes any site with any material that might remotely be attractive to children (sports sites or CNN, for example) well within their radar screen. That's how they went after the tobacco industry, because the ads are designed to appeal to young adults, so they obviously are "targetted at children" (you tell me how to target people who are 18 without including people who are 17, and I've got a bridge to sell you).
Protect the kiddies indeed.
My Blog. Sela Ward can sell me long distanc
Do you honestly think Dell does this? How many IP addresses do you think on the 'Net actually map back to a domain name owned by the person browsing on that IP? Count the number of domains with unique contacts and divide by the number of total people that use the Internet. It would not make good business sense to pursue this incredibly small marketing target. I have dealt with Dell several times over the past few years, and visit their web site at least a few times per year. I have never once been contacted by Dell at the address listed in a contact for any of the domains I own.
If Dell has your address (likely purchased from a computer-related list elsewhere, assuming you never gave it to them in the past), they're not going to wait until you browse their site one day before the send you out a mailer.
The two incidents are almost certainly unrelated. Dell sent you a mailout because you either gave them your address or you've given your address to somebody that in turn gave it to Dell. Your web site visit had nothing to do with it.
Contrary to what you seem to think, web sites out there aren't going around automatically track your IP addresses and through some feat of network magic find postal addresses for every person browsing their site just so they can send out mailers. There are much more efficient ways to do marketing.
I'd suggest you take a look at Dell's posted online privacy policy at http://www.dell.com/policy/privacy.htm. If you don't trust them and think they're lying, don't do business with them.
There are pedophiles on the net and in real life. There are people that have very low morals that will stalk children and harm/kill them...
...there is something to be said about obtaining without the consent of the parent personal info about a child, much less being able to sell that info across a number of other companies.
Yes there are, but I'm so tired of hearing about them every time I read a mainstream media piece about the 'net. There are a handful of pedophiles (on the 'net and in "real life"), but there are thousands of companies (on the net and in "real life")that may want to collect information about children. They don't want to sexually abuse the precious moppets, but they do want to exploit them. They want to exploit you and me too, but that doesn't make it okay.
That having been said, I agree somewhat that
Without consent is bad. But who is entitled to give consent? The law (in most states) says an individual must be 18 in order to give consent for sex (unless he/she is married). But a girl can (f'rinstance) consent to an abortion at any age.
Children (not their parents/guardians) should be able to give consent to have information collected from/about them once they reach a certain age. Younger than that, and they're their parents'/guardians' responsibility. What is that magical age? I don't know, but I do know it's younger than 18, and older than 5. YMMV.
How to enforce it? I don't know that either. It seems unenforceable.
"It doesn't prevent companies from doing anything, it just makes them responsible for their actions"
Why not make parents responsible for their actions? If parents are letting their kids browse online at the age of 7, 8 , 9 without any parental supervision they are fools. This is yet another means of allowing parents to "park" their kids at a pc.
I suppose they could put up a "click here if you're 18 or older" button, but that smacks of a contract (at least as much of a contract as any EULA), and as we all know, kids cannot enter to a contract.
Yeah, whoever made that PDF must have made the wrong OS choice, since it led them to use a bizarre format for text.
If they had used a standard text format, they would be able to use 30 years worth of standard tools to search, index, reformat, speak, etc the file. PDF is for losers who are actually dumb enough to voluntarily give up power. Obviously, those kind of people are more likely to make poor choices in OSes too.
Hamilton wrote that vesting the power of appointment in a single person He further believed that
In Federalist 37 Madison specifically speaks about the Republican nature of the government and notes that
The President himself is not even directly appointed. How is that indirect appointment any different from the head of the FTC's indirect appointment?
You may disagree with Hamilton and Madison's analysis. But you obviously misunderstand the principles upon which this nation was founded. In light of that, your argument is difficult to take seriously.
First, I agree with your overall point - many parents use Television (and increasingly the PC/Internet) as electronic babysitters, which is abhorrent..
