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.'"
Literally exploded? (Score:5, Funny)
Strange I didn't hear a thing...
Re:Literally exploded? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Literally exploded? (Score:3, Informative)
"Literally" in the sense of "metaphorically" can be traced back to the 1760s, and futile prescriptivist whining about it can be traced back to the early 20th century (source [upenn.edu]). So given that this is an example of modification over time, how exactly is it different?
Re:Literally exploded? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Literally exploded? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's why we also have the word "figuratively", which is what the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania really meant.
Oh well, I could care less.
(And yes, I mean that literally, just as I wrote it.)
Re:Literally exploded? (Score:4, Funny)
I do not think that word means what you think it means...
Re:Literally exploded? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Literally exploded? (Score:4, Funny)
Pennsylvania is not the most powerful country in the world
As if that wasn't embarassing enough, they're not even a country either!
David Cross said it best ... (Score:5, Funny)
"Well, what did you do?"
"What do you mean, dude? I was laughing..."
"I mean, what did you do with your shitty pants?"
"No, dude, I didn't REALLY shit my pants, I LITERALLY shit my pants!"
Cheers,
Ari
Re:Literally exploded? (Score:5, Funny)
They're only trying to save the internet for porn!
Get yer tubes tied (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Literally exploded? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Literally exploded? (Score:3, Insightful)
Congress has long since stopped worrying about having any effects whatsoever (except for the financial benefits of their corporate overlords, er, constituents, and buying their next election), and have concentrated solely on the appearance of doing something useful to those 90% of people who only hear the 6-second sound
Re:Literally exploded? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ding! You hit it on the head. The appearance of doing something is more important than actually doing it.
The big problem is that Congress has only one tool to work with: they can create new legislation. And they have to appear to be doing something about any given problem, so
Yet another way the poor kids get left out (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not just kick them in the face while you're at it?
-Eric (former poor kid)
Re:Yet another way the poor kids get left out (Score:5, Insightful)
If parents can't be bothered to take an interest in their children (which the House seems to think that they can't) then why not let someone else prevent this - assuming of course that this is ever a serious issue anyway; I remain convinced that it is just a very rare exception.
Re:Yet another way the poor kids get left out (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yet another way the poor kids get left out (Score:5, Insightful)
-Eric
Re:Yet another way the poor kids get left out (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We've got your number, Harry Potter, it's 666! (Score:3, Insightful)
c.1821 Heinrich Heine wrote "Where they burn books, they will end in burning human beings."
Where they sensor social networking sites, they will end in silencing the people. - russ1337
Re:Yet another way the poor kids get left out (Score:5, Insightful)
Computers were added to libraries not only to function as a research tool, but also a communication tool. Those who cannot utilize the internet are increasingly at a disadvantage. Remember when you could exist as a functional member of modern society without a credit card? Now you need one for all manner of crap. The internet is no different, and soon enough, anyone without internet access will be in the same disenfranchised class of people as people without bank accounts or credit cards.
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:Yet another way the poor kids get left out (Score:5, Informative)
ARGH!
The attitude expressed in your statement is really simplistic to the point of banality. Who is to say myspace isn't a productive use of resources? I would have said the same thing about classmates.com, until I discovered my old college roommate there a few weeks ago.
Just because YOU don't use that resource doesn't mean it isn't useful or helpful to someone else.
Well, jackass, *I* WAS in charge of IT in a library. Sure, we had rules in place as to what made for proper use of equipment, but we didn't block content at all. As for kids, it was only when the feds started writing restrictive laws re.: filtering that we began to limit kiddie use, and only then by saying they could only use the net with their parents' supervision.
As far as "good" academic search sites... HAH! Wikipedia is convenient, but as far as academic research goes, it fails on several marks. I wouldn't block it, though, just because it doesn't appeal to my high-fallutin' academic ways. Blocking out Gmail, yahoo, etc., would place a fundamental cluster-fuck on communications for a GREAT many people, INCLUDING those doing legit research. You may not LIKE people communicating on library computers, but research is, well, based on communication.
It's probably just as annoying to need to get a quick email out to a research collaborator when some "asshole" is sitting there posting to Slashdot, too. I wouldn;t block Slashdot, though. And I wouldn't prevent an asshole like you from doing what-the-hell-ever he or she wanted to do, so long as they didn't break any laws.
