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!

MySpace Age Verification - for Parents

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the getting-the-collars-around-them-early dept.

Privacy 391

unlametheweak writes "North Carolina is thinking of the children by passing a law requiring parents to verify they are parents before letting their children onto social networking sites. Notwithstanding the whole concept of an Internet ID for people in general; children are now being tracked by cellular phones with GPS, spied upon with Parent Controls (MS Vista has built-in parental spyware), and also strategically placed Nanny Cams, keyboard loggers, etc. 'Few of the proposals we've seen so far seem like good ways to [protect children], but North Carolina's approach at least has the virtue of novelty--unlike most video game legislation, which relies on similar rhetoric but has been almost universally struck down by the courts, sometimes at great cost to the states.' Is the zoo-like Minority Report world in which children are growing up in today doing more harm than good? How will this affect a 14 year old, much less a 17 year old "child"?"

cancel ×

391 comments

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

2 Options (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19308031)

1) Jailbait
2) Pedophile

Obligatory Star Wars... (3, Funny)

ReidMaynard (161608) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308089)

Luke, I am your father.

FROST PIST (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19308041)

gfdsgds

Please..... (1, Funny)

Colourspace (563895) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308045)

Won't somebody think of the children?

Sigh (5, Insightful)

kiracatgirl (791797) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308049)

When will people learn that spying on your children is not a replacement for good parenting? The fact that there's actually a demand for this sort of thing is depressing.

Re:Sigh (3, Insightful)

MartinJW (961693) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308077)

"Spying on your children" might not be good parenting, but surely the same can not be said of monitoring their internet activities, and limited their access to objectional material. It's a very fine line.

Re:Sigh (2, Insightful)

Kabuthunk (972557) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308139)

If you're too busy to watch what your child is doing on the computer yourself, then maybe you should just not allow them to be on the computer when you're not there. After all... a child doesn't HAVE to be on the computer at all hours of the day. Maybe you should... y'know... let them play outside or something.

Re:Sigh (4, Insightful)

PFI_Optix (936301) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308207)

Do you hover over your kids every second that they're doing homework? Are you aware just how much homework today requires a computer?

Re:Sigh (2, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308343)

You don't have to hover, but you could place the computer where you'd be likely to walk by once in a while and see what they are doing. You don't have to watch them like a hawk to know when they are doing something wrong.

Re:Sigh (1)

Broken scope (973885) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308373)

Today? Unless the curriculum has radically changed in the last year since I graduated from highschool and started college, that is crap(in the united states public system atleast). Never once in high school was I assigned a homework assignment that forced me to use the computer. The only time I used the computer for school was when I was doing papers and presentations. I take that back, one time i did have to use a computer for homework. However that was above and beyond the scope of the class. I just did it outside of class to get ahead of the rest of the class.

My statement only applies to the public school system in the United states, more specifically to Georgia.

Re:Sigh (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308481)

I graduated high school in 1999. I went to highschool in Ontario Canada. I had quite a few papers in high school that were required to be typed. However, it's not something that you'd have to use the computer for every day. It was usually 1 or 2 per class. So, you generally didn't need to use the computer for homework everyday. Most home work was done by hand. Although, I usually when out of my way and did everything that required any kind of writing (anything but math) on the computer, because my handwriting was terrible. So, while I didn't have to use the computer, I ended up using the computer 3 nights out of 5 for doing homework.

Re:Sigh (1)

Broken scope (973885) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308657)

Do you have dysgraphia by any chance?

Re:Sigh (1)

LordKazan (558383) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308491)

yes more specifically to georgia, because in iowa that statement is utter BS - i graduated in 2002 and computers were very much required

Re:Sigh (1)

infaustus (936456) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308725)

This is a two-edged sword. Personally, I would never have used the computer so much if it were an a public area, simply because I wouldn't feel comfortable exploring things. When I was in 5th grade or so, we got a family computer that we kept in a spare bedroom, and when I was in 7th I got a laptop for christmas. Almost everything I know is due either to the internet directly or books I first learned of on the internet. True, I spent alot of time looking at various sorts of pornography my parents wouldn't have approved of, but the greater amount of time I spent more pursuing various philosophies and random information is responsible for any intellectual character I now possess.

Re:Sigh (2, Interesting)

drasfr (219085) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308499)

I have never been in favor of spying... I hate that in fact. I am a very strong advocate of free speech and freedom... but I would have to say after an incident that happen in my personal life my view of underage online is different.

My girlfriend's daughter is 11. She opened up a myspace profile with very suggestive photos and a stated age she was .... 16! now imagine the kind of answers and people talking to her. She knew perfectly what she was doing as she was hiding it and showing us a fake 'parent-approved' myspace profile when we were asking her... But we caught her... of course, the second we caught her, we deleted her profile and removed myspace access from home. Now the main issue is that she is not dumb and she may open another profile with another name from outside but hopefully after we lectured her she will not do it and understood the consequence of her behavior.

Now I wish there was a way for a parent to valide a myspace profile of someone under 18. If someone under 18 signs up THEN if should be required to be approved by a VERIFIED parent AND having the parent's profile linked up on myspace or something equivalent. I would support that.

Re:Sigh (3, Insightful)

eht (8912) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308103)

Not a total replacement of course, but spying on your children certainly is a part of good parenting.

