Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Deleting Online Predators Act - R.I.P.

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the myspace-just-a-little-bit-safer dept.

Education 132

elearning 2.0 writes "It looks like the Deleting Online Predators Act (DOPA) has died a slow death. DOPA was proposed during the height of last year's moral panic around the issue of child safety and sites like MySpace. The legislation would have banned the use of commercial social networking websites in US schools and libraries which receive federal IT funding — therefore undermining much of the pioneering work being done by educators in the e-learning 2.0 space."

cancel ×

132 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Destroying Terroristic Buzzwords Act (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17480122)

e-learning 2.0 space

In any just society, whoever wrote that would swing next to Saddam, Idi Amin, and the guy who invented clamshell packaging.

Re:Destroying Terroristic Buzzwords Act (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17480268)

Am I cynical to just assume that the submitter's "e-learning 2.0" bit was sarcasm?

Or do we really live in such a(n) (e-)world?

Re:Destroying Terroristic Buzzwords Act (2, Interesting)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 7 years ago | (#17480514)

Along with all producers of "Reality" TV show?

Re:Destroying Terroristic Buzzwords Act (1)

LikeTheSearchEngine (995759) | more than 7 years ago | (#17480742)

Who did invent clamshell packaging? So we can lynch him. Or, better, sue him for $150,000 per cut received...

Re:Destroying Terroristic Buzzwords Act (1)

exspecto (513607) | more than 7 years ago | (#17481090)

Here's your answer.

http://www.merrillspackaging.com/company.htm [merrillspackaging.com]

"We were the first to thermoform polycarbonate (PCEE); we invented the locking "clamshell" package and continue to serve up unique, custom solutions to your packaging needs."

Re:Destroying Terroristic Buzzwords Act (3, Funny)

Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) | more than 7 years ago | (#17482472)

>"We were the first to thermoform polycarbonate (PCEE); we invented the locking "clamshell" package and continue to serve up unique, custom solutions to your packaging needs."

Unless your needs happen to include having your customers actually get at your product without serious injury and/or bloodloss. These people should die the death of a thousand thermoform polycarbonate cuts, preferably administered by Sadam's executioners.

Re:Destroying Terroristic Buzzwords Act (1)

Khabok (940349) | more than 7 years ago | (#17485966)

# Face seal blisters

This thing seals blisters to your face? It's possible that the "clamshell" isn't the most dangerous thing this company manufactures...

Re:Destroying Terroristic Buzzwords Act (1)

Bastard of Subhumani (827601) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487012)

Who did invent clamshell packaging?
I'd guess either God or L. Ron Hubbard.

Re:Destroying Terroristic Buzzwords Act (1)

wampus (1932) | more than 7 years ago | (#17480878)

Thank you, AC, for saving me from having to type that in, cause it is what I was thinking when I clicked the link.

Re:Destroying Terroristic Buzzwords Act (1)

certain death (947081) | more than 7 years ago | (#17481554)

A-muthafucking-Men!!!! I wish that anyone who used a buzzword in the next 24 hours would die a horrible death of a thousand asshats falling on them...or something!!

But... (4, Informative)

r3st2 (987153) | more than 7 years ago | (#17480144)

Most schools already have those kind of sites banned.

Re:But... (1)

PFI_Optix (936301) | more than 7 years ago | (#17481318)

I was going to say the same thing. It's a pity, because a lot of teachers would use social networking sites if they could do so from work. I'm a network technician for a school district, and half of my contacts on Facebook are students at the schools I work frequently.

Re:But... (1)

Ig0r (154739) | more than 7 years ago | (#17482366)

But they're not banned hard enough.

Re:But... (4, Interesting)

lukas84 (912874) | more than 7 years ago | (#17482700)

Yeah. Like that is going to accomplish much.

They'll find other ways to waste time.

The problem is that the whole approach is wrong. If you want to prevent Students surfing on Myspace using School Equipment, make sure they have something to lose. But our society is no longer able to hand out a "YOU SUCK, GET TO WORK DAMMIT" to children and students who don't do their job right.

You can't prevent by banning every distraction they find - you have to motivate them by making sure there are consequences when you're bad at school. Encouraging at first, but if you're no good, you get disqualified and can start flipping burgers. No need to waste money on people who don't try to learn.

And the whole predator perspective is just stupid. Honestly. You can't rape or harass people over the internet. You can't damage them.

Re:But... (1)

k1e0x (1040314) | more than 7 years ago | (#17483062)

This post is most wise.

