Congressional Panel Says No To Filters 200
Private Essayist writes: "In this ZDNet story, it points out the ironic news that just as Congress is about to require all libraries and schools to install antiporn filters, a commision created by Congress to study ways to protect children online is about to decline recommending mandatory use of filters. The commission says, 'no particular technology yet offers an ideal solution.'"
Re:That's why they'll repeal both at the same time (Score:1)
The time may soon come, however, when this is no longer effective. In which case, I suggest you take your "million moms" and your government with "better weapons" and hide yourselves, because the wrath of a forever free US citizen is nothing to be trifled with.
Re:Whoa... (Score:1)
You have 3 problems here:
No, I don't have any problems here. You seem to have the problems. Let me straighten this out for you:
I am not, and I don't claim to be, an expert on what is and is not "porn." I am not trying to suggest practical solutions, or that there even is a practical solution.
I believe there are some merits to the idea of restricting people from looking at porn at libraries and schools, even though it might not be practical to do so.
I don't like the idea of having to wait in line to use a computer at the library while somebody in front of me is busy looking at pornography.
I don't like the idea of spending tax dollars on a school where kids are, instead of learning how to read & write, looking at mpegs of people having anal sex.
So please don't tell me that *I* have problems, especially when you don't understand the point of my post.
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."
Re:Whoa... (Score:1)
Anything of an edcutaional nature should not be restricted.
And, btw, I am not necessarily for this whole restriction as it is. But I don't think it's that bad of an idea, either.
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."
Re:Why not implement "per-child"? (Score:1)
Re:Blocking porn for kids. (Score:1)
I can really identify with you, so much.
Re:Blocking porn for kids. (Score:1)
Kids in the stage of puberty find things that are not allowed interesting.
The fact that boys in puberty find pr0n interesting anyway has nothing to do with that.
I can really identify with you, so much.
Re:Stop it at the source? (Score:2)
Re:Filters should be a community decision (Score:1)
Yea, it might get there in 100 years. Just think about how long computers have been around though - even *10* years is a long time in computing terms. The web wasn't really even 'around' (for most people) 10 years ago. By the time filtering software that could handle the internet of TODAY is around, we'll be on to something bigger and better.
Yea, filtering software might be nice
In 100 years we'll probably have REAL robot-nannys anyway. *shrug*
--
Re:Right...Best filter doesn't exist? (Score:1)
The ultimate internet filter for all your needs:
The P.A.R.E.N.T.A.L unit (patent pending).
With this unit watching your back, you will never again be traumatized by unwanted imagery or immoral junk. This patented technology will allow all of the web surfing population to enjoy the wholesome things in life without having to deal with the unsavory side of the internet. And furthermore, it is very easily configurable to the moral and ethical standards of your family. In fact, the proper configurations are built in to the unit when first shipped.
Well, what if you change those standards? Do not worry! Thanks our groundbreaking technology, the M.O.R.A.L. chip (patent pending), these units can evolve to match whatever changes are made to your family standards . And just when you thought it couldn't get any better, your privacy is 100% guaranteed as no one, not even Big Brother, can correctly guage what is installed on your P.A.R.E.N.T.A.L unit so no one can hack it.
Re:erf (Score:1)
These same politicians that are trying to tell us free speech is not common sense are the same politicians I would not let a teen be their aids or runners for feer they will be molested.
Sometime I HATE politicians!!! All they want to do is exert power they do not care for Rights or even resposibilities.
Re:Stop it at the source? (Score:1)
But the more I think about it, the more it seems to be a decent solution. Like the RBL, except it lists sites that _want_ to block certain kinds of content. In fact, many sites would voluntarily use it if it would honestly reduce complaints or legal liability.
Would only work well for institutions with static IPs, individuals would be out of luck unless they have static IPs or some other authentication method is used.
Spoofing or tunneling through another site for access might be another problem.
Well, of course! (Score:1)
The worst of it is, the American populace (present company excepted) is probably ignorant enough to fall for it.
OK,
- B
Re:erf (Score:1)
Nathan
Re:Security measures. (Score:1)
Deny access to \WINNT\System32
Delete telnet.exe on sight, and scan for renamed telnet copies.
Block out macros and embedded executables inside Office documents.
No floppy drives in the terminals themselves. The files could be saved in a personal network folder, then taken elsewhere to be opened within the school or saved on a disk.
Deny access to java applets (most of them are either hacking utilities, games, or something that students wouldn't use for educational purposes).
Block UDP ports 23, 1337, 7777, 27005, 27010, 27015, and 27960. Also, a packet sniffer would be implemented to scan for AIM, multiplayer games, Napster and the like.
Re:Filters should be a community decision (Score:1)
Ce le gere.
PerlStalker
Re:Whoa... (Score:2)
And I do not. Part of the reason I do not is that I think there are powerful, theoretical (as opposed to practical) reasons why it isn't even possible. Thus my original demand that you define "porn".
Suppose I said "I believe there are some merits to the idea of restricting people from whizzing ginggangs at libraries and schools, even though it might not be practical to do so." You might rightly come back and ask me to define "whizzing ginggangs" before agreeing the idea has merit. If I cannot define the term or if my only definition could be easily twisted then you would conclude that the idea does NOT have merit.
Even your attempts at "something we can all agree on" fall short: "I don't like the idea of spending tax dollars on a school where kids are, instead of learning how to read & write, looking at mpegs of people having anal sex."
And I don't like the idea of spending tax dollars on schools where kids are, instead of learning how life came to evolve on this planet, learning about "alternative", pseudo-scientific theories like creationism. Does that mean that the idea of blocking all references to God in the library "has merit"?
--
An abstained vote is a vote for Bush and Gore.
Re:Well alright! (Score:2)
Some may say they're bad parents for wanting to hide things from their kids, but it's their family.
Nobody cares if someone wants to install censorware on their personal computer at home to keep their own kids from getting at stuff that they don't want them to get at. That's fine. It's their kid. What everyone seems to have a problem with is the mandate that all schools and public libraries must install censorware on their computers to appease this particular sort of parent by imposing restrictions on everyone's kids.
