Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

FCC to Develop 'Super V Chip' To Screen All Content

Posted by Zonk on Fri Aug 03, 2007 07:49 AM
from the any-chance-we-could-stop-thinking-about-the-children-now dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The Senate Commerce Committee has stepped in and approved a legislation asking the Federal Communications Commission to 'oversee the development of a super V-chip that could screen content on everything from cell phones to the Internet.' Since the content viewed by children is no longer restricted to TV or radio Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., the sponsor of the Child Safe Viewing Act, feels that the new law is necessary. 'The bill requires the FCC to review, within one year of enactment, technology that can help parents manage the vast volume of video and other content on television or the Internet. Under the 1996 Telecommunications Act, TV makers are required to embed the V-chip within televisions to allow parents to block content according to a rating system.'"
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Why not... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by deftcoder (1090261) on Friday August 03 2007, @07:52AM (#20099787)
    Why not just turn your children over to the government when they're born?

    Parents today obviously have ZERO interest in spending time with their children and monitoring their activities and habits.

    This is ridiculous.
    • Re:Why not... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by liquidpele (663430) on Friday August 03 2007, @08:02AM (#20099863) Homepage Journal
      Don't blame the parents! It's the fact that both parents have to work 10 hour/day jobs to afford their HD Cable with on-demand and HBO, 6MB DSL, 4 cell phones with unlimited texting with 2 year contracts, onstar GPS, the Wii, xbox 360, playstation III, netflix account, Tivo Account, gas, electricity, and food.
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        And the kids' daycare.
        • Re:Why not... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Qzukk (229616) on Friday August 03 2007, @10:01AM (#20101533) Journal

          And the kids' daycare.
          Thats what the poster said, "HD Cable with on-demand and HBO, 6MB DSL, 4 cell phones with unlimited texting with 2 year contracts, ... the Wii, xbox 360, playstation III".
      • Re:Why not... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by zebslash (1107957) on Friday August 03 2007, @08:09AM (#20099939)
        I know also parents that work 10hour/day (and more with sometimes 2 jobs) just to afford the rent, the daycare of their child and basic needs. Not all parents who work a lot just throw away their money.
        • Those people cannot afford children. Even with all the free tax credits and rebates subsidized by the child-less people of the USA, these people can't hack it. They made bad decisions and over-estimated their earning potential...and we're all going to get to bail them out of their stupid choices. Wonderful.

            • by FatSean (18753) on Friday August 03 2007, @09:24AM (#20100875) Homepage Journal
              I don't see why the under-performers in our society need to get the biggest (relative) incentives to breed! Perhaps we should be giving at least the same incentives to child-bearing couples of every socio-economic class instead of cutting most of them off at the middle-middle-class mark.

              • by MBGMorden (803437) on Friday August 03 2007, @09:36AM (#20101101)
                Well, truthfully from what I've seen children of "under performing" people are often the over achievers of the next generation. They grow up hard and aren't afraid of work. On the flip side many rich kids who take it easy coast through life on their parent's efforts grow up and don't do a damn thing with their lives. They keep at this, as do their children, and their children, until the family runs out of money and one generation grows up poor (or poor-ish). That serves as their proverbial "kick in the ass" and the cycle continues.

                Don't be so quick to write off the children of those "under-performers". Most of them is what keeps this country functioning.
                • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                  Well, truthfully from what I've seen children of "under performing" people are often the over achievers of the next generation.

                  Most of the children from under performing people I knew grew up to be losers just like their parents. Rags-to-riches stories just don't happen in my experience. I'm sure you can point to a few popular figures that made it despite loser parents, but those are the exceptions not the rule.

                  • by L0rdJedi (65690) on Friday August 03 2007, @01:47PM (#20105131)
                    Forced my ass. Nobody makes anybody go into debt but themselves. It's more like a generation that doesn't know what "NO" means. Those of us that do know what "NO" means actually have a savings account and nearly no debt. Our children will also know what "NO" means because they won't be getting everything they ask for. When they get old enough, they'll be able to buy they're own stuff and learn how to save, just like we did.

                    So what you'll have is a class of people that know the value of a dollar and know how to save. Then you'll have everyone else that's in debt up to their ears, teetering on bankruptcy. The first class of people will be making money off the second since the second class is to stupid to learn anything.
              • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                Four words, or does "noone" not count because it isn't a word? :)

                NYC is not a pit - it is one of the best cities that I have ever lived in or visited. I'm only here temporarily, but I am really enjoying my stay. Incidentally, it is a great place to have a baby - no need for a car, everything you need is 2 blocks away... just don't ask what it all costs... I couldn't afford any of it if it weren't all subsidized by my wife's employer.