Re:But... (1)

Korin43 (881732) | more than 7 years ago | (#17485534)

Coming up with more punishments won't help, it just makes people more resentful to their idiotic "technology specialists". How about they just stop waiting their time trying to block sites like that? Why do people care so much about what kids are doing at school when they're done with their work anyway? "Oh noes! Games on school computers!" "Oh noes! Kids are talking to each other online!"

Re:But... (1)

Neoprofin (871029) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487342)

Because they're not "done with their work" they're "not doing their work in the first place becasue they'd rather be checking their email and updating their myspace, not only wasting their time in school but tying up resources that could be better used by students who are interested in getting an education, few as they may be." Furthermore, a lot of kids are just as bad or worse as their supposedly computer illiterate parents as far as downloading for unsafe sources and installing things without any forethought, and why should they think, it's not their computer they're trashing?

Re:But... (1)

k1e0x (1040314) | more than 7 years ago | (#17482976)

BIG difference from them doing so voluntarily and being forced to by the government.

Q: But mommy government.. we want ot use myspace.. Can we?
A: NO! Studies show that 94% of all government schools that have students that have used MySpace once in there life are 97% are at risk from seeing someone the opposite sex with only 16% of their clothes on. MySpace is making our kids sexual deviants look at the site!!

heh.. but really.. if they want to do it fine but they shouldn't force schools to do so.

2.0 what? (1, Interesting)

NinjaPablo (246765) | more than 7 years ago | (#17480146)

"e-learning 2.0"? Is this a subset of Web 2.0?

Re:2.0 what? (1)

lymond01 (314120) | more than 7 years ago | (#17480276)

An appalling Catch 22 if ever I've seen one...

Re:2.0 what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17480342)

or a clever tool to get the submitter's name to be used as such?

Re:2.0 what? (4, Funny)

dr_dank (472072) | more than 7 years ago | (#17480640)

"e-learning 2.0"? Is this a subset of Web 2.0?

This is where one can leverage their synergies to create new paradigms while using colored parachutes to find out who moved their cheese.

WTF? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17480178)

therefore undermining much of the pioneering work being done by educators in the e-learning 2.0 space

Banning MySpace is undermining much of the pioneering work of what?

I must be missing something.

Not about "MySpace" (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 7 years ago | (#17480762)

Banning MySpace is undermining much of the pioneering work of what?

I must be missing something.


It would have banned, by particular feature sets, social networking sites. MySpace, of course, is one of the more well-known ones that would have been affected, but there is a lot more to social networking than MySpace, and there are certainly applications of similar technology that have been applied in education that would have been banned by the act.

Re:WTF? (2, Interesting)

Constantine Evans (969815) | more than 7 years ago | (#17483518)

If I recall correctly, the definition of social networking sites used in the act caused it to include an absurd variety of sites, including most bug tracking sites, Slashdot, Wikipedia and all other wikis, nearly all forums, many blog sites, some mainstream news sites, Amazon, Yahoo, and so on.

In essence, any site which is commercially operated, and allows users to create profiles or web pages and communicate with other users, would be restricted in schools and libraries. In addition, any site allowing real-time communication would be considered a chatroom and thus banned in those situations.

Re:WTF? (2, Funny)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 7 years ago | (#17484064)

I dunno, I've seen some very pioneering typography on MySpace.

Yikes (2, Funny)

finkployd (12902) | more than 7 years ago | (#17480182)

pioneering work being done by educators in the e-learning 2.0 space

I was mildly interested until that. Then my "pretentious, meaningless buzzword" alarm went off.

I hope they are at least leveraging their e-synergies and fully embracing AJAX and SOAP in that 2.0 space.

Finkployd

Re:Yikes (1)

Bugs42 (788576) | more than 7 years ago | (#17481096)

I hope they are at least leveraging their e-synergies and fully embracing AJAX and SOAP in that 2.0 space.
Wait, when did Samuel L. Mutha-F***ing Jackson come into this? I mean, I know there was plenty of buzz on teh interweb about that movie, but I don't recall anyone trying to ban it aside from those with no taste for B-movies.

Re:Yikes (1)

justkarl (775856) | more than 7 years ago | (#17481582)

I am sick and tired of all these MF'ing online predators in my MF'ing e-learning 2.0 space!

Re:Yikes (3, Funny)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 7 years ago | (#17481106)

What's worse: my boss (like many I'm sure) actually falls for the buzzword of the week.

We'll bring in one group doing demo or webex of some software product, and they'll claim that their product does "Super hyper-relative process optimization". It'll be some common-sense obvious crap that they decided to tag that name onto.