Re:Sigh (4, Insightful)

kiracatgirl (791797) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308193)

I would disagree. Keeping on eye on their activities is one thing, and is definitely a necessary part of it. Spying, however, means that you're doing so secretly, usually in an underhanded fashion. It leads to a distinct lack of trust, primarily on the side of the children.

Re:Sigh (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19308293)

Sometimes giving your children the illusion of trust so they can build confidence and so you can have confidence in their abilities requires stealthly watching your children for a time. For example, I know a parent that followed her child to an event(her child was around 6) just to see if her daughter got distracted. The daughter didn't know it and was better behaved than if she had thought her parents were watching. Now the mother knows how much more trust she can have and has an insight into her daughters 'common sense' when she isn't around to watch her all the time.

If it's done all the time then yes it's just a lack of trust of the child, but doing it quietly early on in an activity to assure yourself your child isn't abusing your trust(if that could be a problem) is certainly viable. And if the child knows you might do it at any time there is nothing 'underhanded' about it.

Re:Sigh (1)

dpninerSLASH (969464) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308557)

My attitude is simple: Given the choice of being safe or hurt, I'm always going to err on the side of safety. My child is important enough to me to respect her right to be alive and safe believing I'm overprotecting, than to be dead and not know any different.

Re:Sigh (4, Insightful)

Angostura (703910) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308599)

Absolutely agreed. You should be honest with your kids and they should know that their use of the computer is not private.

So don't do it secretly! (1)

maillemaker (924053) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308731)

When my child is old enough to use the computer, my instructions will be simple:

You may use this computer in any manner you like. There will be no attempts to block or filter content.

But I will be monitoring everything you do with it.

Re:Sigh (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19308257)

Maybe by American standards. I lived in the US (Boston, MA) between 2004 and 2006, and one of the things that struck me most is how Americans are afraid of pretty much everything. You hardly ever see even older children playing without their parents in tow, for one thing. Great way to teach your children independence, that.

Re:Sigh (2, Insightful)

glindsey (73730) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308311)

Yeah, it's almost as bad as if millions of government spy cameras were watching every single thing we do in public [spy.org.uk] . Man, I can't imagine a country doing that!

Re:Sigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19308415)

What's that got to do with what I said? I'm not british.

Re:Sigh (1)

Angst Badger (8636) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308325)

To a certain extent, yes. But I can spy on my kids just fine without any help from the government.

Re:Sigh (3, Insightful)

MyNameIsFred (543994) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308169)

...When will people learn that spying on your children is not a replacement for good parenting?...
But is the reverse true? Can you be a good parent without doing SOME spying. The key word being some. Any good parent should be aware of the people their child associates with and the activities in which their child participates. To know these things requires some invasion of the child's privacy. I will grant that spying can be excessive, a child should be allowed some privacy. But on the other hand, the answer is not zero spying.

Re:Sigh (2, Insightful)

N3WBI3 (595976) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308179)

Spying on your kids is not a replace for good parenting but it is a damn good part *of* good parenting. You don't play cloak and dagger but you keep up with where your kids are and who they are with. Honestly in my home there will never be a computer which is not locked down and in the family room.

Re:Sigh (2, Insightful)

div_2n (525075) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308269)

Parents don't generally give their children complete freedom in the real world. This is accomplished by being in control of where they take them and allow them to go. Sure kids can circumvent their control if they REALLY want to short of their parents locking them up in a cage. That isn't the point of this discussion.

But the internet is a whole new problem. Parents that stick a computer in their hands with no supervision is like giving kids their own personal vehicle to go anywhere they want and do anything they want. Parents wouldn't do it in the real world and the virtual world shouldn't be any different.

Let's not pretend that the internet is special from the rest of the world. Kids do not have and should not expect to have complete and total freedom. As I understand, it isn't healthy for their development. They need proper parental supervision and guidance every step of the way. What you think of as "spying" probably does fit into supervision and guidance much of the time. There is a line to be sure, but it's a hazy one and I would argue good parenting requires parents to be vigilant to stay as close as they can to that line without actually crossing it.

When kids become adults (the legal kind) then and only then should they expect freedom to go their own way. But that's just my $0.02.

Re:Sigh (1)

kiracatgirl (791797) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308349)

To put it as succinctly as possible, I consider it "spying" if the parents do it specifically without their child's knowledge. It's basically the difference between sitting on a bench while keeping an eye on your kid playing in the park, and hiding behind some bushes doing the same.

Re:Sigh (2, Insightful)

div_2n (525075) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308591)

It only takes one conversation with something along the lines of "You should behave all the time whether at school or on the internet like we are with you and watching over you because sometimes, we are when you don't think we are. It isn't that we don't trust you because we do. It is that we don't trust other people and want to do everything in our power to make sure others don't hurt you."

Problem solved. Besides, I reiterate that kids should never expect total freedom. The only place they should ever expect their parents not to spy/snoop/watch over/supervise/etc is in their diary (if they have one). That is an outlet for their own private thoughts. And no, putting it on a computer doesn't apply because a computer is not a guaranteed safe medium (from parents or otherwise). Pick up a pen or pencil and put it in a place that guarantees no access unless physically breeched.

Re:Sigh (3, Insightful)

PhilipMckrack (311145) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308581)

Well said. I might add that the hazy line is different for every child. Some kids can handle alot of freedom and behave appropriately. Some can't. It's up to the parents to determine where the line actually is.