Re:Sorry to interject a little rational thought he (Score:2)
Actually Nader is also for 'Net censorship so he's out too.
No, that's false. I've read some /. posts from people who misunderstood Nader's concerns about the over-commercialization of the childhood experience. They incorrectly assume that he's pro-filter.
Gush and Bore are concerned about the "morality" issues and want to censor or rate television, film, and the internet. In contrast, Ralph wants to eliminate the greedy tactics used to peddle junk products to children. "Junk" such as snack food and entertainment with cheap low-grade sensuality and violence (not the artistic kind). All three of the politicians see a decline in the childhood experience, but Nader would propose solutions designed to harbor kids from the ad barrage. For example, he wants to ban Channel One from schools (a wise decision, I came from a Channel One school). He also wants to prevent those exclusive contracts that Coke and Pepsi sign with schools in an effort to get youngsters hooked on a lifetime of drinking carbonated corn syrup (or real sugar, for those lucky enough to be outside the U.S).
I have listend to Nader lecture and I have read his platform. I get the impression that he would rather promote quality rather than ban crap if at all possible. He has never proposed a requirement for filters in libraries or schools. If he has, then I challenge you to find a reputable informative link.
Re:BRILLIANT!! (Score:1)
... rape...
I hate to break into a perfectly good rant there, but all of these are FAR more common in extremely "moral" families, cultures, etc. The US, with it's HUGE fundie christian population and continual attempts to pass laws based on christian "morality" sits at the bottom of the industrialized world by every single measure you quoted. Sweden, with about the most liberal porn laws in the world, is at the top. Fundie christians have more abortions than any other religious group, followed closely by catholics. Child abuse is more common among fundie christians as well. Furthermore, NOT ONE REPUTABLE STUDY has ever managed to prove any connection between porn and sex crimes.
Furthermore, I hate to break it to you, but a lot of us don't think there's anything morally wrong with stuff like sex with strangers, sex with multiple partners, or out of wedlock births. Just because you think it's wrong doesn't mean it is. And just because you think it's wrong doesn't mean you have the right to pass laws preventing the rest of us from doing it. You don't like it? Don't look. But don't even THINK of trying to take away my right to do it. As far as I'm concerned, that's a form of assault, and I'll defend myself accordingly.
I happen to consider myself a person with very strong morals. The fact that you don't agree with them doesn't make them any less strong, or any less moral. Me fucking two women doesn't make me immoral; it's your attempts to restrict my rights that is immoral.
--
Re:Whoa... (Score:1)
But, right now it wouldn't be practical, and maybe not even possible, as you say. But, that was not my point. My main point was that it is largely false to presume that it would be possible to to filter some types of content, but not others. Why does this "congressional panel" or whatever they are recommend filtering some web content, but specifically not pornography? So forget what porn itself is defined as for a minute. Think about the bigger picture...what is anything defined as? How can they make a distinction between porn and not-porn in this sense? And, responding again to the original poster of this thread, how is it that filtering porn (or anything) could be called pro-human-rights, when they still want to filter all kinds of other things? That is why I think human rights has nothing to do with the fact that they "declined to recommend the mandatory use of antipornography filters."
So, to say what some other posters have already said, that congressional panel was being inconsistent.
"It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."
Nitpick: Computer crime STATUES? (Score:2)
Draft No. 22
The current draft of the treaty, released on Oct. 2, attempts to level the legal playing field throughout Europe by standardizing computer crime statues and requiring signatories to cooperate with one another.
Standardzied crime statues. Hmmm, so they need to make sure those statues of Kevin Mitnick I see *so* often are of the same height, weight, material, linear distance from "computing device", and so on?
cya
Ethelred
Re:Use your own logic (Score:3)
"...if the community wants to put blacks in separate schools or libraries, then that is the choice of the community."
Local option is no more moral than federal mandate.
--
An abstained vote is a vote for Bush and Gore.
if Bush wins, R. Reed will make this become law (Score:2)
How to do filters... (Score:3)
If you're going to implement a filtering system, here's my gereral suggestion: train the libiary staff on how to add sites to the allow list. (Make a nice web interface for squid or something.) Whenever the users hits a site that was blocked, a page explaining the procedure will be displayed. They will then either fill out the request form or go to the libiary staff. The libiary staff will review the site and use their own judgment on the spot.
At the end of a given time period, the modifications to the list will be reviewed by a board of voulenteers. Sites can again be added or removed. After the meeting, the results will be posted for public review. At any time a voting user can go to the public libiary and request access to every site on the list, and give their vote on any listed site. These public votes will again be reviewd.
And so the process continues, each filtering site shares it's list and every voter has a a say. In time you have a system that has a large database of blocked sites. If the centeral government wants to maintain the centeral database, fine as long as long as the end user can override that instantly.
This is by no means a complete system, just me musing on what the heck I would implement a public filtering system. I should write my congressman. Maybe I can get a grant or something!
Filters should be a community decision (Score:2)
At this point in time, filters are less than worthless. When the technology gets to the point where it bolcks 99.99% over "inoffensive" material and 0% of the "non-offensive" material then let them install them.
PerlStalker
not the same thing (Score:2)
This is not a valid comparison. Dead tree publishing is "opt-in", meaning that you only have access to the things you specifically request. Penthouse, besides being controversial, is not high on the list of priorities when it comes to the goals of an educational, record-keeping institution such as a library. There are many obscure journals and books that you won't find at all but the biggest university libraries. Would you argue that this is content filtering as well?
The Internet is, of course, an "opt-out" system. Once you plug your computer into the internet, you instantly have access to everything (neglecting pay-for-access databases and such). So anything that's not there has been actively blocked. Which is a completely different animal than simply not opting in to the more obscure or more controversial dead tree publications.
--
Re:Use your own logic (Score:2)
Like this [slashdot.org]
--
An abstained vote is a vote for Bush and Gore.
