protecting kids from porn and predators on the Internet
A simple common sense solution to protect kids from Internet pornography and predators http://bit.ly/NcULb enjoy joe baptista -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com
Joe Baptista wrote:
A simple common sense solution to protect kids from Internet pornography and predators http://bit.ly/NcULb
First of all, this is completely off topic for an ICANN discussion, as ICANN has no authority over Internet content. Nor should it ever have any such authority. Having said that. it is my observation that 99.99% of the time, when anyone talks about protecting children, they really want to restrict adult behaviour. This plan is no exception, and I would actively campaign against it. There is no substitute for being a good parent and being involved in your childrens' lives. No legislation can compensate for that. As a parent of two I do not want the government doing my job. - Evan
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 09:42:42 -0400, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Joe Baptista wrote:
A simple common sense solution to protect kids from Internet pornography and predators http://bit.ly/NcULb
First of all, this is completely off topic for an ICANN discussion, as ICANN has no authority over Internet content. Nor should it ever have any such authority.
+1
There is no substitute for being a good parent and being involved in your childrens' lives.
+2 Patrick
Hello Evan, On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 7:12 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
99.99% of the time, when anyone talks about protecting children, they really want to restrict adult behaviour.
Yes, we need to shout aloud to make this heard.
This plan is no exception, and I would actively campaign against it.
Please let me know of any work that you may do on this, I will be by your side to what little I can to help. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
- Evan
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
On 8/21/09, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Joe Baptista wrote:
A simple common sense solution to protect kids from Internet pornography and predators http://bit.ly/NcULb
First of all, this is completely off topic for an ICANN discussion, as ICANN has no authority over Internet content. Nor should it ever have any such authority.
No it is not. Protecting children from pornography and predators is everyones business. This coming year ICANN will receive a number of proposals for TLDs for kids. Many of these TLD operators will claim they can protect children from predators and porn on the Internet. Most if not all of these claims will be bogus but non the less will be made to ICANN. Having said that. it is my observation that 99.99% of the time, when
anyone talks about protecting children, they really want to restrict adult behaviour. This plan is no exception, and I would actively campaign against it.
I suggest you enroll in a reading comprehension course. The same applies to anyone supporting you in this argument. Anyone reading the article will note it has absolutely nothing to do with restricting adult behavior and everything to do with restricting children from Internet access. The only adults I can see suddenly restricted by the proposal to legislate kids off the Internet would be predators of kids and pedophiles in general and NAMBLA members in particular. Lack of kids on the Internet would mean pedophiles have less opportunity to recruit. Common sense! Also you would see immediate benefits that address your concerns - "when anyone talks about protecting children, they really want to restrict adult behavior". I strongly agree with that statement. Governments increasingly see protecting children as a means of increasing surveillance of national and international citizens. I would go as far as saying that child porn is a growth industry. It's the best marketing tool not only for justifying surveillance but also it pays big bucks. As world wide cybercrime increases exponentially we have police departments in many countries who don't have the resources to fight criminals because their budget is dedicated chasing the ever elusive child porn pics around the networks. The real issues of child abuse and just basic crime fighting get overlooked. Legislating children off the Internet reduces government justification for survelance as well as prevents abuse of kids and frees up policing resources to fight real crime. Also please remember. It is children who mostly produce the child porn these days that is distributed on the Internet and I'm sure much loved by pedophiles. It is an unwritten rule with most police departments that if a child porn investigation finds children have produced porn the whole thing is hushed up. The police don't do their job and arrest the children for breaking the law but in all cases the kids are given a stiff warning in front of the parents. The policy works. Those kids don't re offend. I see a double standard being played here. The law is the law and your a child pornographer regardless of age if you produce child porn. The laws make no exception in the charge by age. The only exception in law is that adults are tried via the regular criminal courts and underage people are served by youth services - depending on your jurisdiction. I think the punishments differer between adult and child criminals. Getting children off the Internet removes the potential they end up kiddy pornographers with criminal records. Because sooner or later some cop boss with balls is going to start charging kids and it will become a popular with the conservative masses. As you can see I understand your concern when it comes to government restrictions on adult behavior. But I think under the circumstances you are misguided in your reasoning. There is no substitute for being a good parent and being involved in
your childrens' lives. No legislation can compensate for that.
I agree. The problem is that a majority of parents don't do a good job of parenting. I have had the opportunity of seeing at least four generations of parenting and I'm not impressed. Parenting has gotten worse as we move forward in history. I find most I interview are good parents in principle but not in practice. Based on your own subjective view that a function of good parenting means being involved in your children's lives we find that parents today have less time to spend with their children then they had in past years. That is one of the main excuses I get from parents is the lack of time due to the pressures from day to day living. Good parenting is also a subjective concept. You may think your a good parent - others may disagree. In many cases parenting is a cultural affair. The concept changes across cultures. Parenting these days is more experimental and an act of faith the it is a standard. The biggest factor that influences good parenting is simply time - or the lack thereof. As a
parent of two I do not want the government doing my job.
