The original post implies we should alert both Disney, in order to protect Peter Pan, and The Shadow.
As others have noted, if one has enough information to analyze the gait, shadow, etc. of an individual, even via satellite, then one most likely has the ability to arrest said individual.
I am both amused and frightened that such a thing as 'shadow analysis' or 'gait analysis' is even remotely considered scientific. The scientific 'proof' that one's gait cannot be altered is 'thin' at best, as actors and con artists have been doing so for years.
Content filtering is an exceedingly difficult and often labor-intensive task, but public school IT departments are among the worst funded and supported IT departments in the entire IT industry, perhaps equaled only by those in public healthcare. There are many examples of legitimate Internet use which might be blocked by a content filtering system. For example, an anatomy/physiology teacher may attempt to 'incorporate the Internet into the curriculum,' performing (during class) a Google Images search upon the word 'chest' but have the appropriate and desired results snared by a content filter. In addition, the content filtering system may block the desired content and allow a piece of undesired content through. The number of possible content iterations is mind-boggling.
I'm not saying that the effort of content filtering should not be undertaken by public schools. Instead, the public school boards and the court system must uphold the principle of 'reasonable effort' undertaken to protect a child. Just as we should not allow school building doors to be locked (fire safety) yet still control school campus ingress and egress, we can also implement 'reasonable' Internet controls. Society needs to wake up to the fact that the entire world can be a dangerous place just as much as a beautiful place, and teaching children how to respond accordingly seems far more valuable and sensible that insisting upon a futile 'arms race' to impose blinders and barriers to protect the tender minds of lil' Johnny and lil' Suzy.
I have a teen child who has a computer in his room with full Internet access. However, my child does *not* have Administrator access to any computer in the house, all of which are loaded with real-time virus and spyware protection as well as a bidirectional firewall. The home network is also firewalled, and I have configured all of the systems at home to use OpenDNS so that I can utilize the (free) rudimentary content filtering offered by OpenDNS. I can review the firewall logs to see every place upon the Internet which is visited, and have done so in order to demonstrate to my child that monitoring is done and that access to certain types of content is not appropriate for his age. Is the system perfect? No. Can his friends still expose him to 'inappropriate content' at their homes? Yes. Has he tried to bypass the controls? Yes (and such is normal). Have my wife and I shown 'reasonable due dilligence?' We believe so. The configuration that I have described above is not expensive - excluding only the network firewall, all the tools to do so can be obtained for free. The sad truth is that the majority of technology companies, Internet Service Providers, school boards, and police organizations have done virtually nothing to educate parents (all users, for that matter) about not only the risks, but the countermeasures and how to use those countermeasures.
First, 'Al Qaeda hacker' is probably not the best choice of words given the group's penchant for beheadings.
Second, I wonder when some creative lawyer is going to propose suing weapons manufacturers because "terrorists don't kill people, weapons do!" Oh wait, the weapons of mass destruction have to actually be found first.
Slashdot Mirror
The original post implies we should alert both Disney, in order to protect Peter Pan, and The Shadow. As others have noted, if one has enough information to analyze the gait, shadow, etc. of an individual, even via satellite, then one most likely has the ability to arrest said individual. I am both amused and frightened that such a thing as 'shadow analysis' or 'gait analysis' is even remotely considered scientific. The scientific 'proof' that one's gait cannot be altered is 'thin' at best, as actors and con artists have been doing so for years.
Content filtering is an exceedingly difficult and often labor-intensive task, but public school IT departments are among the worst funded and supported IT departments in the entire IT industry, perhaps equaled only by those in public healthcare. There are many examples of legitimate Internet use which might be blocked by a content filtering system. For example, an anatomy/physiology teacher may attempt to 'incorporate the Internet into the curriculum,' performing (during class) a Google Images search upon the word 'chest' but have the appropriate and desired results snared by a content filter. In addition, the content filtering system may block the desired content and allow a piece of undesired content through. The number of possible content iterations is mind-boggling.
I'm not saying that the effort of content filtering should not be undertaken by public schools. Instead, the public school boards and the court system must uphold the principle of 'reasonable effort' undertaken to protect a child. Just as we should not allow school building doors to be locked (fire safety) yet still control school campus ingress and egress, we can also implement 'reasonable' Internet controls. Society needs to wake up to the fact that the entire world can be a dangerous place just as much as a beautiful place, and teaching children how to respond accordingly seems far more valuable and sensible that insisting upon a futile 'arms race' to impose blinders and barriers to protect the tender minds of lil' Johnny and lil' Suzy.
I have a teen child who has a computer in his room with full Internet access. However, my child does *not* have Administrator access to any computer in the house, all of which are loaded with real-time virus and spyware protection as well as a bidirectional firewall. The home network is also firewalled, and I have configured all of the systems at home to use OpenDNS so that I can utilize the (free) rudimentary content filtering offered by OpenDNS. I can review the firewall logs to see every place upon the Internet which is visited, and have done so in order to demonstrate to my child that monitoring is done and that access to certain types of content is not appropriate for his age. Is the system perfect? No. Can his friends still expose him to 'inappropriate content' at their homes? Yes. Has he tried to bypass the controls? Yes (and such is normal). Have my wife and I shown 'reasonable due dilligence?' We believe so. The configuration that I have described above is not expensive - excluding only the network firewall, all the tools to do so can be obtained for free. The sad truth is that the majority of technology companies, Internet Service Providers, school boards, and police organizations have done virtually nothing to educate parents (all users, for that matter) about not only the risks, but the countermeasures and how to use those countermeasures.
"Our lawyers will be joining the FBI and BATF investigation of your domicile." - RIAA
First, 'Al Qaeda hacker' is probably not the best choice of words given the group's penchant for beheadings. Second, I wonder when some creative lawyer is going to propose suing weapons manufacturers because "terrorists don't kill people, weapons do!" Oh wait, the weapons of mass destruction have to actually be found first.