Censorware to be Mandatory in Schools, Libraries 366
The massive spending bill has been passed by the House and Senate, and President Clinton is expected to sign it soon. Despite some noises from the Clinton administration mildly protesting censorware, the small amendment making it mandatory is not considered to be an important enough issue to veto an entire appropriations bill.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a longtime proponent of censorware, introduced the amendment.
As the ACLU says,
Earlier this year, an 18-member commission appointed by Congress rejected the idea of mandating the use of blocking software, which is notoriously clumsy and inevitably restricts access to valuable, protected speech. A wide spectrum of organizations have opposed blocking software mandates, including the American Library Association, the Society of Professional Journalists, the conservative Free Congress Foundation and state chapters of the Eagle Forum and the American Family Association.
"There was an Alice in Wonderland quality to this debate," said Marvin Johnson, a Legislative Counsel with the ACLU's Washington National Office. "With its vote, Congress rejected the advice it asked for from the panel it appointed."
The "wide spectrum of organizations" extends from educators to The New York Times to strongly conservative political/religious groups. For more on the COPA Commission and its recommendations, see our stories from July and August.
Essentially it says that any school or library which receives federal funds to build its network must install censorware. Since these funds are the chief way that poor and middle-income areas bring the internet into public institutions, effectively this means that only rich counties will have the option of an uncensored internet.
The text of the self-declared "Children's Internet Protection Act" is available from CDT. It uses the term "technology protection measure" to describe the software.
In related news, Peacefire, an advocacy group for youth free-speech rights, released a tool to provide one-click disabling of some popular censorware programs.
Meanwhile, the ACLU will be suing to stop this bill from taking effect. This is not a slam-dunk like the CDA was. They're in for a tough fight. Here are three reasons why:
1. The CDA's language was very broad. This bill targets its material precisely: obscenity, child pornography, and "harmful to minors" material. Of course there is no "technology protection measure" in existence which can censor only this material, or even claim to censor only this material.
2. The CDA covered speech. This bill addresses the right to read that speech in a public institution.
3. This bill regulates institutions which are taking public money and how they may use it. Legally, and also in many people's minds, it is more permissable to enact regulations which go against the grain of the Constitution if they are tied to acceptance of public funds.
(The classic example is that the Fourth Amendment protects our homes from unreasonable search and seizure, but when the government provides public housing, it sometimes tries to say that the 4th Amendment does not apply. Same situation, different Amendment.)
Brock Meeks is more optimistic, saying the bill is "doomed." The key issue, I think, will be whether censorware can work. If it does not work, if it cannot work, then the language of the bill is irrelevant; our Congress might as well have demanded a "technology protection measure" to give all our kids 200 IQs and an lifetime supply of free donuts.
When I get in the mood to be optimistic, I think about all the stories we hear from students who are already forced to use this software. It seems like everyone has an anecdote about how they were blocked from doing legitimate research for school.
So maybe if this legislation survives, in ten years, all the kids who grew up with first-hand experience with censorware will start to vote. That's about the only bright side I can see.
For now, Brown v. Board of Education is the example I'm keeping in mind. The Supreme Court, after a half-century of segregated schools, decided that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal" -- the theory might be OK, but it had failed in practice.
The courts should evaluate the "technology protection measures" by what they do, not by what the law demands they do. The theory might be OK, but in practice, all the technology that I've looked at blocks much more than it should. I'll be hoping for a verdict that reads: "technology protection measures are inherently censorship."
And, hopefully, now -- not after a half-century.
Next: Censorware to be used in Congress offices (Score:2)
Re:We should provide the censoware (Score:2)
Re:They're going to drive me insane (Score:2)
If it was just down to censoring dirty pictures, or wares trading, it would be creating a shabby little underground basically about trading dirty pictures and warez.
Because it is suppressing access to information and (see the low power radio article) communities' ability to broadcast their own media to themselves, it is creating an underground centered on becoming an information network and community resource- an underground that is so much better for its communities than corporate schlock that even Joe Average has to look at it and go,
And he should be- because those of us who are keeping access to information open, those of us who are supporting community media, we are this country (not our increasingly f**ked up government), WE are Joe's countrymen. And it's both our obligation and our privilege to live up to that.
(OK, end of stirring speech ;) seriously though, I mean it. I donate work, expertise and gear to local community radio. Do you? I don't directly support 'hacking around censorware' because that's not an area where I have expertise. I hope other people take up the slack.)
"The revolution will not be televised" -Gil Scott-Heron (and sure enough- it's being not-televised even as we speak :) )
Re:We should provide the censoware (Score:2)
We need a 'U-Filter-It' type censorware to push on libraries- one that fits the legal requirements- and we need it quick. My local library in Brattleboro puts up signs extolling the ability to read 'dangerous banned books' like, oh, 'Huckleberry Finn' and (not surprising for library people) is _very_ _much_ in favor of freedom of information. They have got to be hitting the roof around about now, and they are not necessarily tech savvy enough to come up with the technical answer to a mandate for censorware. Let's get together a local control censorware package that satisfies the legal requirements, and then go local and start talking to our local libraries and schools, and make sure they know they have that option. I flat guarantee that my local library would rather have that (and, for instance, an opt-in policy like 'If you see someone getting inappropriate material on the library computers, you can fill out this form asking us to block that page, or ask a library staffer to speak to the person for you'). Let's make this happen- forget 'guaranteeing not to censor protected speech', let's talk 'guarantees to put control of the filtering entirely in the hands of the library or school'. This will be particularly appealing to libraries because they can _individually_ approve any filtered item (like maybe a popular hard porn site) and be certain that they have the control and that nothing will be censored without their personal involvement and assent.
NO requirement for centralised control (Score:2)
This is about _process_, not technology. There is NO REASON to assume a centralised control is neccessary- that is really not our business, if a library in Utah badly wants to block all fleshtone pictures we don't have a right to insist they block only what the Slashdot Filter agrees is 'really porn'.
Again- CIPA does not mandate a centralised list. It mandates that a filtering process be in place on all such computers. It does _not_ say who provides the list, and I suggest that is the business of the library or school, and nobody else's business. It should be possible to ask a library, "please block goatse.cx" because a library is a public service. That, too, is a process that can be seen as being responsive to the community. I see no reason to jump to the conclusion that MY community needs to block things based on what some community in Utah thinks. Keep it local. Keep the block lists locally controlled. Sell the libraries on a federally-compliant censorware system that's _entirely_ locally controlled with no central censor- that's open source so they can trust that the control remains theirs at all times (good selling point- "Nobody can LET THROUGH content that you have decided you don't want to allow! Your blocks can't be overruled!" Think devious ;) ) and we'd better come up with this software, because the commercial suppliers are _not_ going to be selling a decentralised system. They're in the central-control business.
And again, thank goodness CIPA does not mandate use of a commercial centralised censor- it simply mandates that _some_ process be actively in place for _all_ computers of this nature. I think it will be a pretty easy sell, to persuade the hapless libraries and idiot legislators that communities must set their own standards. The thing specifies that libraries and schools can censor as much more as they want- the point to insist on is that libraries and schools must also be allowed to define what _they_ want to censor in line with their own community standards, even if that's "just playboy.com and goatse.cx".
