'Dangers of the Internet' Resolution Passed By Senate 305
destinyland writes "Apparently June is national 'Internet is Dangerous' month. The U.S. Senate unanimously passed a resolution urging Americans to 'learn more about the dangers of the Internet.' And what counts as a danger? Disabling censorware, or making friends online if you ever plan to meet them in real life. Its extreme negativity is disappointing. But remember — it passed unanimously. From the tech blorge article: 'It's not just a resolution. A few corporations are actually trying to cash in on this misguided disinformation campaign, including BSafe Online, a Tennessee company which markets a PC filtering software. (I wonder if it's one of the ones that can be disabled by 31% of America's teenagers...) Their CEO has an encouraging message for parents about safety on the internet. "This is a battle they must fight everyday with their children in order to keep pornographers, sexual predators and cyber-bullies at bay." And keeping those pornographers and sexual predators away will cost you a mere $70 a year...'"
I don't know what's worse (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I don't know what's worse (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I don't know what's worse (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I don't know what's worse (Score:5, Funny)
20 GOTO 10
What d'ya reckon?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
30 PROFIT
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You damn kids. In my day we did it with tape drives! (granted, those were very early days even for me, but still!) Nothing beats waiting half an hour for a 5k program to load.
Re:I don't know what's worse (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I don't know what's worse (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately there are no educational pre-requesites for being a politician. There are only economic pre-requisites. No IQ test necessary. It is an inherent fault of the democratic system, as it is structured at the present time.
Re:I don't know what's worse (Score:4, Insightful)
They also understand that, were they to respond rationally and perhaps not go along with this, their opponent in the next election would have a campaign attack ad that would have the headline "Rep. Joe Rational Refused To Protect Your Child From Internet Porn and Sexual Predators!" Which would go quite a way to putting a dent in Joe Rational's future in the legislature.
FUD for politicians isn't only a weapon they wield against their constituents. It's more frequent use is against other politicians.
Re:I don't know what's worse (Score:5, Insightful)
Here [gpoaccess.gov] is part 85.6 of the Code of Federal Regulations. It concerns itself with the Interstate movement of pseudorabies vaccinate swine, except swine from qualified negative gene-altered vaccinated herds, not known to be infected with or exposed to pseudorabies. It has 500 words or so and it is the 6th part of a 13 part section specifically about Pseudorabies, all of which is a small part of subchapter that makes up Title 9, which is specifically about Animals and Animal Products and has somewhere around 70 of the previously described parts organized into something like 15 subchapters.
And these are just the Federal regs for animal related adventures. States, municipalities, and whatever else we've organized ourselves into also have regs about animals and animal products. We have a lot of seats to fill in the governmental machine and I doubt we're going to find enough animal experts who will show up on the right day to go over all this stuff.
The idea that legislators or judges or whomever should be experts, or even more familiar than the average person, with a subject in front of them is just not viable. Turn on CSPAN. See if you can watch that crap for 8 hours a day or however long legislative sessions last, and pay attention the whole time. The only reason I can imagine a human being voluntarily subjecting themselves to a lifetime of that would be because they see an opportunity to rob us all blind in the process. And people like that really aren't motivated to understand what a routing table is unless there is a pot of gold at the end of the routing table rainbow and they can't figure another way to get hold of it.
There is a tremendous amount of money to be made by making people afraid. The internet is just one of the many angles on that and we've hired the best professionals money can buy to legislate that fear into existence.
Re:I don't know what's worse (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The Courts have access to expert witnesses, and an adversarial system whereby all parties to the question can bring forth experts to testify on the expert stuff which lay people can't understand.
At any time if a judge believed that the evidence was too technical and a reasonable person could not understand it he is duty bound to rule the evide
Re:I don't know what's worse (Score:4, Insightful)
Its only about money (Score:2, Insightful)
Well you don't think they would care about and/or protect our children for free right? I mean it may be think about the children...but the end of that quote is...only when cash is involved.
Re:Its only about money (Score:4, Funny)
$70 a year!? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
poseur
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hey some of us are a little wierd. We LIKE sexual predators after us, and funneling all that porno to my machine makes life easier.
now to make sure the wife doesntknow I am saying this... I'll post Anon...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, though. If a parent is unwilling to monitor their child's internet time themselves, they have no business even allowing that child access to the internet at home.
Re: (Score:2)
I have never really understood that proposition, which is repeated constantly on slashdot when these kinds of stories come up.
What exactly are parents supposed to do? Anytime their kids go online, to sit there, right next to them, for the entire time, watching them?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Or you can practice what my mom did: Pop into the computer room (no computer in -my- room, my parents knew they'd never see me again) at random intervals to see what her rotten kid was up to.
