how much automated security?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| grouch Aug 02, 2006 2:37 AM EDT |
>"[This strikes me as getting dangerously close to the Big Brother syndrome. Isn't there a better way to protect children? - dcparris-" I'm not sure on this issue. In a home, the expectation would be that the parents do some parenting and instruct the children about the dangerous places on the Internet. In a school, even with such instruction, some kid will just have to check out the alleyways and slums of the Internet. The number of children under the care of each adult guarantees that an opportunity will arise for the mischievous child to venture where danger is real. The school has a duty to protect the children and the data about those children from predators on the Internet. An excuse that some child gave out all the personal details about another child when the teacher was dealing with a fight in the hallway simply would not be satisfactory to the parents of a victim of Internet predation. If filters are applied to block portions of the Internet from access from within schools, who decides? At what level of government? Should each level of government add its own minimal requirements, until you reach the level of parents and guardians? How secure is the data held by public schools? What assurance do we have that personal data from schools is not leaking out daily through legacy MS Windows installations, for example? |
| dinotrac Aug 02, 2006 4:36 AM EDT |
>Isn't there a better way to protect children? I think that's the real problem here - and it's one the geek community tends to run away from with bromides like , "Well I think children need to learn, blah blah" and "And I think the real danger to children is blah blah", etc. Perhaps everyone would feel better if we just yanked internet connections from schools and libraries altogether. That would have the singular benefit of avoiding judgments over what may be dangerous and what may not. Perhaps -- well, what? Is there a better way? |
| jdixon Aug 02, 2006 6:00 AM EDT |
> Is there a better way? Sure. If your local library doesn't accept federal funds, they can implement whatever policy seems appropriate to the local citizenry. Local control is a much better solution. Of course, that means that the local taxpayers have to fund the library system, but that's as it should be. |
| dcparris Aug 02, 2006 6:12 AM EDT |
It's a challenging issue to be sure. I'm afraid I don't have the answer - just a question and a concerned look on my face. :-( |
| grouch Aug 02, 2006 6:22 AM EDT |
I hope that any implementation by the US government defines what constitutes a threat sufficient to warrant blocking, rather than blocking some domain names. Domains change over time. |
| jkouyoumjian Aug 02, 2006 7:45 AM EDT |
Hmm.... Two observations: 1) Don't rely on the government for access to websites. 2) This law is brought to you by the same people who think the Internet is a collection of interconnected "tubes", which occasionally get "clogged". |
| dinotrac Aug 02, 2006 8:15 AM EDT |
>1) Don't rely on the government for access to websites. That, though, is what this discussion is about: Schools and libraries. It is a rather unsettling thing to think that the only practical/acceptable solution to this problem is to say that internet access is not permitted in schools and libraries. I could live with that if there is not better answer. Kids are too important and too vulnerable to take their safety lightly. Still, it would be very sad, because the internet has so much potential for good. |
| jkouyoumjian Aug 02, 2006 8:30 AM EDT |
Unfortunately, if you take money from the federal government, they can and will bind you with their rules. It is better to not take the money and remain free. The government is asking you to give up essential freedoms (free speech, freedom of association, freedom to do what you want even when someone else thinks it is bad for you) in exchange for their services. It's just not worth it. Kids (and adults) who want unfiltered access to the Internet will just go elsewhere. |
| grouch Aug 02, 2006 8:43 AM EDT |
My children were not free when they were growing up. I gave them many privileges, as many as they showed they could handle, but always with the ability to revoke those privileges at any moment. Children need adults. |
| dinotrac Aug 02, 2006 9:04 AM EDT |
>Kids who want unfiltered access to the Internet will just go elsewhere. Good. Make them go elsewhere. Make it hard. Everything that makes it less convenient for them makes harder to be preyed upon by very nasty people. At the very least, it reduces their opportunity to be harmed. Schools and libraries are places that I want my kids to go to. They are places where kids should be able to go and places that should be safe for them. I have a lot of control on where my kids go, but I want them at school and I want them at the library. These should be good things. |
| jkouyoumjian Aug 02, 2006 9:40 AM EDT |