Re:Government money... (Score:2)
Re:Sourcing (non)compliance (Score:2)
- that a software product be present at all times
- that said software product be capable of blocking access to a site
- that said software product be impossible to turn off except for 'specific research uses'.
None of this requires or expects that the software be magically able to determine what is 'obscene', and in fact if you look at what CIPA _says_ you can plainly see that it doesn't require any centralised list be kept, much less specify who keeps the list. I would support this bill because of these extremely big loopholes: again, nothing in it _specifies_ that librarians have to give a rat's ass what _other_ librarians think: if people want censorware that expresses collective opinion they can get a commercial censorware product. CIPA doesn't specify a commercial product. It just specifies, "The _process_ has to be there, no matter what". That is not a totally unreasonable position, so long as one option is, "Our community feels that our library should only block this one particular image on goatse.cx. Anything else, we will just ask the person to not keep browsing those sites in the library. We're a New England library and a small fairly progressive town and it's nobody's business to tell us what we can or can't connect to, so our compulsory blocking filter just blocks a couple images that we all agreed were extremely nasty..."Re:I don't know why this suprises people. (Score:2)
Umm, *cough*McCain*cough* introduced this amendment. He's a real alternative to himself?
Re:Filters change! (Score:2)
As a network admin you have to accept a certain risk and leave it at that. Porn browsing, inappropriate network use, etc. is a management issue and it should be left to that. The same goes for schools and libraries as well as homes. A computer cannot supervise your children! A TV is not a substitute for good parenting! Somewhere along the line, someone is going to have to get off their ass and monitor these users in order to enforce the policies of your school, library, company, and home.
Filters change! (Score:2)
Re:This crap (Score:2)
What a moronic assumption. Maybe you have never read a web page with the same care you read the page of a book, but I have.
FOLLOWING LINKS IS NOT COMMENSURATE TO REAL LEARNING. HYPERLINKS ARE NOT A GOOD LEARNING TOOL. YOU ENGAGE LESS GREY MATTER FOLLOWING A STRUCTURE OF HYPERLINKS THAN YOU DO READING A BOOK.
Following links? How the hell did that become the method that the internet is supposed to teach? It's the content of the page that teaches you, just like it's the content of the page of a book, not the fact that the page numbers increase in ascending order. I mean, you're trying to say you can't learn from the internet by saying clicking a link doesn't teach you things. Well, that's just dumb, a non sequ. Hey, books suck as a learning tool, because you don't engage any grey matter by fondling processed wood pulp!
Though in any event, why you think that the linear structure of a book engages more grey matter than a tree-like structure of a web site is inherently more stimulating is beyond me. But people will say anything (in caps no less) and try to pull it off as scientific fact.
Re:Zappa said it many years ago (Score:2)
KalibanNet (Score:2)
I look forward to a bright shiny world owned and operated by AOLDisney, scrubbed polished with all the unsightly places swept underground. Where the mudpeople toil to give us our illusions in a clean white protestant sanitized trademarked Oprah approved group hugfest. I look forward to the death of hope and thought. I look forward to a sex free world with 6 guns blazing where John Wayne never dies and the Coolies are forever appreciative. Where good never completely vanquishes evil but we know it could if the sponsorship ran out and we had to cancel the series. I want a universe where the coefficient of friction is zero. Where everyone agrees with everyone else and everyone is slightly above average. I want an internet where "Leave it to Beaver" is a webcam documentary. I want a low fat smoke free no phones while driving the SUV toys for tots not in my backyard world where all the men are handsome and the women wear pearls.
need for funding is the real problem (Score:2)
a library or anything else that can't profit.
We get the "government" to do it because nobody
else will, not because that's the first choice.
It's public apathy in the extreme that leads to
government being the party responsible for public
institutions. Local governments and/or small groups of citizens could have done it, but they didn't. Instead, the burden was rested on the
shoulder of the government. It's an excuse for
more taxes so they don't offer to give the obligation back to the regional levels of government (because they'd have to give up the tax money).
Taxes marked for education go to support bureaucracy first, then education. And it gets
applied toward education only grudgingly. This
example is just one of many. They're constantly
looking for excuses to withhold money.
Good? (Score:2)
Remember prohibition? It was a good idea - remove all social ills through the banning of alcohol. This bill has similar good intentions.
Re:The real problem here (Score:2)
The roots of Western prudishness obviously go back to the tangled warren of late classical monotheistic religions that eventually produced Judaism and Christianity (and Islam). I mentioned the Victorian era only because many present-day attitudes are directly attributable to it.
--
Re:The REAL real problem here (Score:2)
Based on what I know of the way women are treated in China -- and admitting that I don't know how Taiwan differs from mainland China in this respect -- then I'd have to agree that yes, I think your culture is insane, just as a significant portion of mine is. The treatment of women in the far east is legendarily barbaric. I certainly hope that I've heard wrong and that women over there treated as fully independent equals, or that it is at least a goal towards which your society strives.
And modern Western psychology's are not shared by a good portion of the rest of us. Nor even, it would appear, by a significant portion of your own society.
I can only cite the Western ideal that people have certain inherent, inalienable rights that are not subject to review by popular opinion or government fiat. No one denies that the West has more than its fair share of sexually-stunted misogynistic bigots. We have made great strides in the last century -- well within living memory there was no concept of marital rape but it is now recognized prohibited by law in most places -- and hopefully we will continue to move forward. If your society chooses to take a different course, I understand that such is your society's prerogative, but I can't reasonably be expected to respect a policy of inhumanity as if it were something trivial like driving on the left side of the road.
--
Re:Relevant link: "Foil the Filters Contest" (Score:2)
No it isn't. This is another "censorware is bad because it's inaccurate" site. The implication of this is then "censorware would be acceptable were it to implement only the mandate of the censor, blocking out only those sites which contained the ideas deemed offensive, the concepts these infallable guardians of all that is good do not smile upon". The very idea needs to be challenged at its root, without compromise. Take control of your own mind.
--
Re:what is truly sad... (Score:2)
Absolutely, positively, unapolagetically, yes. I don't recall there being a global exception to the first amendment because some kids might see or hear it somewhere sometime somehow. Get a fucking spine and raise your own fucking kids, people.
--
Re:Schools Yes, Libraries No (Score:2)
Child pornography is already illegal. This bill is more jowl-wagging moral posturing and doomed to die like the sacrificial lamb it is. Because when it is struck down, they can gain even more from the backlash against the godless heathen judges and politicians that killed it. Same trick the left does with affirmative action.
--
Isn't it ironic... (Score:2)
Arguing that the technology is finally modern enough to support the implementation of moral strictures from the victorian age?
