The Chinese Solar Machine Layer by Layer Fire in the Library The Mystery Behind Anesthesia
(Page 2 of 2)
Current Internet filters at schools and libraries -- some aimed at pornography and obscene materials, some already targeting social-networking sites -- have "a tremendous chilling effect on education," agrees Jeff Cooper, an educational-technology consultant and former high-school teacher in Portland, OR. "The 'Just Say No' philosophy has never worked," Cooper says. "You're lumping all social networking into the negative basket, and not giving kids any alternative. But there is so much good stuff online that nobody ever talks about."
Indeed, while it might be easy to agree that teens shouldn't be wasting time on MySpace or other social-networking sites while they're at school, DOPA would cover any site that allows networking and chatting. As one example, Cooper points to TappedIn.org, a social-networking and professional-development site for teachers. Students often use personal and public "rooms" on the site as part of virtual classroom activities. "It allows teachers to bring their students online in a very safe and secure environment," explains Cooper. "My concern isn't really that MySpace won't be accessible from schools, but that other sites like TappedIn will be banned."
DOPA supporters frequently cite a 2000 report about online sexual victimization funded by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which concluded that one-fifth of children have been sexually solicited in chat rooms, by instant message, or by e-mail. But in fact, as Boyd and other opponents point out, the same report states that most solicitations come from other young people -- only 4 percent are from adults over 25 -- and that most kids deal with these solicitations simply by not answering or logging off. "To clamp down on a bunch of new networking sites really doesn't do anything" to stop sexual predators, says Cooper. "You might as well shut off the Internet entirely."
Opponents of DOPA misunderstand the bill, says Jeff Urbanchuck, a press officer for Representative Fitzpatrick. He says it is intended only to reduce the risk to teens from one particular category of websites -- those where members can create online profiles and fill them with personal details, including e-mail or instant-messaging addresses, that help predators contact them. Critics are "extending beyond the MySpaces and Facebooks and arguing that the technology of social networking is so pervasive now that the Internet is going to become one big social-networking site," Urbanchuck says. "But the objective of the bill is to deal with the growing threat of online predators on specific sites that allow profiles. We want to tailor the bill to those sites."
Even banning access just to sites that allow profiles, however, would affect scores of educational, community, and media-sharing sites, including sites as popular as Flickr and as specialized as TappedIn. And in the longer term, predicts Boyd, the law would simply drive teen networking underground, where it would be more difficult for adults to monitor. "They'll be moving from site to site with a level of ephemerality that no one can keep up with," she says. "Not the cops -- not even the designers of the technology."
Guest (Peter)
I thought schools were for learning...
and libraries for study! Now they are supposed to be unsupervised e-social portals?! There was a reason we had teachers and principals at the school dance.
Guest (Katrina)
Are very different today than they might have been in your day. I am a public librarian, and part of my mission is to promote the library as a community space. Offering free internet access is now the norm, and the people who use the Internet at the library are the people who are already technologically diasadvantaged - poor, or otherwise underprivileged. They cannot afford to have computers with Internet access in their homes. Why should they be denied the opportunity to use the technology that is a part of every day life? And why should the federal government have the option of restricting their access to Constitutionally protected language and ideas?
Guest (Steve)
Article is obviously biased. Specious arguments
Moral panic? How about common sense? Stifle education by blocking MySpace during school hours? Defending the poor downtrodden who only get 10 minutes of computer time and can't use it to chat? People attacking restrictions on sexual predation have a hidden agenda. How could they argue their true motive?
Guest (Ulysses Everett McGill)
I couldn't agree with this article more
This bill does ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING to protect anyone. Honestly, how many of the kids being solicited online are those that only have access through a public portal? The ones most at risk for any kind of harm are those that spend hours at home couped up in the corner of their own rooms with their own computers. What we need is better awareness and education...mostly for parents.
Guest (Rudy Gaskins)
This article shows no proof that the legislation will not have a positive impact. On the contrary, it highlights an excellent policy with great potential for success and, for reasons unexplained, attempts to bury the policy’s merit in a subterfuge of negative rhetoric. You’d almost have to be some form of a sexual predator to buy into this ridiculous argument. I say protect our kids at all cost, even if it threatens a few people in the tech industry.