Of course this was all back before the ge
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've highlighted the important and difficult terms. Your intended audience will not have a clue. I repeat - they will not have a clue. All they know is that the little black box provides 'm with Internet and E-mail and Youtube and
Re:Its only about money (Score:4, Insightful)
There are also some more technical things that can be done with some open source projects, but I would not expect most parents to be able to do these - for example, monitor computer activity remotely using VNC.
Re:Its only about money (Score:4, Insightful)
My parents tried many methods to stop me using a PC and modem when they were not around, I foiled all of them. DrWatson startup log was too easy, the keyboard lock could be picked easily, BIOS passwords could be seen by watching what keys they pressed when entering it. This did however give me real world skills I have found useful ever since. Much better than the useless cack I was supposed to be learning in school at the time.
A more practical solution though might be to just make sure the only internet PC in the house is in a very public part of the house where the kid has no privacy. If they want privacy, they can go to their room, just not with a PC.
Not as Spooky as You Think (Score:2)
However, you do have the computer in an area where there's lots of interaction and one of us is there doing something else. It isn't hard given the tiny house we're in, but with a modern mcMansion, it might be more difficult.
Overall, this kind of propaganda coordinates well with the telcos and entertainment conglomerates turning the Internet into another content sh!t pipe into your home.
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming that is sarcasm, who *should* pay the costs associated with shielding children from goatse et al?
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously though put the computer in a public place, watch your kids when they are on it, don't allow them to use it when you aren't home, etc., etc. Paying for a yearly service for the program to baby-sit kids is not a good idea IMHO. Once they grow up and are teenagers then a parent has a lot more to worry about then if they see porn.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"Hey lady, those are some nice kids you got there. T'would be a shame if they happened to see porn, wouldn't it?"
The worst danger of all: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's dangerous to everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey! I'm offended by that, you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Only 70 bucks a year?? (Score:3, Insightful)
The only way to "protect" our kids is to educate them on the real dangers. Waiting until they are 18 so they can be allowed to access the web as they want to is a mistake. Filtering of the internet, other than porn sites, at school is also a mistake. Let them surf away, but put consequences in place when they mess up.
Some 80 year old congress critter, who's never used a computer for more than surfing porn and ordering interns, doesn't know what the dangers out there are. My daughter probably knows more about where not to go than they ever will.
But nanny-states are the wave of the future I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
Thing is that these real dangers include "leaders" who have no life outside of politics. A simple metric would be "if it's newsworthy it's unusual" too.
Waiting until they are 18 so they can be allowed to access the web as they want to is a mistake.
On the other hand making 21 the minimum age of driving might not be a bad idea. Cars being many more orders of magnitude more dangerous than computers.
Filtering of the internet, othe
Re: (Score:2)
During most of the year, "new drivers" are in High School during the day...
...extreme negativity is disappointing (Score:2)
Cyber Bullying... (Score:2)
How do you stop a cyber bully? Escalate it. When they start a fight with you, they rely on the fact that you won't fight back. Push them past the point where they are comfortable, they will back down very quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
The solution is to identify the bully and apply parental control upon his butt. You know, like we do with adults. Felony assault/stalking/etc. = jail time and all that.
Re:Cyber Bullying... (Score:4, Insightful)
Where I came from waiting for the adults to get involved got someones face smashed into a locker. It's not cheap to replace teeth sometimes.
That was only in middle school.
After a while you start to realize that you get the same punishment for fighting back that you got for being a punching bag.
Then again this was a predominantly white middle class suburban area. Parents don't give a fuck till there little angel is in trouble, then they get involved just long enough to scream how their angel wouldn't do a thing.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, I'm supposed to walk off when someone's following me and hitting me, look for a teacher when the nearest may be a ways away[2], and tattle.
Fifteen years later and I'm still a little bitter. At least I
Re: (Score:2)
The internet does have one advantage over Real Life [RL] when it comes to bullying and other aggressive types: You can usually just not reply. With a lot of software, you can "killfile" them, and then they never bother you again (or at least not until they learn how to get a new login id
It's difficult for a bully to do physical damage to someone via the internet; the most they can do is waste your time as you hit the Delete key.
I've even used this approach here on
Re: (Score:2)
What Im trying to say with that is, kids should be taught to be self reliant. Yes, authority does need to change the way bullying is handled, but authority isn't alway present, just like the police isn't always there. Ignoring a threat/ head in the sand/ letting them do what they want can be just as dangerous as trying to stop everything yourself. Its all about judgment and using it.