--
Re:Libraries and schools need to do a better job.. (Score:2)
--
Re:This is really a small pebble in a big pond (Score:2)
The mission and purpose of censorware is to prevent the formation of an idea by restricting access to images and thoughts someone thought was objectionable. I deem this not only ineffective in implementation for the near future, but ineffective in its very concept.
I'm letting religion fight a rear-guard action here. I'm going after religion itself. I'll raise my kids atheist and proud of it.
--
Another side effect.... (Score:2)
The Free ODMG Project [sourceforge.net] needs volunteers.
Peacefire.exe (Score:2)
The Free ODMG Project [sourceforge.net] needs volunteers.
Hmmm... (Score:2)
It would apply well especially that government money is bound to the regulations, the constitution especially applies to it.
--
Game over, 2000!
Re:gray area (Score:2)
When I was a kid, mumble years ago, it was common for boys to carry knives, usually boy scout jackknives or similar designs. Nobody got stabbed and it wasn't considered a dangerous weapon by the school. There wasn't any of this "zero tolerance" crap that mandates draconian punishment for a student who has a bottle of aspirin or a butter knife in their lunch box. We didn't have Internet porn or Hustler, we had to settle for the racier issues of National Geographic.
Re:I don't know why this suprises people. (Score:2)
i do, however, have a lot of faith in the current generation of children. even though their parents, teachers, lawmakers, religious leaders, etc. seem to think they're all mildly retarded AND don't seem to think enough of them to take the time to teach them right from wrong themselves, i think they'll turn out all right.
locking the next generation of this country's leaders, teachers, lawmakers, etc. up in a mental cage throughout their formative years isn't going to teach them right from wrong, all it's going to teach them is: parents, teachers, etc. don't want us to see this stuff and we need to develop a skillset that will allow us mental freedom. as a side-effect they will probably also develop a healthy contempt for both those too lazy to teach their kids and the mindset that derives from that laziness
-dk
Re:The REAL real problem here (Score:2)
why is that some folks insist on labelling any who don't agree with their free-for-all attitude toward sex as "morbid", "deeply afraid of sexuality", "loathing of females", "repressed"/"oppressive", "Victorian", and/or otherwise "mentally ill"?
I think it was Freud [t0.or.at]. But seriously, did Angst Badger really use the term "free for all"??
Anyhow, I feel that the comment which you dislike,
institutionalized form of mental illness, a phobia of sexuality that manifests itself in the form of political oppression on the grand scale and domestic terror
is not completely out of place. It's our very own western psychology and psychotheraputic studies which have produced insights into our unacknowledged sexual "stuff". And 'terror' and 'oppression' are the sorts of words used in connection with these issues, exactly because 'terror' etc. are typically experienced. Now I'll stop there, as I'm not qualified, but let me add that Angst Badger's post bears some resemblance to the issue of how we go about measuring sanity -- ie. 'the degree to which an individual has adjusted to society'. This definition of sanity raises the issue, as extensively researched by Erich Fromm [erichfromm.de] in "The Sane Society", of whether society itself is sane.
So while I agree with your principle of reserving the right to a "difference of opinion", you may wish to ask yourself just where "your" opinion came from.
The answer, again (Score:2)
It outrages you, it outrages me. Do the right thing.
Find a local ISP willing to donate bandwidth to a non-profit organzation (tax deductible)... find a computer shop in your area willing to sell at or below cost to a non-profit. Buy the computer for the library/school, and install it such that it uses the donated internet access. Voila, you're not using public funds anymore, and the machine need not be filtered.
As much as I dislike the concept, if the school/library is going to suck off the government tit, they're going to get the flavor of milk the government is spewing. Give them good clean fresh milk. :)
D
Re:The real problem here (Score:2)
I think in the long term, a positive view of sex in America will eventually prevail. It was only a few short centuries ago, after all, that blacks were considered less than human. In another hundred or so, this folly will too hopefully be relegated to old history and anthropology books.
http://3522329841 (Score:2)
http://3522329841 [3522329841]
Re:So? (Score:2)
The addition of internet filters actually increases cost, and reduces information. Neither of which are in any libraries goals.
-cpd
Re:This is news? (Score:2)
That's completely beside the point. You're library might not have smut in the stacks (although I'd double check that before making the assertion. Libraries carry a lot of surprising stuff for research. You just might have to ask for it specifically), but the library doesn't pull The Age of Reason just because it uses some of the same words as Hustler. That's effectively what current censorware does.
Re:I don't know why this suprises people. (Score:2)
So here's what we do: we must strive to find political candidates that understand the issues we believe in. There seemed to be a strong contingent on Slashdot that supported Nader, and aside of the fact that he's a total kook, this was a good thing, and that more and more people want different alternatives than the two slightly different shades of grey we normally get to choose from. I think the time is right in the first decade of the 2000's for an altenative candidate to gain some credibility and perhaps even some electroal votes. After all, if a nutcase like Perot can do it, so can someone who presents a real alternative (*cough*McCain*cough).
Secondly, at the end of the day this censorware issue is not the end of the world. It is a broken solution to a real problem. Everyone complains (rightly) that parents have to take responsibility for their children. Well, I know my child won't find a copy of Hustler at the local library, but if he or she can point-and-click up, say, donkey porn on the public Internet terminal, then I, as a parent, feel the obligation to be there. That was never true in the pre-Internet days, so something had fundamentally changed.
. A lot of conversations I've had in the past with
Personally, I spend all my time on-line in real nerdnests like
If I sound like I can't make up my mind on the issue, it's because I really can't. But I think rather than pigeonholing Congress on this issue as being some kind of medieval Neanderthals (to mix metaphors) for even contemplating something so hideously awful as censorware, rather consider that they are trying to deal with legitimate concerns about a new resource that society really hasn't gotten its mind around. Like I said before, it's a bad solution, but I think it's the best one we have available right now.
Re:I don't know why this suprises people. (Score:2)
No doubt, McCain is part of the "establishment", but he is also someone who bases his actions on principle and isn't afraid to propose an idea people might not like. No one that high up in politics can not have sold his or her soul, but I think there are poeple who have sold it less than others.
Re:raised by the state (Score:2)
Get the gov't out of the schools and we cease to have these problems. If private individuals wish to censor, who cares? Let 'em be stupid. It's when you let the State in that the real problems start.
Re:Federally funded, my ass -- oh wake up (Score:2)
As for applying the Bill of Rights to the States, I honestly don't think it does make sense, except where it applies by the language used. `Congress shall' does not effect the states, and should not. But every state should guarantee free speech in its own constitution, as should every town. OTOH, when it says that a right `shall not be infringed,' then it's obvious that no-one may infringe upon it.
Re:raised by the state (Score:2)
Why not allow a portion of society to be as ignorant as it wishes? Why do you attempt to force your version of what is appropriate on them? I do not force you or your children to believe what I believe, even though I find your outlook to be ingorant. Why should you not, then, return the favour (I am certain that you find my outlook equally wrong-headed:-)?