                In any event, if all 22 million people in the NYC metro area moved somewher
      • by GraZZ (9716) <jack@jackm a n i nov.ca> on Friday August 03 2007, @08:11AM (#20099949) Homepage Journal
        Don't forget the sub-prime mortgage!
      • Re:Why not... (Score:4, Informative)

        by russ1337 (938915) on Friday August 03 2007, @09:49AM (#20101293)

        ...work 10 hour/day jobs to afford their HD Cable with on-demand and HBO, 6MB DSL, 4 cell phones with unlimited texting with 2 year contracts, onstar GPS, the Wii, xbox 360, playstation III, netflix account, Tivo Account, gas, electricity, and food.

        The latest Wired magazine has a breakdown of average US household expenses, (I tried to find it online but couldn't). Anyway, from the picture table it was pretty clear that more than two-thirds (~66%) of household expenses go to Telco's/Cable/Tv companies. It was a good prompt for me to revise what services I have vs what I actually need. We now have a pre-pay phone, dropped our DirecTv in favor of free-to-air (timeshifted fav shows with Mythtv) and 2-at-a-time-netflix, and reviewed our internet useage and plan (which didn't change). I'm aiming to drop the standard land-line and go for a VOIP service (Skype calling in) with Cellphone for 911 calls. Overall I think we're saving about $70/month and once the land-line is gone it will be $120/month for very little sacrifice. Ultimately freeing up money to do other things.

        Ultimately there are less things for me to 'censor' cos we simply have less services. I agree that it should be the responsibility for the parents to manage what their children watch / are exposed to, and most providers (e.g directv) offer some form of parental control. If a service does not offer parental control (i.e a standard internet connection), then the parent needs to have a good long look at the service and whether it is appropriate for the child to have access to. if your kid 'has to have' a cellphone, there are plenty without data plans and no access to the internet, and for home based things there are third party solutions like net-nanny, or an Astaro gateway for the household.
    • Re:Why not... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by garcia (6573) on Friday August 03 2007, @08:09AM (#20099933) Homepage
      Parents today obviously have ZERO interest in spending time with their children and monitoring their activities and habits.

      Being that I am finally of the age where my friends and co-workers have young children and I myself may soon have a child, I am noticing more and more the teaching and parenting skills that people have.

      Now, I am continuously out and about and watch the result of poor parenting when the little bastard bites your leg [bash.org] but recently I have been noticing a backlash against this. Parents are starting to spank their kids again (in public no less, the horror!), sternly talking to them instead of baby talk and asking what their true feelings are, and generally raising children that aren't going to run out in the middle of the street and then stare at you like it was your fault that you almost hit them.

      What this is, aside from the vocal minority of those parents that are still parentally retarded, is the politicians doing everything they can to create more censorship and centralized control under the guise of saving the children. If anything, these people aren't bad parents because they can't control their brats, it's that they can't control their government.

      Not controlling the government is far more scary than some little shithead not getting to watch Denis Leary call someone a fucking cocksucker and talk about his erection likelihood on Rescue Me.
    • Spoken like someone who doesn't have children.

      I have four with a 12 year age span. I spend a lot of time with all of them. I can't monitor everything they do, all of the time, and I don't want to.

      Just because they know what they are supposed to do doesn't mean they actually will do it.

      So yes, I use the TV parental controls to keep them from surfing where they should not be. I use McAcfee and SpectorPro on my computer to monitor and set internet access levels and time limits.

      The technology gives pa

      • Re:Why not... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Opportunist (166417) on Friday August 03 2007, @09:11AM (#20100705)
        No. Actually, that technology give parents the fuzzy good feeling that they're in control. Newsflash: They're not. Did it work when your dad told you you are not supposed to go to that extremely important once-a-lifetime concert? Or did you sneak out?

        Technology alone cannot solve problems. Realize 2 things: First of all, your kids have way more time to figure out ways around your access control than you have to review whether your access controls work. And second, you have no control over the TVs of their friends. Even if your kids can't figure out how to circumvent the V-Chip, they simply go to their friends and watch that video there.
        • I want to opt out. (Score:4, Insightful)

          by FatSean (18753) on Friday August 03 2007, @10:06AM (#20101615) Homepage Journal
          I want to save money on a feature I'll never use. I want to buy a TV without this Super-V-Chip in it.
          I can't? Oh joy. Perhaps the parents should pay MORE for a TV with MORE FEATURES instead of the government forcing everyone to pay for it.

          • Years later I discovered that my parents' philosophy was that if a kid is clever enough to outsmart the protection mechanism, they're probably old enough to have access to the content.