Re:Cyber Bullying... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you coddle children too much, then they won't grow up at all. I don't want to live in a society where 'run to authority' is the solution to any form of mildly antisocial behaviour any more than I want to live in one where vigilante action is the response to any criminal act.
To play devil's advocate... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Likely, neither of these two things were true, because this resolution is just blowing smoke. Unanimous consent votes happen ALL THE TIME in Congress -- they're the equivalent of the chair asking whoever happens to be in the room (usually a small handful of Senators) "does anyone object to this". 99.9% of the time, no one objects, because it's not important enough to exercise t
What a bunch of idiots (Score:2)
In Scotland we simply make the ballot papers too difficult for them to understand:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/66373
Even with trivial to follow instructions...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Guess we better try again.
The ongoing fear campaign (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The ongoing fear campaign (Score:5, Insightful)
It is truly sad that America is fine with seeing a human being ground to bits alive in a meat grinder or other horrific violence acts but freaks out and starts screaming if a child sees a breast.
If a child it taught to be freaked out about nudity it teaches them to hate themselves and their sexuality as well as causes a crap load of social and mental problems in them as an adult. It was proven that puritan lifestyle is detrimental yet idiots in this country force it upon everyone they can.
That is what is truly sad.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And they should freak out, specially since the "show" in which the breast appeared was not rated TV-14.
The problem here has nothing to do with the wardrobe malfunction. It has to do with parents wanting a cheap babysitter on the Internet. They already get free child care from the state on the schools, on TV, no
Critical Thinking! (Score:3, Insightful)
Curiously enough, that's also the cure for cutting through most of the BS that Congress tries to pass off every day. Two for the price of one!
These people govern for _all_ , not just techies (Score:5, Insightful)
There are people who need protection, occasionally from themselves. They deserve every opportunity to be informed. Those who need protection:
* Don't read blogs
* Don't shred their bank statements
* Don't read lifehacker, digg, reddit, slashdot
* Don't read mainstream press or Wired
* May believe they are protected by "Guardian Angels", karma, astral-projections and generally need help with everything
* Native communities who don't have a mainstream existence.
* The list goes on.
But the internet can be a place for bad people to take advantage of others. Why pretend people should not be informed that it can be perverted that way??
Re:These people govern for _all_ , not just techie (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It is personal opinion in which way anyone views this issue; and attitudes vary over time and subject matter.
The scale varies from the cold-hearted Matlusian [wikipedia.org] & Randian [wikipedia.org] view ; to the overpowering cotton wool Nanny State [timesonline.co.uk].
On this particular issue, it is my personal opinion, that our internet rights are not being curtailed by these Internet Danger Signs.
Do danger signs, required by government, stop people using:
* electricity plugs
* medicines
* rat-pois
Re:These people govern for _all_ , not just techie (Score:2)
An excellent point. My only problem is that policy makers are human beings, and as such are tempted to use the public's ignorance on subjects of concern to squeeze through what would be an otherwise unpopular law or policy agenda by attaching it to something that people are generally fearful of but possess little understanding. If you are tech-tarded parent, and you listen to the news and hear the OMG Child Pornographerz are HERE!!!!11!1! stories every fifteen minutes, you are not only scared of the big b
Re:These people govern for _all_ , not just techie (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a single parent with a full-time job, PLUS running my own business on the side as a second job. Free-time isn't a concept I'm too familiar with anymore. But guess what? I'm still here, reading Slashdot pretty regularly. Why? Because I like to stay informed about computer and tech. related issues, and it's interesting viewing story summaries, reading articles of interest they link to, AND getting a sample of reader feedback and a
Corruption through encouraging stupid people. (Score:5, Funny)
We are seeing now the effects of years of effort by the forces of corruption. The people who are supposed to be leading our country are ignorant and mentally weak, and don't even hire smart people.
This resolution says, "We in the senate are stupid, and we think you are even more stupid, because we think we can manipulate you to get votes."
Re: (Score:2)
And for most of the people involved, they're right on both counts.
It passed unanimously... (Score:2)
But I'd be curious to know just how many senators actually showed up to vote for the damn thing. I didn't read TFA so I do not know if that info is available in the article (this is Slashdot, after all), but usually for this sort of nonsense, reps and senators don't go out of their way to vote on resolutions if they have something better to do.
What???? (Score:2, Insightful)
Just Remember (Score:5, Funny)
1) Every guy is
2) Everyone claiming to be a woman is
3) Everyone claiming to be a small child is
Re: (Score:2)
3) Everyone claiming to be a small child is
I'm not sure which is more frightening.
