| Author |
Message |
logan
Member
|
# Posted: 2 Aug 2006 01:00
Reply
Thought that this article might be of interest to many of our members...
http://www.theregister.com/2006/08/01/social_computing_ban/
The US House of Representatives has voted by an overwhelming majority to ban social networking sites in schools and libraries. Critics have warned that the ban could apply to a wide variety of sites, some of them of vital educational value.
The House passed the Deleting Online Predators Act by 410 votes to 15. The Act forbids publicly funded organisations, such as schools and libraries, from allowing young people to access sites that have chat rooms or 'social networking' elements. Under the proposed law, adults in such institutions can ask for permission to access the sites.
Opponents argue that the definitions in the law are so vague that they could take in a vast array of existing commercial websites and damage the business potential of those sites and the research capabilities of schools and libraries.
It will be left to the Federal Communications Commission to decide what sites come under the control of the Act. Civil liberties groups are arguing in other legal disputes that the communications regulator already wields too much power.
"The social networking sites have become, in a sense, a happy hunting ground for child predators," said Republican congressman Michael Fitzpatrick before the vote. The Act prohibits the publicly funded bodies to give children access to sites where they might receive "unlawful sexual advances".
The move was condemned by the American Library Association (ALA). "ALA is disappointed by the House’s passage of DOPA," said ALA president Leslie Burger. "This unnecessary and overly broad legislation will hinder students’ ability to engage in distance learning and block library computer users from accessing a wide array of essential Internet applications including instant messaging, email, wikis and blogs."
"Under DOPA, people who use library and school computers as their primary conduits to the Internet will be unfairly blocked from accessing some of the web’s most powerful emerging technologies and learning applications. As libraries are already required to block content that is 'harmful to minors' under the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA), DOPA is redundant and unnecessary legislation," said Burger.
The proposed law will now pass to the Senate where a vote is expected early this month.
The law suggests that the FCC consider as social networking sites any site that allows users to edit a profile, chat to users or post personal data.
Under that loose definition a very large number of sites would qualify, including Amazon.com, which allows users to post lists of preferences and create profiles of authors, Ebay, in which each user has a profile which changes as they shop, or any number of major news sites, where users can discuss stories online.
|
teekay
Member
|
# Posted: 2 Aug 2006 01:38
Reply
Wee-hee! Lock me up for my own safety!
|
candyshop
Member
|
# Posted: 2 Aug 2006 07:44
Reply
well, as someone who works for a library, I'm kind of on the fence about things like this.
On the one hand, since I work in a computer lab, I see lots of 12-14 year olds on myspace constantly talking to men twice MY age and making agreements to meet up with them. I also see the reverse of this, men who are generally homeless online misrepresenting themselves on personal sites and quite a few have sent me myspace friend invites asking me if i want to be their "friends" *shudder*.
We actually had the police come into my job because aparently some guy met this woman on some personals site, meet her, take all of her money, and kill her with a wrench or something, very tragic, very disturbing.
On the other hand, as a public service employee I feel like I should have to right against censureship, plus yes, while a lot of people use "social networking sites" at libraries, the vast majority of problems come from people who use them at home, under the noses of their "concerned" parents, etc, etc.
|
polson
Member
|
# Posted: 2 Aug 2006 07:57
Reply
The problem is, child predators don't just go away if you make it impossible for them to hunt kids online. They'll just start hunting them in real life. Sure, we've cut down the avenue and medium they can use, but it doesn't stop kids from getting hurt by wackos.
When I first got into the internet, my friends were like "aren't you afraid of the crazy murderous people who are online?" I pointed out that by that definition, I was a crazy murderous person. If I wasn't, surely there had to be other people using the internet who weren't. In fact, I was more likely to run into a creepoid in my art class *shudder* than I was to run into a sexual predator in my Star Trek chat room.
The media would have us believe that the internet is populated 90% by predators and 10% by prey. The more I think about that the funnier it gets.
The most responsible people for teaching their kids about dangers in life are their parents. That goes for anything, crossing the street, talking to strangers, and using the internet. All three of those things are mostly harmless, but when you have a driver who's not paying attention, or a stranger who does intend your kid harm, in rl or online, bad things happen. Doesn't mean those things happen all the time, every time your kid tries to cross the street or talks to a lady in the lunch line, emails a friend. We teach our kids caution in rl, why can't we teach them caution online?
I say, pass a law that parents can't be morons. Let's see them enforce that.
P.S. To this DAY I am still creeped out by that art teacher...
|
demonvamp
Member
|
# Posted: 2 Aug 2006 11:07
Reply
*rolls around on the floor*
Ebay and Amazon?