            That's hilarious. My parents had the same philosophy too, but they weren't too keen on the video games. My mother once tried to limit my play time by taking the power cord from the 8-bit Nintendo with her to work. Her theory was "You need to do more than play video games if you want to succeed in society." I was 9 at the time.

            She came home one day to me playing Punch Out with no problems. "How did you get that to work? I have the power cord in my purse!"

            "The answering machine runs on the same voltage." I r

    • Indeed, giving parents the means to easily restrict their children's TV viewing is the worst kind of nanny-state government meddling that faces freedom-loving Americans today.

      Seriously, this isn't any more of a government intrusion than the mandated nutrition information on the side of cereal boxes.

      Come back and cry when the government makes the actual restrictions mandatory.
  • ...that Janet Jackson can now show her nipple on tv and it will be OK since nobody will be able to see it?
    • by Linker3000 (626634) on Friday August 03 2007, @08:02AM (#20099867)
      No, it means that those who see it will be instantly identified and required to report to a local center for neuralization, then the Government will...er, ah, what was I saying. I forget. Never mind - look, it's stopped raining.
  • by BrunoBigfoot (996441) on Friday August 03 2007, @07:56AM (#20099823)
    Unplug the TV.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2007, @07:57AM (#20099831)
    ..carpeting the whole world because we refuse to wear shoes instead.

    It is our obligation, as adults, not to prevent the reality from reaching the senses of minors, but to provide adequate explanations and guidance. Those technical censoring measures are the result of the intention to avoid adult responsibilities, to "sweep the problem under the rug", so to say.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 03 2007, @08:09AM (#20099937)

      Censoring for Children is like carpeting the whole world because we refuse to wear shoes instead.
      That analogy belies your point. I think V-chips are stupid, but a carpeted world sounds delightfully comfortable.
    • by GreyPoopon (411036) <gpoopon@@@gmail...com> on Friday August 03 2007, @08:17AM (#20100027)

      It is our obligation, as adults, not to prevent the reality from reaching the senses of minors, but to provide adequate explanations and guidance. Those technical censoring measures are the result of the intention to avoid adult responsibilities, to "sweep the problem under the rug", so to say.

      Sorry, but I disagree. It is our responsibility as adults to introduce children to reality as they are able to understand the explanations and guidance. A five-year-old is not likely to understand any possible explanation for a violent rape scene that he/she saw on TV. I'm really astounded that people think of the V-chip as censorship. Could somebody explain exactly how a screening tool that can be turned on or off by the owner is censorship? The V-chip is nothing more than a tool. It can be used for good and for bad. Good parents will carefully monitor what their children are watching (either to keep them away from inappropriate content or to explain questionable content). Bad parents will rely solely on the V-chip (a huge mistake) to allow them to shirk their responsibility. I have two children. I use the parental lock-down features on my cable box, but I also monitor what they are watching. The parental lock-down is nice because it cuts down on inappropriate content that may show up while I'm running through channels in the presence of my children. It also makes sure my eight-year-old isn't going to change channels to something that's not suitable for him (or his little sister) while I'm in the bathroom. But I'm also fully aware that it is not a substitute for responsible parenting. Some channels don't include rating informations for all shows (The Science Fiction channel and HDNet are two notable offenders), and the most questionable content comes from the commercials rather than the programming itself. Therefore, I make sure I'm there to explain behavior that is and is not appropriate. I like the V-chip as a tool, and nothing more. These laws aren't about mandating that people _use_ the V-chip. They are about making sure that it's available for those who _want_ to use it.
      • by mdwh2 (535323) on Friday August 03 2007, @08:23AM (#20100087) Journal
        Could somebody explain exactly how a screening tool that can be turned on or off by the owner is censorship? ... These laws aren't about mandating that people _use_ the V-chip.

        True, but it is mandating (I think) that every adult has to pay for it, presumably in everything from computers to phones, which is still an issue. What's wrong with overseeing the development to make it available as an option to those who want it?

        There's also the question of how they intend to implement a rating system for the Internet.
  • From TFA

    The government's indecency rules do not apply to cable or the Internet. A series of laws attempting to regulate speech on the Internet have failed.
    I don't know about the US, but here in the UK most of the people I know get all their broadcast output via cable or the Internet.