And I do not believe that my intereste should override anyone's. Nor do I wish anyone's to override mine. Live and let live. Quit stealing my labour for your schemes--I promise to do the same. If you want to educate society, go ahead, do it. But don't make me. You may be surprised, though, to find that I will be anyway. You see, I'm quite willing to give. But the key is willing--theft is unacceptable.
I just don't understand (Score:2)
I've come to the conclusion that this "protect the children from things we don't like" mentality is simply one of the ways in which our society is irrational. None of us are completely rational and neither is any society. In some places women are treated as property and even sexually mutilated due to some twisted custom. That doesn't mean the society which does that is as a whole without merit, its simply a little nuts in a few areas, just like every other culture.
Here in america we're afraid of sex and terrified of any little thing that might happen to our children. (We might want to thank the crowd that promotes the idea we're products of our environment for that.) We're afraid to the point that we think simply seeing sex or hearing about it will somehow harm our young. That's pretty messed up but there you have it. There are other examples of ways in which our culture, or one of our subcultures, is pretty messed up. Neo-Liberals (socialists) are some of the looniest people I've ever met, as are many from the right wing. Its no suprise these groups don't understand each other, I can't make sense of either one. Luckily the US government was intentionally designed to keep rival interest groups fighting with each other. The "gridlock" that your double digit IQ types complain about is there for a reason.
There is a good rule of thumb to remember when you encounter one of these areas of irrationality: If something seems crazy, it probably is.
GO PEACEFIRE!!
Lee Reynolds
Re:This crap (Score:2)
What really disappoints me about modern america is how many people are rushing towards tyrrany with open arms. Kind of ironic and all too tragic. I guess this is what happens when a people become too fat, too soft, and too full of themselves. Out of touch with reality and devoid of any understanding of their place within it.
Then again maybe I've got it all wrong. Maybe I should trust the government because after all its supposed to have my best interests at heart right? It wouldn't do anything to hurt me or disenfranchise me or anyone I know. Its here to help make the world a better and safter place and if everyone would just stop thinking for themselves Uncle Sam would be able to solve all our problems for us.
My grandparent's generation fought a world war over just that sort of mentality. Three generations of our people fought a cold war over it as well. I hope it wasn't for nothing.
I think it was Benjamin Franklin who said something like those who would trade freedom for security will have neither. It was true then and its even more true now.
Take care and don't let the double digit IQ types get you down..
Lee Reynolds
Peacefire's Filter Disabler (Score:2)
Re:The real problem here (Score:2)
Re:So? (Score:2)
In practice the results of some kind of web spider looking for these. One common problem is that the producers of such programs tend to blatently lie about human examination of blacklists.
Re:Loophole? (Score:2)
All three of these are subject to interpretation, but the last one is utterly meaningless.
Is advertising "harmful to minors", is this kind of politics, that kind of politics, this kind of religion, that kind of religion, knowing about this historical event, not knowing about that historical event, etc, etc. How about expression of corporate interests or for that matter is the current "censorware" software itself "harmful to minors".
Re:The tightest asses get to make all the rules. W (Score:2)
Because people who arn't are less likely to think ways of forcing their views on others in the first place.
Only extreamists (of one kind or other) actually feel that pushing their views on others is either desirable or practical.
Also how do you lobby a legislature to restrict itself?
Re:The REAL real problem here (Score:2)
Sounds find in theory but all too often people pushing extremist views tend to take a "if you are not with us you are against us".
Question the views (or motives) of an established group and they will have a standard label ready to stick on you.
Re:Note, just required to be in, not effecient... (Score:2)
Odds on they also included "ball", "screw", "toys", etc.
Re:what is truly sad... (Score:2)
In other words "I think there is a need for X, otherwise Y can happen". Problem is that X dosn't do a good job of stopping Y. It also does Z, which may be worst than Y anyway.
The salient point is not that site-blocking software is inherently evil or unconstitutional, it's just that it's ineffective -- and in such a way that it blocks more than it constitutionally should.
The real salient point is that even if people could agree what should be blocked it is currently impossible to write a computer program to do this. Were it to become possible to write a computer program to do this then there are ethical issues, to do with slavery, to consider. i.e. it's unlikely to ever be possible to write a program which is capable of understanding human behaviour well enough without creating a sapient AI.
Re:Filters change! (Score:2)
Apart from finding the admin, convincing them. Then in case of closed source software getting the admin to chase the producers.
We use a filtering proxy at our site and it works just fine with hardly any complaints. There are perhaps 2 people a week out of 5000 that send in requests for a site to be exempted that they feel was wrongly classified.
Maybe this simply means that people don't tend to complain. Are these 2 people a week drawn from a smallish group?
98% of the time I agree with them and exempt it without question.
You could interpret this as meaning that the number of wrong blockings is vast.
Re:So? (Score:2)
Sorry as The Bible contains references to murder, genocide, rape, incest, etc its been blocked by censorware. So you'll just have to find something else to thump
I do not support sheltering youth from some thing that is completely natural. Yet some how religious fundamentalists feel that it is necessary to control what kids see, think and hear.
Problem is that such religious (and political) extremists start by attempting to redefine what is and isn't natural.
Rather than by attempting to work out what is natural by scientific methods, including studying other primates.
Most of them would probably be shocked by the way Bonobos behave, however they are probably a better analogy of natural human behaviour than pidgeons.
i.e. the truth appears to be something along the line that sex is "natural", monogamy is "unnatural" and "sexual orientation" would naturally follow a normal distribution with hetero and homosexuality being the extremes.
In the US, it's about violence. Killing is our business, and business is good. We wrap(and rap) it, sell it, promote it, and grind it in to our childrens heads that this is acceptable.
But facts like that don't stop people talking about "sex and violence on TV". Obviously "make love not war" passed Hollywood by...
Re:So? (Score:2)
Note that with anything they intentionally block there will be other things which get "over blocked" e.g. because they use the same "dirty words" or are similar through some other simple metric. The results may appear to be random.
Re:SquidGuard (Score:2)
The difference is that the squidguard blacklists are honestly described as the results of a (very dumb) robot. Rather than the (bogus) claims to have been prepared by people which abound in the commercial world.
Re:gray area (Score:2)
There are plenty of good ideas behind science fiction. Someone needs to be clued up that Robert Picardo and Lexa Doig are acting....
I mean, does anyone expect total freedom in a school, really? It's primary purpose IS supposed to be education and preparation.
In which case porn would only be one of a number of things to be filtered. The useful list would include things you will never see in any commercial package, because the last thing they would do is block big business. Indeed there is plenty of stuff actually targeted at children which has little or no educational value.
Schools are trying as best they can to make the learning environment as safe as possible for as many students as possible and this does involve sweeping gestures like this.
They can only be (stupid) gestures. For starters what is "safe" for one person is not safe for another also what people do have in common is a "risk thermostat", attempt to make things too safe and people will actually compensate for that.
Added to which the idea that "porn=danger" appears based on an act of faith in the first place. Its "inappropriate" in a school, but it's just as much a waste of time if students are downloading and printing out pokemon as it is if they are downloading and printing out pictures of naked people. Though students might deliberatly choose porn for the purposes of offending the adults.