*rolls out the door*
QD
|
mustaine
Member
|
# Posted: 2 Aug 2006 16:18
Reply
Another situation where Congress just has nothing better to do then raise our kids for us. I'm a father and I know that it's my responsability to raise my kids and to teach who they should and shouldn't talk to. In my opion that's why alot of children are out of control these days because congress in the grand wisdom to the power of being a parent away from us.
|
teekay
Member
|
# Posted: 3 Aug 2006 01:33
Reply
Ok; now for the more serious answer.
I have nothing against children at all, and nothing against responsible parents. And I would be the first to say that there are many things in life that are not for children, and that children deserve a safe environment in which to develop into responsible adults.
However, those people who want to water down every aspect of culture and who want to regulate everything to ensure the safety of children are holding the government / lawgivers / society responsible for something responsible parents should do: protecting their children.
f you want to keep your children safe from every possible harmful influence, the best thing is not to have them.
|
jedimkypd
Member
|
# Posted: 3 Aug 2006 10:15
Reply
I really don't want to have a say on this matter, especially being a kid myself (yeah yeah), but I'm just gonna comment.
Ok...and then say my opinion.
In a really really big way, I do think it's also the kids' responsibility to watch what they do online. Very true; parents have the biggest affect on their children, and are very much responsible for what they do online and their choices, but I think it mainly comes down to the child itself. If kids are being "street"-smart, and are completely aware of what they're doing online, and making those smart choices, we should be thinking, "Why would they even need to ban these sites?"...
I guess the next question we need to ask ourselves, is, "Are they being smart when they go online?"
People! Be repsonsible for your actions! But if something happens to you, you'll have an idea why.
Um..I hope I made sence.
-KypD
|
kady
Member
|
# Posted: 3 Aug 2006 13:08
Reply
KypD, you're a genious. Thank you for your post on this issue. Hearing from someone your age is brilliant, believe me.
Unfortunately, there are people out there who have no self esteem, who are depressed, who don't seem to fit in anywhere, and who are looking to connect to someone. While, this description can probably match most people in general, there are a few who are so eager to find "someone" that they allow themselves to fall prey to predators. I don't think it's ever a factor that the red flags weren't there, but that they just ignored them or brushed them away. I'd assume, though, that a child meeting someone online would be more vulnerable when they're at home alone, you know, like the children who are lock key kids and go home to an empty house every day. Schools and libraries connect people face to face.....if you are among a large group of your peers there is a high chance that someone there is going to befriend you and you're not going to worry about people you meet online.
Also, education is a large component of this. Children are more prone to be targets of predators during the off hours...when they're alone. If libraries and schools kept the students engaged in learning and stayed proactive, they would see very small amounts of this type of thing. I worked in a school briefly. And these weren't typical students from good family backgrounds...some of them were sex offenders themselves. But it was my role to always stay proactive. If they were surfing the web, I knew where they were at all times. They hated it, but they understood.
I'm telling you, if you want to worry about predators, do so when your children are alone.
|
deanna
Member
|
# Posted: 3 Aug 2006 19:12
Reply
I'm not siding with my government turning my country into a total police state at all..but one question springs to mind, as a parent that is....
Why do kids "need" to surf while in the library or at school?
Isn't there enough free time for them to surf the www?
Just a question....
|
babel
Member
|
# Posted: 4 Aug 2006 02:56
Reply
I would've thought that using chatsites, myspace etc in a school library is a mis-use of resources, anyway . . . but I am always wary of legislation like this that uses a pretext to get some dubious bill passed.
Reading Aleka's post, it made me realise I AM twice her age! *l* I'm getting old.
|
lima_
Member
|
# Posted: 4 Aug 2006 03:51
Reply
Our comp uses Bess, which blocks anything from porn to chats to email to things of educational value. Once I had to get on a site to do research for Anatomy and Physiology and it apparently considered a diagram of the nervous system porn 
It also doesn't allow Google Images or anything but the search and news functions. Another time I had to send myself something through Gmail so I could work on it more at school for a research project and Bess wouldn't let me into my email 
This really sucks.
|
candyshop
Member
|
# Posted: 4 Aug 2006 03:59
Reply
er, yeah, moving along from that Babel *l*
Libraries are required to allow everyone equal access to the internet and computers so long as they are not looking at offensive material ie, pornography, hate material, etc (which still happens al lthe time). As libraries we are required to fight censureship, so there are very few websites filtered out by our system.
In fact the way we do things now is that we are required to provide everyone, even people with library cards, anonymous log in passcodes because people believe the federal government is watching. My stance on that is... That it's a public library, you can't expect 100% privacy, at home, sure why not, but it's a public resource thats is run by tax dollars and government funds so... yeah, why should you have any privacy.