    When they change that ruling, then we need to worry.
  • All content? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by captainboogerhead (228216) on Friday August 03 2007, @07:57AM (#20099835) Journal
    ...except commercials.
  • by 140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) on Friday August 03 2007, @07:57AM (#20099837) Journal
    I don't, I have a preteen kid. Among my friends almost nobody uses the V-chip. Infact half of them dont even know their TV has the V-Chip. And those who know find it a pain to set up thresholds and remember the password. The only person I know who knows how to use the V-Chip is my brother's 10 year old son. He is a remarkably curious boy who reads all the manuals and figures out things mainly to annoy the adults. He would set the V-chip threshold very low (or high, I dont know the parlance) and make his mom scream, in a strange mixture of admiration and admonition, "You make the TV play Law-and-Order now or I am going to ground you for a week!" and the boy would laugh and giggle.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        That is a fine point. Even more so, our society has redefined the word "kid". What in the hell are we doing calling 13, 14 and 15 year olds "kids". People of these ages have gone to war, run nations, built nations, had children, run households, committed horrendous crimes, and brought others who have committed horrendous crimes to justice. For thousands of years, puberty was the defining line between child and adult, and in just a few generations, we have retarded our entire population. The fact that w
  • by b0s0z0ku (752509) on Friday August 03 2007, @07:57AM (#20099839)
    Broadcasters and creators do. The v-chip just responds to rating data encoded in the signal and can block or allow showing depending on the parents' choices.

    -b.

    • Since this thing is going to be in all communication devices, does that mean I have to register my voice as adults-only since I might say a few swears?

      How long before we get Demolition Man style naughty language fines?
  • by j.sanchez1 (1030764) on Friday August 03 2007, @07:57AM (#20099841)
    Does anyone not wonder what has happened to parental responsibility? I know what my kids watch on tv, movies they watch and what sites they visit on the internet, all without government intervention. This will just be another crutch for the negligent parents to use.
  • something as complex as one of these here deep packet inspection thingys, and even that will fail against determined content providers. http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/Deep-packe t-inspection-meets-net-neutrality.ars [arstechnica.com]

    Wherever there's a person going through puberty, there you will most likely find prurient material.

  • by glindsey (73730) on Friday August 03 2007, @08:05AM (#20099887)
    So every form of content that exists will require a mandatory rating by some sort of standards body? Because, after all, that's how the V-chip works at the moment.

    Yeah, good luck with that, folks.
    • by B1ackDragon (543470) on Friday August 03 2007, @08:39AM (#20100309) Homepage
      You know, the real tragedy here is that we've had movable type printing presses for some 600-800 years, and still no one has come up with a rating system for books! How am I supposed to know what books are appropriate for my children or school district without some sort of letter grade system!? I am supposed to actually read all these books? Why, there must be 10's of thousands of them out there.

      Obligatory User Friendly Strip [userfriendly.org]
  • by NJVil (154697) on Friday August 03 2007, @08:05AM (#20099891)
    Last night I went out to dinner with two close friends. As we watched, a mother semi-ignored her 4 or 5 year old girl as she cried and screamed and jumped up and down in a royal temper tantrum. It seems mom was too busy chatting with her friend to notice as the girl bellowed at the top of her lungs even as one of the waiters came over and offered the girl a balloon to silence the child. The mother occasionally glanced at the girl and said things like "It's okay." and "What's wrong?" then went right back to gossiping with her friend about what was going on at her job. This went on for 15-20 minutes until she finished her conversation and then all three left.

    It's bad enough that some parents think that television is a babysitter. It's even worse that some feel the Internet is a more interactive babysitter. Now, it seems, your cell phone and ipod are capable of acting as babysitters.

    Sadly, judging from my experience in the restaurant, technology might actually be a better babysitter than some parents...
    • by GreggBz (777373) on Friday August 03 2007, @09:00AM (#20100591) Homepage

      semi-ignored her 4 or 5 year old girl as she cried and screamed and jumped up and down in a royal temper tantrum.


      It's best to ignore such a child. You see, when you grow up, whining and screaming does not get you balloons. You want to learn that lesson early.

      Either that or give the child some strong negative reinforcement. But I can see a mother being uncomfortable with that in a crowded restaurant.
  • Overkill (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ThosLives (686517) on Friday August 03 2007, @08:06AM (#20099899) Journal

    This technology is all overkill anyway, and here's why:

    To view content, you have to physically have access to a device that can display the content. As a parent, you should be able to remove that physical access for all 'locally controlled' devices; you can't prevent them from watching a friend's phone or whatever regardless of V-chips or whatever.

    There is this thing called an 'off switch' and, failing that, circuit breakers.

    You don't want them to have a phone, don't give them money to buy one. If they're old enough to get a job to afford their own, then they should already have the capacity to handle whatever content they can obtain anyway.

    To me, these laws just take away responsibility and, with it, freedom from the general populace.