Really, people with your views need to walk a mile in the shoes of the average library user. And the average user is NOT you or me. It is the poor student, the poor worker, the elderly person, etc., who don't have the resources available to them privately. Take a chill pill, buddy, and let sleeping dogs lie.
Re:Yet another way the poor kids get left out (Score:3, Insightful)
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:3, Insightful)
While I would like to see some measures taken to protect children online, I think those 'measures' rest more on the shoulders of parents than on retarded legislation like this. I agree with another poster who mentioned that it is the communities runn
Re:Yet another way the poor kids get left out (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yet another way the poor kids get left out (Score:3, Insightful)
Note, specifcically, that if there can be a case made that there is any educational benefit from accessing a restricted site, the restriction is to be removed.
So, in effect,
Re:Yet another way the poor kids get left out (Score:5, Insightful)
That is, of course, a strawman. There is already standing precedent for the legality of preventing minors from accessing materials deemed, by law, to be potentially harmful.
This is not doing that however, This is preventing minors from using public resources to access material that may be harmful, while not banning them from accessing those same materials in other locations. It is a fairly important distinction.
So, in effect, the entire whiny, misunderstood complaint here is "it's unfair that children are being barred from accessing, via public systems, non-educational sites which could potentially cause them harm".
I think that is a valid complaint. Every Web page contains information, whether you deem it educational or not. Maybe it is educating me about the colors preferred by teenagers or about the psychology of groupies. Similarly, every Web page is potentially harmful. Maybe commas look a lot like sperm which will permanently scar a child and destroy their future relationships. We don't have any proof to the contrary so lets think of the children and ban them unless they can come up with an "educational" reason they need to see pages with commas.
Both the harmfulness and the educational benefits of any given sight are very subjective and this type of legislation is harmful or useless except for one thing. It convinces people politicians care and is a way to get votes from emotionally driven, infantile voters.
I don't question that the educational value of MySpace is pretty much the same as hitting yourself in the face with a brick.
I see, well why don't we make you the gatekeeper for all media to decide what is and is not appropriate for Americans to see. Or maybe we shouldn't.
This is not a violation of rights by even the most ridiculous stretch of the imagination.
Yes it is. It is making it harder for me to view certain Websites in the library and not others. It is intentionally restricting my and everyone else's access to certain information.
Re:Yet another way the poor kids get left out (Score:3, Insightful)
You have no idea what you're talking about. There is NO statute that hasn't been overturned that allows the government to block "harmful" material from children in private settings.
Pornography laws and alcohol laws come to mind. A private business cannot sell or even give pornography to a minor.
This is a ridiculous argument and no competent judge would sit and listen to it.
I see, because our legal system is broken we should just allow unethical laws to be passed? Okay then.
Standing interpretation o
Re:Yet another way the poor kids get left out (Score:3, Insightful)
In effect you're an anarchist.
Not wanting the government to take responsibility for child rearing is not anarchy. You sir, are jumping to some major and completely unwarranted conclusions.
I reject your entire political philosophy on practical grounds and therefore refuse to accept your argument.
Wow, it is hard to fit so many logical fallacies into one statement. Good job. First, you've made the fallacy of association, you believe this therefor I'll assign to you the following additional set of belief
Re:Yet another way the poor kids get left out (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yet another way the poor kids get left out (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet it does make me worry about what's next, when they stop just worrying about "virtual" hunting grounds.
Sorry kid, no public parks and playgrounds for you, a sexual predator might find you!
Sorry kid, no public pools, kids in bathing suits are like chum in shark infested waters!
You know, public libraries have dark corners, so no more free books for you!
The conspiratorial part of me could even see at being part of the larger assault against public services in general.
Oh, but wait, I just realized, I need to THINK OF THE CHILDREN, and so all my objections are moot. And you, you cad, don't you care about the children?