The bad part comes when Vendor #2 comes in and demo's their product. He'll (with a straight and shockingly confident face) raise his hand in the middle and ask "Does this support Super hyper-relative process optimization?". When they have no idea what he's talking about he's already looking at me like "OMG. They don't even do super hyper-relative process optimization. Why did you even let these people in the door?". About this time I'm ready to just shake my head in embarrassment.

It will be back (4, Insightful)

kaufmanmoore (930593) | more than 7 years ago | (#17480214)

We will see it again just in time for the 2008 campaign cause theres nothing like flashing the mug shots of creepy old men across the tv with ominous music while stating that ur opponent supports child predators.

Re:It will be back (0)

megaditto (982598) | more than 7 years ago | (#17480254)

You think the Democrats will bring up Foley [wikipedia.org] again in 08?

Re:It will be back (1)

Arcane_Rhino (769339) | more than 7 years ago | (#17481002)

I doubt it. At this point, there would be no real political mileage in doing so.

If the dems did, the reps could trade barbs with them about Barney Frank, ad nauseum. It was pressure from the conservatives, not the liberals, that caused Foley to resign. He is gone, the dems took congress, mission accomplished.

Furthermore, raising the issue will almost always segue into societal issues concerning homosexuality, which neither side really wants to address.

Re:It will be back (1)

WheelDweller (108946) | more than 7 years ago | (#17483816)

Well, there *is* only one party that frees child perverts and American enemies. It's the same party. The party that had protests "against the deaths in VietNam", but as soon as the draft was over, and the war was defunded, held no such protests for the 2,000,000 people of VietNam killed by Pohl Pot.

This is no advertising gimmick; this is no slogan. Almost every evil dictator [i.e. killing his own people, usually with starvation, but always with roving shock-troops] is loved by these people. Charles Lindberg meeting with Hitler, Jane Fonda sitting on an anti-aircraft gun that killed US fliers days before, the partying with Castro, Manuel Noriega, and the most recent, Hugo Chaves.

The "No nukes" movement was even funded by the KGB, and embraced millions of people that belong to the party. Brilliant, actually- what's the best way to disarm your opponent? Talk the uninformed, holier-than-thous to demand they lose their weaponry. Especially when they're on talk shows, movies and TV.

This party's demographic are easily brain-washed. They still think Rush Limbaugh is fat (he lost like 100+ pounds, a decade ago), but they won't listen to the show, because _of_what_they_were_told. The never listen to it.

Similarly, their eyes light with fire as the exclaim, "I hate Don Rumsfeld!" but they're at a loss to explain what it is, he did. (The answer is nothing.)

Like I said; easily programmed. But try to make them reconsider, and be called a "Troll" or "Bigot" or any other nasty, programmed word.

So what's to do?

Re:It will be back (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17485518)

I half expect them to bring back the infamous Wolves commercial, but with convict heads superimposed over the wolf bodies.

"Wolves! Wolves! You don't want wolves getting your children, do you? Wolves! Owwwwoooooooo!"

elearning 2.0? Stop with the stupid buzzwords (4, Interesting)

TheFlyingGoat (161967) | more than 7 years ago | (#17480266)

Not only is elearning 2.0 a really poor attempt at piggybacking the Web 2.0 buzzword trend, the submitter seems to have some sort of investment in it as well (look at the name). E-learning 2.0 seems to be teaching using so-called Web 2.0 sites and tools, which is a good concept, but not one that needs its own buzzword. Why not just call it online learning or online social education, as those are more descriptive? Let's lay off the stupid buzzwords (Web 2.0, E-Learning 2.0, etc).

WTF is "e-learning 2.0 space"? (3, Funny)

TheWoozle (984500) | more than 7 years ago | (#17480280)

WARNING: You have exceeded your buzzword quota for the day. Any future buzzword emissions will result in fines from the EPA.

BS Meter Went Off (1)

jdcope (932508) | more than 7 years ago | (#17480306)

I seriously doubt banning MySpace in schools would hamper learning. WTF are the looking at that on school time for anyway? At the HS my kids go to, MySpace is already banned...and blocked. On top of that, using proxies to get around their firewall is a suspension offense.

Re:BS Meter Went Off (2, Insightful)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 7 years ago | (#17480456)

I seriously doubt blocking myspace at libraries and schools will make any dent in the number of teens using it, and any rule about proxies is just a challenge

Re:BS Meter Went Off (1)

Ford Prefect (8777) | more than 7 years ago | (#17480508)

I seriously doubt blocking myspace at libraries and schools will make any dent in the number of teens using it

I suggest taking off and nuking its servers from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Re:BS Meter Went Off (1)

COMON$ (806135) | more than 7 years ago | (#17481646)

beg to differ, given a competent admin it can be made sufficiently difficult to keep any student from wanting to go to any site you want. It just so happens that in my experience, HS network admins are barely competent enough to keep the routers up let alone filter anything. Most I know are either IT wannabes who couldn't hack it in a corporate environment, some poor SOB who was a math teacher and got all the responsibility pushed on them, or a person with illusions of grandeur after they set up their home network with encryption and touted how they would be able to increase the synergy of the computer department.

