This means: if your kids go and visit those sites they have searched for it, or got the link from a friend.
Bull. I'm a librarian in a public library's computer center. Patrons can easily stumble across porn without meaning to, either just exploring the Web or via e-mail messages.
The Internet was a different beast 10 years ago. There's a lot more porn now, and there's lots of spy/ad/malware that will drag you to it. We've had that problem on a staff machine or two used by the prudes in the library. If nothing else, all you need is one kid who types in whitehouse.com (which does have a cover page) or plays around making up URLs to find porn. Or, as my mother discovered, searching for things like "shower games" when looking up ideas for a bridal shower. That ended in a frantic phone call to me.
I don't think it's flinging itself up on screens as the kids sit there, no, but it's not at all that hard to stumble into. The trick is teaching your kids how to handle it. But simply saying if the url is there, they went looking for it isn't necessarily true.
I was at my local library the other day, and there was a guy in there browsing porn on one of the computers. Not in a back room, not hidden from view, out in the open, 15 feet from the children's section. So, I can't send my kids up to the local library unsupervised.
Well, yes, a public library does, unsurprisingly, have members of the public in it. And members of the public do not always conform to your personal rules of conduct. If your child isn't fairly mature, they shouldn't be alone there... and as a librarian, I'd like to remind people that I'm NOT a babysitter. I say this because people have sent me children as young as 5 to the library alone, and that's WAY too young.
That said, starting July 1st the Children's Internet Protection Act requires all Internet computers in public and school libraries to be filtered or the library loses any federal technology funding. However, patrons 17 and over are able to request that the filtering be disabled and the library staff must comply. That's the Supreme Court ruling.
So some stuff will be blocked at your library unless they've opted to forego the funding (or do not receive it). It's a cruddy law for many reasons, but there you are.
In addition, many libraries do have rules about patrons viewing pornography in the library. Mine does. Every other library I've spoken to in the area does. The library I worked in previously does. This does not mean that librarians are always aware of patrons viewing porn (or are really eager to confront them), but it does mean that if you say something to them, there's a decent chance they'll do something about it.
Since porn is protected by the First Amendment, it's not guaranteed that the library will have a rule against it. Some are worried about lawsuits, and some see this as a slippery slope. However, nothing stops you from walking over to a patron and saying, "Excuse me, but my children can see your screen. Could you please do that elsewhere?" You may get a jerk, but you may also get an embarrassed person who shuts it off. Besides, why should I always have the fun of yelling at patrons?
There has to be SOME measure of prevention to keep children from accessing pornography.
Okay. Let's say we somehow magically block porn from all computers and kids can't see it. Would you then let your child go online without supervision? If so, you're an idiot.
Porn is not the only possible problem online. There are email hoaxes, sexual predators, and a lot of bad information. There is absolutely no way that a technological solution is going to protect a child from all these, just like there is no technological solution to protect a child walking down the street from a flasher or a child molester. There has to be personal attention paid to how children use the Internet, and they must be taught good use and safe use.
So... Since the law can't actually protect children online and tramples all over the rights of others, why the heck would we want to enact it?
Finally, even if we DID somehow come up with access PINs and age verification, do you really think that would be more than a slight bump to a determined child? Isn't that essentially what a PASSWORD is? As you wouldn't give your child your PIN, don't give them your password.
They're so hard up for you to use the library, but there's really no point in it. If my assignment is to compare and contrast two authors, wtf difference does it make if I use the library vs. Google?
Who says you can't use Google in the library? Radical concept, I know, but most libraries have access to the Internet, a whole slew of authoritative books, and a bunch of electronic resources that will also provide good results. If you suck at finding things in a library, ask a librarian.
Truthfully, it depends on the assignment what resources work best. Comparing two obscenely well-known authors? Easy to do with Google. But once you start getting harder assignments, sometimes it's better to go where you have a lot more choice in resources.
the point of a library isnt to increase raw attendance, it's to provide access to a large quantity of books that the majority of people could not purchase or conveniently locate on their own.