Re:Stop it at the source? (Score:3)
What I want to know is, what is so intrinsically terrible about children looking at porn while they are at school? If they are doing it while they should be doing work, it is only as bad as them browsing Disney.com while they should be doing work. If they are eating bandwidth, it is only as bad as them burning Red Hat CDs. And if their parents think they should be prevented from seeing naked people, are we going to filter ankles from the Muslim students, and gay rights information from students with homophobe parents? What about sex education from students whose parents don't agree with it?
In fact, given the quality of sex education in some schools, it might be good for the students to check out some porn just so they learn which bits go where!
I can certainly see that any individual school might make the decision to block porn if it has a problem with it, the same as my primary school banned yoyos one time when there was a craze for them. But I see no obvious reason why all schools should be automatically required to ban porn, no matter how excellent the filters might be. To what extent are schools required to shelter their students from the outside world according to each set of parents' beliefs?
Human vs. Electronic solutions (Score:2)
"Yes, yes how much would that roving robot cost and could we arm him?"
Its so much easier to have the library staff shoulder surf one in a while or at least listen for giggles, or heaven forbid provide assistance to the technophones. What we should be teaching youngsters, if we can't go with them to the library, is that there's lots of stuff you probably shouldn't be reading and its against the rules and you don't want to lose internet access.
Machines are good a lots of things, but they sure aren't the best solution for every problem, even a computer problem.
Re:Blocking porn for kids. (Score:2)
If you install the Windows PowerToys, giving you TweakUI, there as option in the TweakUI panel that allows you to automatically delete all IE browser history. It's under the Paranoia tab.
Trust me - if I want to look at things my parents don't want me to, I know enough to remove all traces. If the kid knew enough to jumper the BIOS, they know enough to make plenty sure that the parent can't use the browser history. (Anywhere from brute force by deleting, which would arouse suspision, to copying previous history/cache to a temp folder and them moving it back, to, under Netscape/Windows, creating a new "user" and deleting it when done.) If you can't trust the kid, then don't let them on the Internet. Seriously though, most kids I know don't use the Internet for pr0n, they use it to look for stuff their more insterested in, be that Slashdot, SNES emulation, Pokémon, whatever.
Best way to protect your kid is to make sure you know why they're on the 'net. If they say that they wish to look for something you're willing to allow them to look for, chances are they really are. And by staying nearby, you can make sure they really do.
I think you should have told the parents just to watch the child while she was browsing the Internet - there's no need to attempt to prevent her from even using the computer! There are very easy ways to keep children off the Internet when you don't want them on - if you're on DSL, disabling the modem works wonders, on a phone line, keeping track of when you were on and comparing that to the invoice is another great method.
Unless, of course, there was material on the computer that children shouldn't know about...
Re:Well alright! (Score:5)
My parents never put me in a Mind-Cage(TM) and I'm not going to restrict my children's ability to make their own moral decisions either. If you teach your kids how to think for themselves and to realize when to click 'back' on the browser or when to close pop-up windows then you wouldn't have anything to worry about.
More than anything this is just another case of the american public trying to shake off one of the problems with it's family structure. First it was "My kid is hyper - better get him on that ritalin!", now it's "My kid has such a fragile mind, better not let him have access to any material that might force him/her to make a moral decision".
The government can't fix the problems that you have with raising your children. Schools can try to help, but in the end it's the parents responsibility to not just protect their children, but to teach them to think for themselves.
Re:Ignorance triumphant (Score:3)
Not to mention the Sheeple Effect.
Surveys like this (especially when they are issued to prove a point - ie are politically loaded) are designed to elicit the result the questioner wants. You can design these "surveys" to get any answer. The best way to get sheeple...I mean people, is to prey on their desire to give consistent answers. For example:
Do you believe pornography is bad?
Yes.
Do you think children should be exposed to porno at school?
No!
There's porno out on the net. Do you think we should censor the net in schools so that porno can't be seen?
Yes!
Do you think we should use automatic blocking software to do this?
Yes! Definitely!
An alternative survey could be worded differently. Let's say the Slashdot Collective is running the survey this time, and wants to show that most people are against software filtering in schools and libraries. So they ask:
Do you believe in the freedom of speech as set forth by the constitution?
Yes.
The Internet is a breakthrough in freedom of expression - more people than ever can make their voice heard. Do you think this is a good or bad thing?
Definitely a good thing, oh yes!
Do you agree or disagree our children should learn about free speech?
Yes!
Software to block sites has been proposed for schools and libraries. It often blocks things it's not supposed to. Do you think that such an intrusion on the freedom of speech and information should be mandated?
Hell no!
This is just an example, and I'm sure the survey makers are a lot better at it than me. But basically, you can have the same person agree on opposite sides of the same point even if they answer both surveys back-to-back if the survey is well enough designed...so these surveys are actually meaningless. Pity so many people don't realise this.
Re:Filters should be a community decision (Score:2)
Protect from what?
I wouldn't want my child to find material about racism or violence either, but those too can be talked about that they are unacceptable things to do. I don't think though that any ISPs accept that sort of content though. That's not to say it wouldn't get out there, but there seems to be a harder line (and rightly so) on things like racism and violent material.
--
It's the experts vs. the people of the USA (Score:4)
EXPERTS: There is no good technology to filter the net.
PEOPLE: We must protect the children!!!!
EXPERTS: Mandatory filtering is an undue restriction on free speech.
PEOPLE: You guys are a bunch of pedophiles, aren't you?
EXPERTS: Fine, you're on your own. ok bye.
Axel
Nice soundbyte! (Score:2)
I like it!
Since this is a war of memes and soundbytes, it's about time we develop and spread some of our own.
Children must be allowed to hurt themselves sometimes. Not *injure* themselves, but learn firsthand that there is a consequence to every action.
Kids are human beings! Humans are not designed to live in a perfect disney world. Humans (like every other living being) are designed to face problems, solve them and evolve.
