House Rushes Through Bill To Make The Web More Dangerous For Kids
from the political-expediency-more-important-than-usefulness dept
Unfortunately, in this election season, it looks like political motivations are trumping any sense of reason up on Capitol Hill again. A few months ago, we mentioned a bill introduced using the ever popular political rationale that it's need to "protect the children," that would effectively ban social networks, chat rooms, instant messaging and some blog platforms from schools that took any federal money. As the political season has moved on, and incumbents are worried about their jobs, it seems they decided to rush this one through. After a quick rewrite that doesn't seem to help (and which it doesn't appear many politicians read or understood), the bill was approved by the House by an astounding 410 to 15 vote. After all, you're not going to find many politicians who are willing to have their opponents say they tried to leave kids open to online predators. The Senate is now expected to act quickly on this one as well.However, this DOPA (Deleting Online Predators Act) doesn't actually protect children at all. It's incredibly broad, and would effectively ban things including Amazon.com and LinkedIn from schools -- hardly the places where "online predators" hang out. In fact, one of the bill's sponsors uses Facebook as one of the example sites he's worried about, despite the fact that Facebook is a closed system that you can't just sign up for without a school affiliation. Furthermore, this is a "head in the sand" type bill. Do these politicians really believe that by banning these types of sites at school kids won't use them any more? They'll either get around the filters or will keep using the same sites in other places where they're not under the watchful eye of an adult. In other words, this could make them a lot more vulnerable. Instead of trying to hide these services from kids (only making them more attractive to kids), why not fund better education programs that teach kids (and parents!) about the risks of being online so that those kids know how to deal with things if they are approached by an online predator? Pretending those predators don't exist doesn't protect the kids half as well as simply teaching those kids how to respond to a questionable approach.
In the meantime, kudos to the 15 politicians who actually seem to recognize this bill won't do what it claims. Rep. John Dingell's statement is worth repeating: "So now we are on the floor with a piece of legislation poorly thought out, with an abundance of surprises, which carries with it that curious smell of partisanship and panic, but which is not going to address the problems. This is a piece of legislation which is going to be notorious for its ineffectiveness and, of course, for its political benefits to some of the members hereabout." Now those other 410 can't say they weren't warned -- but they'll be too busy back in their home districts talking up how they're "protecting the children."
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's always protect the children
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This bill first had to get out of a conference which was chaired by a Republican, with a Republican majority that sets the agenda.
It's important to remember who's responsible for this mess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
GOM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You do realize that when idiots post drivel like this, it only serves to HURT the cause you are trying to promote... dont you? Are you posting like that on purpose to make republicans look good by pretending only idiots think they look bad? If so, you just serve to disgust me. (Not that my opinion matters anymore than yours)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If the Democrats are that stupid and that unwilling to vote the "right" way, simply because the Republicans have a slim majority they're just as fubar as the Republicans if not more so.
It's too bad that here in America I've got the crappy choice of Corporate Whores and Zealots or Corporate Whores and ****tards.
And I think anyone can figure out who I'm talking about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, political party's with special interestes in mind. If you belong to any major political party then you're part of the entire problem. Try something new in your lives for a change and think independantly, side with issues you agree with and stop pushing your personal belief systems on the rest of us.
SPECIAL INTERESTS ARE WHAT MAKE THIS KIND OF SHIT HAPPEN.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: poperatzo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: poperatzo
The politicians are going to do whatever they think will get them re-elected, which in turn means they are going to pass this bill through both parts of congress. But the blame is not on them, it is on those who voted and even mopre so on those who could vote but didnt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How are we all still alive?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How are we all still alive?
The statements often used to justify these 'protections' is "they grow up so fast". That is a true statement. How can kids remain kids when they have to abide by adult rules?
As for my kids, when I finally get aroudn to having them, they will lose thier bicycle privlages should I see a dorky helmet on thier head, they will lose thier skateboard if I see a pad on thier knee, and if they find porn on the internet I will discuss the issue, then examine the data further as they walk to thier room.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Comment...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guess What
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Guess What
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What I've been saying...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because...
Because that would make sense, and our politicians don't do things that make sense in America. They do things to preserve their incumbency.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Parent and security consultant
I have been asked to block access to these types of sites and do so. It is also pretty easy to see what sites the kids are going to. I can view the urls in real time, check out suspicious sites and block them as needed. This can be time consuming so I usually look at the sites that have been visted every other day or so and can quickly spot the trends. Kids maybe able to get away with a site for a day or two, but not much more. Since I take care of several school districts it is easy for me to spot the trends quickly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike, you're an idiot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Dingell
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: John Dingell
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hurt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hurt
There is a huge difference between protected speech and limiting access to things deemed inappropriate (justly or not). First of all, these are school environments and the students should be concentrating on class instead of messaging each other or posting to myspace or any of the other activities that is taking their attention away from learning. I'm all for teaching computer skills but I can only imagine a few limited things that would require internet access in a non-college school environment. I say close the school network off and require a computer to get permission from a server to access something outside of the network (then you have a username linked directly to the activity - if they know they will be busted immediately they wont go where they know they shouldn't be without using censorship).