Re:Yet another way the poor kids get left out (Score:3, Insightful)
The conspiratorial part of me thinks that it's an assault against the freedom of the internet in general. Once this is in place it will be the turn of political websites etc. Eventually all you'll be able to do from a public access terminal is watch Fox and CNN and send fanmail to Bill O'Reilly.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: This time is the golden age of the internet. That period
Re:Yet another way the poor kids get left out (Score:4, Insightful)
-Eric
Re:Yet another way the poor kids get left out (Score:3, Insightful)
Evil (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Evil (Score:4, Funny)
Obviously this law just screams out to be abused. Who defines when a site is social? Does the Democratic party have a forum? I bet that makes them social enough to be blocked. On the other hand though they are blocking MySpace, so this law does have some redeeming qualities.
Forgive me Congress, for I have sinned. I have had impure thoughts that you lot are trying to control the minds of the people. I was greatly disturbed to see the margin of passage as 410-15. But I see I was wrong now. Clearly the people cannot be allowed to think for themselves and anything they wish to do may be construed as a possible connection to the sinister. I beseech thee to absolve me of my moment of falling from grace.
does the offering basket take PayPal?
Help? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:As Usual, The Write-Up Is Dubious At Best (Score:3, Informative)
Slashdot would very likely fall under that category, so unlike what the LIES of the reactionary buffoons say, places like Slashdot would very likely not be blocked.
Re:Evil (Score:3, Funny)
Should I start to get scared?
Re:Evil (Score:3, Informative)
I was surprised (and more than a little bit disappointed) to see Ron Paul [house.gov] vote for this. You'd think his opinion (even though he's a social conservative) would've been that this is outside the constitutional limits of the federal government.
Sigh. Maybe he's down with a cold.
They just don't get it. (Score:4, Insightful)
These boneheaded politicians have fucked our country in so many ways in the past 6 years alone it's almost inconceivable, and there's no light at the end of the tunnel.
Re:They just don't get it. (Score:2, Insightful)
If politics mattered so much to you, you'd take the time to vote, rather than bitch about inaccessibility for "informed people who have shit to do." Evidently, since you have shit to do *other* than politics, you are content to delegate to those people who will gladly worry about politics for you.
To paraphrase Trotsky--you might not be interested in politics, but politics is certainly interested in YOU.
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:3, Insightful)
Re:They just don't get it. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:They just don't get it. (Score:3, Insightful)
I think there's been a growing tide of greed, fear, and intolerance in this country, and it has nothing to do with generations. I grew up in the 60s, and ever since I've always been disappointed that the spirit of activism and involvement that flourished then seems to have died out among the young.
One reason for this is that pol
Re:They just don't get it. (Score:3, Informative)
410 voted for. 15 voted against.
Republicans control the house.
Several of the 15 votes against were democrats.
Are you bad at politics, or math?
Re:They just don't get it. (Score:5, Insightful)
I kind of think that's the point. They know this law has no hope of standing up, since it's almost identical but *more restrictive* than COPA. I believe this is election fodder. Call them stupid, but anyone who votes against this will be called a pervert lover come next election. Think of the children...
Re:They just don't get it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Can you seriously imagine the commercial they would have to run to convey that image in regards to this bill?
"Representative Hogan is out of touch with America. He voted against a law that would prohibit minors from visiting MySpace.com in public libraries. Does that sound like the kind of guy you'd want in office?"
Everybody loves to be like, "Oh, well voters just eat that up, they're dumb and gullible," but no. Not really. No they're not. Most of them won't care about this bill one way or the other. And BECAUSE of that, any smart Representative ought to have the courage and conviction to say this law is inappropriate government meddling, and we don't need it. And be able to easily defend that charge at home. In 8 simple words, too.
"That bill is a violation of our liberties."
People in this country, they don't care about liberties in the rhetorical sense, but trust me, the few voters who use this bill (and bills like it) as a lynchpin issue in who they're voting for are the ones out of touch. And they'll get called on it.
I guess my point is I'm tired of all this tsk-tsk Chicken Little hysteria that we're all being labelled "unpatriotic" and "terrorists" and "pedo lovers" because of our positions. Who out there is actually doing this? Who is stifling your dissent? Who is really out there calling you a terrorist? Ann Coulter? Give me a break. Have your convictions, stick by them, voice them loudly and proudly. Nothing will happen to you.
So stop being afraid.
