Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Privacy United States Your Rights Online

CIPA Before The Supreme Court 209

Posted by timothy from the right-on-schedule dept.
Jim Tyre pointed out the excellent collection of links on censorware.net to coverage of yesterday's oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court about the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA), as promised by this story last month. There's also a link to the place where transcripts of the oral arguments will show up about three weeks from now.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

CIPA Before The Supreme Court More

CIPA Before The Supreme Court

Comments Filter:
  • Yep, gotta protect the Internet from those damn script kiddines ^H^H^H^H^H children :=)

  • The CIPA is a sham (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BJZQ8 ( 644168 ) on Thursday March 06, 2003 @04:49PM (#5452154) Homepage Journal
    The Children's Internet Protection Act should be called the SurfPatrol Benefit Act. 99% of the "filtering" software is so horribly mis-written and mis-configured that it might as well be a screen full of holes. True internet "protection" takes dilligence and supervision, not the purchase of some sham software. They aren't protecting anything but their own state-of-mind and the software companies that put out this over-priced drivel.

    • Re:The CIPA is a sham (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The law says nothing about filtering software.

      But it creates liability on the providers for knowingly allowing minors access to pornography, which is something that lacked before.

      It should be just as illegal to allow kids to download a bukkake mpeg off the internet as it is to rent one at the local video store.

    • It really is a problem that nobody can really devote the time and effort needed to making a 99.99% effective method that will remove ONLY things harmful to children. Because of this, other content and other sites will suffer, and even then, the smut that our nation is trying to protect children from still gets through. Company's like CyberNanny and SurfPatrol will benefit greatly from this act, but at what cost to the sites and people on the Internet that are now wrongfully blocked? Perhaps with the money that these companies will get from this, they can actually develop better ways to filter out the inappropriate material while not blocking any material that should be viewable. Who knows though? Only time will tell right now.
    • What ever happened to .kids.us? Make a section of the internet, require review and control to allow ppl to register .kids.us and then all the censorware you'd need for your kids would be something that only allowed access to domains in .kids.us? I'm sure ppl like Nickelodeon and Mattel would buy in w/in the first month.

      That's it, problem solved. If it's safe, it applies for a .kids.us DNS entry.
      • I liked the .xxx idea better, then adults could filter the crap from the net as well as the kids could.

        Also, if little DoogieH. wants to learn about astrophysics, who will make a site for it in the .kids.us domain?

        The .kids.us is opt-out, the .xxx is opt in.

  • Child porn should be legal (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    because its free speech

    There you go, there's the "con" argument in a nutshell.

    This type of legislation would be irrelevant if people werent such a bunch of douchebags.
    • Child porn is not free speech. The child cannot make 'adult' descisions about sexual acts (at least they shouldn't have to). And before someone argues that photoshopping images to make it is okay. I argue that its not, what if that image with that person's face on it gets out. That person's rights were still violated if he or she is stigmatised for the image even though it wasn't really them.

      Child porn is not free speech because it violates the rights of the child.
      • And before someone argues that photoshopping images to make it is okay. I argue that its not, what if that image with that person's face on it gets out. That person's rights were still violated if he or she is stigmatised for the image even though it wasn't really them.

        By that notion, something like a Final Fantasy-style kiddie porn movie would not be illegal as no actual child was involved. The usual arguments quoted is: KP promotes more KP, or that the burden of proof is too heavy (prove that this is *not* a photoshopped picture).

        By the way, here it's illegal to give the appearance of being underaged. This goes both by having people above legal age play younger, drawings, photoshop cut-togethers, whatever. Probably means something like Lolita (the remake, with the older stand-in) is illegal here, if you follow the letter of the law.

        Kjella

    • Um, wrong... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Theaetetus ( 590071 ) <theaetetus@slashdot.gmail@com> on Thursday March 06, 2003 @05:53PM (#5452786) Homepage Journal
      [Child porn should be legal]... because its free speech

      There you go, there's the "con" argument in a nutshell.

      Wrong.
      The "con" argument, in a nutshell, is that although child pr0n is illegal and undesirable, no filters are perfect and will completely block it out - rather, they're MORE likely to block out things that are not pr0n... i.e. the National Organization for Women's Breast Cancer site. Planned Parenthood's Condom use site. Perdue's Breasts 'n Thighs informational site. They're less likely to block out the billion pr0n usenet posts from anon.pinet.fi

      Just as it has been said that our justice system is based on the premise that it is better to let 100 guilty men go free than imprison 1 innocent man, it is better to allow access to 100 pr0n sites than to censor a truly informational and useful site.

      That's the "con" argument. I'm not for child pr0n, but I'm even more not for censorship and you deciding what my child should be allowed to see. :)

      -T

  • CIPA (Score:3, Insightful)

    by intermodal ( 534361 ) on Thursday March 06, 2003 @04:50PM (#5452165) Homepage Journal
    The CIPA is a violation of the first amendment, no question about it. Despite its good intentions, it is only a starting point for things to grow and get bad for everyone.
    • You're incorrect because you're applying the wrong standard. While the Court has struck down (correctly) several laws which place restrictions on Internet sites which provide material "harmful to children" as restrictions on speech, in this case the issue is tied into government funding of libraries. The speech is not restricted at all, it is receipt of the speech using hardware, software and bandwidth paid for with tax dollars that is restricted. The First Amendment does not require government to provide financial support or access to speech, it merely requires that government not place content-based restrictions on speech.