Pendulum may swing back for next generation (1)

Nymz (905908) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308291)

When will people learn that spying on your children is not a replacement for good parenting? The fact that there's actually a demand for this sort of thing is depressing.

Perhaps when this generation has grown up, they will be determined not to "become" like their parents, by rejecting invasive spying, and encouraging trust and responsibility. Or perhaps the opposite may come true, since they won't know what trust is, they won't ever be able to trust anyone else, and simply perpetuate their own parinoia onto the next generation.

Re:Sigh (3, Insightful)

fermion (181285) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308489)

Parent don't spy, they care. At some point parents must let go, but that happens in stagess. Even parent who allow sexual activity for their (pre-)teens in the house do so in hopes of limiting any damage. My limited experience indicates kids needs some boundaries, will naturally push those boundries as they need more room, but will still expect a gentle confining force to make them feel secure. Of course you are correct that if the force is overbearing, the kids will not learn to manage on their own, but from what I have seen of this technology, 13 year old children setting up dates with strangers, some who claim to be old enough to drive a car and give them a good time, a bit more caring and a bit less letting the tv/computer raise the kids is in order.

Re:Sigh (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19308503)

Cince you know nothing about parenting let me offer you some clues.

Spying on your kids is not good parenting is it?

So I can trust my child not to bow to peer pressure from all her friends to start smoking. Anyone that says that a child is capable of fighting off 3-5 close friends basically forcing them to do something is pretty stupid. A childs friends are where they get their bad behaivoir from, no you cant control your child friends.

so you spy, Find that pack of cigaretts and break them all in 1/2 thrown in the toilet and let them see it when they come home.

The best thing to do is if your child is ding bad things and you discover them, you 1- remove the item (a kid seeing his precious 2 pounds of pot sitting in a toilet bowl covered in piss and a nice log in the middle as well as all his luxury items stripped out of his room will think twice.)

2 - you remove luxuries. Internet is gone, Ipod gone, Video games gone.

works great. Kids realize they have a incredibly good life at home if they obey the rules, or they have the boring I have nothing but my chores and schoolwork life if they act like little shit-heads.

If my kid came home with a tattoo, I would make an appointment for laser removal of that tattoo.. It hurts like HELL. and the kids will remember that. same as the moronic piercings, simply throw away the bullshit that makes them look like moron-freaks. Dont say anything, just throw it away. let the fucker waste his money on buying it.

Oh if they ever end up arrested.. LEt them rot in jail for a day or so. A dose of reality is far more teaching than bailing them out of trouble every time.

Re:Sigh (1)

Andy Dodd (701) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308647)

Unfortunately never, if anything the trend seems to be in the opposite direction as spying and monitoring get easier.

Hence the relatively recent term "helicopter mom".

Nowadays, parents go to websites of organizations their children might even have the slightest possibility of associating with and yell at them if there's anything even slightly objectionable.

I can sort of see this for high schoolers, but recently the webmaster account of the website of one of my former organizations (Cornell University Marching Band trombone section) got a nastygram from a "helicopter mom" worried about what little Timmy would encounter when he got to COLLEGE. Time to let go, lady! Most of us laughed, because we're tame as hell compared to many organizations on campus... The funniest part of her letter was when she claimed not to be a "helicopter mom". (As to why we all saw this message - the current site admin thought it was of enough interest/importance to forward it to the trombone student/alumni mailing list for comments/informational purposes.)

Oh, and yes, for most of us, this was the first time we had actually heard the term "helicopter mom".

Why is technology not good for parenting, too? (1)

maillemaker (924053) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308685)

While "spying on your children" is not a replacement for good parenting, what's wrong with spying on your children in /addition/ to good parenting?

It's my computer, my internet, and my house. I have every right to know what my child is doing on my computer, using my internet, in my house.

Why /not/ use technology to help me keep tabs on what my child is doing? It's called being /involved/, and I consider that /good/ parenting.

"child" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19308061)

yeah i remember what everyone was looking for at 14-15.

17 year olds are not children (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19308091)

What planet are people on that they think the average 17 year old needs protecting?

You either remember being 17 or you had no life worth protecting.

Re:17 year olds are not children (3, Insightful)

PFI_Optix (936301) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308143)

I work at a school district. I see 17-year-olds all the time. Yes, they are children. They act without considering the consequences to themselves or others. They are irresponsible and generally stupid, with a few exceptions.

Re:17 year olds are not children (4, Interesting)

brunascle (994197) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308217)

then, in your opinion, at what age does this immaturity magically disappear?

Re:17 year olds are not children (3, Funny)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308301)

The first night they spend in prison after doing something incredibly stupid while drunk.

Re:17 year olds are not children (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19308585)

35?

That's the first time a colleague of mine was arrested for an act of drunken stupidity. His wife caught him cheating, moved the kids to her folks and filed for divorce. He got drunk and took it out on an innocent item of street furniture; the finale in a long stream of thoughtless, irresponsible stupidity.

Obviously none of this would have happened if his parents had been spying on him all this time.

Re:17 year olds are not children (1)

penp (1072374) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308389)

Never. The ones who are older and more irresponsible just die at a faster rate when mommy and daddy aren't there to look after them.

Re:17 year olds are not children (3, Informative)

canUbeleiveIT (787307) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308601)

<quote>then, in your opinion, at what age does this immaturity magically disappear?</quote>
Well, according to the auto insurance companies [wikipedia.org] , age 25 is statistically a good indicator that they better understand risks. I also believe that there is some sort of evidence [washingtonpost.com] that brain maturation isn't complete until around that age.