Re:Amazing (Score:2)
Not really all the "miraculous" things operating systems do involve tasks which are easy for computers (though they might be difficult for humans) the blocking thing requires programs which perform tasks which are difficult even for humans.
Perhaps if the government invested money into a development program that can work on software that meets its criteria all of us would be happy.
Will throwing money at AI research magically create software?
I agree that current blocking software is not properly written. It should be more dynamic and "read" the page before it is viewed. Forget scanning just the URL, try looking at the whole page.
Such software is beyond the ability of people to currently write. The only place it exists is in the minds of science fiction writers. Thinking machines, which can understand human attitudes, are there with teleportation and faster than light travel. Even if someone built one tomorrow what makes you think that it would want the job anyway? Give it a little while hooked up to the net and it would soon discover the hypocritical attitudes underpinning it's "orders"...
Re:Government money... (Score:2)
Or any other word which might have some connection to "porn". e.g. "ball", "cock", "toy", "screw", "bird", "girl", "teen", "suck", "climax", "blue", "breast", "CD", "TV", "male", "female", "jugs", etc. Whilst all of these could be associated with "porn" they have many, many other uses.
Re:Loophole? (Score:2)
I really think we need an "Orwellian Clock" in the same way that we have a "Armageddon Clock" representing when the world nukes itself. The Orwellian Clock would represent how far humanity is from the ideals set forth in 1984; however, it would need some refinement of exactly who runs it, what causes moves on the clock, and so forth...
Re:censor what? (Score:2)
----
I pay my taxes (Score:2)
I pay my taxes, I want free donuts!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Schools Yes, Libraries No (Score:2)
Re: Loudoun County case... CIPA is a financial incentive, not an absolute mandate like in Loudoun County. CIPA doesn't block much of adult access. Also [68k.org], "It must also be noted that the Loudoun court did hold that minimizing access to illegal pornography and avoidance of creation of a sexually hostile environment are compelling interests. The court went on to hold that, although the challenged policy was over inclusive because it restricted adult Internet access, it would be possible to create a policy which would protect children. Id. at 567." (Testimony, Jay Sekulow Esq., The American Center for Law and Justice (yuck))
--
Re:It'd just be a matter of time for different req (Score:2)
--
Re:what is truly sad... (Score:2)
Part of the role of a parent is to shield the child from various things until they are mature enough to not be permanently jaded from them. Eg. children are more impressionable than adults. So, while the child is in the temporary care of the state, the parent wants the child to be shielded in a similar manner, especially because the parent is paying the state for the education of their children.
--
Re:Loophole? (Score:2)
--
Re:This is news? (Score:2)
--
Re:Nary a censor in this house... (Score:2)
--
Re:So? (Score:2)
This is news? (Score:2)
NitPick (Score:3)
Censoring means that the material that may be considered harmful is removed prior to public disemination. I can censor a TV show by bleeping the words in the audio track before it is broadcast. Censoring is ALWAYS done by the distribution end.
Filtering means that the material that may be considered harmful is removed or altered at the recieving end. I can filter a TV show that is coming down live from the network satelite during that 15 second delay before further sending the signal out along cable lines. Filtering is ALWAYS done by the recieving end.
This bill is NOT about censorware, but filterware.
Now, some might argue that this will effectively censor some sites out there. But this is not correct. Take the physical example of 'banned books' such as To Kill a Mockingbird. Sure, the book may be banned from school and public libraries, but there are other means to get the book: from a store, from a friend, possibly by online text. The book is in no way censored since the material is still readily available in some form. Same with online information, say that Slashdot is blocked by these filters. Certainly there are other was to access it, from private internet connections or net-cafes. No one is denying you any access to that site whatsoever, just that the public institution feels that they need to filter it for the public good.
Thus, this bill does not threaten anyone's 1st amendment rights in any way. You still have your freedom of speech and expression, and you still have ways to hear others if you so choose, just that in public institutions, what *you* may want to hear is not in the best of public interest, and thus needs to be filtered.
Now, mind you, this bill sucks. Yes, it does leave it up to the community to decide what to filter, but it should leave more to the communities than just that. In addition, filtering software is inefficient, and can filter legitamite sites as well as As some other articles on the net state, communities have already passed regulations that they will not implement filters due to any easy way to set a community standard and the lack of good software.
So while I expect the ACLU to challenge it, I'd rather see states challenge it as it violates several distinctions of federal and state powers. I'd also like to see groups like Peacefire tackle the problem and raise the issue that no filtering program is sufficiently good at this point in time to be setting national standards for them. Until such a time where we can dynamically determine if the content on such a page (including images) are not up to the standards of the given community, any national filtering solution will fail (and since I doubt we'll get to such a point in 10 years, this bill is waaaay before it's time).
I'd rather see a better approach in the sence of voluntary ratings for sites, and mandating that public institution must enable such features on a browser to conform with that ratings system. Then make it a civil offense to misrate your site after being notified that the site is improperly rated (or some other such action to avoid the quick-fire lawsuit type persons). Certainly 90% of the sites out there probably won't need to rate themselves, and those that do could be making sure that their site flies under the filtering radar (such as a breast cancer site making sure they indicate that they are a health-related site). Yes, it's not a perfect solution, but it's a better direction than filtering software.
But again, filtering != censoring, but a few slipperly slope arguments get you there. "Well, if X is blocked at public schools, why shouldn't it be blocked from the web overall?" doesn't follow logic, but a sympathic judge might eat it up. Any filtering law must state that it's for the purpose of maintaining community standards in public places and does not attempt to interfere with free speech rights granted in private places of home or business.
Re:So? (Score:3)
--
raised by the state (Score:3)
Then quite frankly, you really should not be sending your children to an institution where the government acts in loco parentis.
In other words, if you don't want the government dictating the way your kids are raised, don't let the government raise your kids.
Re:Taxes pay for pornography? (Score:3)
This attitude, quite frankly, scares me.
There seem to be a lot of laws these days that apply to large chunks of the populace, but aren't intended to actually be enforced...except when the Powers That Be® feel like it. "We can just suspend the law if we really think we need to" just doesn't make good policy.
There's more at stake here than a need to Protect The Children® from naked people. The ability of students, still learning to form "informed opinions", need to be able to see more than the narrow (and sometimes bizarre) collection of sites allowed by a censorware filter. Political sites (yes, including those of a non-extreme nature) seem to be a regular thing showing up in the block lists. Our political structure in the USA is already messed up enough - I'd really rather there be at least a chance that future voters will be able to get enough information to make good decisions, even if they aren't wealthy enough to have their own private internet hookups.
Bear in mind, also, that the implication here is that libraries will have to go out and spend the money appropriated from us in taxes for commercial censorware, which gives a private organization control over the content viewable in a public organization. Perhaps a "public" peer-reviewed, open, server-based filter wouldn't be so bad, but as far as I know no such option currently exists.