A parent should protect the child, not by keeping it from getting hurt, but by saving it from getting injured. You tell them that they will hurt themselves if they cut themselves on a knife. THey will still get cut, because they *will* play with a knife. But if you did your job, they will be careful enough not to get seriuously injured. A band-aid will do and next time they know better.
I want my kids (the day I have them) to stay away from on/offline porn, not because I've filtered it, but because I tell them that it hurts others and eventually them.
Does porn hurt? Damn sure. It's a dirty business and it makes its money from sexually exploiting women.
Does a person get hurt by looking at porn?
A girl, yes. She will get a wery sick notion of men and their expectations.
A boy? hell yes! For one thing, a guy who watches too much porn will grow up to find that most women will think he's a complete jerk.
Does sex hurt? No way. Nudity is natural. Sex is a good thing. Porn is not. I just wish that the censorship mob would one day see the difference.
Re:REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC, not direct democracy (Score:2)
The other difference is that the Athenians had a method for removing corrupt or incompetant officials.
Re:Filters should be a community decision (Score:2)
Specifically that everyone has the same idea of "offensive" as the people making the software. However there is a problem that many of the people in this industry are at best lacking in integrity and honesty at worst exactly the sort who children need protection from. Some of the things which rank high on their offensive list are anything other than glowing reviews and commercial competitors.
There are no doubt some communities that don't find sex offensive, but are offended by violence (directly opposite of the current filter implementations).
In this situation the filters appear to parallel mainstream US films and television.
I can think of is a configuration screen with a series of checkboxes like: 1. nudity, 2. anti-semetic, 3. non-christian, etc..., although I doubt a system like this is feasable (it is very hard to categorize topics like this, many people are very passionate on the subject and will attack your decisions no matter how valid you think they are).
Also programs tend to use some kind of regex based search engine.
Computers can't easily tell apart advocating some "offensive" (whatever that means) activity, opposing the same activity, poking fun at it, reporting on it as journalism, etc.
Re:Filters should be a community decision (Score:2)
Except that it's unlikely that a filter suitable for use in a home would be suitable for use in a library or school. (Or even that one suitable for a school would be suitable for a library.)
It isn't ok for people to be accessing sites which will alter the configuration of computers in libraries and schools, either by accident or for deliberate vandalism. But they can install whatever they like on their own computers. There are plenty of websites (including those targeted at children) which are inappropriate for them to waste time on in school, but fine at home or in a public library. There is also the possible situation of what happens where parents do not want their child to look at something at home, but it is part of the school curriculum?
Re:Use your own logic (Score:2)
If they are nationally decided you don't have a choice, and you have just lots one of your "voices" of objection. (one of the most powerful IMO, I might add.)
Re:Filters should be a community decision (Score:2)
This isn't a technical problem. It's a social problem. Effectivly it's about trying to force people to not do something which people naturally do.
Re:Sorry to interject a little rational thought he (Score:2)
There is a difference. Your dead-tree example is a result of being forced to decide what to bring in with limited funds.
Filtering is a case of spending MORE of those limited funds to keep stuff out.
Re:Security measures. (Score:2)
Gee, I always thought that public libraries were for recreational as well as educational purposes. Otherwise we'd better remove all fiction books from the libraries!!!!!
Re:Whoa... (Score:2)
Re:Whoa... (Score:3)
Here's how: define "porn". Give me a hard-edged, deterministic, objective definition for exactly those items you want to make unavailable from a library computer. Is the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue porn? How about pictures of breast cancer sufferers? How about the the "sexual reproduction" entry of the encyclopedia (you know, the one with the drawings of genitalia)? The Starr Report? How about any court documents or news stories about sexual harassment?
--
An abstained vote is a vote for Bush and Gore.
Well alright! (Score:5)
I want to, when I have kids, hold their hand as they cross the street. I want to point out right and wrong. I want to ease them into things as they grow.
I also expect the school they will attend will do the same, and I expect them to not rely on technology to censor technoloy.
I know its a bit much, but you just simply cannot safeguard the net against anything. Its noones fault except that we need more people to look after things. More education for them to know how to work with technology, and more money -- especially in education.
----
Rep Istooks' Comment (Score:5)
"The commission was not designed to recommend the consensus of the American public,"
Ummmm.. Neither is the Supreme Court. The reason being is that we (theoretically) appoint people to such positions who will look beyond what is popular to what is right.
Remember that segregation was once the 'common sense conclusion' of many people.
Cluefull politicians? (Score:2)
It would appear that not all politicians are clueless. Who would have thought.
This is especially interesting in light of the fact that filtering of the Internet at public libraries and such is a fairly popular stance. For example, both presidential candidates support some form of monitoring/filtering.
How refreshing. Perhaps there is hope for this country after all.
Uhm... (Score:4)
I could just see the scandal... "Paul Reubens (Pee-wee Herman [one of my personal heroes]) arrested for porn browsing in the library!"
Censorship (Score:2)
Ignorance triumphant (Score:5)
"We didn't recommend any mandatory practices," said Donald Telage, chairman of the commission and an executive at Network Solutions Inc. "We did consider them, but not even the most-conservative members of the commission felt that was the road to go down...I don't believe they're good enough. They're hopelessly outgunned. A legislative, quick solution may not be the right answer."
Correct. Even those on the panel who were conservative knew that filters aren't the answer. And legislation to require filters is merely the "quick" solution, not the right one. But does this stop Congress? Nooooooo...
"The House leadership believes the amendment will likely survive because of its strong public support. A study this week from the Digital Media Forum showed 92 percent of 1,900 U.S. residents polled believe pornography should be blocked on school computers and 79 percent believe software filters should block hate speech. "
Basic ignorance at work here, folks. You poll people and ask, "Do you think porn should be blocked on school computers?" and what do you think the responses will be? "Uh, no, I don't think we should block porn at schools."?? Of course not! People are going to say, "Sure, block the stuff."
Those polled probably have no idea that filters don't work. Congress should know better, but they would rather run around waving papers showing poll results and claiming that the American public is clamoring for filters!
Ignorance triumphant.