      In short, while the speech is allowed on the Internet, the government is not required to use tax dollars to provide you with a way to get it. (This analysis would be different if the government was the only way to access the Internet, but thankfully that's not true, at least in the U.S.)
      • that has nothing to do with this thread. This thread has to do with reasons for civilians to want the CIPA to be struck down. IMHO if libraries are censored in any way, that is a violation of my freedoms. If I were to put up a site which was filitered by the government in libraries, the government WOULD in fact be restricting my free speech by stifling my ability to get that information through to people accessing the internet in libraries. Any way you slice it, censorship is still a first amendment violation.
        • I'm afraid I disagree. The government is simply not funding your access to a particular segment of your potential audience. They're not censoring your speech.

          Now, if the situation was one where the act singled out speech that was narrowly addressed to library patrons (e.g., criticism of libraries or something), the Court would be very suspicious because then the act would be preventing the speech from reaching all or nearly all of its intended audience, which looks a lot more like censorship.

          • egad, man. what country are you from? There are people who have no other internet access. picking and choosing what speech they can recieve is different from censoring what they say.
            • You're right and it's unfortunate that some people can't afford the luxuries most slashdot readers take for granted, but the first amendment doesn't require the government to provide people with access to TVs or radios either.

              In the end, libraries are a discretionary service provided with taxpayer funds and the Constitution and courts give pretty broad deference to the legislative arm of government to decide spending issues. I'm not saying it always a good thing (it certainly would be nice if the courts could strike down pork barrel spending -- "Your honor, why are you striking down my important study on the mysterious number of socks lost every year in dryers?" "Because its stupid. Next case."), but its pretty much the way it is.

              • That is not the issue. the issue is, provide unfiltered internet, or no internet at all. Your arguement makes no sense whatsoever.
    • When you say "Despite it's good intentions" you give the authors much more credit than I feel they deserve. It's true that I can't prove that the law was shaped the way that it was in order to restrict and control public access *BY PEOPLE*, regardless of their age, but that's what I believe. I don't believe the virtue of someone just because he chants "for the sake of the children!", in fact I'm quite likely to be more suspicious of him than of the average snake oil salesman. The snake oil salesman is only after my cash, the demagogue wants my liberty, and yours too. His "reasons" are just convenient excuses to do what he wanted to do anyway. And it doesn't matter that it doesn't do what he claimed, as long as it accomplishes his real agenda. In fact it's better. That way he can use the same excuse again.

  • Censorship is useless (Score:5, Insightful)

    by C_To ( 628122 ) on Thursday March 06, 2003 @04:50PM (#5452170)
    No matter what the cause, censoring information does absoultely nothing except shield people from the truth and reality. Not to mention, should I trust and leave censorship in the hands of others to deal with? It should be up to the parents (in this case) to figure out which content is good for their children. Since anything can be accessed on the internet easily no matter what, I think this is just a waste of money.
    • I don't see why so many people are posting this opinion.

      Would you be happy having your children (if you have any) seeing people having sex on the street? No? Why not? Aren't you "shield[ing them] from the truth and reality"?
      • You forget that many of the posters here are undersexed teenagers and college students, so children aren't a consideration...
      • I'd prefer if they did not see people having sex on the street. That does not mean that putting up security cameras everywhere that would anticipate what children are looking at in public, is a good idea.

      • Re:Censorship is useless (Score:5, Interesting)

        by tomhudson ( 43916 ) <barbara.hudson@b ... m ['son' in gap]> on Thursday March 06, 2003 @05:36PM (#5452574) Journal
        Would you be happy having your children (if you have any) seeing people having sex on the street?

        I'd rather they see sex on the street than killings on the street. We don't prevent kids from seeing over 7,000 violent acts on TV by the time they're adults (including rape and murder).

        Actually, this (sex on the street) happened on time ... a couple parked their convertible, with the top down, in front of my sisters' place, and started screwing. It was lunch time, and my niece came in and told us about it. We went outside and looked, and the couple only a pair of socks between them.

        Was my niece traumatized? No, she couldn't stop laughing about it. I'm sure that if it had been a killing, it would have had a much worse effect.

        So what did we (the adults) do? Told them to get a motel room (after we stopped laughing).

      • Would you be happy having your children (if you have any) seeing people having sex on the street? No? Why not? Aren't you "shield[ing them] from the truth and reality"?

        Ohmigod, you're right! I hadn't thought of that! I'll go poke their eyes out.

        Inappropriate response, no? That's _exactly_ what CIPA does.

        -T

      • Would you be happy having your children (if you have any) seeing people having sex on the street?

        Compared to some of the things legally allowed on the streets [fxi.org.za], what harm is a little sex?

        The United States is founded on the idea that the most hate filled, selfish, racist, sexist, asshole is free to collect up few hundred friends and march through the streets to spread their message of hate. I just fail to see public copulation as beign nearly has harmful to kids.

        My biggest concern would be for the poor couple. Wouldn't the asphalt be a bit... chafing?