This is another nonsense catch all argument. Do you home school your children? If not then government is doing your job already in providing teachers and schools for them. cheers joe baptista - Evan
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com
This policy idea could also be applied, uselessly, to trolls. On 22 Aug 2009, at 02:53, Joe Baptista wrote:
On 8/21/09, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Joe Baptista wrote:
A simple common sense solution to protect kids from Internet pornography and predators http://bit.ly/NcULb
First of all, this is completely off topic for an ICANN discussion, as ICANN has no authority over Internet content. Nor should it ever have any such authority.
No it is not. Protecting children from pornography and predators is everyones business. This coming year ICANN will receive a number of proposals for TLDs for kids. Many of these TLD operators will claim they can protect children from predators and porn on the Internet. Most if not all of these claims will be bogus but non the less will be made to ICANN.
Having said that. it is my observation that 99.99% of the time, when
anyone talks about protecting children, they really want to restrict adult behaviour. This plan is no exception, and I would actively campaign against it.
I suggest you enroll in a reading comprehension course. The same applies to anyone supporting you in this argument. Anyone reading the article will note it has absolutely nothing to do with restricting adult behavior and everything to do with restricting children from Internet access.
The only adults I can see suddenly restricted by the proposal to legislate kids off the Internet would be predators of kids and pedophiles in general and NAMBLA members in particular. Lack of kids on the Internet would mean pedophiles have less opportunity to recruit. Common sense!
Also you would see immediate benefits that address your concerns - "when anyone talks about protecting children, they really want to restrict adult behavior". I strongly agree with that statement. Governments increasingly see protecting children as a means of increasing surveillance of national and international citizens. I would go as far as saying that child porn is a growth industry. It's the best marketing tool not only for justifying surveillance but also it pays big bucks.
As world wide cybercrime increases exponentially we have police departments in many countries who don't have the resources to fight criminals because their budget is dedicated chasing the ever elusive child porn pics around the networks. The real issues of child abuse and just basic crime fighting get overlooked.
Legislating children off the Internet reduces government justification for survelance as well as prevents abuse of kids and frees up policing resources to fight real crime.
Also please remember. It is children who mostly produce the child porn these days that is distributed on the Internet and I'm sure much loved by pedophiles. It is an unwritten rule with most police departments that if a child porn investigation finds children have produced porn the whole thing is hushed up. The police don't do their job and arrest the children for breaking the law but in all cases the kids are given a stiff warning in front of the parents.
The policy works. Those kids don't re offend. I see a double standard being played here. The law is the law and your a child pornographer regardless of age if you produce child porn. The laws make no exception in the charge by age. The only exception in law is that adults are tried via the regular criminal courts and underage people are served by youth services - depending on your jurisdiction. I think the punishments differer between adult and child criminals.
Getting children off the Internet removes the potential they end up kiddy pornographers with criminal records. Because sooner or later some cop boss with balls is going to start charging kids and it will become a popular with the conservative masses.
As you can see I understand your concern when it comes to government restrictions on adult behavior. But I think under the circumstances you are misguided in your reasoning.
There is no substitute for being a good parent and being involved in
your childrens' lives. No legislation can compensate for that.
I agree. The problem is that a majority of parents don't do a good job of parenting. I have had the opportunity of seeing at least four generations of parenting and I'm not impressed. Parenting has gotten worse as we move forward in history.
I find most I interview are good parents in principle but not in practice. Based on your own subjective view that a function of good parenting means being involved in your children's lives we find that parents today have less time to spend with their children then they had in past years. That is one of the main excuses I get from parents is the lack of time due to the pressures from day to day living.
Good parenting is also a subjective concept. You may think your a good parent - others may disagree. In many cases parenting is a cultural affair. The concept changes across cultures. Parenting these days is more experimental and an act of faith the it is a standard.
The biggest factor that influences good parenting is simply time - or the lack thereof.
As a
parent of two I do not want the government doing my job.
This is another nonsense catch all argument. Do you home school your children? If not then government is doing your job already in providing teachers and schools for them.
cheers joe baptista
- Evan
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Joe Baptista
www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084
Personal: www.joebaptista.wordpress.com _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Even when the subject is valid I believe the discussion its completely out of the scope of ICANN and this list. No matter if it's the Internet or any other technology children these days are more exposed to many things, it only takes to spend few minutes in front of the tv during prime time when the kids are still watching, and in some cases on channels for kids, and you get all these commercials for ED pills, to "enlarge" your apparatus, to blow away your partner with satisfaction, for movies not rated for kids, etc, etc. Parents should get more involved with their kids and provide guidance and a good example. What ICANN can do as a "charitable organization" with plenty of $$ to spend away, is to fund programs to educate parents, teachers, etc, about how to handle this issue. As Evan said, is not ICANN's biz to regulate content or anything else (unless we resort again to the default argument about the "stability and security" of the Internet). My .02
participants (6)
-
Christian de Larrinaga -
Evan Leibovitch -
Joe Baptista -
Jorge Amodio -
Patrick Vande Walle -
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy