House Passes Ban on Social Site Access 681
Krishna Dagli writes to mention a C|Net story covering a House of Representatives vote on restricting access to social sites on public terminals. The bill, which passed the House in a 410-15 vote, would bar users from accessing sites like Amazon, MySpace, or Slashdot from terminals in libraries and schools. Adults would be able to 'ask permission' to access such sites. From the article: "'Social networking sites, best known by the popular examples of MySpace, Friendster and Facebook, have literally exploded in popularity in just a few short years,' said Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick, a Pennsylvania Republican and one of DOPA's original sponsors. Now, he added, those Web sites 'have become a haven for online sexual predators who have made these corners of the Web their own virtual hunting ground.'"
So... what do we go after next??? (Score:2, Interesting)
Now that it's well on it's way to becoming illegal, will we go after other social environments such as bars or clubs? They after all have predators there in their own live hunting ground.
I'm serious. Where do we draw the line?
Re:They just don't get it. (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps it is because it's Friday, but I don't remember the parent mentioning their voting/not voting. One would like to believe that anyone that passionate about the subject does in fact vote. I know I do, but the parent has a point: a lot of people vote who a) follow strictly party lines no matter what, b) vote for "the nice people who left that flyer at my house," or c) don't have a clue what or who is on the ballot but are going to vote anyway.
The people who don't vote are the people you have to convince when it comes to issues. Groups that vote tend to be polarized, and you can pretty much tell which way they will lean in an election. It's the non-voter that holds the real power, if you can find an issue which fires them up enough to get them to the polls. The problem is, you just never know what that issue is.
Re:They just don't get it. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Yet another way the poor kids get left out (Score:1, Interesting)
I wasn't popular either. The difference here, apparently, is that I had enough character to get over it and move on with my life rather than whining about it forever and trying to find someone else to blame.
Re:Literally exploded? (Score:2, Interesting)
(adv) literally ((intensifier before a figurative expression) without exaggeration) [princeton.edu]
(v) explode, irrupt (increase rapidly and in an uncontrolled manner) "The population of India is exploding" [princeton.edu]
The REAL Truth (Score:2, Interesting)
Contact your rep and explain why you hate it. (Score:3, Interesting)
Incidentally the text of the bill is at the Library of Congress [loc.gov]. It defines a "Social Networking Site" as follows:
I would note that clause (i) appears to exempt political websites from this as well as school sites while clauses (iv) and (v) are entirely undefined indicating that they have neither been thought through nor are expected to be any time soon. Is a handle personal? If I use my real name is that "highly-personalized". What about if I lie?
These same issues hold true with respect to the "technology protection measure" requirement in 3.a (see text). Strictly speaking turning the computer off entirely is a technology protection measure as is a printed sign saying "Don't do bad things" or an overpriced filtering service that can be easily circumvented.
The law is bad because it leaves many aspects undefined while at the same time further restricting online activities for both children and adults. One of the known problems with COPA is that many adults cannot get things turned on. More importantly it places blame in the wrong places, and places effort there as well. It attacks the social networking sites on the assumption that a) they are entirely to blame and b) poor "technology protection measures" will prevent bad things from happening. Sexual predators exist in the real world and molest kids in the real world. If we spent more time and effort educating parents accurately (which I note this bill encourages but does not pay for) about the dangers their kids face and how best to protect them this might work out. As it is this bill is (at best) a band aid that teaches kids and parents to fear the online world not learn to protect themselves in it. It also places one further burden of censoring information on understaffed underfunded public libearies who, as a rule, exist to share information not hide it.
This is essentially an election year problem. This bill is being voted for becuase the reps think that it is free. By voting for this they can claim to have "struck a blow against online predators" even though this blow is all hot air. In my experience such things get done because the politicians think that it will a) make the
Re:Yet another way the poor kids get left out (Score:4, Interesting)
The wholly human act of 'socializing', maybe?
Hell, when my sister was homeless a few years ago, the only way she was ever able to talk with my mom and me was through IM, sitting at a desk at the back of the library.