But another (equally valid) point is that it's simply not possible to supervise a child 24 hours a day.. and if a kid REALLY wants to do something, they are going to find a way to do it..
If Mom is surfing with the child, and she doesn't let him/her fill out a form (even if she explains why,) if the kid wants to see that site, the parent is not going to be able to stop the child from getting up early and going down to the computer room (ok, it _IS_ possible, if you're running a multi-user OS, and have proper permissions on the browser.. but let's be realistic, how many home users can actually do this - or even know it's possible?).. or what if little Bobby decides to go play at his friends place, who's parents don't supervise 'net activity? And let's face it - most children know way more than their parents about computers.
My little sister once got it into her head that she wanted to smell everything (including everything that came in a bottle..) my parents warned her not to - it was dangerous, blah, blah... but when nobody was looking, she would always try to see what something smelled like... until she tried the bottle of bleach my mother kept under the bathroom sink (yes, the one with the child-proof lid) and she ran around screaming "my nose is on fire! my nose is on fire!"
I agree that responsible parents will supervise their children when they're online, but if a website offers enough of an incentive, a child will always find a way to do it without consent.
LOL
-COPPA!
(slightly modified pronounciation of "copper" meaning policeman. Used to make a driver aware of nearby peace officers)
+&x
"I agree that responsible parents will supervise their children when they're online, but if a website offers enough of an incentive, a child will always find a way to do it without consent."
Precisely. This legislation actually does nothing other than to make businesses enact absolutely absurd (not to mention potentially expensive) tactics to extract the "consent" of parents. More likely what this will allow for is business getting not only information about children but about their parents (who do, after all, hold the purse strings).
If, as you say, most kids know more about computers than their parents, wouldn't it hold true that a child could easily find a way around a business having to email their parent for permission? Couldn't a child easily "forge" such forms and petty annoyances?
Now to address the issue that parents are incapable of supervising their children. If there is a computer which parents cannot control via software (for whatever reason: lack of technical knowledge; don't have proper OS) those parents have the responsibility to find another way to control access, if that is their desire. Put a lock on the door. Buy a case which requires a key. There are MANY other ways outside of legislation for parents to supervise their kids.
It is sad that our governmental agencies are being drug down to the level of raising our children.
~mantis
Saying that all pedophiles are child molesters is like calling all adult-oriented heterosexual men rapists. It just isn't true. As a pedophile myself, I *know* that *I* haven't raped any one and wouldn't force anyone, young girls included, into having sex if a gun were pointed at my head. Unfortunately you reflect the brainwashed public who thinks that the one percent of people I'm a part of like to rape children. Most of us are as outraged at real child molestation as you are.
By the way, the rape/murder senario you are eluding to only happens in about 140 to 200 cases a year by about 100 or so men. Realistic estimates of how many pedophiles are in the US are of about 2 to 3 million. Also, most familial child molestation that takes place is by a man whose wife doesn't put out so he takes what to him is second best,..his [step]daughter.
That's the funniest shit I've read in a long time.
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
This article reminded me of something that happened earlier this year. Many years ago, I created a web page on Geocities (this was back when Geocities didn't suck). After the creation of the COPPA (last year), Geocities made a parent's permission required to create a web page on it for children under 13. I didn't really care, because I was over 13 at the time they made the announcement. Then, in February (I think), Geocities sent me an email saying that because I was under 13 at the time I had started my web page, they would require information from my parents or my page would be deleted. They wanted things like my address, my phone number, and other things that weren't required to sign up initially. I wrote Geocities an angry letter, knowing very well that nobody actually reads the email that gets sent to them. Not that I actually cared. My web page was fairly popular, but I was fed up with Geocities anyway (the slow speed, the lack of support, the pop-up banners, etc.) So I let them delete my page.
I believe that the COPPA is not neccesary. If parents don't want their children visiting particular web sites, they should be monitoring their children's Internet usage. Parents shouldn't be required to give web sites a lot of information just to let their children visit the sites.