It is? And here I've been working in public libraries for years under the mistaken assumption that we were here to provide information!
Seriously, though, public libraries provide a lot of reference and information services--not just books. Certainly our books, cds, videos, graphic novels, etc. get a lot of use for both research and entertainment, but so do our people.
I'm employed full-time by a public library to teach computer skills. We have about 50 public computers with internet access and assorted software (word processing, spreadsheet, database, photo editing, scanning, CD burning, etc.) and a staff of 6 people who teach classes and are available to answer computer-related questions. That means finding a tax form online, or giving advice on buying a new computer, or explaining how to get spyware off your computer, or showing people how to get out of some computer jam. We teach classes on everything from the basics (turning a computer on and using the mouse) to the specific (genealogy databases, selling on eBay, or PowerPoint, for example.)
We have about 15,000 people use our computers every month. I've taught 20-year-olds and I've taught 95-year-olds (seriously). Heck, I got to sign an 83-year-old nun up for e-mail and teach her to use it. The kicker? We're a medium-sized public library, and we're doing this even after having our state funding slashed by 50%.
So if you haven't been to your public library recently, you might want to stop in and see what all they offer. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that we're only here for the books.
Honestly, this was bound to happen some day or the other. When legitimate security people point out bugs and holes, they get treated like scum and are threatened with law suits. So whats the best thing to to? Threaten the companies with money. Even if 0.1% of the companies gave in, it still is a way of making money.
While I understand the frustration faced by security experts attempting to do what's right and getting the shaft for it, extortion is not an acceptable alternative. Presenting it as an "of course he resorted to this!" scenario is silly. And sending an e-mail stating he wants a "business relationship" followed by an e-mail demanding $2.5 million does not count as an "offer to help." It's an offer to screw them.
Even if you feel you must somehow force a company to change its security, you morally can not:
demand $2.5 million dollars or (insert bad result here)
threaten to expose the credit card numbers of innocent people
threaten to take over someone's domain
Pretending he had some sort of moral imperative is asinine. He was attempting to profit by threatening innocent consumers (as well as Best Buy). Frankly, threatening to expose credit card numbers to protect consumers is rather counterproductive, wouldn't you say? (I'm going to save the world! I just have to nuke half the countries to do it...)
And yes, it's a way of making money. So is recycling soda pop cans, and that won't earn you a stretch in a federal penetentiary.
I just finished both Night Watch and Monstrous Regiment, and they were some of my favorite Discworld books. (For least favorites, see Soul Music and Moving Pictures.) Night Watch may have been my favorite of the whole series, actually. I found it to be much more serious and poignant than usual for Pterry. As someone else mentioned, it was a different way of looking at some of the characters you've gotten to know.
Monstrous Regiment was just a fun romp. Not surprising in any manner, but definitely fun and full of puns. I may never look at socks the same way again.
Actually, I'd say the real question here is why certain industries have laws enacted specifically to protect jobs and income while other industries are forced to adopt more realistic business models in order to survive?
I don't think we should be promoting vigilantism so studio bigwigs can rake in huge salaries. I especially object to this law because it's based on the fallacious belief that recordings made in movie theaters are the source of most illegal copies. After all, didn't the MPAA try to ban all screeners because of piracy? And don't forget about the study which said that 77% of all pirated movies came from industry insiders.
So... why are we encouraging citizens to possibly harrass or harm others for something that is not the primary culprit in economic losses?
Can I make a citizen's arrest of tech CEOs who outsource jobs?
Sure, it won't put Mickey in the public domain. What it WILL do is put thousands of other works there, works that are currently protected but which the copyright holder has no interest in exploiting.
It also calls for the creation of a database of works under copyright protection. This would be a godsend for many industries and institutions. Librarians would be ecstatic. So would anyone wanting to create using someone else's characters.
Actually, there are a lot of reasons this is controversial. In a society where a lot of elementary school kids won't turn off the PS2 and do something involving movement, starting gamers off earlier may not be the optimal decision.