Counter with a positive campaign (Score:5, Insightful)
In no particular order
1) Information at the tip of your fingers. From rare medical problems to gossip about soap stars it's all at your fingertips
2) Positive for the economy.
3) Broadens your horizons
4) Meet and connect with people you'd never otherwise be able to
5) Develop your writing and arguing skills
6) Find people with common intests
7) Scientific collaboration and data transfer on a scale never before possible
8) Avoid queues by taking advantage of electronic payment
The net is great. If idiots want to scare monger, sane people should counter.
It is actually Senate Resolution 205, not 207 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It is actually Senate Resolution 205, not 207 (Score:4, Insightful)
We see illegal immigrants getting more services(including health care that they never plan to pay the bill for) than those who were born here and have been paying taxes and generally following the rules. We see a continual degradation of our rights to privacy while protection goes out the window. We see no fundamental changes to the education system that would really help solve the problems. We also see more of a focus on helping those in other countries than in helping the lower and middle class citizens improve their lives(which would help the economy more than giving 2 billion dollars to oil companies).
So, they focus on stupid resolutions about the Internet, because they really have no clue about how to fix the REAL problems in this country.
Innoculation? (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe I am just wrong about this issue, but I think I was helped in becoming a good netizen by my personal sense of morality and my parents inability to understand what a computer was for and their consequent rejection of the pipes.
Cheers!
Nothing to see here folks (Score:3, Informative)
Here is the entire text of the debate [loc.gov] surrounding this bill, including the text of the bill itself, which seems to be aimed at "promoting awareness" of "online bullying."
Re: (Score:2)
I was raped by tubes (Score:3, Funny)
This is serious business people. I had a friend get his house robbed by an Internet that one of his friends sent him. The dangers of the internet are no laughing matter, I know from experience!
The above may have actually been a quote from the debate (if there was any) leading up to this senseless resolution. It kind of shows what happens when you let a bunch of people who formed their ideas about how the world works under the Eisenhower administration run everything 50 years later, and it's damn depressing. The outcome is the same as it would be if you let your grandma's nursing home bridge group make InnerTubes (tm) policy for the country. Of course, it's also the natural outcome of letting a government become so large and expansive that it's willing to make vast pronouncements from on high about things that it knows absolutely nothing about, because, well, it's FOR THE CHIRREN!!!!
Are there dangers associated with the Internet? Of course there are. Life is dangerous. You go outside, you can be hit by a car. You stay inside, a meteor could come crashing down on you. Eat some food, could be poison! There are always risks. The way to NOT get screwed by cars/meteors/poison/interwebz is not to scream about how the things themselves are dangerous, because that's silly. Cars and houses and sidewalks and computers and guns (that's right, guns) are all things that will cause no harm when you a.) know how to use them, and b.) aren't stupid about it. Yes, you should not let your children go to www.wantsomecandylittleboy.com . You should also not step on the accelerator in the middle of a traffic jam.
I don't even know why I need to explain this. Is this the end time?
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure they weren't tentacles?
Parents need to get involved (Score:5, Insightful)
We raised a teenage daughter through the uncensored, budding internet. My wife and I were on her like hawks. Same rules apply to the internet as other facets of life like don't talk to strangers, don't tell people where you live, don't play in the same places as criminals, etc. I tell all those parents that their children have no privacy as long as you are responsible for their actions and you don't have to understand all that they are doing, but you can get involved and watch them. Imagine that! Supervising your kids and getting involved. I know it's a revolutionary concept but some parents do it.
The biggest problem is education. This is a common theme with new technology or other new social issues. I, for one, would like spend some time conducting free education seminars at places like the public library to take some of the mystery out of the internet and computers in general for people. Congress is comprised of people who don't know anything about the computers, computer security or the internet and they are pandering to voters who are largely comprised of the same thinking people.
The way to beat this downward spiral is education and enlightenment. We, as the more knowledgeable members of the internet community, need to do everything we can to help communicate, educate and reach out. This is a call to arms!
So as long as we aren't stepping up to the plate or doing enough about the situation, we will continue to be frustrated by these issues.
The process of enlightenment is painful. Don't expect it to come easily. It's going to take hard work and diligence.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of them are happy to host this kind of thing. You might even try getting your local LUG, Perl Mongers
or similar group involved for additional support/guinea pigs.
Happenings of the month (Score:2, Funny)
Equally important, June is "Accordian awareness" month.
The net is dangerous!!! (Score:3, Funny)
Bert would be proud (Score:2)
I also hear that the sharp corners on the sides of buildings might hurt my tootsies. Clearly we need toe-stubbing awareness month.