________________
erf (Score:2)
So free speech is against most people's common sense conclusions? When did this happen?
--
Peace,
Lord Omlette
ICQ# 77863057
Re:Filters should be a community decision (Score:2)
Unless you are claiming to be a telepath then both your claims are quite incredible. It's quite possible for that "best way" from the childs POV to be mutually exclusive with being told by a parent.
I don't want to have to explain why she saw a naked woman sucking on a horse on the Internet while she was doing a project on horses.
Sounds more like it's the parent who needs protecting...
Re:Filters should be a community decision (Score:2)
You should probably worry more about their teacher who is far more likely to be offended than children that age. Sexual inuendo in childrens televison programs is not uncommon, but the intended audience never notice it.
Re:BRILLIANT!! (Score:2)
It's doubtful if Lot's daughters were over 19, when they raped their father specifically to get pregnant.
That's Genesis for the banned books list, how many of the remaining 65 books of the bible will be left...
Re:BRILLIANT!! (Score:2)
With the former two any problems are likely to be primarily the result of a society which rams monogamy down people's throats. Also where there are problems associated with "out of wedlock births" it's very questionable if simply having the parents married would help much anyway.
Re:thou jackass (Score:2)
Even the mainstream christian church has not been behind marriage for all of it's history. Indeed there is very little to support the idea of monogamous marriage in the new testament. (What there is appears to be telling missionaries to be "politically correct" to avoid being dismissed out of hand by the "natives".)
Indeed Jesus was never married yet there is no mention at all of his being a virgin at the time of his death.
Why not use the new TLDs to filter? (Score:2)
Every filter I have used has been pretty much bogus. You can't arbitrarily keep kids out from stuff without some sort of standard; it just doesn't work.
It reminds me of the times I used to spend at Kinko's hacking "Desk Tracy", a slipshod program placed over Windows or Mac OS to try to regulate access (before this became a priority). I never paid one cent for computer usage. Using WinNT now, it appears to be a little more difficult. But *I* wouldn't know....
Lucas
Re:Censorship (Score:2)
//rdj
Re:Filters are NOT Cenorship... (Score:2)
These filters do NOT only block porn and sex chat, nor do they only block "hate speech" (the blocking of which alone is fairly contrary to the spirit of the first ammendment). These filters block much of ANY political speech, especially anything that deviates from the norm (not to mention that many have a right-wing slant, but that's not as universal) and articles that are critical of the filter itself.
Plus, sexual education material on the net, which the Supreme court ruled minors have the right to access in the hopes that such information could help stop teen pregnancy and STDs, is always blocked. These sites often have graphic images that even the most advanced filters can't distinguish from porn, but are vital to self-diagnosis.
For more reading on why NOT to filter, read Fahrenheit 451.2: Is Cyberspace Burning? [aclu.org] . It's quite informative and brings up many issues that need to be addressed.
-benc
Re:Whoa... (Score:2)
How do you divide the "talking about" between advocating, disadvocating, reporting, paradying and satirising?
Re:Sorry to interject a little rational thought he (Score:2)
Go down to your public library and ask for a copy of Lady Chatterly's Lover. Or Our Bodies Ourselves. Or Leaves Of Grass. Or The Story Of My Life by Casanova. Or The Story of O. Or the Song of Solomon.
Your arguments are not only astonishingly insulting to any who hold liberty dear, but you are poorly read as well.
Re:Filters are NOT Cenorship... (Score:2)
Except that there is no program (outside the mind of an SF writer) which can tell the difference between a clothed and a naked person well enough for that to be an issue in the first place. Also you will get all manner of false positives when the program tries to cope with all types of human skin (including monochrome and tinted images), let alone drawings.
Re:Blocking porn for kids. (Score:2)
I guess I'm going to have to invest in a surplus FBI Carnivore lock box and install an OpenBSD proxy into it. ;^)
--
Re:Why the prudish attitude? (Score:2)
Re:Rep Istooks' Comment (Score:3)
You elect them because you think they are good leaders (or at least you should). You elect them because you think they have good morals and will demonstrate them in leadership.
As for what is *right*... those 'rights' guaranteed in the constitution.. that part about 'congress shall make no law'.. means that *no matter how much the people beg, bitch, whine, and scream*, you *CANNOT* make a law that violates these rights. Such a law *cannot exist* by definition.
It's hard to respect a government's crime efforts. (Score:2)
--- Speaking only for myself,
Why I hate censorship... (Score:2)
we've all seen the hordes of concerned do-gooders and politicians looking dreadfully serious and saying that we should "save our children"by giving them the powers to determine what we see, hear or can say. This has nothing to do with filtering technology.
Why is this a bad thing? Surely they are so much smarter, nicer and more intelligent than us?
WRONG!
We, as people - individual conscious entities - should be allowed to read, watch or say whatever we like provided we accept the responsibility for our own actions. Okay, maybe children's access to porn etc.. should be limited, but all adults should haveaccessto whatever knowledge they like. Including, for example, how to make explosives, toxins or even nuclear devices - the knowledge itself is not dangerous, merely those who would misuse it.
It is all well and good pointing to examples of people using such knowledge to bad ends but this is essentially irrelevant - the words on the page did not turn themselves into the devices which blew up Universities and suchlike,it took Theodore Kaczynski (sp?) to do that.
Elgon
the best filter... (Score:2)
also, make sure the librarians help the people using the computers, that way you can help people do what they're trying to do in the first place, keep a watch to make sure there's nothing bad going on, and it'll raise an interest in younger children who would like to learn more about computers/internet but have no one to guide them...
--------------
Stop it at the source? (Score:4)
Just a random thought...
It just occurs to me that it might be better to make it illegal for porn sites (and whatever else the people deem inappropriate) to provide content to public schools, rather than attempt to block them out.
Think about it: porn sites pop up and shut down all the time, but public school IP addresses would stay relatively constant, and can be listed explicitly, and reliably. The list can be made available.