    • No matter what the cause, censoring information does absoultely nothing except shield people from the truth and reality.

      Truth and reality... What truth do you speak of? Do you realize that we have the power to _change_ and _define_ what reality is for our children? Why does that reality have to include child pornography, rape, torture, and other mind pollutants?

      If you don't have children of your own, then I can understand why you have your view point. If you're still in school, then even more I can understand that you speak of the theory of censorship, not how certain things can rot out one's mind. Do you know what evil is? Imagine what you think evil is and multiply times 1,000. You're still not even close. I can't tell you what it is, but your journey through life will reveal it to you in many ways. I don't want my children subjected to that.

      Our children are our future, so let's teach them right. Don't listen to the ACLU - they're hell bent on undoing anything that is good and pure in America. Yes, that includes the minds of our children. Take a good look through their site and see if you disagree. I'll be surprised if it doesn't turn your stomach some of the things they support.

  • Censoring children from the real world = bad idea. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Kethinov ( 636034 ) on Thursday March 06, 2003 @04:54PM (#5452187) Homepage Journal
    I've always been a strong believer that censoring children from the real world is retarded. Your typical American family would have their children grow up believing that there's nothing wrong with the world. That everything is minivan and soccer games. Children get censored from things like crime, war, sex, and violence. They grow up not understanding how to handle these sorts of things and only become a bigger part of the world's problems.

    Whether it be censorship on the internet or parental censorship of a pr0n mag, I think censorship to "protect" our children is a bad idea. Hurts more than it helps.

    • Re:Censoring children from the real world = bad id (Score:5, Insightful)

      by stratjakt ( 596332 ) on Thursday March 06, 2003 @05:01PM (#5452260) Journal
      No, there's too much of a movement to rob children of their childhoods entirely.

      Life should be nothing but minivans and soccer games at this point. They're children, let them be children.

      Some social worker showed up in my daughters 2nd grade class talking about homosexuality and how it should be accepted and all of that crap. It's all way above their heads and not something they need to be concerned about.

      I agree with you to a point, but if you dont place limits, you wind up with kindergarten teachers indoctrinating children to their world views. I have no problem discussing anything with my kids when they ask. I do have a problem with some stranger forcing them into discussions that they dont need to have, or want to have.

      The *parents* should be the ones who decide what a child is exposed to. And I think its unfair that we're dumping the weight of the world onto 7 year old shoulders. Let them just be kids. There'll plenty of time to learn about war, sex, violence, and so on.
      • Have kids. THEN tell me you want them exposed to all the harsh realities of life as soon as possible.

      • I think the *CHILD* is the one who should decide what they're exposed to, and the parent is the one who should suggest to the child what to do and what not to do, and WHY. Let them be children, I agree. But let them be children then, they're curious little weasels... prohibiting something is just going to make them more interested.
        • Ahhh, liberal parenting at its best!

          Rather than suggesting that parents be parents and set rules and limitations for their child, lets step aside and allow the child to run the show.

          I've seen what that leads to. Some friends of the family had a daughter who was given EVERYTHING she wanted. Today, at 24, she refuses to hold down a job, is heavy into drug and alcohol abuse, and expects her father to provide for her and her 2 illegimate children. And heaven help him if she doesn't get it NOW!

          Let children be children, yes, but let parents be parents! Parents are supposed to set limits on children. Bad shit happens when children are allowed to set the rules.

          • Expose them to whatever they want. But don't let them fuck around. Give them freedom of religion, freedom to love, associate, and smoke whatever they want. But if they don't get straight A's, if I have to pick them up at the police station, if they invite their friends over who get drunk and break shit, then they're in deep trouble.
          • Ahhh, facist parenting at its best.

            That only works until they turn into a teenager. Then you have a problem on your hands far worse than any child that watches the news, trusts you, etc. If you're lucky they won't break the law just in spite of you.

            Bad things also happen when parents are not responsible guardians and guiding friends. When you are the "parent" in a position of authority, where your children are told to be seen and not heard, you lose a bond between you that could prevent almost all the problems we encounter with teens and young adults acting irresponsibly.

            Or at least that's my opinion. But YMMV.
            • Of course you give your kids more freedom as they grow older. As your kids grow you give them more responsabilities, and more freedom. I fully expect that by the time my kids are 17 they will be able to set their own curfew, decide what movies they want to watch, and what they want to surf on the net - freedoms I don't give to an 8 year old.

              As for the parent child bond - being a parent is much more important than being a "friend". If you as a parent act in a way to promote trust and respect your children will come to you for help.

              • Well, your kids are free, except when they are directly under your control. So as soon as they are out of your sight all those rules and responsiblities are only as good as their trust in you.

                What I am talking about is more related to their lives after they turn 18. Children are almost never educated about the real world we toss them into when they turn 18, yet we expect them to be responsible, etc.

                When I was 16 I had my own car, made my own meals, drove myself to school. I had a parent around the house 2 days a week. A cupboard full of alcohol and a room full of marijuana. I completed highschool, taking AP courses with a 3.1x GPA or some shit. I smoked with my friends only after those AP tests and only a couple times a week or during the summer. And right after highschool I got a job and started my career in the tech sector.