Of course what do I know, I just spend a large portion of my time after college fixing School networks that were FUBAR over a span of 300 miles. Got out of that thankfully.

Re:BS Meter Went Off (1)

RexRhino (769423) | more than 7 years ago | (#17480780)

The fact is, adding another Federal Law for schools to be in compliance with uses up vast amount of resources. It is one thing if the school IT guy blocks myspace on the school network... it is another thing for it to be a federal law, with greatly adds to the responsiblities, oversight, and beurocratic aparatus involved in implementing it.

Re:BS Meter Went Off (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 7 years ago | (#17480898)

I seriously doubt banning MySpace in schools would hamper learning.


Yes, and if the law would have applied only to MySpace, that might be relevant. In the real world, the proposed language applied more generally to restrict access to "commercial social networking websites" and "internet chat rooms", which are a rather broader class of websites than just MySpace.

Re:BS Meter Went Off (1)

shalla (642644) | more than 7 years ago | (#17481480)

And I seriously doubt I'd care if DOPA only affected schools or MySpace, but it doesn't. It affects public libraries and a LOT of sites you wouldn't think of immediately. It's a crappy, very broad piece of legislation. Wouldn't it bug you if your kid couldn't use Wikipedia at the public library because it counted as a social networking site?

Re:BS Meter Went Off (1)

jdcope (932508) | more than 7 years ago | (#17481850)

I see your point, but that is a bad example for me. I recommend that they DONT use Wikipedia. Its like an op-ed page... As for libraries, the only thing that should be blocked there is pr0n. We quit using our local library because we got tired of walking by all the perverts looking at pr0n in front of everyone. FWIW, I dont have a problem with pr0n, I just dont like little kids being subjected to it. Especially the really raunchy stuff.

Re:BS Meter Went Off (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17482896)

you have no problem with pr0n but you talk about the people who look at it as perverts? What's so perverted about it, inappropriate around children yes but stop dragging on stupid neo-feminist speech.

Re:BS Meter Went Off (1)

Constantine Evans (969815) | more than 7 years ago | (#17483598)

This wouldn't block just MySpace. As a few examples, it would also block Amazon, CNET, (possibly) the BBC, Yahoo, Sourceforge, any large and commercial Linux projects (Ubuntu, MySQL, ...), all commercially-run bugzilla systems, all commercially-run forums, all commercially-run wikis, most blog sites, GMail (due to the chat part) and most other Google services, and a variety of other sites.

Re:BS Meter Went Off (1)

jdcope (932508) | more than 7 years ago | (#17483924)

So it needs to be reworded. Fine. But blocking certain sites from schools is not a bad thing.

huh? (2, Insightful)

User 956 (568564) | more than 7 years ago | (#17480348)

It looks like the Deleting Online Predators Act (DOPA) has died a slow death. DOPA was proposed during the height of last year's moral panic around the issue of child safety

What do you mean "last year's" panic about child safety? The whole "child safety" cliche is every politician's trump card. I don't think it went out of style when we began 2007.

Re:huh? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17480928)

No, but last year's panic was specifically about MySpace. These things are cyclical. Suicide, drugs, violence, sexual predators... Pretty much each year sees one of these become a "major" story that represents "an urgent new danger to children". In reality nothing changes, but society is always coming back to these. Somebody that has studied sociology probably knows more about this phenomenon. I'd be surprised if they didn't, because many people that work with children regularly, i.e. teachers, or kids that were reasonably mature and intelligent are well aware of this cyclical behavior.

Re:huh? (1)

User 956 (568564) | more than 7 years ago | (#17481272)

Pretty much each year sees one of these become a "major" story that represents "an urgent new danger to children". In reality nothing changes, but society is always coming back to these. Somebody that has studied sociology probably knows more about this phenomenon.

Or somebody that has studied history:

"But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." - Herman Goering

(+5, Godwin's Law) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17482602)

Mod parent up

Re:huh? (1)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 7 years ago | (#17484342)

Well I was going to say that comparing the Nazis starting WWII was different for a bunch of reasons from the Congress voting to ban Myspace from schools and libraries, and how you totally Godwined yourself.