I haven't really thought about it deeply, so it may be a stupid idea. There's still nothing that can be done about foreign sites, for instance. But it's just my $0.02.
not as bad as it sounds (Score:2)
76. S.AMDT.3635 to H.R.4577 To prohibit universal telecommunication assistance for schools or libraries that fail to implement a filtering or blocking system for
computers with Internet access or adopt Internet use policies.
Sponsor: Sen Santorum, Rick - Latest Major Action: 6/27/2000 Senate amendment agreed to
from:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/L?d106:./
it doesn't mandate filters. it mandates filters OR a usage policy. The usage policy could be something like "no porn" or something as vague as "be good to each other".
but then again, it is governmental creep into places they shouldn't go. and as soon as a principle hears this, the principle is going to demand filters....
-red
I'm not sure this is contradictory (Score:2)
Now the big question is not if they are currently contradicting themselves... which they are not. The real question is whether after the commission gives their findings and factual based opinions, will that same congress listen to them. If they do not, then it would indeed be contradicing.
This is not just semantics, what this indicates is that at least in name, congress is trying to gather facts to base decisions on, which is very good. The biggest and best thing of all, though, is that this indicates a time when we can contact our representatives, point to the fact finding commission, and throw in the usual assortment of how this will become part of the problem, not the solution. Simply put, if you feel strongly about this, then you should make every effort to have your voice heard. If you write a letter, perhaps point out that it would be completely unethical for congress to ignore the commisions findings, just because they "don't like" the results. (Not to mention juvenille and immature)
At the VERY least, this indicates some are trying in congress. However, congress will not know how you feel, unless you let them know.
BTW, I personally agree with the folks below (uhh, depending on how you list messages) that say that it should be up to the counties and cities. The federal government should only be making recommendations, not laws regarding this.
cheers
Blocking porn for kids. (Score:5)
I can really identify with you, so much.
First Amendment (Score:4)
The problem is that everyone wants to do what is popular, not what is right or legal. The first amendment must be defended, even if it is not popular. If 90 some percent of the population want censorship, fine. Amend the constitution to repeal the first amendment. If it passes, you have a whole new problem. The second amendment was created to prevent the first from being repealed. You can't get rid of either of the first two without a civil war. Go ahead and take away our freedom of expression. We'll just take that to mean you want us to excercise our right (not privelige) to bear arms.
Filters on Upbringing (Score:3)
As far as I'm concerned, if your children can't handle using the internet properly (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean) then it's your duty as a parent to teach them how to deal with information and what is appropriate. Don't expect the government to provide a quick fix to your faults in upbringing - it's a slim chance it will get implemented soon and if they ever do it's highly likely that it won't work the way everyone would want it to anyway.
Re:What ever happened... (Score:2)
Why do people insist of linking "sex and violence" together, when they are treated very differently. Whilst sex is censored violence is considered perfectly acceptable to show to children. Go watch some children's cartoons, be they The Flintstones or Pokemon, if you don't belive that...
Re:Whoa... (Score:2)
Also, I dispute your claim that the SI swimsuit issue's primary intention is to advertise swimwear. Whether or not I'm right, the existence of my dissenting opinion proves that your definition is not objective.
--
An abstained vote is a vote for Bush and Gore.
Re:Rep Istooks' Comment (Score:2)
Selective monitoring vs Filtering (Score:2)
Of course there are a lot of issues with this, including privacy and the objectiveness of the monitor, but it does seem like a better alternative than total blocking. This is particularly true for schools where internet access should exist primarily for research, not random surfing (at least during regular hours).
But that's exactly the point (Score:2)
--
An abstained vote is a vote for Bush and Gore.
Re:Well alright! (Score:2)
I couldn't agree more. When you try to [over]protect your child from disease by not letting them go outside, then later in life, their body will not be prepared for those diseases.
You need to let your children get out and experience life, but still provide moral guideance and advice where necessary. Lot's of parents just go on 'autopilot' and let the 'system' handle everything for them. The biggest problem with that is that the 'system' is severely flawed keeps churning out fucked up individuals. (hehehe ignore my link! ;^)
--
Re:Uhm... (Score:2)
I grew up, as much as anywhere, in a small town in northern Vermont with my grandmother. My siblings and I still own the house, and we vacation there with our families. The town library has an Internet connection--for most of the people in the town that's the only connection they can get.
And they have a serious problem with people viewing porn on the (one) computer. They've turned the computer so it faces the wall--so if you view a bunch of porn sites no impressionable kiddies are watching too. But what they haven't considered is doubleclick.net [doubleclick.net]--when the next user comes along and connects to Hotmail they get a bunch of banner ads advertising pr0n. My niece went to check her Hotmail account and got banners for lesbian pr0n--definitely rattled her.
My sister (who, incidentally, lives inside the Beltway) is now suddenly in favor of a federal agency to Put A Stop To This(tm). My thought is that my sister ought to spend the eight bucks a month necessary to get email accounts for her kids that don't serve banner ads.
The biggest worry (Score:2)
The biggest worry is the deliberate or unconscious political agenda that goes into these filtering programs.
Never mind that people and place names like Hancock, Assam and Scunthorpe are going to be blocked, look at the softwares being used to filter. Many of them have an outright political agenda - filtering out any non-Christian religious site, health information (AIDS education is NOT PR0N), abuse hotline information (gotta keep them women in line!) etc.
And the fact that filterware is explicitly closed-source (why don't they want us to know and/or configure what can be seen and can't be???) is the biggest screen to whatever might be behind the scenes.
A library is and should be a repository of information without political bias. "I don't want my kids reading Chairman Mao or Mein Kampf!" OK, but if you ignore history, you're destined to repeat it. I don't think I could have completed my first year university Psychology project on cultural influences on Freud's theories without having been able to research Victorian sexual mores.
In reality, the only problem I see with Internet material is not its potential subject matter, but its veracity. I mean, if you believe half the stuff that's out there you need your head examined. My biggest worry with the Internet is that it'll turn people into lazy researchers and then it'll just be TAKEN for granted that there's a hollow Earth with derro living in it, for example.