Re:They just don't get it. (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember quite a few ads that were at least this bad in 2004, and I'm expecting it to be worse in Minnesota this year. Note that I never mention the word "vote" or any other candidate. That makes this an "issue" ad, rather than a direct campaign ad, and it's now under looser finance restrictions. The campaigns do a lot of research. If it didn't work on a large, vulnerable (ignorant) part of the population, they wouldn't waste money on it.
Re:They just don't get it. (Score:3, Insightful)
I've seen these tactics derail the best candidates over and over. It's so consistent here that as soon as I see such an ad, I start wondering which slimey opponent ran it. But most people just blindly latch onto 'em as "truth", because th
Re:They just don't get it. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:They just don't get it. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
In many cases, there is no way of knowing if a law is constitutional until SCOTUS rules on it. They don't accept pre-emptive cases and they don't issue opinions on potential legisla
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
What a nice group to be in... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What a nice group to be in... (Score:5, Funny)
As many times as goatse has been posted around here, I'd say yes.
Slashdot?? (Score:5, Funny)
Of course, because preteen girls are well known for associating themselves with this particular social network.
Re:Slashdot?? (Score:5, Funny)
It must be all the ponies.
-Eric
Thank you, nanny state (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Thank you, nanny state (Score:5, Insightful)
It's worse than that, Mike (Score:5, Insightful)
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.'
People might also get together and discuss anything else, including unpopular wars, politics (including bills to viloate privacy, violate basic civil rights and interfer with the 'free market' and communications) or the corporate predators who back them.
i welcome you to the new america. leave your conscience at the door.
Utterly Daft (Score:4, Insightful)
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Clearly you have fallen hard from your turnip truck and struck your head quite forcefully. I see you as a complete apologist for those who are happy to legislate our freedoms into oblivion. Perhaps when they take away something you treasure you might at least grunt coherently before rolling over anyway. Not I.
The concept of fighting these sorts of violations of basic rights in court, rather then defeating in in committee or vote before house and/or senate is far more desireable as it eliminates the period of suppression prior to overturning, futher it eliminates any artifacts which may remain in place (as this will affect programmings, filtering and structure of information access) after subsequent overturn by a court. In these cases an ounce of prevention is truly worth more than a pound of cure.
Department (Score:2)
Shouldn't this be in the Won't-someone-please-think-of-the-children department?
Damn I was just going to buy this book from Amazon (Score:2)
Just for a second my heart sang (Score:5, Funny)
I met a predator here (Score:4, Funny)
I was so scared
(S)he also said something about a basement, but that's when I went offline
Overly broad. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Overly broad. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Overly broad. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd be willing to bet the legislators know this. Contrary to popular belief, and indeed, all evidence to the contrary, politicians aren't actually morons -- they're hypocrites, liars, adulterers, gangsters, perjurers, alcoholics, con artists, drug addicts, and murderers -- but they're usually not stupid.
They win even when the laws overturned. They get credit for "thinking of the children", and "doing something about it", and/i> they get to blame "activist jud
This will make some admins quite happy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This will make some admins quite happy (Score:3, Interesting)
Ban Housing (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, though, the abuse, etc. should be a criminal offense, not something that might be related in some way. For example, guns should be legal; murder should not be. Credit cards should be legal; fraud should not be.
Libraries (Score:3, Insightful)
When I worked in my college's library, the first rule regarding the computers was that anyone having to write a report got preference over anyone else. Anyone doing research came next. Anyone who wanted to check their e-mail or do anythng else had to beg for access.
And our public libraries have a very strict system as well. You have to sign up for a computer at the front desk, and depending on what you are doing (and the staff makes sweeps) you are given a time to use the computer. If you're excuse is "just checking e-mail" you get ten minutes. And they enforce that.
We still have a cyber-cafe and a few hotspots in the area. Denny's will let you sit at the counter for hours and leech their connection for nothing more than a soda.
Library computers should be reserved for research.
Re:Libraries (Score:3, Insightful)
I understand the facilities concern, bandwidth can be expensive - but putting that aside, i think public terminals payed for with taxpayer money should be available for extracurricular use. There really are people out there who cant afford a computer, let alone internet access and to reiterate 1000 posts before me - we shouldn't put them at a disadvantage for being poor. If the library is only for research we should throw out any book that is strictly for entertainment purposes - only keeping textbooks, res
sex or politics? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why are people allowing the politicians to treat them as if they are children, is the majority of people really feeling that their government must protect them from everything that could be even remotely upsetting, or is it just the politicians, playing on the feelings of few to limit the rights of many?