Re:17 year olds are not children (5, Insightful)

zarkill (1100367) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308247)

That stupidity doesn't magically go away when they turn 18, but the "protection" they're afforded under the law does, so how do you reconcile those two things?

I think the point is since we expect people to be adults at 18, they'd better be pretty damn close to it by 17. Close enough that we shouldn't have to spend so much energy protecting them from themselves.

Re:17 year olds are not children (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19308565)

It could be like a law saying that companies with less than 250 employees are 'medium-sized' and qualify for some tax breaks. One specific company would not cease being medium-sized by hiring their 251st nor have a materially smaller need for tax breaks, but it could be a limit that is generally in the range of right most of the time.

Re:17 year olds are not children (5, Insightful)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308259)

They act without considering the consequences to themselves or others. They are irresponsible and generally stupid, with a few exceptions.

They sound just like adults, to me...

Re:17 year olds are not children (1)

kalirion (728907) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308265)

And then they turn 18, and God fills their souls with maturity, and all is well.

Re:17 year olds are not children (1)

carvalhao (774969) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308625)

I have worked with several kind of children and adolescents throughout my lifetime, both from the best and worse of parental backgrounds.

What I have come to learn is that even young adolescents from bad parental backgrounds are more mature that full grown adults from a good parental background. This is mainly due to the placement of responsibility on the child that occurs when there aren't no parents around to take the blame ore be held responsible for the adolescent's behavior.

Once a kid, able of abstract thought (see Piaget on this one), is placed under conditions in which he/she suffers the consequence of his/her actions, he/she learns VERY QUICKLY to become responsible. And once they learn that, they are no longer children but young adults.

It strikes me as incredibly cynical that societies that 100 years ago considered a 14 year old mature enough to marry, have kids, go to war and, in some cases, become the ruler of his nation, now consider a 14 year old as a retard unable to conduct the simplest of social actions unattended.

Re:17 year olds are not children (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19308687)

I work in an adult correctional institute. I see 16-70+-years-old all the time. Yes, they are children. They act without considering the consequences to themselves or others. They are irresponsible and generally stupid, with a few exceptions. Maybe it isn't the age of the person we should be looking at but something else. Thought I clarify for some of the people out there. In my great state of NC you are a legal adult at the age of 16 when it comes to the court systems.

Re:17 year olds are not children (1)

N3WBI3 (595976) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308245)

Nor are they, in the US, adults (and I dont just mean legally). Hell most 21yo in the US dont act like adults and as my father always used to say "If you want to be treated like an adult, act like one!"

Re:17 year olds are not children (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19308475)

Most 40 year olds don't act like adults either, good thing we have nanny state to spy on them!

Lemme guess... (1)

p3d0 (42270) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308279)

You're 17?

NC is a scary place (0, Offtopic)

svendsen (1029716) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308109)

As someone who just moved to NC I can say this is a very messed up state.

NC does not let you put your significant other on any of your insurance if you aren't getting married within a few month time window. Why? Because it's a sin! Been in many other states and none had issues with this.

Want to get a NC drivers license to replace your out of state be prepared to:
Bring your old license
Your SS card
Birth certificate
Car insurance (how many catch 22's does this bring up)
Take a road sign test
Take the written test
Oh if you have a middle name you need a document to show the FULL middle name. Yes this means if you have a birth certificate, passport, and drivers license and none of them have your full middle they will deny you.

I could go on and on, but NC is messed up. I'm sure myspace would sue over that law. Wonder what the cost would be to verify A)someone is an adult B)someone is the guardian of that kid C) the kid who A + B verified is the one signing up.

Oh an NC makes panhandlers get a license to panhandle. They tax the people who beg for money. Go NC!

Re:NC is a scary place (1)

N3WBI3 (595976) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308299)

NC does not let you put your significant other on any of your insurance if you aren't getting married within a few month time window. Why? Because it's a sin!

Does the law say because its a sin or is this your swag?

Want to get a NC drivers license to replace your out of state be prepared to:

Bring your old license Ditto for NY and MN (Unless you want to take a full drivers test)
Your SS card Most states have id verification which consist of a combo SS, mail, Passport, and others
Birth certificate See above, you want the DMV to hand out licenses without ID of any kind?
Car insurance Many states have insurance and there is no catch 22 as insurance does not require a license

Until you have been through a NY DMV you have no idea what bad is. I spent three house *turning in my plates when I left the state* no drop box could be used because you have to pay for the privileged of returning the plates you had to pay to take in the first place.

Re:NC is a scary place (1)

svendsen (1029716) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308571)

"Does the law say because its a sin or is this your swag? "

The law says unmarried couples can not share insurance here in NC. Yes of course it does not say because it's a sin (and I don't think any law as the please insert reason for it in column A so people can see why the law was passed) but my insurance carrier did state NC is known for preventing unmarried couples from a lot of things. If an unmarried couple getting married soon is ok but not for an unmarried couple not getting married soon doesn't take a lot of guesses as to why.

"Until you have been through a NY DMV you have no idea what bad is"

I have many times. I lived in NY state (Poughkeepsie and in way upstate). My DMV experience was never bad like that. Either you got unlucky or I was lucky.

"See above, you want the DMV to hand out licenses without ID of any kind?"