                Now I have no faith in capitalism, the US gov't or its people or most parents. But that's probably because of the weed. ;)

                What am I saying? I don't know. Freedom and education is better than law?
            • Done properly, it sticks. Children need rules. The rules need to be enforced. But if you are arbitrary about things, then you will be perceived as unjust, with the results that you have predicted.

              OTOH, rules enforced, but not brutally enforced, and explained in a reasonable manner will be respected. (Usually. Children are different from each other.) And if the rules are respected, then the teenager will argue against them rather than just flout them. This can be exhausting, and occasionally enlightening. But it doesn't result in the dire consequences that you are dreading.

              The important thing is that the children must respect the rules, but this sure doesn't mean that they must live in fear of parental abuse. Respect means respect. Fear means fear. They aren't the same concept at all. One can both fear and respect something, e.g., nuclear radiation. One can fear something without respect, e.g. an abusive authority figure. And one can respect without fear, e.g., an elegant mathematical proof. The rules should be respected with the fear that is traceable to an understanding of logical consequences. If you tell a child to not stick his hand in a fire, the rule can be respected because of the undesireability of the logical consequences.

              Now it's true that when children are young, it can be difficult to explain the reasons ... in that case one falls back on analogies, with the additional explanation that this is "just an way of thinking about it, but the real answer is more complicated". Be prepared, because you will occasionally be asked for the real reason anyway, and you should not skip here. Saying "I think that this part works this way" is far better than asserting a lie. Lying to your children is something that is really best avoided. If you don't know the answer, tell them that you are making a "best guess". Things will turn out much better later if you are known to be trustworthy.

        • "Let children decide what they're exposed to?"

          You obvioulsy have no children. I consider my self an open minded person, but I censor lots of things when it comes to my kids. Violent movies, pornography, movies and books with adult themes that they wouldn't understand. I also don't let them play on the highway - no matter how much they think it would be an enriching experience.

          Children are happier, and grow up more confident if their parents set firm, fair rules and limits. Does this mean I pretend that sex and violence doesn't exist? No. The evening news, books, the birth of a cousin, all can prompt kids to ask questions that I answer with information appropriate to their age.

      • Sure, but I think our main problems stem from how we teach war, sex, and violence in schools. We don't cover all aspects of war. We barely cover the factual dates and events. We don't talk in depth about relationships and sex because that is a topic we are uncomfortable with, because of the censorship. Its taboo to talk to children about sex. So, instead, they discover it for themselves just as we all did.

        How would you feel if your child was talking with their friends about homosexuality and decided they wanted to be gay? What reasons are there not to be? This is one topic that I think needs a lot more discussion, not less.

        And censorship is always wrong, in any case. No amount of censorship hid the real world from me. But it did make me far less trusting towards most adults. Tradition is one thing, but attempting to force your system of beliefs on your kids is something completely different. It'll bite you in the ass one of these days. It bit my parents.
        • "How would you feel if your child was talking with their friends about homosexuality and decided they wanted to be gay? "

          I doubt very much that anyone has ever decided to be gay. Experiment maybe, but it would be like deciding you like tomatoes - either you do or you don't. The idea that being exposed to the idea of honosexuality could in any way make any sort of permanent change in a person is ludicrous.

        • The best evidence I have indicates that "being gay" is not a decision. It's not proof, but I haven't heard any evidence for the other side that even makes a plausible case.

          That said, it appears to be possible to torture people sufficiently to, at least temporarily, override their (appearantly) built-in preferences. In either direction...(check out the conditioning that the Spartan Hoplites went through).

          But simple images won't determine things. Ideas may be contagious, but not to that degree. (Even low-level brain-washing doesn't change the sexual orientation, though, as I indicated earlier, more "rigorous" brain-washing procedures can do so. With a fair amount of success for at least a short period of time...if there was a follow-up study, then I'm not aware of it. The original study was about conditioning prisoners in, I believe, California.)

      • I do have a problem with some stranger forcing them into discussions that they dont need to have, or want to have.

        The *parents* should be the ones who decide what a child is exposed to. And I think its unfair that we're dumping the weight of the world onto 7 year old shoulders. Let them just be kids. There'll plenty of time to learn about war, sex, violence, and so on.

        I agree with you wholeheartedly. The parents should be the ones who decide what a child is exposed to.

        Not the government. Glad you're against CIPA, too.
        ;)

        -T

    • Censoring doesn't help. Kids are smarter than you think.

      What the real problem is, is that adults find really horrible things entertaining (World's Scariest Animal Attacks III) that are NOT like real life. (Or at least, I've never been attacked by anything more fierce than a mosquito) It's the media we need to protect the kids from, not real life.

      Your real fear is that we're protecting them from their own emotions, and I fear that too.
    • You don't have kids, do you?

      Let me tell you something: kids aren't "little adults". Their brains are simply not developed to the point that yours and mine are. They're incapable of reasoning the same as a full grown human.

  • How about parents raise their children... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by axis-techno-geek ( 70545 ) <rob&goshko,ca> on Thursday March 06, 2003 @04:56PM (#5452209) Homepage
    Maybe congress could pass a law for that.