And for those of you pointing fingers at political groups GET OVER IT. This is a blind reaction to look good to the general public and nearly everyone took the easy road on the subject. Our political system is very, very, very far from perfect (or even acceptable IMO). Our country is run by liars who do stupid things like this bill in order to appease the voters (the vast majority of whom are blind to what really goes on in D.C.). The left is clueless and very dangerous, and the right is self-centered and very dangerous. Anyone in the middle gets squished to prevent a change in the status quo. I'd wager that the U.S. would quickly prosper if we were to change to a board of directors who were directly responsible to the shareholders (voters) and there were elections every 6 months (with only 51 board positions instead of however many hundred we have between the Executive and Congressional branches).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Suck it up!
However I dont think this being an election year isnt the only motivation for the politicians. This also lets the government funded school system off the hook if some kid gets attacked. So the next time some 16-yr. old girl is attacked by a guy she met on myspace the school can just plainly say, "We have myspace blocked so she didn't access it from here," which is a textbook "cover your ass" defense.
I would be all for teaching these kids the dos and don'ts of the net. Block the sites all during the school day on all PCs except for maybe the classrooms/computer labs that are teaching a computer class. I know it would take some filtering software to pull this off but if the school officals and politicans want to "protect the children" so badly they should be all for it right? And spend a part of the computer class curiculum on defending against predators. Perhaps do something like Dateline does and let the kids make up fake profiles and have teachers make up profiles on the same sight and chat them up for all their info then after a few weeks the teacher comes in and shows the kids and the parents just how much info they got.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Suck it up!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Would somebody think of the children
They are not the future, 20 and 30 somethings are the future. They can't vote and wrapping the world in bubblewrap will not make it any safer. Just think how much we love to pop bubblewrap. So basically this bill will teach kids how to use a proxy and putty. Good skill. So, hmm I guess in terms of educating little Jenny and Jimmy about the workings of the internet, this bill might do some good, but protecting them from -- hmm Facebook, or ... those crazy guys at Amazon, it will be useless. PS who do they think will be setting up filters -- high school kids working for the district computer tech. So, I'm all for it I was a tech and if we had this bill, maybe I would have been paid more than 6 bucks/hour.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Predators...?
Does that mean I can't go to those chat rooms anymore ? No, it means I need to be damn sure who I'm talkin' too, and it means that I have to be exceptionally vigilant when I play with those I assume to be adults.
The coin has two sides...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CB Radio-like
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
whats the matter with you!! its for the children~!
while we are at it we should just shut the whole internet down, otherwise the children could use it from home!!!!!!!
god forbid they are exposed to reality!! THE CHILLDREEEN!!!!!!!!!
fucking retarded congresscritters dont have any clue what they are doing.. ever
i think we should ban congress ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BAD AT MATH
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why?
Why do we have to make laws to stop schools from allowing kids to surf those sites? What schools are allowing kids to do this in the first place?
Are children in school to learn or to talk to thier friends online?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ban Everything
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PSA re: Facebook
But I think the main reason schools would ban such sites is so not to be held legally liable...but in that case it should be the school's decision not the federal govt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And now that I think about it this is only a ban, not a block. So either:
1. Someone (us the taxpayers) is about to pay for filtering software
2. Someone (us the taxpayers) is about to pay for monitoring software. This seems cheaper than option 1. and its a lot more nosey so I'm betting on this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmm...
And the Democrats save us from ourselves.
How trite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The hard part is...
The problem is that the government is going for a preventative measure that is not going to prevent anything. Similar to Ellis' story, it did not take us very long to get through blocks in high school. (Hell, we could have access to the admin password of our school network if we wanted to.) Block me at school? I'll do it at home. Block me at home? I'll go to a friend's house and do it.
Bottom line: kids are going to find a way to get around restrictions... it's become what being a kid is all about. This country has been raising kids that are going to become increasingly more adept at getting around laws... look at how the law and judicial systems work.
Want to make things better for the country's children? Teach them, encourage them to be involved in other activities. Kids can't get in as much trouble if they're playing with their friends, playing sports or [doing?] dance, eating ice cream, going to the beach, etc. There's always danger but it's IMPOSSIBLE to shelter kids from life without looking them away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
is anyone surprised?
Ok kids, listen up. The "people in charge of our country" now say its illegal for you to go to these sites at school so now you have to go home (where its legal) and spend even more time on the sites and less time on studying and things of the like. Got it? Good.
Please people, give me a break. Doesn't anyone realize that restricting every aspect of kids lives only makes them more curious? If the government was half as interested in kids' lives as they want us to believe, they would certainly know that spending a little cash on educating kids about responsible use of the internet will go much further in the long run.
In less than a day kids will find a way around this and then what happens? Kids start getting suspended and self-esteems start getting lower and lower because they're always in trouble. It will never be the U.S. Government's fault or News Corp's fault. It will always fall on little Joey who has to keep causing trouble and pushing the envelope -- something every person has done numerous times in their younger days.
What a load of bullcrap this is. But I'll say again...is anyone surprised?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh Nose!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Citizen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: poperatzo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
banned website
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
school sucks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]