No, what I want is not to have to bring every piece of beyond valuable original documentation I own to one place. What I don't want is to have a government issued ID or other state documentation denied because it doesn't have my frickin middle name on it. Yes you can leave the country, yes other countries have let me in, oh sorry NC says no. What I don't want is to stand outside the DMV with all this info and hope nothing happens. Lets reacp what I had on me (all original mind you they don't accept anything else):

SS card
Birth certificate
Passport
WI drivers license
Insurance info with all my details

If something happened (aka someone gets smart and goes to a DMV before it opens and robs people) my ability to prove who I am is gone.

Other states I have lived MA, NY, CT, WI all you need is your old license, copy of insurance, and SS card. Seems a little more reasonable. "Many states have insurance and there is no catch 22 as insurance does not require a license"

I'm not aware of all the rules but wouldn't an insurance carrier not cover you for auto insurance if you haven't been able to prove you know how to drive? But to prove you know how to drive you have to take a test which requires you have insurance in the first place? Unless you can get insurance on some sort of you have 15 days to get your license clause? Which is useless anyway because once you get your license you could cancel the insurance?

Re:NC is a scary place (1)

xzvf (924443) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308323)

While I'm sure you had a interesting time at the DMV in North Carolina, there are good reasons for the hard requirements. It wasn't long ago that to get a NC license all you had to do was wait in line at the DMV. NC became a haven for false identifications in illeagal immigrants and criminals. In fact law enforcement should be extra suspicious of NC ID's and licenses issued more than three years ago.

Re:NC is a scary place (2, Informative)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308341)

Unless you've changed your name (and you'd have documentation for that), your birth certificate WILL have your full middle name. It's not your name, otherwise.

Re:NC is a scary place (1)

svendsen (1029716) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308667)

Not everyone has a middle name. Not every state puts it on the birth certificate. I'd hate to be that guy...but my parents didn't love me enough to give me a middle name.

DMV Person (in soup nazi voice): Too bad, no license for you!

Re:NC is a scary place (1)

K.B.Zod (642226) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308579)

Ah, I remember seeing that panhandling license! I was attending NC State and just getting into my car in a lot across from the main campus, when I was approached by a panhandler. He took the liberty of showing me his license, which he kept with him to show that he took his vocation seriously and was doing it properly, under the beneficent auspices of the state government. I had no idea if the license was legitimate, but I figured for all that effort, genuine or not, he deserved a couple of bucks.

Re:NC is a scary place (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19308603)

What are you talking about? I walked into a DMV on the day that my out-of-state (Arkansas) license expired, took an vision exam and a written exam, then walked out with an NC license.

Other than keeping my (expired) Arkansas license, it didn't seem draconian in the least to me.

Re:NC is a scary place (1)

RaigetheFury (1000827) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308637)

Your post sounds to me like someone who doesn't like to read directions or likes to post a generalization of things but not "why" it's done. So let me address them. First I've lived in Raleigh, NC for 31 years. They have one of the more difficult methods to obtain a new drivers license because frankly... people from other states can't drive for shit. In NC, in general, people let others in, don't cut others off etc. Compared to NY when I go through... that places sucks. NC wants to make sure you meet THEIR standards and you need your SS card, Birth Certificate anywhere you go when first moving states. This includes banks etc. You do NOT have to have your old license, it just makes things easier. You have to have proof of insurance on you at all times (or at least in your car) so if you're too lazy to get it out of your car... talk to the hand As far as documentation that's your job to make sure that ALL your information about you is correctly done. This includes your middle name. Don't bitch at them because you didn't verify that people got your correct information when you had your passport done. Don't blame them if you want to change your birth middle name or they didn't put it there. Go fix it. Don't blame the wrong people. As far as panhandlers go... the reason they do this is to decrease the number of panhandlers on the exit ramps. Control the numbers. It also gives them better statistics on the number of panhandlers out there. They are issued a vest so that people can see them. They do NOT pay taxes... where you got that I don't know. But... it's been shown that it encourages a panhandler to find a job instead of panhandling. Sure it makes it harder but once they can put forth that effort, then they move on to a job etc. Btw... that's only in Durham, NC. Raleigh and Cary forbid panhandlers so most of the time you won't even see them.

Oh come on... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19308111)

or maybe people should think of new, innovative ways to tackle the problem. Like raising their kids properly. Don't look down on them and teach them to deal with the problems that come with a phenomenon like the internet. And while we're at it, maybe people can start tackling one of those other new phenomenons that seems to have adults in an panic lately: sex

And yes, that might mean you have to spend some time on parenting instead of on your career, but that's the choice you made by having kids in the first place...

Re:Oh come on... (1)

PFI_Optix (936301) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308173)

Choice 1: Teach them about the internet, then hope the lesson sank in and look the other way.

Choice 2: Hover over them every second they're on the computer to make sure they never break the rules or do anything dangerous.

Choice 3: Teach them and use monitoring software to routinely check up on their activities and see if they're doing anything wrong that you need to address.

Re:Oh come on... (2, Funny)

svendsen (1029716) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308203)

Choice 4 the kid finds on the internet how to disable the program you installed. Then sells the solution to others kids and (wait for it)...

PROFIT

Re:Oh come on... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19308597)

Those are the only choices??????

How about talking to them about it? Ask questions, open dialog with your childern? When you hear things from your child or childern that seem incorrect ask more questions about it. Listen to the answer and ask more questions. How about spending some time with them, and ask them to show you some of the cool stuff they do on-line. Get involved with what your children/child is doing.