    Naw, that would make sense, better to have a third party to blame/sue when your child turns out to be a mass murderer/cult wacko.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • "Maybe congress could pass a law for that."

      When was the last time Congress ever voted to give anybody more power other than to themselves?

      They occasionally pass pieces of legislation that give the president authorization to conduct "police actions" instead of a real declaration of war, but that's more a matter of "Congress avoiding blame" than "Congress giving up power."

      They occasionally pass new campaign finance "reform" laws, but all they do is funnel money to the two major parties and special interest lobbyists, effectively giving more power to the people that put them in power to begin with, so that doesn't really count either.

      There was that "new" constitutional amendment saying that Congressional raises don't go into effect until the next term, but the vast majority of Congressional elections are won by the incumbents. A calculated risk at best.

      Of course Congress wouldn't vote to give up any of the power they've collected for themselves. Why would they? Who's going to stop them?

      The same goes for the federal government in general. Could you see something like the Eleventh Amendment getting proposed in this day and age?

      bah [friendsforamerica.com]

  • Censorship (Score:1, Redundant)

    by DonkeyJimmy ( 599788 )
    Censorship doesn't fucking work.

  • It's too easy to abuse this law (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Dukeofshadows ( 607689 ) on Thursday March 06, 2003 @04:58PM (#5452221) Journal
    This law is too easy to abuse under the current administration. Given the religious zeal of many of our nation's leaders at this point and the multiple outlandish abuses of the DMCA, one can only wonder what the next step is. Remember, some of the people in Congress on the cybertechnology committee (Santorum et. al) are very religiously-minded that might use this to give our nation's children access to only those sites they deem "appropriate". While it is wrong for people to be viewing pornography in plain sight of children, why should reasonable research suffer? And is it realistic to ask if the ruling body of the Web just register porn under its own domain or under a specific set of IP addresses that could be more readily screened out by public computers?
    • So what you are saying is you think it is wrong for a child to watch an adult looking at another naked adult?

      Next you'll say it's wrong for an adult to look at their naked child.

      Soon, they will pass laws that it is illegal to be born naked!

      Nudity is only notable in that it is a purely learned sensitivity. I imagine it is too much to ask you to get over it?
      • quote: Nudity is only notable in that it is a purely learned sensitivity. I imagine it is too much to ask you to get over it?

        Don't laugh ... people have been arrested because they took baby pictures of their kids in the raw, and some store clerk called the cops because it "might be kiddie porn".

        These same people probably think that any sex outside of marriage is wrong, too. When it comes to neurosis/hang-ups like this, people tend to have more than one...

  • Just because you have a "noble" cause doesn't make you a saint or in anyway correct.

    If you want legislation to protect children then you people need to swallow your pride, fear, and anger and treat everyone fairly.

    You have not done so.

    Nobody owes you peace of mind. You are not entitled to it anymore than anyone else in this world. You have a responsibility to resist the temptation to use every sledgehammer approach you can think of to get what you want.

    Extreme statements like, "Do everything possible to _____" might make great news media drama for morons who still get their news from television, but all it really does is make you look stupid, hostile, irresponsible to make even Ulysses S. Grant blush, and downright hatefully dangerous.

  • my little brother (Score:1, Troll)

    by Anonymous Coward
    was kidnapped by a sexual predator he met over the Internet. The pervert lured him out by talking to him in chat rooms and making promises. Somehow he convinced him not to tell my parents or me anything; he said he was visiting the kid next door. The only reason he got away was that he forgot to bring his teddy bear. He phoned home to ask my father to bring it to a hotel, and that was when we knew something was going on and called the cops. The guy had a record, although he supposedly hadn't used the Internet the time before. My brother is lucky to be alive today.

    I have to say that as much as I don't like the limitations on freedom, anything to protect children is a good thing. The people out there are evil and sophisticated and we have to do everything in our power to stop them.
    • My little sister was almost kidnapped by a guy offering her candy. My little sister knew not to talk to strangers. Too bad he was gone before my dad got the rifle.

      But look I can still get lollipops any day of the week.

    • Re:my little brother (Score:3, Insightful)

      by natet ( 158905 )
      I don't know why the parent was modded as a troll. His opinion is a perfectly valid one. However, I don't see how censorware could have prevented this from happening. What could have would be for the parents to be aware of a few things.

      1. what software is installed on the computer. Chat clients can be configured to log sessions to disk. The parents could then have read the logs and realized what type of situation the child was getting themselves in.

      2. what the children are doing on the computer. Placeing computer equipment in a public place in the house, instead of having a "computer room" allows parents to monitor what their children are doing on the computer. Some people think that kids need their own computer. This can be done, but the way a friend of mine handles it is to not allow external access from the kids computer. If the children need to do research, they can do it on the one computer in the house that can go on the internet, and save their research on a shared drive.

      3. communication. Parents need to warn their children about what issues they may encounter on the web. What parent waits until their kid touches a hot stove before telling them it can burn them? So why wait until they get into a potentially dangerous situation before warning them of the dangers they can encounter on the net?

      These are the things I plan on doing as my children get old enough to begin using the internet. I would like to see what other ideas people have.