I'm not saying games are bad. I love them. You certainly can learn from some of them. On the other hand, the amount of time put into a video game and what one learns in that amount of time should be considered. If I spend 20 hours a week playing a game and pick up a few facts, was that a good use of my time? Probably not.
Finally, certain topics are best taught interactively--and I don't mean "interactively on a computer screen." Children learn science best and grasp it best when they actually perform experiments and have their hands in it. For years schools have been using computer programs to teach kids science, but all that does is create an environment where the child can spit back a "correct" answer without actually understanding it. Looking at a screen and pointing and clicking a few places is essentially passive, and kids don't learn as well that way.
Actually, Clifford Stoll has a book titled High Tech Heretic: Why Computers Don't Belong in the Classroom and Other Reflections by a Computer Contrarian, and frankly, I think he hits the nail on the head. Learning is work. While a few things can be learned in a fun environment, in the long run the only way for someone to make significant progress is through dedicating time and effort to the cause.
Besides, what really young children need in order to develop their brains is not staring at a computer screen. At that young of an age, they need to be handling items and moving things. They need to be physically active and exploring to develop both their mental and physical abilities. Playing a video game does not substitute for this.
I'm not saying there's no link between video games and literacy. They can be useful. But at 3 years old, the last thing I want my child to do is stare numbly at a video screen for large amounts of time. Let's start with Sesame Street and books and hand-held games and puzzles, shall we?
(1) IN GENERAL.--No funds made available under this Act for a library described in section 213(2)(A) or (B) that does not receive services at discount rates under section 254(h)(6) of the Communications Act of 1934, as added by section 1721 of this Children's Internet Protection Act, may be used to purchase computers used to access the Internet, or to pay for direct costs associated with accessing the Internet, for such library unless
``(A) such library
``(i) has in place a policy of Internet safety for minors that includes the operation of a technology protection measure with respect to any of its computers with Internet access that protects against access through such computers to visual depictions that are
``(I) obscene;
``(II) child pornography; or
``(III) harmful to minors; and
``(ii) is enforcing the operation of such technology protection measure during any use of such computers by minors; and
``(B) such library
``(i) has in place a policy of Internet safety that includes the operation of a technology protection measure with respect to any of its computers with Internet access that protects against access through such computers to visual depictions that are--
``(I) obscene; or
``(II) child pornography; and
``(ii) is enforcing the operation of such technology protection measure during any use of such computers.
So... I was wrong earlier. It's not even children's public computers... It's ANY library computer. Glad to know your local library staff can't help you research certain topics without turning off their own filters?
And it's only "visual depictions." Too bad the technology focuses on words.
I work for a public library teaching basic computer skills to adults and answering computer/technology related questions. This is the second library I've been in which had filters on the children's computers.
If it's a large enough library, the library can afford to put computers in both the children's and adult sections and then filter only the children's. On the other hand, if they don't have the funding and staff to do this, they're screwed.
Generally there's one network administrator who handles the filters. They're usually overworked (you know a network administrator who isn't?) and difficult to find. They also don't tend to work every hour the library is open. The general library staff on the front lines will probably be able to tweak some settings, but turning filtering on and off is not likely to happen.
It's also not feasible. Every time a patron who wants unfiltered access sits down, you want the staff member to turn the filtering off, then make sure it's turned back on when that patron leaves? In addition to the rest of their job?
Certainly I don't want little Sally looking at porn on library machines. But the situation is as follows: Little Sally can still look at porn on filtered machines because filters are crude attempts to filter based on the written word. Adults wanting to research or look at information on certain topics find the sites blocked. Some sites are blocked, and no one knows why. A site that has kids' games on it may be accessible one day and not the next. (Yes, I've had that happen when working in a children's room.)
So, while the intent is admirable, the reality is that no one gets what they want. Except possibly Sally if she really wants to see a topless Ginger Spice.
Never throw a purely technological solution at a problem that involves different communities and societies with different standards. It just won't work.