What's needed is... A universal FUD rating (Score:2)
I propose we group it into grades: Grade A, B, C, D and E.
Grade A FUD would be designed to and have a good chance of changing laws to the benefit of the FUD spreaders.
Grade B FUD would be just outside the scope of grade A without the likelyhood of the law being changed.
Grade C FUD is anti competitor FUD. "Theirs is crap because."
Grade D FUD is your standard off the wall lobby group FUD.
Grade
Remember the good old days? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
My list of the top 5 dangers of the internet (Score:2)
1.Phishing, identity theft and the like (e.g. credit card numbers being stolen)
2.Fraud (for example fraudulent ebay auctions, Nigerian spam emails, "you have won a lottery you never actually entered" etc)
3.Viruses and malware (including the zombie bots that make up DDOS and spam botnets)
4.Spyware and privacy violations (including the stuff that tracks every website you visit and sends that information off to some scum marketing agency to sell to the highest bidder)
5.
Bullshit! (Score:5, Informative)
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) designates June 2007 as `National Internet Safety Month';
(2) recognizes that National Internet Safety Month provides the citizens of the United States with an opportunity to learn more about--
(A) the dangers of the Internet; and
(B) the importance of being safe and responsible online;
(3) commends and recognizes national and community organizations for--
(A) promoting awareness of the dangers of the Internet; and
(B) providing information and training that develops critical thinking and decision-making skills that are needed to use the Internet safely; and
(4) calls on Internet safety organizations, law enforcement, educators, community leaders, parents, and volunteers to increase their efforts to raise the level of awareness for the need for online safety in the United States.
Yes, it's rather pointless, but it's not a "Da intertubez strangled my granddaughter" resolution, either. There's nothing terribly alarming going on this time.
TotC (Score:2)
Apparently June is national 'Internet is Dangerous' month.
Let me be the (probably not) first one to suggest we call it 'Think of the Children' month.
On a second thought, maybe we should have a 'Don't think of the Children' month to change from the think-of-the-children-ness we get every day of the year.
On a third thought, we should rather have a 'Think of the Heart Health' month, I mean it.
Neo-Luddites (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The one thing that gives me hope... (Score:2)
filtering software (Score:2)
This is, honestly, a pretty good endorsement. It means that a turnkey package of content filtering software will keep nearly 70% of all persons whose access is to be controlled, from going places they have been restricted from.
I imagine that proportion, 31%, represents the amount of teenagers with any significant computer skills, probably about 30% of that 30% are on Slashdot.
Teenagers don't need to know how to use a com
Cyberspace is dangerous, all right (Score:2, Funny)
I came back with a Kuang Grade Mark Eleven Chinese Icebreaker.
War this.... (Score:2)
War on Terror.
And introducing,
War on Pr0n.
Yep, we are heading towards an election.
Why can't it be a War on Taxes? Or Health Care Costs? War on Environment....Na, it just doesn't sound good.
Internet Wizardry (Score:2)
Sigh... can someone please point me to the part(s) of the US Federal Code that makes advocating a federal politician's assassination unlawful?
Meeting online (Score:2)
And that's just in the Senate. Imagine what could happen on the internet!
Overreact Much? (Score:5, Insightful)
So what, you're faulting parents for even making the attempt to keep their children safe while surfing the net? Does parental vigilance somehow threaten you?
My oldest is currently headed into 2nd grade this fall. He already uses the computer a great deal for homework, and it is sometimes (oftentimes) challenging to safeguard him on the internet from things that are simply inappropriate for a 7 YEAR OLD. Personally I welcome any help I can get in this battle. We keep our computer in the living room so we can keep an eye on what he is looking at. Can we 100% monitor what he is looking at? No, we have other children who sometimes fall or require attention or simply need a diaper change. Sometimes the phone rings and you have to pick it up. Things happen to distract you. Would I consider BSafe as a solo solution for guarding him? Absolutely not. But it may play a part in our overall solution.
I guess what I fail to understand is why slashdotters are so reactionary to such stories. I would think as advocates of "freedom" everyone here would be all for services such as BSafe, because the choices here are to either protect your child to a reasonable level, or to simply pull the plug and declare that my children cannot use the internet because the risks are to prevalent.
Personally I would prefer to allow my children as much freedom as possible, and services that help me protect my children, while not perfect, certainly help me to do that.
Wheras (Score:2)
We grown-ups fear them.
Progressive politics at its best (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
we age. we change. most of us, anyway.
the parent does not see the net as the eternally-adolescent geek sees the net.
Oh please (Score:3, Insightful)