Guest (Jeff Martin)
This comment shows no proof that the legislation will not have a negative impact. The author would almost have to be a sexual predator trying to hide under the umbrella of this useless legislation.
Guest (Jessey)
Social interaction is an educational process...
It is easier to learn from others that are already knowledgeable. Social networking is a legitimate way to get research tips and direction. The proponents of this bill are really afraid that their kids will see through their own narrow views. Point made, I ask who here in refutation lets their kids on social networking sites? More importantly which ones?
Guest (Sandy)
Seems to me this is like burning books to prevent children from reading "bad" things. Why not start a program to educate the kids and make them smart surferes.
Guest (ddb)
The knee jerk reaction to anything that differs from the "accepted norm" is the book burning phenomena. If Senator Ted Stevens' description of how internet packets work is anything like an example of the level of undestanding we have in our government today it's no wonder they're trying to burn it down! Sigh.
As the article points out, if the rules get too stupid it'll just go underground. The next generation is already guaranteed to be better programmers/hackers than this one so it won't be that hard for them.
Guest (Anonymous)
Techno Idiots Populate Our Government
I researched the level of technical understanding in the US governement for a column in a trade mag last year. I talked to a half-dozen trade associations to find out if there were any knowledgeable government people (elected or appointed) on tech. Result: Ed Markey (MA)
These stupid laws are either written by lobbyists or Karl Rove-directed zombies in the Republican party pandering to ignorant voters.
If you think this is bad, read the eight or so "telecom deregulation" bills floating aroung.
Deregulation, in this vein, means handcuffing your competitors (if it was written by a telco or CATV company) or deregulating to the original telecom bill of 1934.
Remember the joke used to be "miliatry intelligence" is an oxymoron? Now it's "government intelligence."
Guest (Anonymous)
Techno Idiots Populate Our Government
I researched the level of technical understanding in the US governement for a column in a trade mag last year. I talked to a half-dozen trade associations to find out if there were any knowledgeable government people (elected or appointed) on tech. Result: Ed Markey (MA)
These stupid laws are either written by lobbyists or Karl Rove-directed zombies in the Republican party pandering to ignorant voters.
If you think this is bad, read the eight or so "telecom deregulation" bills floating aroung.
Deregulation, in this vein, means handcuffing your competitors (if it was written by a telco or CATV company) or deregulating to the original telecom bill of 1934.
Remember the joke used to be "miliatry intelligence" is an oxymoron? Now it's "government intelligence."
Guest
I have read every liberal cliche trotted out here except this one. Is there no mention of the perverts that cause this kind of restriction to be necessary. No, they are alright, it's the restrictors fault. I guess somewhere down the line George Bush and Dick Cheney are responsible for all this in the first place. You people could be called pathetic, if you weren't just plain sick yourselves.
Guest
Let's see - "Critics call" and then there's "Experts say" and then again " Studies indicate". Let's see which one of these you can use in your next article to denigrate conservatives.
Guest (Frederick Ghahramani)
"Let's see which one of these you can use in your next article to denigrate conservatives."
Don't worry - conservatives do a fine job denigrating themselves with the fire and brimstone talk.
This legislation is nothing more than a band aid solution, baked in reactionary rhetoric, drafted and supported by people (democrat and republican) who don't understand how the internet works - the less you know about something, the scarier it becomes, and the easier it is to demonize it and look like you're doing the 'right thing' by making it illegal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uuJh4bv-fg
Stellar Phoenix Windows data recovere is the foremost solution to meet all Windows based data recovery software needs. The software contains several advanced features as RAW File Recovery, Create Image, Advanced Search, File Filter, File Mask etc. This Data Recovery Software is compatible with FAT16, FAT32, vFAT, NTFS5 and NTFS file systems. It supports Windows Vista, XP, 2003 and 2000.
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:
Guest (Joe Beckmann)
The Super Majority
This bill passed because we were stupid and Congress in a rush to go home. It is no one's fault but our own. It's also a case of an anti-tax reactionary Republican rejection of the E-Rate that subsidizes all school-library internet, and a very, very lazy lobbying effort on the part of progressives.
Reply