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

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.'"

Why not...

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...

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:Why not...

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...

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.

I dunno if this is Eugenics but...

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.

Re:I dunno if this is Eugenics but...

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:I dunno if this is Eugenics but...

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:Why not...

Don't forget the sub-prime mortgage!

Re:Why not...

...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...

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.

Re:Why not...

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.

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.

Re:So does this mean...

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.

You can already block all content.

Unplug the TV.

Censoring for Children is like...

..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.

Re:Censoring for Children is like...

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.

Re:Censoring for Children is like...

If you think so then YOU be in charge of vacuuming it.

Re:Censoring for Children is like...

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.

Re:Censoring for Children is like...

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.

All content?

...except commercials.

How many parents actually use the V-chip?

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.

V-chip doesn't *SCREEN* content

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.

Parental Responsibility?

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.

Protect us from ourselves!

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.

They're still missing one form...

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]

Parents, Supervise Your Own Children

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...

Re:Parents, Supervise Your Own Children

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

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.

The same Mark Pryor...

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..

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.

Society of bad parenting

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

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

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.:

Have you ever considered turning off the TV...sitting down with your children...and hitting them?

- Bender

How about an I chip?

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 ...

... 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.