But actually it strikes me that this is Myspace [encycloped...matica.com] we're talking about. If jackbooted Homeland Security goons started loading all the myspace users into cattle trucks for 'resettlement in the East', I'd volunteer to appear as a pundit on Fox News explaining how it was totally justified.

Which reminds me, isn't it funny how Rupert Murdoch bought Myspace, so the 'cultural conservatives' at Fox News are now presumably under orders to say only good things about it.

Re:huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17485256)

What do you mean "last year's" panic about child safety? The whole "child safety" cliche is every politician's trump card. I don't think it went out of style when we began 2007.
It's not an election year.

Oh well, back to the parents then... (3, Insightful)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 7 years ago | (#17480354)

...who are going to have to unvelcro themselves from their armchairs in front of their HDTVs and actually go and spend some time educating and spending time with their kids in order to show them how to behave responsibly - both online and offline.

Parents need to start financing their own kids rather than expecting the rest of us to pay for them - via taxes for the salaries of politicians to make this unnecessary rubbish up.

But then they would only have ONE CAR! (0, Troll)

FatSean (18753) | more than 7 years ago | (#17480500)

Oh the humanity!

I guess all the tax credits aren't enough...American Parents can't seem to raise their children and satisfy their own lifestyle demands at the same time.

Re:But then they would only have ONE CAR! (1)

EtherealStrife (724374) | more than 7 years ago | (#17481508)

But then they would only have ONE CAR!

You say that sarcastically, but in much of the states it is impossible to hold a job without a car, even if you're just working part time to allow time for your children. Companies rarely provide carpool vans, the bus system is a joke in most cities, and few subways exist beyond the eastcoast. Out here on the westcoast trains are ridiculously expensive, and not viable options for daily transportation (even with the daily commuter discounts). One of my college near-minimum wage jobs had me working alongside a person commuting over 80 miles a day for a $12/hour job (person was a manager, and a parent). Having a single car for two working adults is laughable pretty much anywhere outside of New York, and one job is insufficient to support most families (in my own experience), even living frugally.

For those who can afford it it's a great idea to spend as much time with your kids as possible (at least, early on :) ) but not everyone has that option.

Re:Oh well, back to the parents then... (1)

night_flyer (453866) | more than 7 years ago | (#17480604)

I agree the parents need to get off their lazy asses, but according to the article "The legislation would have banned the use of commercial social networking websites in US schools and libraries"... that says nothing about the kids homelife, 25 years ago my parents didnt go with me to the library... the librarys also didnt have computers

Re:Oh well, back to the parents then... (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 7 years ago | (#17480722)

Sorry, but it *ALL* begins at home...

The role of teachers and schools is to educate kids and reinforce the knowledge of right and wrong that should be being taught by the parents in the first place.

I do a lot of work fixing PCs for friends and family, especially when the PCs have been trashed by the kids accidentally downloading viruses from the Internet - yes, if they're paying for my services (not always) then they're probably from fairly well-off respectable families anyway; but the fact is I'm amazed how much the kids pick up and learn if you take time to explain how to update virus checkers and where not to go/what not to do on the Internet.

Re:Oh well, back to the parents then... (1)

night_flyer (453866) | more than 7 years ago | (#17480806)

yes, it does all begin at home, but there are bad elements out there that try and pry your darling away from your upbringing.
That being said some things do not belong in school... MySpace is one of them

Re:Oh well, back to the parents then... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17481296)

but there are bad elements out there that try and pry your darling away from your upbringing.

Then teach your kdis to be responsible, society isn't supposed to sorround them in bubble wrap because you're too stupid to teach them to not meet up with random strangers. Also it takes one kid to find a work around for whatever filters the school uses then everyone will be abel to bypass it. The network staff will probably be too overworked with other things to fix the hole for a long time.

Anyway, all things considered MySpace is probably rather tame compared to what other things kids can see on the internet much less what else they can run into in real life.

Re:Oh well, back to the parents then... (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 7 years ago | (#17480824)

...who are going to have to unvelcro themselves from their armchairs in front of their HDTVs and actually go and spend some time educating and spending time with their kids in order to show them how to behave responsibly - both online and offline.

I'm behind that idea; I only have one quibble:

Who's going to show the parents?

KFG

Re:Oh well, back to the parents then... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17483356)

An absolute, undisputable fact of strictly gay relationships is that
they cannot result in offspring. That means, if a gay couple wishes to
have a family they must adopt, or seek the services of a surrogate.

In the case of the former, the adopted child was most likely unwanted by
it's biological parents, and the state of being wanted is preferrable to
the state of being unwanted.