Blocking school and library access to many sites like
(I live in Canada, still feel bad for the neighbours losing their rights AND concerned that this madness can quickly cross the border.)
Major Problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
Does anyone have any figures for how many kids have actually been solicited compared to those who are molested by family etc?
Re:Major Problem? (Score:3, Informative)
This [csudh.edu] provides some stats, although the methods are a bit dodgy, I think.
Also, this [9news.com]
It isn't clear to me what fraction of kids get solicited by adult predators (rather than fellow teens near their own ages), nor is it clear what fraction actually have any real trouble with it beyond just blocking the person. But do note that 1 in 5 girls and 1 in 10 boys will be "sexually exploited" overall.
Canadian statistics (Score:5, Informative)
Apparenly last year in Canada there were something like 30,000 cases of child abduction. Might not be the exact number, but it was in the tens of thousdands. OMG THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!! The news stories focussed on what laws we need, how we can save the children, how the Internet is a bad place, don't let your chilren do anything in public without you, blah blah blah.
In only ONE of the news stories did ANYONE talk about just who was doing the abducting. Of course, it was pretty much always the parents or some other family member. This story had a very short summary of how many kids in Canada last year were abducted by complete strangers:
5.
That's right, FIVE. We're about to re-write our laws, do some stupid reactionary crap, demonize the Internet, lock our kids in protective bubbles, because 5 kids got abducted. Never mind the 29,995 taken by their parents, we don't have to worry about those!
Incidentally, we just had our first Amber Alert(TM) here in Calgary. The city used the Emergency Broadcast System for this. Considering we've had several tornado warnings lately, it scared the hell out of me to hear that blaring from the TV.
Turns out, the kid was abducted by her mother, and as almost always happens in these cases, was returned safely. *sigh* I remember the days when the EBS was used for things like incoming nukes or earthquakes.
Most sexual predators are KNOWN to the children (Score:5, Informative)
They'd achieve far more if they instead spent some money on awareness campaigns to teach people the most common signs of abuse, and to make people aware that strangers isn't the greatest risk to their children.
Re:Most sexual predators are KNOWN to the children (Score:3, Insightful)
"We're going to protect your children from you and your sicko borther in law. You know, the real predators."
or:
"We're going to protect your children from scary psychos ON THE INTARWEB. They're EVERYWHERE! My GOD, they're hiding in the TUBES!"
Freedom of Association? (Score:5, Insightful)
And, banning Amazon is kinda silly -- so many things on the web link to Amazon for information about books and the like. Why include Amazon in this?
Are they even going to be able to enforce this? What about as people add new social sites, are libraries going to be required to know all of the things they should be censoring, or will someone give them a list?
I'm kinda hoping the librarians fight them on this and get it shot down as unconstitutional. To me, this sounds about as insane as barring Baptists or some other group from meeting in any number than two in a public area -- it's both insane and unenforceable.
It scares me how much they are willing to curtail everyone else's liberties in order to suport this witch hunt which allegedly is supposed to help the children. Very scary indeed. I'm just waiting until US authorities start arresting people who run sites in foreign countries because they accepted logins from Americans.
What? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a default system of banning speech in public, on a scale far worse than any indecency bill. It's akin to banning phone calls to private residences on public phones, in order to protect children from free communication.
What kind of idiotic message does this send to children anyway? The majority of our legislatures in the house seem to think that free communication is too dangerous a thing for children to do now. "Don't talk with strangers" is perhaps a way to get children to think defensively about the messages they get... but speaking with strangers is the only way to learn about the world outside your own little bubble. Sure - the boogey man of the Internet child predator has some reality to it, but the Internet is still one of the safest place for children to learn about the opinions of the rest of humanity outside their small environment. Banning such access in public libraries is telling children that they can't be trusted with even the possibility of such communication. I aknowledge that children can't be trusted with all the rights of adults, but our public infrastructure seems to be producing another generation of sheltered dropouts, each less qualified to enter college than the last.
This is an immoral bill, in my mind, and one I hope is found unconstitutional.