  • A better solution (Score:5, Insightful)

    by natet ( 158905 ) on Thursday March 06, 2003 @05:01PM (#5452256)
    What really needs to happen here is a better solution than censorware needs to be proposed. The public library in my city handles this issue by placing the publically accessible computers near a high-traffic area, facing the checkout counter.

    Increased monitoring is a better solution because it would allow legitimate research to continue, and wouldn't allow a particular company to dictate what is allowed and what isn't. As we have seen, much of the censorware on the market is overly restrictive, and in my opinion, biased. They restrict anonymous browsing, and, who know what spyware could be embedded in their products.

    • Re:A better solution (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Sgs-Cruz ( 526085 ) on Thursday March 06, 2003 @05:28PM (#5452498) Homepage Journal
      This guy's library has exactly the right idea. Almost every single problem with inappropriate material in libraries can be solved by putting it in a high-traffic area. I'd rather the public that just happens to be walking by be monitoring what kids are doing on those computers than some overpriced, ineffective software. Have you ever tried to do something you're not supposed to while out in the middle of public? It's hard.

      But cruz, you might say, what if they were looking at hate speech or something that isn't easily identifiable by someone just walking by the computer? Well, I say to that, that kind of stuff shouldn't be censored anyway. If it's text, it pretty much should be allowed to be viewed. (Okay, I know, 15 ACs will reply to this with good reasons why some text shouldn't be allowed to be viewed in a library... flame away...)

      • I'd rather the public that just happens to be walking by be monitoring what kids are doing on those computer

        Don't forget that means the public (including kids) will be "monitoring" what anyone (including adults) are doing on the computer. That includes accidental or intentional visits to goatse. I'd suggest putting them in a public area, but facing the screens / placing dividers so that the screen contents aren't "broadcast" to the entire room.

        -

    • A double-edged sword... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Thursday March 06, 2003 @05:41PM (#5452633) Homepage
      Not only does it keep children and people from surfing on "bad" sites, but it also keeps people from looking up other information. Would you like to surf for info on cancer or STD at such a machine? Might as well throw in a public service announcement.

      And even if they didn't care, it's more than I'd like to know. For instance when I was abroad I was at this webcafe, and the line was basicly right behind the machines. Without looking at the screen in particular, I still saw the large "GayChat" logo in the corner of one of the screens. Not that I have anything against that, but I really don't feel the need to know anything about strangers sexlife.

      Granted, I don't give a flying fuck because I can surf for that at home, but not everyone can that. But given that filters aren't perfect, I do understand that having a "human" filter is used. But it's certainly not perfect either.

      Kjella
      • Not only does it keep children and people from surfing on "bad" sites, but it also keeps people from looking up other information. Would you like to surf for info on cancer or STD at such a machine? Might as well throw in a public service announcement.

        Good point, but small screens in a public area are not too bad (tough to read text without being right in front)... also, what about turning on the 'images off by default' option in the browser, and any images you want (including those GayChat logos) you have to manually load? Thus, the pr0n images would either not show, or if they were loaded, they'd be really obvious.

        -T

  • Start with the parents... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by telstar ( 236404 ) on Thursday March 06, 2003 @05:01PM (#5452257)
    Kids will always be able to get to something that is available to their parents....
    The best way to handle questionable content is for parents to take an active role in their kids' upbringing, and teach them how to handle material that they will unquestionably come across online.
  • is about as likely as making automobile superhighways safe for children. Unless you want to severely limit the traffic, it's not going to be "safe".

    There is no substitute for parental supervision. I'd tell parents:
    You bought the computer for your child. You paid for the internet service. You brought the big scary electronic world into your house and set your child in front of it. It's not the government's job to make it safe for your kid.
  • This is the thought running through the head of each of the male supreme court justices right now.

    "Hmmm... How do I rule on this so that *I* can still view porn?"

  • The best filter (Score:4, Insightful)

    by TopShelf ( 92521 ) on Thursday March 06, 2003 @05:01PM (#5452262) Homepage Journal
    Until the legal wrangling gets completed, the best filter on objectionable material is to place the terminals such that they are highly visible and in a busy area. That way anybody who insists on viewing pr0n and the like is basically creating a public disturbance...

    • Re:The best filter (Score:2, Interesting)

      by robi2106 ( 464558 )
      This is a much underappreciated tactic. Who is going to look at anything that resembles pr0n when some girls you may know, or want to get to know, may wonder by and see?

      Stuff like this isn't done in the open unless by the hard core addict.

      A kid or some teen isn't going to do that in public while supervised by parents / administrators.

      robi
    • the best filter on objectionable material is to place the terminals such that they are highly visible and in a busy area.

      That just means that when an anyone accidentally or intentionally goes to goatse that you are putting it in view of the kids. Creating a "public disturbance" just draws the kids' attention to it. The screens should be arranged to minimize "incidental" viewing. That also makes it better for someone who wants to write personal e-mail or research medical information etc.

      -
  • Where I live we have EIPA, Everybody Internet Proection Act!

    Khalid

  • I’d comment on the oral arguments link… (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 06, 2003 @05:06PM (#5452303)
    ...but the damn censorware thinks it's a naughty place.
  • Children do not need 'protected' from pornography. Any twelve year old with a mind dirty enough to go searching for albino midget porn on google was already corrupt to begin with.