So, to sum up, I think the risk involved in keeping people (especially younger individuals who may not have the experience yet to know when important information is being hidden from them) without private internet connections from seeing things that a private company's corporate agenda doesn't like is a far greater risk than having Little Johnny perhaps see a naked person before one of the library employees walks by and makes him stop...
I am also bothered in general by a bunch of sequestered, overpaid, lawyer-types in a little corner of the country determining what my local library can and can't do, but that's a whole other issue...
A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for Evil.
Re:I don't know why this suprises people. (Score:3)
-dk
Re:I don't know why this suprises people. (Score:3)
Re:censor what? (Score:3)
Very few words which are exclusivly "questionable". Indeed many words used in porn have completly unrelated uses outside porn. Hence some of the apparent bizare classifications of the like of sports clubs (lots of sports use "balls" of some type or other), entertainment equiptment (best ensure that there is no mention of CDs or TVs) as "porn". Let alone you can only use nails (and not "screws") in construction. With loads more similiar stupidity being likely with the kind of programs used to compile blacklists.
If someone could write a program to do the job then the program would probably be entitled to be classified as a sapient being.
Re:I don't know why this suprises people. (Score:3)
... a court is also likely to look to related, non-Internet situations that have arisen in the past. These precedents include decisions regarding the selection or removal of books in schools or libraries, and the selection of content for publication in school-sponsored student newspapers. The Supreme Court has ruled that schools are non-public forums that are outside the general marketplace of expression. Accordingly, school boards have significant discretion to restrict content and expression within that environment. Under this doctrine, school officials only violate the First Amendment when they limit access to materials "for the purpose of restricting access to the political ideas or social perspectives discussed in them, when that action is motivated simply by the official's disapproval of the ideas involved."
In situations where a school has restricted access to certain material, courts tend to consider whether the school's decision bore a reasonable relationship to a legitimate pedagogical concern. For example, a school district's decision that students exposed to violence, nudity, or "hard" language is a view-point neutral "legitimate pedagogical concern."
--
Some Points (Score:3)
- It's not actually an official law until President Clinton signs it.
- The very same day that the president signed COPA into law, the ACLU filed a suit [techlawjournal.com]
against it (and they've been winning so far).
- CIPA is different from COPA and CDA though, in many ways. One of the main differences is that COPA and CDA were criminal statutes, bound by stricter
due-process considerations. CIPA is just an incentive-based "suggestion", similar to the 55mph thing, and so it's not bound by constitutional
considerations as much.
- This law has been introduced 9 times [68k.org] over the past two years, all by Republicans.
- The American Library Association strongly opposes [ala.org] such a law.
Also, one of the peices of evidence that the proponents put forth was a statement [loc.gov] by the CEO of Net Nanny Software (yeah, he'll be objective):- A general perception exists that Internet filtering is seriously flawed and in many situations unusable. It is also perceived that schools and
libraries don't want filtering. These notions are naive and based largely on problems associated with earlier versions of client-based software that are
admittedly crude and ineffective. Though some poor filtering products still exist, filtering has gone through an extensive evolution and is not only good
at protecting children but also well-received and in high demand.
This is obvious political FUD, and very dangerous IMHO because it goes along with the innovation-meme and it gives critics a way to immediately brush off any counter-evidence. But the opponents of porn filtering DO use [google.com] outdated evidence [epic.org] often, and it's something they should be careful of. Because there are a lot of current [wirednews.com] studies [peacefire.org] that show that filters still suck badly.--
Re:My experience (a good filter is)... (Score:3)
On the flip side, the kid(s) could just get their parents credit card out.
Re:Loophole? (Score:3)
Re:raised by the state (Score:3)
And this is exactly why the federal gov't should not be involved in education in any way, shape, or form. Where in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution [emory.edu] is the federal gov't given authority to have any say in educational matters? Nowhere.
A Democratic president is expected to sign this into law. The Republicans no longer have this plank in their platform. Don't expect this to change any time soon. The Constitution party [constitutionparty.com] supports parental control of their children's education [constitutionparty.com] though. The Libertarians [lp.org] have a somewhat similar view [lp.org]. Limit the gov't to what it's actually allowed to do, and we'd be better off. Doesn't the Constitution matter any more?
We don't need vouchers. What we do need is for the federal gov't to not tax us for education in the first place. Let parents choose where their children go to school, and let them finance it directly, or at a county or state level. All the DOE is good at is wasting money while test scores continue to drop.
Re:And so it begins (Score:3)
I mean, certainly - I hate censorware. I think the very idea of even TRYING to stop a person from accessing information that is available to the world is wrong.
However, this could be quite interesting. Thinking back, yea - kids raised around such things always find out how to get around them. Subverting authority, in even the most slight and novel way is definitly a kids major past time.
Kind of reminds me of when I found out how to subvert foolproof on the Macs at school (easy -
I used to use it to change all of the icon colors (with labels)... just for shits and giggles. Then there was that one time that I littered the box with porn in mischievous ways (last day of class for us seniors).
Ahh.... school was fun. Maybe its good that the kids are getting a new toy to play with. It truely does facilitate learning... learning how to get around restrictions, and make the best of a bad situation
-Steve
Note, just required to be in, not effecient... (Score:3)
Schools Yes, Libraries No (Score:3)
It seems to me that the federal government could easily make the argument that censorware is the least restrictive means for stopping students (who are minors) from viewing indecent speech; since the goal they outlined was preserving the rights of adults, the students are probably out of luck. Plus, since schools have special powers over students, there's generally little protection for those who would want to look at various banned materials through school computers.
Libraries, on the other hand, serve a general public (i.e., people over 18) and would probably be subject to a much greater degree of scrutiny. There, any filtering would impinge on adult speech (although it's possible that they would turn it off for 18-and-over). One court has already found [techlawjournal.com] that libraries can't use filterware to stop adults from viewing legal material, and it based its decision in part on that clause from the CDA opinion.
The upshot of this is that, unless the courts decide to change their minds, students will just have to use the public libraries more often...
(I wonder, though, whether it might be possible to challenge individual software programs one-by-one rather than go after the law on its face -- after all, it shouldn't be too hard to show that each one blocks perfectly legitimate sites and thus impermissibly restricts speech...)
And the funny thing is.... (Score:3)
If you remember this internet, please help join the fight by switching to lynx, links, or telnet nameofsite 80 right now!
as a parent... (Score:3)
I've seen far too many parents think of school as a form of daycare for their kids. That is pathetic - school is to learn, and learning means making mistakes. Do I mean that all kids should make the mistake of viewing porn at the age of 7? No, certaintly not - nor do I think that a child should be able to paruse the internet unsupervised. If people have a problem with this, then they really need to re-think their priorites. Perhaps they should get out from behind their crapmed desks and volunteer some time at their childrens' schools. Then they can re-assume part of the responsibility without censorware.
Sure, that's all nice and idealistic, but that's also part of why it has become so sad.