  • by InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837) on Friday August 03 2007, @08:07AM (#20099915)
    This is the same Mary Pryor who is cosponsoring the Protecting Children from Indecent Programming Act [slashdot.org].
  • At some point, it becomes really, really obvious that t his is what we actually call "government pork." Delicious, nutritious, government pork! The only question left is, who is being fed by this unfunded mandate?

    More concerning is the new anti-TV violence rules. I really don't want to go back to the days of the A-Team where you could have machine guns as long as they never hit anyone.

  • A federal mandate that parents actually provide parenting for their children. This opposed to the government providing it for them. Radical, huh?
  • by insanemime (985459) on Friday August 03 2007, @08:14AM (#20099975)
    Ah yes...one step closer to a society that takes no responsibility for anything their children do. I guess you could argue that using a technology such as a super V chip helps parents automatically filter content that they are concerned their kids will see. Unfortunately, as a computer tech, I see so many parents ask tech shops about spying software and filtering software so they don't have to actively monitor what their kids are doing. If a parent is worried with who their kid is chatting with online then they need to be involved and ask. Parents have built in monitoring called "looking". I know its a low-tech foreign concept but it works. If you are open and honest with your kids, actively talk to them about dangers, keep them using search engines that filter bad content by default (like google) and watching what they are doing and who they are talking to on the internet then things like this are not needed. But that would take too much responsibility I guess.
  • Lost Cause (Score:3, Informative)

    by Detritus (11846) on Friday August 03 2007, @08:15AM (#20100003) Homepage
    Television and films have distribution networks that can be easily regulated and controlled. That model doesn't fit the Internet, where anyone can generate and distribute content. What are they going to do when vast numbers of people, many of whom are not US residents, refuse to "go with the program" and put rating tags on their work? Are they going to demand that Project Gutenberg apply ratings to all of the books that they distribute? What about audible.com?

    Even if this becomes law, I can't imagine that it would survive its first challenge in a federal court.

  • I Want One (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Doc Ruby (173196) on Friday August 03 2007, @08:19AM (#20100047) Homepage Journal
    I never understood the opposition to the V-Chip. Why shouldn't the multimedia client (TV) come with a network screening app? In HW, so it's harder to crack, especially by literal "script kiddies".

    The alternative is that the government and providers screen content at the server, without consumer choice.

    The only problem is that today's FCC, coming at the tail end of the Republican covert government [dailykos.com], will probably install spyware on their "Super" V-Chip. So instead of all your TV signals of all they offer coming down your wire or over the air, for you to privately select from, their "Super" V-Chip will send a log to the NSA. Crossreferenced to all your personal data [wikipedia.org], including email, phone, surveillance video, and all the electronic/digital transactions that profile your life.

    Eventually the NSA will convince us to implant an RFID V-Chip "so we can easily tune our TVs wherever we go".

    But if we get a private V-Chip now, before they do it, then we can satisfy the demand for convenience before that convenience is exploited to mask total privacy invasion. If the V-Chip specs and HW/firmware/SW are open, then we can get both safety and convenience. That's known as "freedom": the (traditional) American Way.
  • Oblig.: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TripMaster Monkey (862126) on Friday August 03 2007, @08:20AM (#20100051)
    Have you ever considered turning off the TV...sitting down with your children...and hitting them?

    - Bender
  • by gillbates (106458) on Friday August 03 2007, @08:33AM (#20100219) Homepage Journal

    You know, so I could screen out shows that would insult my intelligence?

    Just think of the possibilities:

    1. An A chip to screen out those artsy-fartsy types of human-interest documentaries and other drivel that joe-sixpack isn't interested in seeing.
    2. A B chip to screen out Budweiser{approved,sponsored} content for all of those artsy-fartsy types who think NASCAR is boring and mindless.
    3. A C chip to screen out cartoons for those of us who've outgrown them.
    4. A D chip to screen out Democrats and other politicians with whom I don't agree.
    5. A P chip to screen out unpatriotic content (Possible overlap with a D chip?).
    6. A BS chip to screen Fox news.
    7. ...

    Yeah, that's it! A chip for everyone! The world will finally be safe from itself ;-)

    Come to think of it, I could just turn off the tv or change the channel... Hmmm...

  • A Good Idea, if ... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by PPH (736903) on Friday August 03 2007, @12:11PM (#20103541)
    ... we can get the V-chip filtering technology extended to tag different theologies. I mean, I don't want my kids watching some of those broadcasters that are spreading the wrong word of God. I can trust their judgment when it comes to viewing violence or sexual content. But when it comes to preaching false creeds, how am I to know if they might be led astray by some blasphemer? I'd like a classification system that allows me to select not only the major theologies, but denominations of each.