Re:Filters should be a community decision (Score:2)
All books can be indecent books,
The recent books are bolder.
For filth, I'm glad to say,
Is in the mind of the beholder.
When correctly viewed,
Everything is lewd.
I could tell you things about Peter Pan,
And the Wizard of Oz, he's a dirty old man!
- Smut, Tom Lehrer
BRILLIANT!! (Score:2)
In these modern, enlightened times (we have the INTERNET now!) there is no reason to limit things like porn, objectification of women, sex with strangers, sex with multiple partners, sex with children, sex with animals, sex with family members, out of wedlock births, teen pregnancies...
So, yeah, it's about time we got rid of those "legacy systems" and installed this new, upgraded system of amoral anarchy. Then we will finally be free!!
Use your own logic (Score:2)
"I believe the decision rests in the hands of the cities and counties alone."
So forcing "everyone" in a city or county is to the same level *is* OK? How about we make it a local decision in the sense of a single person or (in the case of a minor) that person's parent(s)/guardian(s)?
--
An abstained vote is a vote for Bush and Gore.
Re:Filters should be a community decision (Score:2)
Why should Cities and Counties get involved with filters at all? If you don't think the federal government should mandate filter usage, why stop at the city and county level? Why not bring it down the family or even personal level? Your last line is especially telling in this regard. Forcing everybody in a city or county to the same "standard" of morality is rediculous. Personally, I think it rests with the family unit, as they are generally considered the place where morality and ethics are tought (although church and school play a role, the family has the lions share of the responsiblity).
At this point in time, filters are less than worthless. When the technology gets to the point where it bolcks 99.99% over "inoffensive" material and 0% of the "non-offensive" material then let them install them.
But this is in direct opposition to your previous point. 99.99% of the "offensive" material (I hope you don't want filters blocking most "inoffensive" material!) in one family/community is going to be different than 99.99% of the offensive material in another family/community. One of the inherent limitations in filter technology today it that it assumes everyone has the ideas on what makes something "offensive." There are no doubt some communities that don't find sex offensive, but are offended by violence (directly opposite of the current filter implementations). The only compromise I can think of is a configuration screen with a series of checkboxes like: 1. nudity, 2. anti-semetic, 3. non-christian, etc..., although I doubt a system like this is feasable (it is very hard to categorize topics like this, many people are very passionate on the subject and will attack your decisions no matter how valid you think they are).
Why not implement "per-child"? (Score:4)
Viola! Personalized filtering that affects ONLY your child.
Possible downsides with comments:
Setting it up. No big deal with a true multi-user system (especially one where you can install multiple filtering technologies). Alternatively you could use filters that are online.
Child A has "full access" and show porn to Child B. Unavoidable in any system. Child A could bring a dead-tree copy of Playboy to school, it's no different.
Privacy violations if tracked by card? So don't do that. Print the name of the person on the card (or even a photo) but don't encode it for the computer to read. Just encode the settings.
--
An abstained vote is a vote for Bush and Gore.
Right...Best filter doesn't exist? (Score:2)
I don't know about anyone else, but I have heard of this great filter that has been around for a while. It works almost perfectly. As long as it is available, which can be all the time, it can filter nearly 99% of the smut from the children's screens. It can reward them for looking at good sites and punish them for looking at the bad ones. It can block any site, sometimes before the URL is even typed. Maybe I should patent it. Nobody seems to have thought of the idea of a parent before.
Telnet has serious problems. (Score:2)
but until everything I need can be done from where I am, I will always need telnet.
YM ssh [openssh.com]. Telnet sends your login password in plaintext to anyone who's sniffing your connection.
Re:Whoa... (Score:2)
Then you are obviously not a programmer. You have 3 problems here:
1) Coming up with a consistent definition of "porn". This definition has to include all those and only those items that YOU think are porn. (For instance, you can't say "breasts are bad", because breast cancer is OK)
2) Coming up with a global definition of "porn". This definition has to comply with every (affected) person's definition from #1. If Jane Schmoe thinks SI swimsuits are porn but Joe Schmoe doesn't, this goal is impossible.
3) Implementing #2 (assuming you pass #2, which you won't) in software. This itself is nearly impossible because simple greps or color matches won't work.
"But, if you restrict kids in a public library, for instance, from looking at pictures of 8 guys ejaculating all over some girl's face, then I don't think that's violating anybody's human rights."
I do, on at least two levels. On the theoretical level, the library (or the gov't) has no right deciding what my children should or should not see. I'll be in charge of that, thank you. On the practical level, there's not even any way to accomplish this (supposedly) laudable goal. What are you going to do, hire some guy to find all the porn pics and hand enter the file names in a block list? You'll miss many this way, not to mention constantly updating, javascripts that hide filenames, email, ftp sites, etc. Write some software to blanket anything that seems to match? You'll miss many AND get false positives.
--
An abstained vote is a vote for Bush and Gore.
Re:Sorry to interject a little rational thought he (Score:2)
This is why I have been suspicious of Gore from day one. I remember the "Washington Wives" hearings. I remember all this crap.
Go to a Wal-Mart or a K-Mart or a Target. Try to find an album that has the "Parental Warning: Explicit Lyrics" sticker on it. C'mon, I dare ya.
Can't find one? Why? Because it's against company policy for Wal-Mart, K-Mart and Target to stock albums that have the sticker. Instant censorship, folks! You want that Eminem album? You'll probably find it at Sam Goody, but not at those stores.
Do you really want this to happen to the Internet? Then elect either Gush or Bore. Actually Nader is also for 'Net censorship so he's out too. And Buchanan? Fuhgettaboutit!
Your only alternative? Vote Libertarian. [harrybrowne.org]
---- Hey Grrl Geeks! Your very own geek news site has arrived!
Re:Sorry to interject a little rational thought he (Score:2)
I suspect the "mechanical filtering" is applied, especially regarding minors, to keep firestorms such as this one from interfering with the more important mission of libraries. They also likely do it to avoid breaking local, state, and federal laws regarding minors.