This sounded suspicious, so I checked it out. I'm afraid the patent does exist. (You can check the US Patent & Trademark Office's searchable database if you don't trust me.)
Interestingly enough, it seems to cover both browsers that have the capability of multi-frame links and the actual use of such links. (I could be wrong; I quickly scanned it instead of reading. Correct me if I am.)
It also was submitted May 1996 and granted August 1999. So if we're looking for prior use, we need to be focusing on the 1996 date, I imagine.
Also of note: the assignee is AmeriTech Corporation of Hoffman Estates, IL. Wonder what relationship they have to SBC?
Slashdot Mirror
This means: if your kids go and visit those sites they have searched for it, or got the link from a friend.
Bull. I'm a librarian in a public library's computer center. Patrons can easily stumble across porn without meaning to, either just exploring the Web or via e-mail messages.
The Internet was a different beast 10 years ago. There's a lot more porn now, and there's lots of spy/ad/malware that will drag you to it. We've had that problem on a staff machine or two used by the prudes in the library. If nothing else, all you need is one kid who types in whitehouse.com (which does have a cover page) or plays around making up URLs to find porn. Or, as my mother discovered, searching for things like "shower games" when looking up ideas for a bridal shower. That ended in a frantic phone call to me.
I don't think it's flinging itself up on screens as the kids sit there, no, but it's not at all that hard to stumble into. The trick is teaching your kids how to handle it. But simply saying if the url is there, they went looking for it isn't necessarily true.
I was at my local library the other day, and there was a guy in there browsing porn on one of the computers. Not in a back room, not hidden from view, out in the open, 15 feet from the children's section. So, I can't send my kids up to the local library unsupervised.
Well, yes, a public library does, unsurprisingly, have members of the public in it. And members of the public do not always conform to your personal rules of conduct. If your child isn't fairly mature, they shouldn't be alone there... and as a librarian, I'd like to remind people that I'm NOT a babysitter. I say this because people have sent me children as young as 5 to the library alone, and that's WAY too young.
That said, starting July 1st the Children's Internet Protection Act requires all Internet computers in public and school libraries to be filtered or the library loses any federal technology funding. However, patrons 17 and over are able to request that the filtering be disabled and the library staff must comply. That's the Supreme Court ruling.
So some stuff will be blocked at your library unless they've opted to forego the funding (or do not receive it). It's a cruddy law for many reasons, but there you are.
In addition, many libraries do have rules about patrons viewing pornography in the library. Mine does. Every other library I've spoken to in the area does. The library I worked in previously does. This does not mean that librarians are always aware of patrons viewing porn (or are really eager to confront them), but it does mean that if you say something to them, there's a decent chance they'll do something about it.
Since porn is protected by the First Amendment, it's not guaranteed that the library will have a rule against it. Some are worried about lawsuits, and some see this as a slippery slope. However, nothing stops you from walking over to a patron and saying, "Excuse me, but my children can see your screen. Could you please do that elsewhere?" You may get a jerk, but you may also get an embarrassed person who shuts it off. Besides, why should I always have the fun of yelling at patrons?
There has to be SOME measure of prevention to keep children from accessing pornography.
Okay. Let's say we somehow magically block porn from all computers and kids can't see it. Would you then let your child go online without supervision? If so, you're an idiot.
Porn is not the only possible problem online. There are email hoaxes, sexual predators, and a lot of bad information. There is absolutely no way that a technological solution is going to protect a child from all these, just like there is no technological solution to protect a child walking down the street from a flasher or a child molester. There has to be personal attention paid to how children use the Internet, and they must be taught good use and safe use.
So... Since the law can't actually protect children online and tramples all over the rights of others, why the heck would we want to enact it?
Finally, even if we DID somehow come up with access PINs and age verification, do you really think that would be more than a slight bump to a determined child? Isn't that essentially what a PASSWORD is? As you wouldn't give your child your PIN, don't give them your password.
I am not your child's keeper.
They're so hard up for you to use the library, but there's really no point in it. If my assignment is to compare and contrast two authors, wtf difference does it make if I use the library vs. Google?