Re:Oh come on... (2, Interesting)

N3WBI3 (595976) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308381)

Let put this in the realm of IT:

You can create good policies, you can create great efficient and useful documentation on policies and procedures for users, and you can have info sessions to help personally education users. None of these things is a substitute for good traffic monitoring and anti-virus software. Of course you need to educate kids, empower them to grow and mature, turn control over a little at a time but you have stewardship over their lives for a season and while you cant make them good people or protect them from everyone you sure as heck should try..

Holding parents responsible (5, Insightful)

PFI_Optix (936301) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308117)

As soon as a kid shoots up a school, people ask "Where were the parents? Why didn't they see the problem?" We're very quick to point the finger at parents when something goes wrong. And then I see posts like this asserting that parents shouldn't be able to monitor their childrens' activities.

Fifty years ago, parents didn't have to watch so closely. There was far less media coming into the home, and what was available was far easier to monitor (and far more regulated, as it was all under the watchful eye of the FCC).

Now, we've got the internet. We've got a half-dozen game consoles. We've got cable and satellite television, dirt-cheap movies and music available for purchase, and a barrage of information everywhere we look. For parents to keep the same level of attention on what their kids are doing, they have to use tools like "spyware" (you know, software that lets them know what THEIR computers are being used for) to keep track of their kids and look for dangerous behavior.

I've got to say, though, that I object to nanny cams unless there is a very specific reason to have one. If you smell pot in your living room, maybe it's a good time to put in a camera to see if your kid is using illegal drugs. But putting up a camera *just in case* is paranoid.

Parents have to monitor their kids. Every generation has done so in some fashion. So long as kids know the rules, know they are being watched, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. I wouldn't let my kids go certain places in the city without me being around because it's risky for them; the same goes for the internet.

Re:Holding parents responsible (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19308199)

If you smell pot in your living room, maybe it's a good time to put in a camera to see if your kid is using illegal drugs.

What about when kids smell pot in their living room, should they also set up cameras and use the footage to blackmail or shop their parents to the authorities?

Meanwhile there are kids being raised in crack houses because abortion is 'murder'. Get a grip!

Re:Holding parents responsible (1)

kiracatgirl (791797) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308281)

So long as kids know the rules, know they are being watched, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.

I agree 100%. The biggest problem these days with the internet and so-on is that the parents don't tell their kids that they're being watched.

Re:Holding parents responsible (1)

the_womble (580291) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308307)

Now, we've got the internet. We've got a half-dozen game consoles. We've got cable and satellite television, dirt-cheap movies and music available for purchase
How are any of those going to make it into a household without parental consent? All parents need to do is refrain from buying things that may be harmful.

Not that this will work, but... (3, Insightful)

goldspider (445116) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308123)

...parents have every right, responsibility even, to monitor their children's actions/behavior. That's not to say that it should be 24/7, but the summary's implicit suggestion that "spying" on children is inappropriate displays a vast ignorance of/indifference to responsible parenting.

As Ronald Reagan said, "trust, but verify". There is nothing wrong with knowing what your child is doing on a home computer. There is nothing wrong with knowing where your child is. A child doesn't have the right to conceal their activities/whereabouts from his/her parents.

Again, I think legislative efforts like this have it all wrong. I just object to the summary's use of "spying" as applied to what I call "responsible parenting."

Another thing. (4, Insightful)

AltGrendel (175092) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308129)

My concern is that these children will get use to the idea that being spied on is an OK thing.

Once they are desensitized to the idea of not having privacy, it will get easier to get them to conform to whatever the people in power want.

Re:Another thing. (1)

Applekid (993327) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308241)

Not only OK, it's for their protection.

Re:Another thing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19308353)

Note that the bill in question has absolutely nothing to do with "spying", just with requiring a higher standard of parental approval than letting the kid check a box. The submitter is just using it as a pretext for his ranting about GPS and keyboard loggers.

You are in big trouble young AltGrendel (1)

Nymz (905908) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308417)

My concern is that these children will get use to the idea that being spied on is an OK thing. Once they are desensitized to the idea of not having privacy, it will get easier to get them to conform to whatever the people in power want.

It's a good thing we log everything you post to Slashdot, because your attitude is unacceptable. Just wait until your father CtlGrendel gets home, then your backside will learn what it's like to be "desensitezed to the idea of not having piracy". your mother DelGrendel.

Re:Another thing. (1)

goldspider (445116) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308677)

When I have kids, they can have all the privacy they want... when they move out and get their own place. Until then, they'll live by my rules and with as much privacy as I determine they've earned.

I don't see how giving kids free reign teaches them about responsibility and consequences. In fact, I believe that doing so teaches them the exact opposite.

Is this the cause, or a symptom? (1)

name*censored* (884880) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308175)

The problem with all these incidences of people spying on their children to replace good parenting is that it is the symptoms, not the cause of the problem. Imagine what the childs' conception of acceptable adult behaviour will be when the message they have been given is that "privacy is not as important as convenience". No-one is saying it's easy to be a parent, but taking shortcuts at the expense of something they themselves would not consent to forego is hypocritical at best. The "argument" that it's acceptable to restrict childrens' freedoms for their safety would technically justify locking a child in a cage (no harm could possibly come to them this way), something which is clearly incorrect.