It's constitutional (Score:3)
Just look at highway funding: under 23 U.S.C. 158, a state which fails to comply and raise its minimum drinking age to twenty-one has 5% of its federal highway funds withheld during the first year of non-compliance and 10% of such funds withheld in each succeeding year. This is entirely constitutional, because the state always reserves the option of not caring and not receiving the funds it wouldn't have raised anyway.
The first-amendment issues are important and interesting. But unfortunately, they're the only constitutional issues relevant here.
Censorware must block Football then. (Score:4)
Football causes many, many injuries to minors who participate in it every year. Sometimes, these injuries are permanently crippling.
Football related crime is quite common as well. Team jackets are used as gang colors. Innocent children have been murdered as a result.
Furthermore, professional football players are the worst hedonists on the planet. They do drugs, they rape women, and they are loose with money! How on earth could we let these people be role models for our children?
So by all means, any library or school that is using my tax dollars should ban American football because it is "harmful to children."
[/sarcasm]
totally wrong: the Net does not belong to the U.S. (Score:4)
The fundamental problem here is first defining "porn" (or other objectionable material) in such a way that it will never exclude material that citizens are indeed allowed to access, and second dealing with the reality that the definition of objectionable varies dramatically from place to place on a Net that is worldwide. Justice Potter Stewart of the U.S. Supreme Court once claimed that he can't define pornography, but that "I know it when I see it". Unfortunately, that doesn't exactly provide for a clear delineation between something that would be allowed in .com versus .xxx, even disregarding the global implications of a scheme like this.
what is truly sad... (Score:4)
Hopefully, after enough kids can't research their projects/reports because they've been blocked from non-offending sites, something will finally be done for real and/or censorware will go away... I'm getting tired of the government just putting on cheap band-aids, handed out by congress.
The real problem here (Score:5)
Some (though hardly all) feminists have muddied the water by suggesting that pornography denigrates women. There is much truth to this argument, but they are incorrect in their estimate of the underlying cause. Pornography denigrates women not because it treats women as objects -- though obviously it does -- but because the pseudo-religious opposition to pornography treats women as toxins from which society must be protected. To a lesser degree than in Islamic society, but for much the same reasons, the more stringent standards for female body coverings rest on the premise that women are a corrupting influence on men, and that they cannot be trusted to control their instinctual imperatives, and at the same time insisting that they must yield to the instinctual imperatives of dominant males.
Our society is choked with people who -- and I don't care what pious excuses are offered for this -- are deeply afraid of sexuality, and more often than not full of fear and loathing for female sexuality. (Before anyone flames, please don't think that I'm arguing that male-oriented porn is either a realistic or healthy representation of female sexuality. But it wouldn't matter if it were.)
The contest between censorship and anti-censorship in America has got squat to do with civil liberties. It is a battle against an entrenched, institutionalized form of mental illness, a phobia of sexuality that manifests itself in the form of political oppression on the grand scale and domestic terror on the personal scale. Those who oppose censorship can shout all day long about free speech and they will utterly fail of effect because they are not addressing the real hidden agenda. We must take a stand in favor of sex and sexuality as a healthy, normal, and necessary part of human existence and refuse to knuckle under to this morbid anti-sex psychopathology no matter what political or religious mask it uses to hide its shame.
--
Ok (Score:5)
Oh, you bet.
If I were in high school right now I'd have the octal version of goatse.cx memorized.
Suckers.
Michael Sims shut-down of Censorware Project site (Score:5)
I believe, given what Michael Sims (yes, that Michael Sims, Slashdot/YRO editor) did against Censorware Project, this information is important to this discussion. And I'll take any karma hit for it.
The http://censorware.org [censorware.org] site has been taken down since the following was posted, more than a month now.
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 16:49:46 EST
To: CYBERIA-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
From: Jonathan Wallace <jw@BWAY.NET>
Subject: The Censorware Project
I've been trying hard to avoid washing dirty laundry in public, but a couple of recent posts have raised the issue and I'd like to give an account of what happened to the Censorware Project (the site at http://censorware.org is now offline). What we have here is the spectacle of a group member who volunteered to act as webmaster effectively closing a group which wants to continue, because the domain happened to be registered in his name.
The Censorware Project was originally an informal collective of six people who collaborated online to fight censorware: Seth Finkelstein, Bennett Haselton, Jamie McCarthy, Mike Sims, Jim Tyre and myself. After Seth left the group, the remaining five continued. Several of us had never met or even spoken on the phone, yet for some time--around two years as I recall--we had a remarkably easy collaboration. There was no funding, no hierarchy, no titles, not even project managers. Someone would suggest a project and take the responsibility for a part of it, others would sign up for other elements, and proceeding this way we got a remarkable amount of work done, including reports on X-Stop, Cyberpatrol, Bess and other products.
Even though two of us were attorneys--Jim and myself--we never incorporated the group or wrote a charter or any contracts among ourselves. Mike Sims was obliging enough to register the domain, just as other members paid for press releases and the other incidental expenses which came along.
Robert Frost said that "nothing gold can stay," and the Censorware Project was no exception. Over the summer, Mike Sims' reaction to a perceived slight was to take the site down for a week, exactly as Seth says in his mail. He sent us mail at the time saying something like "The Censorware Project is over." I replied to him that, given that the group was a collective and we all had an interest in its work product, the domain, and the goodwill it had achieved, the decision was not his to make. Sims did not reply.
Mike put the site back up a week later without explaining, let alone apologizing for, his actions. Given his continuing failure to answer any email from me (and I think from others) and the overall signs that Sims thought the group was exclusively his, I wrote him several emails requesting that he turn the domain over to Jamie or Bennett, as I felt we could no longer trust him to administer it. We also found out during that time that important email from people trying to contact us, including members of the press, was not being answered by Sims, nor being forwarded to other members.
I ultimately became exasperated that my name was listed as a principal on what had now become a "rogue" site I had no control over. Over about a five week period, I wrote Sims several more emails asking him to delete my name from the site if he wasn't going to transfer the domain. Again, I received no reply.
Today, Sims took the Censorware Project site offline again, with a message which says "Due to demands from some of the people who contributed, in however minor a fashion, to this site, it has been taken down." Judging from some email I received from him today, this means me.
Its a sad thing, both because we got some good work done and because some of the other members of the group were eager to continue and in fact have continued working, while deprived of the Censorware Project site, name, email aliases and public recognition. These further efforts are appearing on Bennett Haselton's Peacefire site, www.peacefire.org. (I applaud the work but take no credit as I have not been involved in some time.)
On the page currently at www.censorware.org Sims makes the following request: "If you are interested in volunteering to fight censorware, please contact me." One of the reasons I made this post was so that anyone considering working with Mike can make an informed decision.
Yawn... (Score:5)
Now, if I recall correctly, there was a Supreme Court ruling that indicated that content-based censorship was unconstitutional. The argument was that "you can't go through books and mark out or cut out the offensive passages."
It was accepted that libraries could choose not to carry particular books based on the concept of limited resources - "We can't afford to subscribe to every single magazine or buy every book on the market, so we have to make decisions based on that." However, once the library holdings were acquired, the library staff could not go through and start marking out the "naughty bits."