In the case of the latter, two men make a consious decision to have a
third party create a child for them, which they will adopt, and
presumably the surrogate will no longer be involved after the child is born.

Deliberately procuring a child, with the full intent of disconnecting it
from it's biological mother, is what really bothers me. As the saying
goes, there's no love like a mother's love, and the gay couple is
declaring to society that it has no moral qualms about deny a child that
love.

What happens when the children of gay parents start asking questions
like "who gave you the right to intentionally alienate me from my real
biological mother (or father)?"

It just didn't work (1)

Harmonious Botch (921977) | more than 7 years ago | (#17480418)

Although I'm strongly in favor of deleting sexual predators- either the online or offline type, DOPA just didn't do the job that it was purported to do.

The folowing is stolen from wikipedia ( and abridged slightly ):
... The Youth Internet Safety Survey from the University of New Hampshire... found two cases of rape/sexual assault through Internet solicitation in its two surveys covering 3,001 children ages 10 to 17. According to the FBI's criminal victimization tables' national rate for sexual assault, one would expect 7 rapes or sexual assults among such a group every year.

Overall, the Youth Internet Safety Survey suggested that fewer children are actually being sexually solicited online in 2005 than in 1999, hypothesizing that those who encounter solicitations knew better now to rebuff or ignore these solicitations. However, children ages 10 to 17 report more harassment and bullying online -- largely from their peers, not strangers.

Re:It just didn't work (2, Insightful)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 7 years ago | (#17480774)

Just more data that shows that this and just about every similar measure whether in cyberspace or meatspace is ignoring the fundamental problem:

Children are vastly more likely to be victimized by someone they know than by a random stranger online or otherwise. Your typical sexual predator does not search for victims online, they look for victims down the hall.

All of this hand-wringing and legislating is just a way to avoid recoginizing this admittedly sad and disturbing fact.

Re:It just didn't work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17483416)

Your typical sexual predator does not search for victims online, they look for victims down the hall.

Unfortunately, there's enough of the sexual predators that search for victims online to warrant a lot of safe guards and a continous state of alert in online forums frequented by children.
If it had been you, that was raped at a very young age, I am sure you would have appreciated adults making sure you were safe from predators.
Where's your empathy?

Think of the children is not an empty phrase just because it's a tag.

Re:It just didn't work (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 7 years ago | (#17483504)


If it had been you, that was raped at a very young age, I am sure you would have appreciated adults making sure you were safe from predators.

Yes, I would have, if they had done so by trying to address the real problem, which is children abused by family, friends, and authorities instead of something useless like banning MySpace in libraries (which won't stop kids from using it). Where is your empathy for those children, the much larger group of children?

Think of the children is not an empty phrase just because it's a tag.

No, it's an empty phrase because it is always used as a replacement for thinking.

Re:It just didn't work (1)

lukas84 (912874) | more than 7 years ago | (#17482576)

However, children ages 10 to 17 report more harassment and bullying online -- largely from their peers, not strangers.


How do you harass someone online?

I mean, really. If you don't like talking to someone, there's a variety of filter possibilities in every fucking IM/IRC software, and in every web2.0ish application.

And last time i checked, it was also impossible to rape someone over the internet. Well. If it really was a series of tubes, and you listened to all the spam.. Maybe.

How is myspace educational? (3, Insightful)

nganju (821034) | more than 7 years ago | (#17480568)


Aside from the obvious problems with the sentence "pioneering work being done by educators in the e-learning 2.0 space", how does banning myspace et. al. prevent learning? Are teachers seriously encouraging kids to get on myspace during class time for educational purposes?

I don't see anything wrong with banning social network sites inside school libraries. Wikipedia, Nasa, etc. are legitimate learning sites, I don't see how myspace compares to these.

Re:How is myspace educational? (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 7 years ago | (#17480960)

Aside from the obvious problems with the sentence "pioneering work being done by educators in the e-learning 2.0 space", how does banning myspace et. al. prevent learning? Are teachers seriously encouraging kids to get on myspace during class time for educational purposes?


No, probably not on MySpace, per se. OTOH, yes, social networking websites and internet chat rooms are used for educational purposes, and the proposed law covered "commercial social networking websites" and "internet chat rooms", generally, not just MySpace.

Not just Myspace (1)

Anonymous McCartneyf (1037584) | more than 7 years ago | (#17481114)

This bill, had it passed, would not have stopped at Myspace. It would have banned almost any board which had both comments and info on those posting the comments.
It would have banned Slashdot from libraries.

Re:Not just Myspace (1)

Kingrames (858416) | more than 7 years ago | (#17482098)

And we all know how informative Slashdot is.
Where would they get their truly important news? From a news source?!?! HA!