I'm glad to hear about initiatives like this; hopefully the parent filling out all these proofs to prove they are who they say they are will realise what a burden it is to have to go through these things.

This will be interesting to enforce (1)

iknownuttin (1099999) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308185)

FTFA...to require the owner or operator to adopt and implement procedures to confirm the identity and age of a parent or guardian granting permission,..

I guess parents will have to go down to the their office. That's the only way to know for sure. Kids can steal credit cards.

and to provide for penalties; to make it a felony for a registered sex offender to access a commercial social networking web site;

How the hell are they going to enforce that until after the fact.

to increase the penalty for certain offenses of solicitation of A child by computer to commit an unlawful sex act;

Yeah whatever.

and to make it a felony to lie to a sworn SBI agent conducting

I can just see it now, some predator online actually saying, "I'm a sexual predator. I have to tell the truth. I'm really 45, fat, ugly, and I actually think some 15 year old girl or boy will see me and say, "Oh, baby! Give it to me! I just love beer bellies!'"

Re:This will be interesting to enforce (1)

svendsen (1029716) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308283)

"I guess parents will have to go down to the their office. That's the only way to know for sure. Kids can steal credit cards."

And fill out a special NC authorization for which costs $100 to process. All this is for is another way for NC to tax even more.

Re:This will be interesting to enforce (1)

Andy_R (114137) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308315)

"I'm a sexual predator. I have to tell the truth. I'm really 45, fat, ugly, and I actually think some 15 year old girl or boy will see me and say, "Oh, baby! Give it to me! I just love beer bellies!'"

Well, if you promise to age-verify for them so they can get on myspace when their luddite parents won't, then thanks to this new law you'll be in with a chance!

Let the government be parents (3, Insightful)

packetmon (977047) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308227)

Ban on name changes by sex offenders.

Funny how politicians will throw anything into the political arena during crunch time (races...). Just how do they propose to keep track of "name changes" from a sex offender. For starters they can't even maintain their own equipment [infiltrated.net] , can't secure the FBI infrastructure [wired.com] , a company for MySpace is already reporting false positives... [wired.com] . Should we wait for the FBI's new and improved Carnivore [infiltrated.net] ? ... Or maybe Hack our Kids' brains' [infiltrated.net] ... I got it... How about government sponsored Parenting Classes that teach parents how to get involved with their kids' lives...

Re:Let the government be parents (1)

Otter (3800) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308449)

Just how do they propose to keep track of "name changes" from a sex offender.

Name changes are administered by the courts. The state has a list of sex offenders. The court checks the list when someone requests a name change. It hardly requires hacking anyone's brain.

Sometimes I'm ashamed to be from North Carolina... (3, Insightful)

psykocrime (61037) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308303)

and today is one of those days.

We have the most brain-dead General Assembly in the world. This lot couldn't pour
piss out of a boot if the instructions were stamped on the heel.

Nice FUD (3, Insightful)

sid0 (1062444) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308329)

Vista has parental controls to control access to specific accounts at specific times, etc. This gets twisted in TFS to say that Vista has parental "spyware". Nice FUD.

Re:Nice FUD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19308519)

Agreed. It's not like MS or anyone else gets to see what Vista's Parental Controls catches. That's like labeling Privoxy as spyware, which clearly it isn't.


By bashing MS with the FUD the parent mentioned just discredits us that speak up about the real flaws in Vista.

Re:Nice FUD (2, Interesting)

wwahammy (765566) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308563)

Ya no kidding. The parental controls in Vista are tame compared to some of the programs that the feds anti-drug website suggest. The one's recommended by the feds run in the background without indicating to the target that they are being tracked. Vista's parental controls always has an icon on the taskbar so a person knows the parental controls are on and their actions are being recorded. Anytime an action is blocked a window pops up to explain what is happening.

I don't think parental controls are a great solution but if they have to exist Microsoft seems to have found the right balance.

The wisdom of our ancestors... (5, Insightful)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308347)

There is now a small, but growing movement [blogspot.com] within the psychological profession to abolish the concept of adolescence. All I can say is, IT'S ABOUT DAMN TIME! Teenagers are not children. They are physically closer to adults both in terms of their physical/sexual maturity and the ability of their brains to function. In other words, a 14 year old is physically capable both in their brain and the rest of their body of assuming a position as a young, but real, adult in modern society. We just don't let them do it!

Our ancestors knew this. That is why even the advanced societies of the classical age regarded teenagers as adults, rather than as children. Even our own legal system on some level recognizes that teens are capable of functioning identically to adults because it allows them to be tried as such in violent crimes cases.

Re:The wisdom of our ancestors... (1)

goldspider (445116) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308537)

"a 14 year old is physically capable both in their brain and the rest of their body of assuming a position as a young, but real, adult in modern society"

You might be ready to let a 14 year old drive a car, but I sure as hell am not. In fact I'd support raising the minimum age to get a lisence to 18, considering how many accidents are caused by young, irresponsible drivers.

Yes, people in this age group are no longer merely children. That doesn't make them adults though. That comes with responsibility and experience that most people simply don't have at that age.

Re:The wisdom of our ancestors... (2, Insightful)

aicrules (819392) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308653)

What's your point? 15 year olds get to drive with a parent. 16 year olds get to drive on their own. You can work increasingly more hours a week starting at 13 and going up. The world already offers graduated expectations towards minors. But to say you should abolish the entire idea of adolescence is ignorant of the fact that the general category of adolescence actually follows your own argument that as a child matures they are more than just a "minor."