Re:They just don't get it. (Score:3, Interesting)
In that case, I amend my idea to require this prerequisite amendment, which I did not know existed.
It is not the legislature's job to determine whether laws are constitutional. It is the legislature's job to pass laws that they feel will benefit the state.
It's every person's job as a human being to see that rights are not violated for anyone's benefit.
In many cases, there is no way of knowing if a law is constitutional until SCOTUS rules on it.
While I'm not versed enough to know cases like involving matters like this bill, take the "ban minors from purchasing Mature-rated video games" bills that have been repeatedly passed and struck down by state supreme courts over the last year. Quite analogous.
You essentially want to make it illegal to have a difference in opinion. Ridiculous.
That's a very broad definition of opinion. Approving an unconstitutional bill is not speech, it is an act. The same way a police officer can't (probably) be kicked off the force because he beleives all minorities are criminals, but certainly will if he goes Rodney King on a suspect.
Re:This will make some admins quite happy (Score:3, Interesting)
Not visible from space (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Yet another way the poor kids get left out (Score:4, Interesting)
No, they don't. However they certainly do have statistics that show that the majority of pedophiles find their next victim by walking down the hallway to the victim's room.
Of course the idea that some kid may be going to the library to use myspace.com so they can talk to someone about what's going on at home, and now that will be cut off, doesn't occur to them. Think of the Children! But don't actually think...
Re:Yet another way the poor kids get left out (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Freedom of Association? (Score:2, Interesting)
There's no way the libraries will be able to keep track of all the new sites, the same way they couln't be expected to keep track of all the new porn sites. Censorware companies keep track of this kind of thing, and I'm guessing that the most common implementation of this bill would be to use censorware. Especially because the libraries that are e-rate compliant already have it so that they can block "harmful to minors" material.
Passing this bill would increase the demand for censorware, and the updates necessary to keep it current. I wonder who lobbied this proposal.
I work for lobbyists (Score:1, Interesting)
But seriously, I do work for a lobbying group--the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Hence the AC since I DO NOT speak for the organization in an official capacity.
I could not agree with the parent post more. There is a lot more to effective lobbying than just sending an angry letter every now and then. Effective lobbyists are in close contact with House and Senate offices on a continuous basis, and can find out about stuff like this ahead of time. For instance the Chamber sent up a letter opposing this bill before the vote. Effective lobbyists can also work affirmatively to get legislation introduced or worded in a way that is advantageous to your cause.
A lot of this has to do with who you know and how well you work with others. This sort of schmoozing is anathema to a lot of tech geeks, maybe because a lot of tech geeks are introverted and are uncomfortable interacting with people they don't know well. But the fact is that getting things done relies on personal relationships--that's true in any field. A conversation with a well-informed former colleague (staffer turned lobbyist) can be worth hundreds of grassroots letters when it comes to changing a Senator's mind.
Some tech companies get it. Microsoft gets it now that they have seen first hand how dangerous it can be to ignore the government. Google gets it--they have opened a Washington office and hired lobbyists. But the most powerful lobbying groups are always those the represent large numbers--lots of people and lots of money. That's why it's important to not only do your own lobbying well, but to constantly seek common ground with other organizations--coalitions are a big part of successful lobbying.
Politics does make strange bedfellows. The Chamber and the labor unions fight tooth and nail over issues like the Davis-Bacon Act, but also align in coalitions over issues like immigration. This sort of thing is possible when you focus primarily on the issues and not the people and personalities and political parties.
Ban on Facebook bans College & HS Activities (Score:2, Interesting)
My university in particular uses Facebook to announce many event that occur on campus through the help of the dean's office.
What this ban means to these institutions is that you can't promote the campus carrier fair or the special guest speaker who has come to school to give an enlightening lecture. And forget about parties, club meetings, sports, communicating with your classmates.
Secondly, this bill may threaten Net Neutrality [savetheinternet.com], another bill the House passed that the Senate is likely to toss out.
It is quite clear that the lobbyist from AT&T [eff.org] and other large communications and mass media companies, are in full force buying out elected officials and government agencies in Capitol Hill. This story should be paid close attention to over the next few weeks.