Thank god thay can't get licenses to drive or aren't allowed in bars. It's too bad the industry isn't regulated more. I ought to jump in my car right now anw go out to a good strip bar! Kids blech!
As a pedophile myself, I *know* that *I* haven't raped any one and wouldn't force anyone, young girls included, into having sex if a gun were pointed at my head.
So am I to assume then that you get your jollies by looking at movies and pictures of other guys (and women presumably) playing around with little kids? So as long as other people do it, and you get the video, it's OK? You are truly a disgusting individual.
Most of us are as outraged at real child molestation as you are.
I'm not even going to begin to argue the truthfulness of this one, but let's be honest here. Any pedophile, whether they actively molest children or they just fantasize about it, needs immediate psychological help. Desiring sex with children is a mental hangup that not only poses a potential (and I only said potential...I'm being open minded) threat to children, it negatively affects the life of the pedophile himself by depriving him of the desire to carry on a normal physical relationship
By the way, the rape/murder senario you are eluding to only happens in about 140 to 200 cases a year by about 100 or so men. Realistic estimates of how many pedophiles are in the US are of about 2 to 3 million.
Hmm...lets look at this in a different light. "Of the 3 million cars we sold last year, only 100 exploded and only 200 deaths resulted. It's unfair to brand our vehicle a bad product." Or hows this: "Of the 3 million airline pilots in the US, only 100 of them have caused crashes while under the influence of drugs. It is therefore unfair to test us all". Pedophilia is wrong, and the only way to correct the problem is to either get rid of, or monitor all of them.
Also, most familial child molestation that takes place is by a man whose wife doesn't put out so he takes what to him is second best,..his [step]daughter.
I really really hope you aren't trying to justify this. My wife gets pissed off at me all the time and makes me sleep on the couch, sometimes for several days straight. Does this mean I'm somehow justified in sleeping with my daughter? Hell no! Even without getting into the moral/biological problems associated with incest, there's one fundamental error with that argument. I chose to be with my wife, and she with me. What choice does a little girl have when someone climbs into her bed? None. If a mans wife really won't give him any, and he really want's some, perhaps it's time to consider a divorce, a fling, or even a damned hooker. Any of those options are preferable to playing around with an innocent child. Personally, when my wife kicks me out of bed, I don't do ANY of those things. You want to know why? Because I have SELF CONTROL. Perhaps you should consider getting some yourself you perverted bastard.
Moderators: Yes, I know this is a light year offtopic, but I couldn't let that post go without commenting. Some people really should have their asses kicked, and he's one of them.
I had an idea to make a boiler that ran a generator fueled by junk mail. Put it out in place of the mailbox and write "Mail" on the door. Free power... more boxes on 24/7.. oh hell yea!
They don't give a rat's ass about the people. Take a look at micropower broadcasting. They intimidate and steal transmitters from people because they can't afford to pay a ridiculous licensing fee. What a crock of shit. The RF spectrum belongs to everyone not just these piece of shit brainwashing corporations.
Also take a look at their wonderful regulations on ISM stuff like wireless LAN/WAN equipment. It basically prevents you from getting a connection to your buddy across town because of the lame power output restrictions (1W + lame antenna/height restrictions). This is bullshit. The military can run high power on these bands and so can I. I've violated numerous power output and other regulations that the FCC made up and I don't lose any sleep at night.
The RF spectrum is everyone's. All we need is some common courtesy with regard to it. Also the commercial restrictions on amatuer radio are too fuckin restrictive. Currently it is illegal to setup an IP gateway to an internet connected box. I say if an individual (no corps) want to do this then fine but they cant charge anyone.
All in all I think the FCC is doing what they can to support telcos and ripoff the consumer. They ought to make themselves useful and punish these fucking cable TV companies. I don't want their lame+filtered+stupid bullshit service... I want it from people who actually have the decency and knowledge to implement a quality broadband service.
'Nuff said, I'm pissed off today.
They removed my page too, because I was out of the country at the time that I got the e-mail, and did not think to fax overseas... I lost MANY geopoints, hundreds of dollars worth.