What I assume you're trying to shoot for is something that currently isn't granted to those under the age of 18 or 21 and you either currently aren't able to do that oh so special thing because of your age, or you were annoyed by it being against the law when you were below the legal age. Yes, a teenager's brain goes through considerable growth and maturation from 12 to 19. But just because a brain or body has become physically mature, doesn't mean that person should immediately be granted immancipation. In fact, this is the time where they will learn the most about what it means to be responsible with their new found physical maturity.

All this ignores the fact that children mature at different rates, as well as the fact that a 14 year old likely has MUCH more physical development left to go, let alone mental development. Some people like the laws that limit driving, smoking, drinking, voting, sex with an adult, etc... because they want to keep the kids down (The Man). But I believe that most of the laws that exist to enforce the concept of a minor are acceptible and reasonable in their definition of who can do what and when.

countdown until rebellion (1)

192939495969798999 (58312) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308393)

to spy on a 17-year old in this manner is basically giving them a day-by-day countdown until they're rid of you, at which point they will have good reason to rebel and unfortunately maybe go a bit too wild. Anyone who's ever seen the first 2 weeks at a freshman dorm at say, 1 am, after the 30-kegger's get going, knows what happens to kids like this.

I don't get it. (1)

thbigr (514105) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308399)

I mean you can still create a fake profile, right? So you can lie about your age and no one will know the wiser? Do they just not understand how this works?

zoo-like world (1)

foobsr (693224) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308433)

Is the zoo-like Minority Report world in which children are growing up in today doing more harm than good?

They have to get used to being spied upon so that they can find ways to cheat early enough.

CC.

Laws and Parenting (1)

Mockylock (1087585) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308513)

Parents are beginning to use the net, as well as games, for a babysitting device and with the time kids spend on the net, the more options they'll discover. Though they feel that changes to myspace can help lock down the reigns on their children, there are 200 other sites that they can be targeted on. If they're on the internet, they will be chased down in some way, shape or form.

If you have a hungry fox trying to get in a chicken coup, you can only fence it up so much to keep the chicken OUT. From that point on, you've got to take care of the predator.

Stronger laws must be enforced, more effective measure have to be taken care of and heavier penalties must insue. If you put a proven online pedofile away for 40 years on any charge, you'll definitely start warding them off... especially with the use of decoy children at hand.

This shit was going on WAY before myspace in yahoo, msn and aol chat rooms. Not only that, but that was the only thing it was used for, by THOUSANDS of sick bastards looking for kids. You don't hear many incidents at all about those cases because internet crime was not as popular.

Locking down myspace is like sending your child to the down by themselves, but only accompanying them when the go into ONE specific bar.

Re:Laws and Parenting (1)

Mockylock (1087585) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308547)

My bad. "chicken IN" rather than chicken "OUT" and sending your child into "town" rather than "to the down".

Oops.

I'm all for spying on kids. The more, the better (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308517)

With any luck, they will turn out like me: Aggressively opposing any kind of surveillance whatsoever, up to the point of going out of their way to sabotage any attempt to invade their privacy, since they learned just how obnoxious and belitteling that invasion can be.

The most valuable thing I have now is privacy. I had none when I was a kid and, damn, how did I want some!

This is a good thing. (1)

tripodell (1108697) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308533)

As a former high school teacher and current new parent, I actually think this is a good idea. Children (and yes, HS kids are STILL children, emotionally, cognitively and in every other way that matters) are not small adults. Kids have poor impulse control, they don't consider consequences before acting, and they do not have the same rights as adults in the eyes of the law. Parents have a right and responsibility to know what their children are doing both on and off line. This is not spying, its Myspace actually acting responsibly and verifying that a child has the permission of a parent to use the site's services. The same as a school requiring a permission slip for a field trip (forged signatures aside) The parent is morally and legally liable for the actions of minors under their care. It should be up to the parent to decide how much responsibility, freedom, etc. is given to a kid. How a parent uses that technology: eg. to spy on the child, or as an incentive for positive behavior is up to them. North Carolina is simply giving parents the tools to be responsible for their children's activity on line. This isn't even that ground breaking, its the same standard that was applied under federal law to kids 0-13 under COPPA.

THIS FP FoR GNAA (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19308659)

beyond 7he 5cope of Has been my only roots and gets on

Nothing to be protected from... (1)

aabxx (1108623) | more than 6 years ago | (#19308673)

There is nothing on the internet that my kid needs protection from. I worry if he's taken the bicycle out in traffic or something like that but being on the internet? Yes, he can discover a lot of weird stuff but that's actually a good thing, contrary to popular fear mongering... won't someone think of the children! I do... I want him to explore the world on the internet.

My theory of the child (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19308699)

Give children choices that in some way affect their lives. Tell them the alternatives, and ask what they prefer. Preferably before they are 16-18.

This will:

- force them to think about who they are, what the world around them is like, what they prefer, and how their choices influence their life
- avoid them developing the feeling of 'drifting along' on the motorized pavement of life before they are suddenly let go, incidentally where everything is so carefully managed that the only way to get some excitement is to seek it out

I seem to remember a survey of school children quoted in 'Freakonomics', where children offered the children offered a chance to apply for 'better' schools and got in improved their academic results, but so did those who could apply but failed to get in.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>