Re:How is myspace educational? (1)

shalla (642644) | more than 7 years ago | (#17481342)

People are also overlooking the fact that it did not just apply to schools or school libraries, but also to any library that wanted to receive its federal technology funding, and it's so broadly written as to require age checks and parental permission for kids to access things like slashdot or wikipedia or, hell, parts of Yahoo.

So the end result would be your public librarian (that's me) having to age check everyone who looked under the age of 25 and check for parent permission for them to use the Internet. So instead of sitting at the computers, killing innocent cows in Runescape, they can hang out in the parkign lot and pick up smoking (and pick fights with other patrons) while waiting for mom and dad to pick them up 4 hours later. Great.

I love my job, but it's not babysitting kids. It's helping people find the information they want or need.

You have no imagination. (1)

porcupine8 (816071) | more than 7 years ago | (#17481380)

There are plenty of legitimate educational uses for sites like MySpace (not necessarily MS itself, but it's not the only thing that would have been banned).

A few possibilities:

  • Connecting your students with students in other states or countries studying the same thing, to look at the issue from many perspectives.
  • Keeping students engaged in learning while they're at home, where they can post questions about the homework or have side discussions about things brought up in class.
  • Giving students a place to post and critique writing anonymously (to everyone but the teacher).
  • Making collaboration on projects and papers easier.
That's just what I came up with off the top of my head here. I'm sure that good teachers with a little ingenuity who are thinking about this stuff full-time could do better.

What is e-learning 2.0? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17480684)

E-learning 2.0 article [elearnmag.org] by Stephen Downes. Read/WriteWeb's E-learning 2.0 overview [readwriteweb.com]

Ah, the edublogosphere (1)

alphafoo (319930) | more than 7 years ago | (#17482744)

Curiosity got the better of me and I clicked on the second link to find out if perhaps I am doing "e-learning 2.0" without even knowing it or getting buzzword credit for it. Early in the article I discovered the word "edublogosphere", which is pretty much my new favorite word ever.

Has it been replaced with DOPEY? (-1, Troll)

syousef (465911) | more than 7 years ago | (#17480838)

Has it been replaced with DOPEY and has Dubya signed it nice and president like? Can't have that In-terrr-netttt telling people we came from apes now can we?

You have a country where a president can be impeached for lying about a blowjob, but not for repeatedly breaking the law....good luck to you.

Re:Has it been replaced with DOPEY? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17480918)

And why do you think I'm trying to leave? (Posted as AC for obvious reasons.)

Re:Has it been replaced with DOPEY? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17482090)

I agree with you, and even I rolled my eyes there. I think I speak for most of us when I say "What topic are you replying to?"

Feeling kind of Haggard (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17480888)

It likely wouldn't have prevented upstanding, "socially conservative" people like Mark Foley from preying on kids, but that's likely very much by design.

After all, nothing is more fundamentally Republican than pederasty.

e-learning 2.0? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17480952)

Lord, i think i threw up in my mouth a little bit when i read that..

Great news! (1)

rgspb (987654) | more than 7 years ago | (#17481072)

Looks like parents are going to actually have to raise their own children now!

Good riddance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17481074)

I'm glad to see this worthless piece of legislation stall.

I'm still waiting for Congress to pass the Deleting Funding For Thousands of FBI Agents and Police Who Spend All Day Surfing the Web Pretending to Be a 14 Year Old Girl Act (the D.F.F.T.F.A.P.W.S.A.D.S.W.P.T.O.1.4.Y.O.G.A. of 2007 Act).

Re:Good riddance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17481328)

I'm still waiting for Congress to pass the Deleting Funding For Thousands of FBI Agents and Police Who Spend All Day Surfing the Web Pretending to Be a 14 Year Old Girl Act (the D.F.F.T.F.A.P.W.S.A.D.S.W.P.T.O.1.4.Y.O.G.A. of 2007 Act).

Let's see. "Dift-fap-wu-sads-wup-toe-one-four-yo-guh" Act. Nope. Never happen. Only laws that make cutsey acronymns get passed. It's right there in the Constitution.

Online predators (1, Troll)

TheRecklessWanderer (929556) | more than 7 years ago | (#17481464)

Why can't there be a law like this... If you use any media to attempt to meet a minor for nefarious purposes, then you are guilty of gross criminal indecency. Leave it to the courts to decide what nefarious means, it's a good litmus test. hun? why not. The all the teachers and people doing good work have no reason to get screwed over, and the pedophiles can be put in jail. "oh Mr. Convict, Did we mention Jim was a pedophile?" Have fun in general population. You'll get everything you deserve.