Who says you can't use Google in the library? Radical concept, I know, but most libraries have access to the Internet, a whole slew of authoritative books, and a bunch of electronic resources that will also provide good results. If you suck at finding things in a library, ask a librarian.
Truthfully, it depends on the assignment what resources work best. Comparing two obscenely well-known authors? Easy to do with Google. But once you start getting harder assignments, sometimes it's better to go where you have a lot more choice in resources.
the point of a library isnt to increase raw attendance, it's to provide access to a large quantity of books that the majority of people could not purchase or conveniently locate on their own.
It is? And here I've been working in public libraries for years under the mistaken assumption that we were here to provide information!
Seriously, though, public libraries provide a lot of reference and information services--not just books. Certainly our books, cds, videos, graphic novels, etc. get a lot of use for both research and entertainment, but so do our people.
I'm employed full-time by a public library to teach computer skills. We have about 50 public computers with internet access and assorted software (word processing, spreadsheet, database, photo editing, scanning, CD burning, etc.) and a staff of 6 people who teach classes and are available to answer computer-related questions. That means finding a tax form online, or giving advice on buying a new computer, or explaining how to get spyware off your computer, or showing people how to get out of some computer jam. We teach classes on everything from the basics (turning a computer on and using the mouse) to the specific (genealogy databases, selling on eBay, or PowerPoint, for example.)
We have about 15,000 people use our computers every month. I've taught 20-year-olds and I've taught 95-year-olds (seriously). Heck, I got to sign an 83-year-old nun up for e-mail and teach her to use it. The kicker? We're a medium-sized public library, and we're doing this even after having our state funding slashed by 50%.
So if you haven't been to your public library recently, you might want to stop in and see what all they offer. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that we're only here for the books.
While I understand the frustration faced by security experts attempting to do what's right and getting the shaft for it, extortion is not an acceptable alternative. Presenting it as an "of course he resorted to this!" scenario is silly. And sending an e-mail stating he wants a "business relationship" followed by an e-mail demanding $2.5 million does not count as an "offer to help." It's an offer to screw them.
Even if you feel you must somehow force a company to change its security, you morally can not:
Pretending he had some sort of moral imperative is asinine. He was attempting to profit by threatening innocent consumers (as well as Best Buy). Frankly, threatening to expose credit card numbers to protect consumers is rather counterproductive, wouldn't you say? (I'm going to save the world! I just have to nuke half the countries to do it...)
And yes, it's a way of making money. So is recycling soda pop cans, and that won't earn you a stretch in a federal penetentiary.
Monstrous Regiment was just a fun romp. Not surprising in any manner, but definitely fun and full of puns. I may never look at socks the same way again.
I don't think we should be promoting vigilantism so studio bigwigs can rake in huge salaries. I especially object to this law because it's based on the fallacious belief that recordings made in movie theaters are the source of most illegal copies. After all, didn't the MPAA try to ban all screeners because of piracy? And don't forget about the study which said that 77% of all pirated movies came from industry insiders.
So... why are we encouraging citizens to possibly harrass or harm others for something that is not the primary culprit in economic losses?
Can I make a citizen's arrest of tech CEOs who outsource jobs?
Actually, HR 2601 looks pretty useful.
Sure, it won't put Mickey in the public domain. What it WILL do is put thousands of other works there, works that are currently protected but which the copyright holder has no interest in exploiting.
It also calls for the creation of a database of works under copyright protection. This would be a godsend for many industries and institutions. Librarians would be ecstatic. So would anyone wanting to create using someone else's characters.
Of course, it won't go anywhere unless you write your representative.
I'm not saying games are bad. I love them. You certainly can learn from some of them. On the other hand, the amount of time put into a video game and what one learns in that amount of time should be considered. If I spend 20 hours a week playing a game and pick up a few facts, was that a good use of my time? Probably not.