dinotrac - I agree with you. Let's get the feds, schools and libraries out of the ISP business. Congress shouldn't give any money to libraries or schools for general Internet access, nor should it restrict what schools and libraries can do on their own. Providing unsupervised, anonymous access to the Internet is just inviting trouble and it is not the job of the government. Let each individual organization decide what is best for itself. Let the members of the boards of trustees and boards of education be responsible for what happens at their institions. |
| dinotrac Aug 02, 2006 9:44 AM EDT |
J - Well....I'm almost with you there. Most schools and libraries are government functions in the US, but I agree that the federal government is the wrong level to be making these decisions. The one place I could see beneficial Federal action is a law that grants local government the freedom to make those choices. In a way, it would be a silly law -- they actually have that freedom. As a practical matter, it would be a lightning rod for ACLU types, which is good. Instead of pitty-pat attacks against under-funded local governments, get a nice big federal case. I suspect that the Supreme Court would come to some kind of reasonable guideline on this. |
| grouch Aug 02, 2006 9:53 AM EDT |
dinotrac: Every level of government tries to extend its power beyond its mandate. Sometimes the conflicts between those power interests keeps them too tangled up to actually interfere with citizens the way they want. The reason I asked, in the opening comment, about minimal requirements for each level of government is that it could be a way to keep the most control close to the parents. Each level should leave as much open as possible while fulfilling its obligations as directed by the citizens. The federal government is certainly not the place to decide which domains are to be filtered. |
| jkouyoumjian Aug 02, 2006 9:57 AM EDT |
Yeah - I get what you are saying. What I mean is that if the option were put before me in my local town, I would advocate against general Internet access in our library for the reasons I outlined. The purpose of the library is to promote and preserve knowledge contained in books that would otherwise be lost when books eventually go out of print. Libraries are a compromise between copyright holders and the government. The government gives copyright holders exclusive control over their work for a certain period of time, but also requires that such works can be archived and accessed in libraries, without restriction (or further royalty), thereby providing a benefit to society in exchange for the copyright. There are organizations trying to do this with digitally recorded knowledge and some are connected to the Internet. However, public libraries are not filling this function. I find it strange that a debate has erupted about anonymous, unrestricted access to the Internet, in of all places, public libraries, as this has no analog to a library's mission. If public libraries are going to provide access to the Internet, why not provide access to television, radio and the telephone as well? Is anyone advocating for unrestricted, anonymous, free phone calling from the library? |
| tuxchick2 Aug 02, 2006 10:06 AM EDT |
jkouyoumjian and jdixon, while you're right that federal funds have more strings attached than ever, don't forget that's OUR MONEY. Just like local funding. |
| jdixon Aug 02, 2006 1:06 PM EDT |
tuxchick: > jkouyoumjian and jdixon, while you're right that federal funds have more strings attached than ever, don't forget that's OUR MONEY. Just like local funding. Yes, but at the federal level you don't get to directly vote on the spending levels and uses. In most areas the local funding is voted on directly. That makes a big difference. |
| NoDough Aug 02, 2006 1:12 PM EDT |
>In most areas the local funding is voted on directly. That makes a big difference. Not where I'm from. And, yes, it would make a big difference. |
| sbergman27 Aug 02, 2006 2:45 PM EDT |
OLPC. How does that figure into this? Since we're talking about shipping internet access to a population of children potentially many times the U.S. population, it seems a significant question to ask. I suspect that we need to start trusting the judgement of the kids a bit more. |
| dinotrac Aug 02, 2006 3:06 PM EDT |
>I suspect that we need to start trusting the judgement of the kids a bit more. There is a reason kids need parents and other adults in their lives. It is to help them form the ability to exercise good judgment (not to mention provide survival basics). |
| sbergman27 Aug 02, 2006 4:32 PM EDT |
Good thing we're sending parents and other adults with the laptops, then. Otherwise, who knows what might happen? |
| grouch Aug 02, 2006 9:33 PM EDT |
>"Good thing we're sending parents and other adults with the laptops, then. Otherwise, who knows what might happen?" I suspect there might already be one or two adults in Nigeria, Argentina, Brazil, and (I forget the other country that has ordered). Those folks might feel they can handle the adult supervision without the U.S. government's help. |
| dinotrac Aug 03, 2006 1:30 AM EDT |
> Those folks might feel they can handle the adult supervision without the U.S. government's help. Now if we could only get some adult supervision for the federal government. |
| grouch Aug 03, 2006 2:04 AM EDT |
LOL dinotrac! First we have to get the tubes unclogged. http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/497 |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!