KypD is absolutely right, it is a each individual child's responsibility to watch out for him or herself, but not every young person is as mature as KypD. Those of us who are older tend to be a bit more jaded and know how to read between the lines, whereas a lot of young people are naive and don't take things with a grain of salt. We all know that the "slightly overweight" option doesn't always mean "slightly" and For another example, when I see someone who has "Entertainer," or "rapper" or "R&B song writer" in their profile, I automatically assume that means "Unemployed", it's not always true, but it has yet to steer me wrong. Though I do have a strict "If I haven't met you in irl or I don't know you online, you sha'll not be my friend" policy. But wisdom comes with age (oh gods I sound like my mother) and sometimes kids don't have good home lifes (hence coming to the library to use the computers in the first place) and want to meet people, they fall pray to the glamourous lies that are on the internet.
We have a responsibility to protect them from themselves, to protect them from the lies that people tell and the bad things that can happen to them. No, I'm not for 100% of police regulation, quite the opposite, but some type of action does need to be taken.
And banned, doesn't mean banned, my old high school banned myspace ages ago, but the kids keep finding proxy addresses to get in, some kids are so smart and yet, do the dumbest things.
|
teekay
Member
|
# Posted: 4 Aug 2006 07:46
Reply
<!--QuoteBegin--deanna+Aug. 03 2006,19:12--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> (deanna @ Aug. 03 2006,19:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why do kids "need" to surf while in the library or at school? <br>Isn't there enough free time for them to surf the www? <br><br>Just a question....<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><br>Well, I'd say there are school projects they might need to work on, both at school and in libraries; besides, not everyone has a computer and internet access at home, or otherwise available.<br><br>I think...
|
polson
Member
|
# Posted: 4 Aug 2006 09:37
Reply
I went to a "high tech" high school, at least that's how they saw the school, it looked like a mall, and there was a computer in every classroom and there was one or more computer labs in ever single academic section of the school. Computers were vital in the academic programs we had, they expected you to use them and research stuff. That kind of law would have seriously damaged some of their assignments because the sites would have been blocked. They can't assume that everyone has access to a computer at home, not everyone has one, or is allowed to use it.
That's not to say they didn't patrol these rooms, and install software to block porn sites and it was a general rule that you weren't allowed to enter chat rooms (hey! Guess where I found OTF??), so if you got caught in one you ran the risk of getting kicked out of the lab (I only got caught once, and my teacher didn't have much to say about it because I'd already finished the entire unit halfway through it and I had nothing else to do). I can't say that I was damaged for life having used the computers to go into a chatroom.
I can't remember what my point was. If you figure it out, let me know.
|
deanna
Member
|
# Posted: 4 Aug 2006 15:42
Reply
I guess I was seriously thinking more of the social networking side of things.
Research doesn't usually go on over at myspace *L* 
I was just wondering..I don't see the point of another law to protect my child, I do a great job, thanks! (and my kids now from a broken home!!
|
babel
Member
|
# Posted: 4 Aug 2006 15:50
Reply
Kim, it's called the 'nanny state'. Over here our Labour Government led by Tony B. Liar has introduced an incredible amount of legislation, supposedly to give us back our freedoms but, in fact, curtailing it. I won;t go into detail - this isn't the place - but instead of being reassured, I am alarmed by the fact that the UK has the densest CCTV coverage of any nation on Earth.
Back to the point of the thread - the legislators are always going to be hopelessly behind the internet, as the pace of change an development is so rapid that it DEFIES legislation. It is down to children, parents, teachers, etc showing some of that trait so lacking in society today - COMMON SENSE.
|
maxwell
Member
|
# Posted: 4 Aug 2006 21:26
Reply
I have problems with this ruling. I feel the best solution to the problem is through education. Predators are everywhere and it's important children and teens are made aware of what is and what is not appropriate. Are the majority of kids chatting to perverts? Probably not.
If kids are yacking away on cell phones during their spare time, what's the harm in typing away in a chat forum to friends? Although to be frank, extra time at school should be spent studying and learning, not yacking away.
|
nicoll
Member
|
# Posted: 5 Aug 2006 00:01
Reply
What are the odds that a forum attached to a chat site would be against legislation banning forums and chat sites?
So to summarise;
Kids:
Stay in school
Study hard
Play harder
Cell phones cause brain cancer
Don't talk to strangers
Don't talk to that weird uncle, you know the one
Myspace is EVIL! 
oh, and DON'T DO DRUGS \o/
Creepy stalker people:
Stay away from kids on the internet.
Stay away from kids everywhere else.
It is not ok to lure children in by offering them candy.
Myspace is EVIL!
Parents:
Give your children the above list of "guidelines" for life
Myspace is EVIL!