Finally, certain topics are best taught interactively--and I don't mean "interactively on a computer screen." Children learn science best and grasp it best when they actually perform experiments and have their hands in it. For years schools have been using computer programs to teach kids science, but all that does is create an environment where the child can spit back a "correct" answer without actually understanding it. Looking at a screen and pointing and clicking a few places is essentially passive, and kids don't learn as well that way.
Actually, Clifford Stoll has a book titled High Tech Heretic: Why Computers Don't Belong in the Classroom and Other Reflections by a Computer Contrarian, and frankly, I think he hits the nail on the head. Learning is work. While a few things can be learned in a fun environment, in the long run the only way for someone to make significant progress is through dedicating time and effort to the cause.
Besides, what really young children need in order to develop their brains is not staring at a computer screen. At that young of an age, they need to be handling items and moving things. They need to be physically active and exploring to develop both their mental and physical abilities. Playing a video game does not substitute for this.
I'm not saying there's no link between video games and literacy. They can be useful. But at 3 years old, the last thing I want my child to do is stare numbly at a video screen for large amounts of time. Let's start with Sesame Street and books and hand-held games and puzzles, shall we?
(1) IN GENERAL.--No funds made available under this Act for a library described in section 213(2)(A) or (B) that does not receive services at discount rates under section 254(h)(6) of the Communications Act of 1934, as added by section 1721 of this Children's Internet Protection Act, may be used to purchase computers used to access the Internet, or to pay for direct costs associated with accessing the Internet, for such library unless ``(A) such library ``(i) has in place a policy of Internet safety for minors that includes the operation of a technology protection measure with respect to any of its computers with Internet access that protects against access through such computers to visual depictions that are ``(I) obscene; ``(II) child pornography; or ``(III) harmful to minors; and ``(ii) is enforcing the operation of such technology protection measure during any use of such computers by minors; and ``(B) such library ``(i) has in place a policy of Internet safety that includes the operation of a technology protection measure with respect to any of its computers with Internet access that protects against access through such computers to visual depictions that are-- ``(I) obscene; or ``(II) child pornography; and ``(ii) is enforcing the operation of such technology protection measure during any use of such computers.
So... I was wrong earlier. It's not even children's public computers... It's ANY library computer. Glad to know your local library staff can't help you research certain topics without turning off their own filters?
And it's only "visual depictions." Too bad the technology focuses on words.
I work for a public library teaching basic computer skills to adults and answering computer/technology related questions. This is the second library I've been in which had filters on the children's computers.
If it's a large enough library, the library can afford to put computers in both the children's and adult sections and then filter only the children's. On the other hand, if they don't have the funding and staff to do this, they're screwed.
Generally there's one network administrator who handles the filters. They're usually overworked (you know a network administrator who isn't?) and difficult to find. They also don't tend to work every hour the library is open. The general library staff on the front lines will probably be able to tweak some settings, but turning filtering on and off is not likely to happen.
It's also not feasible. Every time a patron who wants unfiltered access sits down, you want the staff member to turn the filtering off, then make sure it's turned back on when that patron leaves? In addition to the rest of their job?
Certainly I don't want little Sally looking at porn on library machines. But the situation is as follows: Little Sally can still look at porn on filtered machines because filters are crude attempts to filter based on the written word. Adults wanting to research or look at information on certain topics find the sites blocked. Some sites are blocked, and no one knows why. A site that has kids' games on it may be accessible one day and not the next. (Yes, I've had that happen when working in a children's room.)
So, while the intent is admirable, the reality is that no one gets what they want. Except possibly Sally if she really wants to see a topless Ginger Spice.
Never throw a purely technological solution at a problem that involves different communities and societies with different standards. It just won't work.
Interestingly enough, it seems to cover both browsers that have the capability of multi-frame links and the actual use of such links. (I could be wrong; I quickly scanned it instead of reading. Correct me if I am.)
It also was submitted May 1996 and granted August 1999. So if we're looking for prior use, we need to be focusing on the 1996 date, I imagine.
Also of note: the assignee is AmeriTech Corporation of Hoffman Estates, IL. Wonder what relationship they have to SBC?