    The simple fact is porn is only easy to come by when you look for it. Just like in the real world, any responsible parent/teacher should supervise their children regardless of whether they are watching TV, using the Internet or walking down the street.

    It is common sense. We don't need new laws for the Internet, we need to educate judges on how to apply the old ones, because they work just fine.
    • >> The simple fact is porn is only easy to come by when you look for it

      Really? Type in the name of any popular video game, as if you were looking for cheats or walkthroughs. Pretend you're 8 and searching for Pokemon.

      Or pretend you're a little girl searching for songs from her favorite boy band.

      How many clicks does it take until you see the first pornographic banner?
    • Am I the only one who finds it ironic that the word "fuck" in the title of the parent post... was censored? :)
    • Any twelve year old with a mind dirty enough to go searching for albino midget porn on google was already corrupt to begin with.

      Either you've never surfed for porn or you're hiding something, because 90% of the porno websites I've visited usually offer various links for different tastes, including: Teen, Ebony, Gay, Anal, Japanese, Mature, Midget Fucking, Dog Fucking, etc. I don't know about you, but it's almost seems impossible to only surf tasteful porn without being bombarded with some seriously henious shit.

      Fortunately, Most 10-12 year olds will probably laugh at people fucking dogs, but there will be some (I remember growing up with fucked up kids) who's interest might be piqued. Some of those kids will have grown up to be dog fuckers anyway, but would ALL of those kids have grown up to be dog fuckers if they hadn't been exposed to it at a vulnerable age? Obviously not...

      Most kids are more impressionable the younger they get while other kids will always be inpressionable well into thier adult years. So far, we've been talking about 10-12 year olds. I remember being interested in sex when I was 5-6 (I knew what a dick and a cunt was...) So who's to say that 7-10 year olds AREN'T looking at porn (when they can get away with it). If they're surfing the same porn sites I'm surfing, I'm pretty sure they've been exposed to a lot. By the time a kid is 12, he knows that dog fucking is pretty fucked up. At 7-9, I'm not so sure.

      A kid at that age will pretty much do any stupid thing if it interests them and they can get away with it.

      So, Do you want to keep making stupid blanket statements?

      OR

      Are you willing to ask tough questions, investigate carefully, and accept the answers even if you don't like the answers?

      Oh yeah, if I believe in censoring *my* kids, should I shut the fuck up, or does that just apply to gov't censorship?

  • They listened to MY work! (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 06, 2003 @05:11PM (#5452357)
    [I made a difference! The court listened! And, screw karma, it is sickening hypocrisy for Michael Sims [sethf.com] to post the above article, because of his hijacking the censorware.org website [sethf.com] and breaking Censorware Project legal trust.
    See also Bennett Haselton's comments on the hijacking [sethf.com] and Jonathan Wallace's comments [sethf.com]]

    Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 10:41:18 -0400
    From: Seth Finklestein
    To: Seth Finklestein's InfoThought list
    Subject: IT: Federal censorware law down! (and Seth Finkelstein's reports!)

    I'm ecstatic that the court seems to have used my pioneering [sethf.com] efforts in anticensorware work [sethf.com] as one factor in its decision, in passages such as these:

    Another technique that filtering companies use in order to deal with a structural feature of the Internet is blocking the root level URLs of so-called loophole Web sites. These are Web sites that provide access to a particular Web page, but display in the user's browser a URL that is different from the URL with which the particular page is usually associated. Because of this feature, they provide a loophole that can be used to get around filtering software, i.e., they display a URL that is different from the one that appears on the filtering company's control list. Loophole Web sites include caches of Web pages that have been removed from their original location, anonymizer sites, and translation sites.

    Caches are archived copies that some search engines, such as Google, keep of the Web pages they index. The cached copy stored by Google will have a URL that is different from the original URL. Because Web sites often change rapidly, caches are the only way to access pages that have been taken down, revised, or have changed their URLs for some reason. For example, a magazine might place its current stories under a given URL, and replace them monthly with new stories. If a user wanted to find an article published six months ago, he or she would be unable to access it if not for Google's cached version.

    Some sites on the Web serve as a proxy or intermediary between a user and another Web page. When using a proxy server, a user does not access the page from its original URL, but rather from the URL of the proxy server. One type of proxy service is an anonymizer. Users may access Web sites indirectly via an anonymizer when they do not want the Web site they are visiting to be able to determine the IP address from which they are accessing the site, or to leave cookies on their browser.(8) Some proxy servers can be used to attempt to translate Web page content from one language to another. Rather than directly accessing the original Web page in its original language, users can instead indirectly access the page via a proxy server offering translation features.

    As noted above, filtering companies often block loophole sites, such as caches, anonymizers, and translation sites. The practice of blocking loophole sites necessarily results in a significant amount of overblocking, because the vast majority of the pages that are cached, for example, do not contain content that would match a filtering company's category definitions. Filters that do not block these loophole sites, however, may enable users to access any URL on the Web via the loophole site, thus resulting in substantial underblocking.