Librarians:
We all know what a naughty lot you are behind closed doors
Myspace is EVIL!
Everyone else:
Do drugs?
Myspace is EVIL!
|
polson
Member
|
# Posted: 5 Aug 2006 00:52
Reply
I think Nicoll is trying to tell us his space is evil. I'm already convinced being in Nicoll's personal space is evil, but now I have an admission from his own lips to back it up.
|
candyshop
Member
|
# Posted: 5 Aug 2006 06:33
Reply
<!--QuoteBegin--nicoll+Aug. 05 2006,00:01--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> (nicoll @ Aug. 05 2006,00:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Librarians:</b><br>We all know what a naughty lot you are behind closed doors<br>Myspace is EVIL! <!--emo&:o--><img src="http://www.outpost10f.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/ann.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':o'><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><br><!--emo&:?--><img src="http://www.outpost10f.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/srp.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':?'><!--endemo--> Oh dear, you're on to us. We'll never tell you where we hide the swivel sticks or what we <i>really </i> do in the stacks.<br><br>I am I librarian (sort of) see me do naughty things after closing. *l*
|
amandasp
Member
|
# Posted: 20 Aug 2006 16:12
Reply
You know things like this kill me... I had a computer in my room and no curfew when I went out. Why? Because my dad knew I was on here (which he made sure was family friendly before he gave his okay) and I always told him where I was going to be.
While my dad was a very a good father, he wasn't restrictive. Having said that... I never tasted alcohol until I was 21 unless given by my father at a family function (since we're German), never smoked, and I only cussed once and learned my lesson.
Parents can do the best they can, but it's up to the kids as a person. A kid can have the picture parents, but something in that child's personality makes them rebel. Yes, parents are important, but it's time that these kids learn responsiblity for themselves.
It doesn't matter if it Yahoo, Myspace, or a creepy man sitting outside of a school choosing his next victim... does that mean we should shut down schools? Creepy people are always going to be out there, but parents can best prepare their children for that reality and then trust them.
I agree schools shouldn't allow chatrooms, but Libraries is a different story to me. The on base computers I work with are ridiculious... there are pictures on government websites that are blocked. The government has no business in any of it.
|
zildjian
Member
|
# Posted: 27 Aug 2006 02:07
Reply
Pffffft. The library can't stop me! Their network administrator is a monkey.
|
kittykat
Member
|
# Posted: 27 Aug 2006 04:29
Reply
Actually as far as I'm aware children are more likely to be abused by someone they know than by a stranger.
But anyhoo....
My work has blocked chat sites (well except 10f since I guess the programme can't recognise it as a chat site), game sites, MP3 music sites, adult sites, and for some reason it has a category "useless". We' re not allowed to access online email (too many people were downloading virus emails apparently). Unfortunately because it isn't that sophisticated it tends to block perfectly innocent sites as well. For example it's classed tv.com as games for some reason and there's a lyrics site I can't visit as it's classed as MP3 downloads (which it isn't).
I actually don't know why they bothered giving us the internet in the first place.
|
polson
Member
|
# Posted: 27 Aug 2006 09:12
Reply
I'm like Amanda, my parents always trusted me. They never installed any sort of nanny programs or really monitored much what I was doing online (more the time, they didn't like me spending more than 15 minutes a day on it). And surprise, surprise, I'm not kidnapped, molested, or anything on par with that.
I think if have instilled in your kids a sense of right and wrong, and appropriate boundries have been laid out for them, they make actually survive the internet, or more importantly, life. Well...you can't really survive life...you eventually die...but you know what I mean.
|
ayanna
Member
|
# Posted: 3 Sep 2006 20:19
Reply
I to believe that it is a matter of the kid making the right choice. Because no matter how much you preach to a child about safety, if they chose to ignore your words, not much you can do really except for ground them, but then that only makes them rebel more.
a little story for you all.
About a year ago my neice was caught talking to people who were twice her age some were even older. she had been using a fake yahoo id that she created without her mom knowning, it's surpising how young they can learn to sneak around on the net. She's only 12 now this was when she was 10. She was grounded for a long time from the net until recently when she was allowed back on after a long grounding. Needless to say it didn't do any good.
She once again created a different yahoo, would log in and was telling people she was 18 and that her name was lakeisha. She even created a false Myspace and was adding guys who was 21 or older. Needless to say now the only time she can use the computer is when she is being watched by an adult. My sister has gone so far as to install programs that block her from logging into the computer unless she has the password.
So my point is that even though we teach our kids how to stay safe, they are gonna disobey to get what they want.
The more rules the government puts in place for this the more often kids will dilerabetly go about breaking rules.
|