Re:Online predators (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17482578)

they dont throw them in general population dumbass. if they did theyd band together in cliques and no one would fuck with them anyways.

Absolute Bullshit (2)

gnu-sucks (561404) | more than 7 years ago | (#17481938)

The legislation would have banned the use of commercial social networking websites in US schools and libraries which receive federal IT funding -- therefore undermining much of the pioneering work being done by educators in the e-learning 2.0 space.

Every time I walk into the library at my university, I have to actually force some myspace addict off the computer so I can write a paper or do actual research. The school's library has over 300 computers, and there are additional computer labs on campus too.

"undermining"!?!? What the FUCK! Would legislation to block large distractions and bandwidth wasting really "undermine" anyone's "pioneering" work on a school's IT policy and/or hardware/software?

Freespeech sure - if you really need to use myspace for school, ask your "pioneering" IT staff for special access.

While we're at it, can we please block hotmail and ebay? Most schools provide a local email account for students anyway...

So do I have this thing totally wrong? Or am I right in believing that there are some educators out there that believe government-funded schools shouldn't stop students from wasting their bandwidth? Pioneering!?!? WTF!

Re:Absolute Bullshit (1)

Dhalka226 (559740) | more than 7 years ago | (#17485468)

Or am I right in believing that there are some educators out there that believe government-funded schools shouldn't stop students from wasting their bandwidth?

It depends on where we are talking about. For children--that is, definitely K-8 and probably even all the way through high school--it should be the school's prerogative as to what they filter or not. In other words, they should absolutely have the right to determine what "wasting their bandwidth" means.

The example you give, being in a university, is a different animal. The students are adults, and they paid as much money as you did to be attending classes there. In other words, they have exactly as much right to the machines and the bandwidth as you do, and while you're free to complain and call their uses a waste--hell, I might even agree with you--neither you nor the school should have a right to curb that use.

Public libraries I'm a little more torn on, but my gut says that since they're supported by taxes that they should be equally unencumbered, regardless of whether the users are adults or not.

I'm sympathetic to your need to use the computer for actual university-related work, I just don't think it gives you or the IT staff any right to impose usage restrictions. "Excuse me, I really need to use a computer to write a paper" should be the approach.

e-learning 2.0 space (3, Insightful)

Acy James Stapp (1005) | more than 7 years ago | (#17482044)

I'd like to see you say that to my face, buddy. I'll pop you right in the jaw. We speak English in these parts.

No Brainer. (2)

BaldingByMicrosoft (585534) | more than 7 years ago | (#17482624)

Encouraging peer communication and collaboration in a learning environment? Good.

Using the fetid cesspool of MySpace, et al to accomplish it? Silly, if not completely irresponsible.

We upgraded our filtering device last summer, with the main impetus being effective blocking of MySpace. This is for several K-12 school districts. Why the hell would you even consider MySpace for education, when there's Moodle and other products you could choose?

If it bleeds we can kill it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17483080)

GET TO DA CHOPPA!!!

Doh (1)

nysander (1047616) | more than 7 years ago | (#17483852)

How am I going to get laid now?

It was a lame attempt at protection. (1)

flyneye (84093) | more than 7 years ago | (#17484164)

The legislation in question was just a lame attempt by politicians to buy votes by pretending to care.
The old fashioned way of creating phony My Space accounts to lure Peds and Chesters in order to Delete them the old fashioned Irish/Italian way will still be the way that works.C'mon people we have a database with addresses and pictures of threats to children at our ping! If you don't want them in your neighborhood,simply delete them yourself.It's not as if law enforcement or anyone but their families, really would give a damn if they fell off the face of the planet.
Truth as far as it will go.

Re:It was a lame attempt at protection. (1)

RPoet (20693) | more than 7 years ago | (#17486700)

It is probably illegal to kill people on the sex offender registries. Also, committing murder is not a good way to prove your moral high ground. Please consider this before you act.

Re:It was a lame attempt at protection. (1)

flyneye (84093) | more than 7 years ago | (#17487574)

Of course its illegal to do things against the law and get caught,duh!
Murder is unjust killing of a human.Killing happens to animals.
I don't recall trying to prove morality either way,just providing a workable solution to a nearly impossible problem.

Non-sequitor (1)

freefal67 (949117) | more than 7 years ago | (#17484806)

"banned the use of commercial social networking websites in US schools and libraries which receive federal IT funding -- therefore undermining much of the pioneering work being done by educators in the e-learning 2.0 space"

How does banning social networking sites, which provide no educational benefit, hurting anyone's classroom, technology-focused or otherwise?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?