    This is an aspect which I've been trying to get into the censorware debate for ages. I'm overjoyed that the court heard, they got it, they listened, and it helped strike down Federal censorware law! These are the reports which seem to have made a difference in the above:

    BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE: (censorware vs. privacy & anonymity) - a secret category of BESS (N2H2), and more about why censorware must blacklist privacy, anonymity, and translators
    http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/loophole.php [sethf.com]

    BESS vs The Google Search Engine (Cache, Groups, Images) - BESS bans cached web pages, passes porn in groups, and considers all image searching to be pornography.
    http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/google.php [sethf.com]

    SmartFilter's Greatest Evils - why censorware must blacklist privacy, anonymity, and language translators
    http://sethf.com/anticensorware/smartfilter/greate stevils.php [sethf.com]

    The Pre-Slipped Slope - censorware vs the Wayback Machine web archive - The logic of censorware programs suppressing an enormous digital library.
    http://sethf.com/anticensorware/general/slip.php [sethf.com]

    -- Seth Finklestein Consulting Programmer http://sethf.com [sethf.com]
    Anticensorware Investigations: http://sethf.com/anticensorware/ [sethf.com]
    Seth Finklestein's Infothought list - http://sethf.com/infothought/ [sethf.com]
    http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/19/technology/circu its/19HACK.html [nytimes.com]
    TROLL ALERT! I now seem to have attracted troll imposters. The real Seth Finklestein has uid#582901

  • tempest, meet teapot.

    i see all the high and mighty negative indignations here, and i have a small notation for all of you huffing and puffing over this:

    it is an opt in system, not an opt out system.

    see?

    so it in no way forces any of us, or anyone else, into a smaller shoebox ...except the kids whose parents lock them into the domain. and judging by the parental responsibilty paens i've seen so far here, there can be nothing but agreement on the fact that this .kids domain makes parenting easier for some seriously technoclueless parents out there. this is a bad thing how?

    i mean, freedom and democracy, hurray hurray!

    but: save your fire and brimstone for the real fights, because there are some big ones looming, capice? (ashcroft's follies maybe?)

    again, there's nothing to fight over here folks, move along. you've been baited and hooked. chill everyone, we're a little too trigger happy for our own good. ;-P

  • Slate (Score:3, Informative)

    by Hollins ( 83264 ) on Thursday March 06, 2003 @05:23PM (#5452446) Homepage

    Actually, probably the best recap isn't mentioned in the list. Take a look at Dahlia Lithwick's analysis on Slate:

    The Supreme Court finds a library porn filter it can love. [msn.com].

    • Thanks, it is a good piece. I just went to add it, only to discover that another editor beat me to the punch. ;-)
  • ....think of the children!?!??!

  • What I think people are missing (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Cheshyre ( 43113 ) on Thursday March 06, 2003 @05:53PM (#5452788) Homepage
    in this discussion of CIPA is that CIPA doesn't just mandate libraries put filters on the kids' computers, but libraries have to use filters on <b>all</b> computers within the libraries.

    And if libraries refuse, if they leave some computers unfiltered, they lose federal funding. I spend a lot of time in libraries, and see a lot of people getting their internet access from such public terminals. Would <i>you</i> settle for filtered access only? Do you think others should just because they don't have money to spare for a fast computer and high-speed connection?

    As far as child-rearing is concerned, libraries aren't baby-sitters. If parents don't trust their kids unattended in libraries, then they shouldn't leave their kids unattended in libraries. Or they should teach their kids and trust their kids to do what is right when left alone.
  • Here [lightspawn.org]. Remember, written for non-techies, and a while ago.

  • Free speech? We don't have free speech. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ..At least we don't as some see it.

    I can't yell 'FIRE!' in a crowded theatre, because it'd likely do harm.

    Why should people be able to download porn (which is, AFAIK, restricted by age in most states) in a public place, such as a library?

    Frankly, I'm all for filtering such things. If you want to wank it, buy your own computer, or start a Library of Porn. (Hmm, new Slashdot measurement? LoP?)

    The problem, of course, is that filtering software blows chunks. First of all, it will never be able to block all of the porn all of the time. Second, it's an easy matter for some nutjob on the extreme left, right or even center, to add a bunch of sites that he or she doesn't find acceptable to the list - pages about Republicans, Democrats, the Green Party, et cetera. Now *that* damages the idea of free speech.

    The idea of free speech, as set down in the Constitution, means I can't have a certain acquaintance of mine placed up against a wall and shot every time he spews idiocy such as "Bush is evil! Oil oil oil! Waaaaaaah!" Okay, sure, sometimes I'd really like to see him shipped to Siberia.. But I think we can all generally agree on the fact that people aren't shipped to Siberia for not referring to elected officials as 'our beloved leader!' is a *good* thing.

    And that's what 'Freedom of Speech' means. The right to have dissenting opinions. It doesn't mean you can say whatever the hell you want, whenever you want. It doesn't mean you have a divine-given right to browse porn in a library.

    It means the country won't turn into a Nazi Germany. A Soviet Union. A North Korea. An Iraq.

    Filtering systems being installed in libraries, while at first glance, a noble idea - are simply a dangerous thing lurking under the surface. It'd be far too easy to block access to dissenting opinions due to the general craptitude of filtering software.

Slashdot Top Deals

The Tao is like a glob pattern: used but never used up. It is like the extern void: filled with infinite possibilities.

Close