Well, guess what - the Internet is a magazine. The library pays regularly for access, and receives the information from the providers through its network link, rather than throught the U.S. Mail. That is the simplest way to look at Internet access at the library, and if we do that, then it's plain that Internet filtering would come under the heading of content-based censorship.
Now, how much public money will get spent defending this viewpoint is anyone's guess, but nobody said that democracy was cheap.
And so it begins (Score:5)
Nary a censor in this house... (Score:5)
And I'll go through the process of having their sites signed off at libraries and schools. Most schools provide a "authorization" policy if the child requests a questionable policy.
I'll make it as difficult as possible for the schools and the libraries.
I encourage others to do the same. The first amandment guarantees this.
what are the failures of this? (Score:5)
kids can't get info on (potentially lifesaving) condoms or sexual behavior;
women can't look for info on brest cancer;
problems finding chicken recipes (the alarm in the library goes off cuz you typed "chicken breast" into a search field);
Historical issues (searching for info on "the gay nineties", "Cock and Bull", "pussywillows", "The Owl and the Pussycat", "Wild Ass Images")
It's rather fascinating to watch our government doing so much to validate the all the concerns voiced in books like 1984. Things they said "would never happen here".
Technology Shift A) results in less employees needed. Employees are then terminated, since "America is not a social experiment".
Technology Shift B) results in the obsolescence of CD and DVD technology, and record/video companies are against the wall. Solution : pass protectionist legislation and villify the technology, because "The business of America is Business"
This reminds me of that old SNL skit where the moralists are removing the breasts/penises from marble and brass statues.
What a horribly sick society. Body parts are not bad, the horrid myths handed down through generations have made them bad.
Once again, America's Government is failing to think/consider its behavior. The larger issues will have negative ramifications for decades to come.
Unbeleivable that we have at least four more years of increasingly stupid legislation coming up as the right wingers crank up their religious propaganga/profit machines.
Federally funded, my ass (Score:5)
The federal government has a number of restrictions placed on its power. Certain powers (or domains of regulation) are reserved for the states.
The federal government is bypassing those restrictions.
They aren't even hiding it. The two "main" presidential candidates debated over how, exactly, each of them will bypass the restrictions. They have such wonderful plans based on skirting around the Constitution. And, I must admit, that some good has been accomplished by federal meddling in state business. However, I see a shift in power and in form of government that I want to call people's attention to. Personally, I usually feel that federal government is too powerful, but it is better that you disagree with me fully informed than agree with me blindly.
The federal government taxes states' citizens, then threatens to withold funding for "state run" programs from state which do not pass certain laws or meet certain requirements. They do this, in part, in order to bypass those restrictions on their authority.
Recently, president Clinton signed a law stating that any state which did not set a 0.08 blood alchohol level standard for DUI would lose (some) federal funding for highways. The DUI laws (and standards) are entirely in the states' authority, not the federal. In effect, the federal government has usurped a power reserved for the states.
"Usurped" may be too strong a word; each state can, after all, simply decline to meet that standard. They will lose federal funding, but they can simply fund the roads themselves.
Federal funding my ass. The fed will tax the citizens of the states who choose not to comply, then send that money out of that state and into another. They state cannot "make up for" the lost revenue; they can, at best, tax the citizens even more to fund the highway projects. But they still pay, either way.
The federal government is, in effect, saying "We want to have something happen, but we don't have the authority to pass a law to make it happen. So we are going to tax you to fund programs that you like, then later threaten to withold your own money from you unless you do what we want to you. Yeah, we know we're aren't supposed to be involved in this sort of thing, but the program is 'state run' and simply 'federally funded'."
My mom is not a Karma whore!
I don't know why this suprises people. (Score:5)
Loophole? (Score:5)
As in, "we're perfectly willing to obey the law, and just as soon as suitable software is released, we'll get right onto installing it."
Re:This crap (Score:5)
Like most public places, the people that are noisiest are usually the most illiterate, idiotic and moronic of the bunch. Slashdot is just an extension of that. If you read at -1 you would assume that nobody seems to be able to read beyond a comprehension level of the average kindegartener.
But, something that gets ignored way, way too often nowadays is that it isn't the Internet that makes people stupid. It isn't any one thing. It is the way they are raised, the way they are taught, and the type of family they are brought up in. These things, along with the type of person they are (their genetic make-up if you will) are the only things that determine whether or not someone is stupid, or a misfit.
Misfits are not made by the Internet. Much like Heavy Metal back when I was in school, it is the misfits that are attracted to the Internet (just like they were attracted to Heavy Metal back in the day). And just because a large number of very, very vocal people display some tendency to be one way or another, you cannot assume that the root cause of that is whatever their favorite pass-time is. The cause lies elsewhere. It is the fact that they display these traits that they are attracted to this place as a pass-time. The trolls seek the other trolls, and the place where they can get the biggest rise out of the most people. Slashdot is an example of that.
But to assume that closing people off from that is going to improve the mental prowess of our youth is a grave mistake. You cannot teach by removing negative stimuli. If the Internet is a negative stimuli at all (and that is very questionable) you must teach children to use the appropriate areas of the Internet and avoid the negatives.
I see a frightening trend in this day and age when it comes to child rearing. It is the "protect until raised" mentality that has already caused a number of problems for people of my generation (and younger). People that believe this are raising children that have no idea that there even are negative things out there. And they really think that this is a good thing to teach. They don't understand that you cannot just cut children off from any possible negative stimulous. You have to teach them how to deal with that stimulous and how to avoid getting sucked into "bad situations". If not, we end up with children that cannot cope with reality when they are adults. They get out in the real world on their own and they just aren't able to cope with the problems that they are faced with.
Sure, mothers and fathers wish that they could protect their children from everything they ever could have to face. But all you will do if you raise your child to believe that the world is a safe and happy place, with absolutely nothing to worry about, is create a situation where the child either never leaves home, or never develops the ability to cope with reality at all.
I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but we must not succumb to this "let the government protect us" any more than we must raise our children to believe that mommy and daddy will always make sure that anything that comes near you will be filtered, sanitized and made safe. Asking the government to make rules that "protect the children" is doubly stupid in that it assumes that the parents themselves (the ones that subscribe to this idiotic "protect at all costs" mentality) are not capable of raising their own children the way they see fit. And not all people want to be told how they will raise their children.
I say it's high time that people stop being so lazy about parenting and just accept that it isn't going to be easy. You teach your children and show them what life is about. You had better not expect the government to do it for you. If you do, you will eventually end up with a generation of people that absolutely are incapable of thinking for themselves. While the big-business and government driven parts of society would absolutely love this, there is a point in time when people (at least, the ones with a few brain cells left) will get tired of being told what to do. And if you think that revolution is out of the question, then it is time for you to go study some of your history lessons.
Too many rules, too little tought. It seems to be the motto of the day anymore. I wish that there was some way to collectively slap the face of humanity and make them see how ridiculous it is. But, all I can do is bitch on slashdot. More's the pity.