Ryan Fenton
Must be election year (Score:5, Insightful)
Congressman running for office, addressing an audience with grannie in attendance, says, "And to protect the children of America, which are our future, I have introduced legislation to ban access to web sites frequented by predators and pedophiles in our public schools and libraries."
Lather, rinse, repeat and watch all our freedoms slowly spin down the drain.
The Tech World Needs Lobbyists (Score:3, Insightful)
Slashdotters, et al, shouldn't be too surprised that their views aren't effectively represented in legislation - they are effectively making them known, aren't effectively organizing, and aren't working to acheive their goals. Much of this is obviouisly due to the lack of organization that exists amongs the tech savvy - which is certainly not a monolithic group - but I would also argue that much of it has to do with an intense dislike for lobbyists and the perception that, somehow, "interfering" in the legislative process is dirty. Well, it's not. It's a part of the process that's always been around, always will be around, and people ignore at their own peril.
I agree with most that this legislation - while perhaps having good "protect the children" intentions - is ineffective and more than a bit ridiculous. But simply e-mailing your congressman isn't really going to be effective. A group needs to be formed that handles these matters before and as they arise. I would also argue that this group would not only be used to block ineffective legislation, but to propose and promote ideas that could actually help protect children from material inappropriate for their age and, more importantly, those who would prey on children on the internet.
That won't happen until some group of tech-savvy people with both the background and demeanor required for lobbying steps up and takes action. It also wouldn't hurt if the perception of lobbyists as a necessary part of the process rather than simply evil (well, ok, lots of them are "evil") changed in the tech world.
There are dozens of groups out there lobbying against what the techies want - the techies should make their voice heard in that forum effectively or quit complaining.
Just a thought (Score:3, Insightful)
The uneducated idiocy of bills like this boggles the mind. Any web site in which you register, have a profile, and are allowed to message other members is a social site. Slashdot is a social site, granted it has a higher educational value than MySpace, but so does smashing one's self in the head with a bat. Some high school students these days are maintaining Blogger accounts as their english class writing journals. Under the new rules Blogger would be among the taboo sites.
Add to that, the risk of pedophiles is minimal at best. More kids are molested at church than by predators found online. Should we ban all priests from public places? Then of course there are the kids who disappear from the mall so we need to shut those down. Then there was that one kid kidnapped at a gas station right in front of a video camera so we have to close those now. If parents would step up and take a real interest in their kids none of these things would be an issue. In fact, pedophiles are often a result of either parental abuse or abuse a parent could have prevented by taking proper precautions so parents doing their job would actually decrease the overall number of sickos.
This Story... (Score:4, Funny)
Quit bitching and call your Senator (Score:4, Insightful)
make their opposition clear, we may still have a chance of getting it stopped there.
The clueful ones (Score:3, Informative)
Conyers, John; Michigan, 14th
Grijalva, Raul M.; Arizona, 7th
Hinchey, Maurice D.; New York, 22nd
Honda, Michael M.; California, 15th
Kucinich, Dennis J.; Ohio, 10th
Lee, Barbara; California, 9th
Lofgren, Zoe; California, 16th
McDermott, Jim; Washington, 7th
Payne, Donald M.; New Jersey, 10th
Schakowsky, Janice D.; Illinois, 9th
Scott, Robert C.; Virginia, 3rd
Serrano, Jose E.; New York, 16th
Stark, Fortney Pete; California, 13th
Watson, Diane E.; California, 33rd
Woolsey, Lynn C.; California, 6th
All Democrats, I believe. If your representative's name isn't on the list, it's time for you to make a phone call.
slashdot = haven for sexual predators? (Score:3, Funny)
p.s. I'll show you my Commander, if you show me your Taco...
The letter I mailed to my Senators... (Score:3, Insightful)
I am writing this letter in regards to Bill H. R. 5319, the "Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006". Unfortunately, I only became aware of this legislation on Friday, July 28, 2006, by which the bill had already passed the House. Therefore, I hope that this letter reaches you in time to consider before the vote reaches the Senate floor.
