New bill banning the web?

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Astronouth7303

According to ABC News, a bill has been introduced in the House of Representitives (as the "Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006," H.R. 5319) that would ban any website that allowed minors to interact. According to their definition, this would include Wikipedia, ChiefDelphi, any other wiki or BBS, any blog, any web host, etc. etc. Also under this bill, any IM or chat would be banned.

This came up earlier in the MySpace thread. The law and the proposed amendment only apply to things like public schools, libraries, etc., and not to the internet in general.

Also, chiefdelphi.com is not particularly commercial in nature, though it does receive some sponsorship from commercial sources. This (in a rational world) ought to keep it from being banned (it's not a "commercial social networking website").

[petek]

Let's take a deep breathe and focus.

First, this bill would require institutions which receive federal funding to block access for minors to sites which allow people to share personal info and message like MySpace, CD, etc., but would not "ban" them.

Second, IMHO, this is a poorly conceived attempt by my congressman to seem to be doing something about online predators, and would have little or no impact on that front.

Finally, rather than complain about it, do like I did and write your congressman to explain to her/him how this bill would prevent you from collaborating with your peers on CD while working at school (assuming your school lets you on CD now), and all the benefits you get from that interaction. While you're at it, you might make sure s/he knows about FIRST and what a positive influence it is...

[Ashley Christine]

I think that it is looking more at the 12 or 13 year olds who say that they are 16 or 18 to make a myspace and are putting themselves into danger. The internet really is a dangerous place for young kids. As cool as myspace may be or seem, I think that it would be a good thing to make kids have to be 18, but even so they would most likely lie about their age anyways, then what would the government do? Send them all to juvi for breaking the law.

As good as it would be, I dont think it seems entirebly reasonable...

I am indifferent to whatever they may decide to do. Plus, it would give me a good reason to get rid of my myspace...

[KenWittlief]

Has someone invented a device that can detect the age of fingers hitting a keyboard?

[Tytus Gerrish]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

Has someone invented a device that can detect the age of fingers hitting a keyboard?

im working on that

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Tytus Gerrish

im working on that

What did we tell you about not disclosing your inventions?

[lukevanoort]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

Has someone invented a device that can detect the age of fingers hitting a keyboard?

I bet you could do it with some sort of evolutionary neural net. There are probably browsing and typing patterns that would flag someone as "child-like", although you couldn't realistically ban people on what the program spits out, it would at least give a red flag for closer inspection.

[Simon Strauss]

Don't want to come off too opinionated (though i probably am), but this is one of the points at which i am reminded of why i have lost faith in our government and society, not the system just the people in it. It reminds me of an old George Carlin line that went more or less like, "our government isn't at fault, the people are because were the ones who elected them" (i paraphrased so that the idea could be expressed without the profanity) and we and our leaders need to realize this. If our government really thinks that this is any sort of solution it means that the majority of the people in the country do as well, and cant realize that it is A) not going to work due to the innovation of the youth and sick B) only attempting to cover up a problem not prevent it C) A violation of the rights of us more or less law abiding citizens D) very reminiscent of the Luddites and E) going to do more harm than gain by limiting the transfer of knowledge
Back to the issue at hand though, whatever happened to solving issues through education, Limiting the actions of a people is not only oppressive but it also has the possibility to create an underground market through creating a demand, like was seen during Prohibition, which can turn out to be detrimental than the issue was to begin with (eg. Bootleggers and the Mob). The simple solution, spend the time and other resources that are being used in the creation of this bill toward a better education system in which we can get to the kids before predators do, tell them that it is wrong and not only address this issue in the present by warning our youth but also prevent it in the future.

[Steve W]

This is somewhat a political thread but I will post my thoughts anyway.
The government does many things:
1: They listen to groups that will get them elected.
2: They reward groups who get them elected.
3: They try to protect themselves.
4: They reward themselves for the great job that they perceive that they do.
5: They protect us from others.
6: They protect us from ourselves

There are a lot of good people in government and a lot of others. The fact is that North America has it a lot better that a lot of other countries and for this we should be grateful. We should also remember that when the government starts to sway away from the good of the people that we should inform them with our voices, letters and votes.

I will end with two questions. If we got rid of Myspace and others like it would it really impact our day to day lives? If we save one child from having any of the possible mishaps that come from predators, is it worth it?

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Steve W

I will end with two questions. If we got rid of Myspace and others like it would it really impact our day to day lives? If we save one child from having any of the possible mishaps that come from predators, is it worth it?

We could argue the same thing about any perilous, but enjoyable activity: who would be disadvantaged if we banned mountain biking because of the mishaps inherent to the sport? The difference, of course, is that a sexual predator is a person who intends to do harm, while falling off of a bicycle is a simple accident. But we can still draw parallels between these two things with respect to the impacts on the victims—both can potentially inflict grevious injury, of various sorts. If it were truly a matter of protecting the victims, then it seems that we might go to any lengths to shield people from all the hazards of life. Realistically, though, I think that legislation like this is motivated by the desire to remove the possibility of people (and not merely victims) partaking in activities that are not universally recognized as constructive. It has far less to do with victims of sex crimes than it does with the embarassment of media proclaiming "Pre-Teen Internet Scandal", with a picture or video of an underdressed twelve-year-old doing something imprudent.