I was not trying to make a statement that is either for or against filtering (though I do have opinions on the matter that inevitibly creep out in my posts).
I just wanted to point out that there are really several different questions being asked when considering filtering, with different answers, and that most of the questions are not new, and that many (but not all) of the questions have already been answered (though right or wrong is still up for debate).
You add another good question that I had not included... is filtering cost prohibitive?
Bill
Re:Well alright! (Score:2)
Re:How to do filters... (Score:2)
These two sentances cuts to the core of the problem with your thinking. When I place a message on the web, such as this one, it is publicly accessible. I am responsible for the contents of this message; frankly, my psuedonym is more to fit in around here, not for protection.
It's a horrible idea to allow where a message is accessed to affect the message. Just because my message is accessed from a public terminal does not make it a "public protest" or anything like a "public protest"... the message hasn't moved into the public domain, it's already been there. It's the same principle as just because I link to something doesn't mean I magically have responsibility for the contents of that link (it can change without my control, responsibility is impossible).
Speech is on the internet, not on your terminal. If you block speech on the internet then you are indeed blocking free speech, not just 'public' speech. It may or may not be justified, but don't fool yourself into thinking you're not really "blocking" speech, just "denying permits".
Sorry to interject a little rational thought here. (Score:3)
1) Both candidates support filtering. When Bush mentioned it, he explicitly stated that it was only appropriate for PUBLICLY FUNDED institutions. He went on to state his support for the first ammendment EXPLICITLY. Gore suggested much more expensive and invasive requirements to be levied on ALL ISP's, and was more interested in showing how much "smarter" he was then bush to bother bringing up the first ammendment.
2) Content filtering is not a new problem. Go down to your public library and ask for the latest copy of Penthouse. See what happens. There is already all sorts of mechanical filtering for the mechanical media in place, the question has been asked and answered. The question is how to implement the electronic filtering for the electronic media.
3) There are two seperate issues...
a) Should we filter at all?
b) Is current filtering software effective?
These are two seperate problem domains with two seperate soultion spaces.
4) The first ammendment protects "free as in speech" speech, not "free as in beer" speech. That is, you are free to say what you want, and seek what you want, but the government is not obligated to fund you for either.
5) The question "should parents have legislative supports to help them control the actions of their minor children" is also a different question. Saying minors should not be allowed unfiltered access without supervision is no different then saying minors can't buy ciggarettes and beer without parental supervision. Again, this is a question US society has asked and answered.
6) Free speech advocates are free to use their own money and their own resources to set up their own information kiosks (not unlike the Christian Science Reading Rooms, but with different content and motivations) and let people have all the free, non-filtered and unrestricted access they want. In this case, for non-minors, the second ammendment DOES protect them, as it is clearly a form of free speech.
7) Just becuase current filtering approaches suck, does not mean that all future filtering approaches will suck.
Hopefully that helps clarify the debate a little... we aren't helping anyone on either side with confusion.
Bill
Re:Use your own logic (Score:2)
Also in a "perfect world", all local choices could be voted and debated in a town hall meeting of sorts. I forget what they are called.
In medival times, when the village wanted to do something that effected the entire village, anyone could show up at the meet and _everyone_ could be aloted X amount of time to state their point why it is a good thing, bad thing, ugly thing or other.
Once everyone had there time to present their view point to the other village members, a vote would be cast. Everyone that showed up receive exactly one vote. The votes where tallied and the majority won. Then they would accept or reject the idea or plan based on what the majority ruling was.
This works really well in small communities, but on a large level or federal level it would quickly be to much "talk time" and would take forever. But villages in medival time where rather small and it worked out well and I consider it a more democary than what we have now (referring to US, don't know about other countries).
Today this won't work well in larger communities. Try getting what 11 million (?) New Yorkers in one spot and give them each 4 minutes to present there case, HAHA that would take a ton of room and WAY to much time.
What I was thinking, maybe have a web site, where everyone is allowed 2-3 post ala slashdot sytle. Open up the forum about 1-2 months before the issuse is to be voted on, each person that is a resident of that community gets to post there view point to the forum. Any memeber of the community could read an amount of post they wished. Once the issuse came up, vote on it though the site, and then get the results.
This would be more of the "medivel town vote" gone high tech and time and space requirements would no longer be a problem.
The only problem I could see are these:
1) It would be hard to proof who lived and who didn't live in that "community", maybe require registion at the DMV or something? Securing valid posters and voters would be the first big problem.
2) Who would pay for the server/bandwidth? local community tax to pay for it? Non-profit donations?
3) Not everyone has access to the internet. This could be sloved by a listing of places that offer "free" internet access, like libaries and schools, where citizens of the community could go and though proof of citizen-ship use the computers to post there views and/or vote. Having places like ISP, cyber cafes, etc get a local tax break if they allow "citizens" free access to post/vote.
Also have a snail address where users can send in paper copies of there view and/or vote and have some one enter them in the system. I think this method might work best for citizen without computer gear and/or computer knowledge. Get volunteers to manually type in the info to the forum, etc..
I think this would work good, raising the funds and getting a secure method of filter how is and isn't a citizen of the "community". I think this would even be scaleable upto the federal level if you had a really secure method of doing it and enough hardware to handle the load.
Well.... yeah. (Score:5)
If they wanted to poll on filters, the question should not have been "Do you think porn should be blocked on school computers?" - it should have been
"Do you think school computers should randomly block internet material, including chicken breast recipies and Superbowl XXX information, in an effort to keep out some undisclosed fraction of the pornography on the internet?
---
Re:Sorry to interject a little rational thought he (Score:2)
The next day, we'll see the founding of thousands of one-man "libraries"....
/.
Re:(fear + beatings) == "tough love" (Score:2)
Steven
Why libraries aren't full of porn (Score:3)
Even if the subscriptions were free, storage space is a non-negligible cost for libraries. I have offered to donate MacWorld subscriptions to a few of my local libraries, but they declined with regrets. Now if porn mags were donating archives on microfiche...it would be weird, but doable.