I strongly urge you to consider all aspects of this site and to consider voting "No". I understand the title of this bill makes it extremely appealing, and difficult to argue against. After all, who would not want to eliminate online predators and protect our nation's youth? But when reviewing this bill, consider:
1. Will this bill truly protect children?
2. The potential ramifications, including limiting educational opportunities and infringing on civil liberties
By limiting access in public areas, such as libraries, are we truly providing any protection? Are children likely to undertake risky behavior when under the watchful eye of a librarian or technology education provider? Are online predators likely to ply their trade in a public location that is subject to electronic monitoring and access control? By restricting access in public places, we would in fact force children and predators to seek out Internet access at other, more private locations, which actually results in greater probability of unsafe and illegal activity.
Also, consider the fact that by preventing social networking via this world-wide portal, we are in fact preventing our children from communicating with other children in other countries and other cultures, thus limiting their world view and preventing them from gaining firsthand knowledge and experience of other cultures.
Furthermore, I am concerned with the civil liberties issue. This appears to be another step towards the "slippery slope" of restricting our citizens' rights. This potentially opens the door towards other infringements. Do we also restrict which books are available in the library? Do we restrict who is even allowed to enter a library? The true way to educate our children, and thus ensure a bright future for this country, is to encourage as much reading and information as possible.
Thank you for taking the time to read this letter. I hope you will seriously consider what I have stated.
Sincerely,
xxx
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
the "people" communicating vs. state control (Score:5, Insightful)
It has come to our attantion that it is a LOT more difficult to keep you all under our control when you are well educateed and well connected. As such, we, the corrupt career politicials (that really have only our own interests at heart), all 410 of us, have decided to stop letting you connect with each other so easily.
We've decided that it would be best if the big corporations decide how much people should pay to have access over the shared global computer networks. We've decided that public services that offer Internet connections should restrict sites that allow people to connect and share information. You see, when all you "people" (plebs) out there keep sharing information and educating each other (for free) about what we're doing -- it makes us look REALLY bad. It erodes our ability to craft the message we want you to hear. It prevents us from keeping the food locked up and you worried about how to survive, so that you'll work real hard.
We're not going to stop this pattern. Each time it looks like the people have too much freedom, understand the world too well, or have too much information about how the state operates, we are going to pass more laws that try to keep ourselves in power. We're not even going to consider rational debate on how we should be paid, or really who we work for - we work for our own self interest!
Sincerely Yours,
The Senators and Representatives, leaders and crooks, cronies and career jackashers who have the world by the balls and have no interest in letting go...
All the ranters need to realize something (Score:4, Informative)
The Senate IS NOT going to bother with this bill.
The Senate takes alot longer to do things. _maybe_ 10% of what the House passes is ever brought up on the floor. Add to that the short time Congress is in session before they all go home to campaign and the real purpose becomes clear.
1. the Senate too slow to take time with frivolous legislation.
2. there are only a few days left of the session before everyone goes home to campaign.
3. therefore the House is free to pass any kind of retarded crap it wants, knowing it will die on the way down the hall.
4. therefore House members are totally free to vote for blatantly unconstitutional AND retarded bills so they can say they support protecting our children from the boogeyman.
5. tout said dumb bill in campaign commercials
6. win
7. ??? (think duke cunningham)
8. profit!
Everywhere (Score:3, Insightful)
The hunting ground is anywhere prey can be found, as matter of fact the library itself can be a hunting ground. Even if you lock minors inside there houses some are going to be victims of sexual pretators. I don't think this kind of legilation solves anything at all.
Does anyone else... (Score:3, Insightful)
This doesn't really affect me - yet - but who knows how far this will go. Is this the beginning of a system where the would-be victim is punished for the would-be crime?
It only blocks commercial social sites (Score:3, Informative)
The bill only affects access to commercial social networking sites. This is regulation under the commerce clause, so Congress is limited to regulating businesses.
This will be a boost for non-commercial sites like free-association.net [free-association.net], which was founded by Tribe members unhappy with the Murdoch buyout and subsequent censorship. It doesn't take a company. After all, the users are providing all the content.
Re:thanks ben (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Noooo! (Score:3, Insightful)
I expect this sort of nonsense from the Repubs, but there must have been a lot of Dems that went along with it, too. They probably voted for it knowing it was a stupid and almost certainly unconstitutional law, only because they were afraid of giving their opponents in November a chance to attack their "support" for child molesters et.al.
This is what