[Steve W]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

We could argue the same thing about any perilous, but enjoyable activity: who would be disadvantaged if we banned mountain biking because of the mishaps inherent to the sport? The difference, of course, is that a sexual predator is a person who intends to do harm, while falling off of a bicycle is a simple accident. But we can still draw parallels between these two things with respect to the impacts on the victims—both can potentially inflict grevious injury, of various sorts. If it were truly a matter of protecting the victims, then it seems that we might go to any lengths to shield people from all the hazards of life. Realistically, though, I think that legislation like this is motivated by the desire to remove the possibility of people (and not merely victims) partaking in activities that are not universally recognized as constructive. It has far less to do with victims of sex crimes than it does with the embarassment of media proclaiming "Pre-Teen Internet Scandal", with a picture or video of an underdressed twelve-year-old doing something imprudent.

The difference being that if you hurt someone it would be yourself not an innocent.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Steve W

The difference being that if you hurt someone it would be yourself not an innocent.

That's essentially true (apart from crashing into a fellow rider, sending them flying off of a cliff), and addressed above. But that's not the issue at all.

It's clear that the activities that a "social networking site" (commercial or otherwise) provides are frequently enjoyable and in some respects, beneficial to their users (ChiefDelphi, for instance). It's also clear that on the Internet, as in life in general, certain risks are assumed. The trouble is, while normally we would attempt to strike a socially acceptable balance between risk and reward, this legislation deals with a miniscule risk, and imposes wide-ranging restrictions on perfectly legal, and sometimes-productive activities. And it does this in libraries, of all places—where, at least ideally, it's up to the patron to access the information that interests them, rather than the subset of that information which has been sanitized in the name of hysterical parents and vote-hungry legislators.

But most importantly, this law is not about the victims, nor the offenders, because the effect on sex crimes is bound to be next-to-zero. How many people are clueless enough to be lured into a compromising situation over the Internet, and furthermore, to do so during class hours or at the public library. Though it's disgustingly popular to sensationalize these sorts of incidents, the fact is, they're not very common at all. Restricting only one potential precursor, in two specific venues will do little to prevent the same clueless teenager from taking the same objectionable action elsewhere, be it by e-mail at home, or over their cellphone at the mall. It's ridiculous that this law is being marketed as a weapon against child exploitation, when in reality, it's just another stupid hurdle over which the schools are forced to jump (in this case, to get a certification, which, as is the way of these things, will probably affect their funding).

I'd surmise that this sort of law is as widely accepted as it is, because of the many irrational attitudes and laws concerning sex crimes that exist in the U.S.. And despite all of these "think of the children" episodes, the law doesn't serve the needs of the children particularly well, except in the minds of the multitude of lunatics who see sex criminals everywhere, and in the minds of those who exploit that perception to political advantage.

[petek]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

And despite all of these "think of the children" episodes, the law doesn't serve the needs of the children particularly well, except in the minds of the multitude of lunatics who see sex criminals everywhere, and in the minds of those who exploit that perception to political advantage.

Agreed, and in my opinion, worse: it diverts attention and resourses from more productive solutions like (dare I say it?) education.

These days our country is so focused on protecting everyone from percieved risks that we're becoming a herd without the will or wit to judge whether the risk is real and take appropriate steps ourselves. Present company excluded.

[Beth Sweet]

Oh man, another legislation going through because of the inability of some parents today to be parents.

Man, wouldn't the legislature's lives be so much easier if parents could pay attention to their kids, watch what they're doing, and not permit them to do things that are dangerous?

This again goes back to my "people having babies should be required to take a class on how to be parents." It is absolutely ridiculous that parents cannot be bothered to watch their kids enough to realize, hey, my 12 year old is talking to a guy who is a sexual predator, maybe I should stop that.

That being said, this bill will not have any affect IMO. The internet is not a US thing. The US has no ownership of it (although Al Gore did invent it ). Maybe they can try to control the sites that they are funding, but past that, there is nothing that they can do. It is global. Our world is global. If they want to really do something about it, they need to make some sort of global governing body with the ability to penalize and cooperation of every country (good luck on that one)

[DonRotolo]

Originally Posted by petek

These days our country is so focused on protecting everyone from percieved risks that we're becoming a herd without the will or wit to judge whether the risk is real and take appropriate steps ourselves. Present company excluded.

How true. Reminds me of a Science Fiction story titles "Extra Ellies" by Julia Ecklar. I wish it was easily available on the web.

The basis of the story is a future where every activity was gauged in terms of your Life Expectancy, or LE. Some activities (like swimming) were considered so dangerous, nobody did them anymore. The hero gets out of a jam by jumping into a pool, something the (younger) antagonist never considered someone could actually do and survive.

Heaven help us when the Government has to protect us from ourselves.

Some things, where it takes specialized expertise to evaluate the risk, are often helpful - take the National Electrical Code for instance, which is mandatory in most places. But mandating an airbag in a car is, for some, too far: there are people who weigh 80 pounds that drive - an airbag going off in their face might be worse than what it's supposed to be protecting the driver from.

Don