Not one to keep harping on about
gross technical ignorance in a
highly technical field, instead here's an interesting report on the more social side of things (that is not to ask "how would we do filtering?" but "do we even need to try?"):
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/pubrelease/isttf/
...and for those who aren't interested in reading the (admittedly fairly dry) PDFd report:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/14/techn ... .html?_r=2
Key quotes:
Report wrote:The Internet increases the availability of harmful, problematic and illegal content, but does
not always increase minors’ exposure. Unwanted exposure to pornography does occur
online, but those most likely to be exposed are those seeking it out, such as older male
minors. Most research focuses on adult pornography and violent content, but there are also
concerns about other content, including child pornography and the violent, pornographic,
and other problematic content that youth themselves generate.
So if your kid isn't going looking for bad things, they won't be assailed by images of Roger Rabbit banging away at his wife in an orgiastic furry saga - it's only when your kid decides he
wants to start looking at bewbs a little closer that he'll likely run into them.
So why not apply a filter here?
For the same reason nanny chips installed on TVs are epic fail, and parental guidance is required or recommended for certain movies - it's not society's job to automatically protect your kid. It's our job to assist you in doing it yourself.
When it comes to something as unregulated and enormous as the web (because let's face it, this is about the
web, it's not about the
internet - the great firewall of Oz isn't going to filter P2P or IM - it's for the web), it is society's responsibility to educate both parents and children.
The web contains things you don't want your child to see.
These things typically don't show up unless they are sought out.
The only way to ensure that they won't go finding it, is to be aware of their activities and watch them while they use it. Failing that, don't let them on the net at all.
It is socially irresponsible for us to teach parents that a filter can do their job, the same way it would be socially irresponsible to just let the kid watch TV day and night and expect content regulators to make sure it's "okay" for them.
Report wrote:Bullying and harassment, most often by peers, are the most frequent threats that minors
face, both online and offline.
This social problem is entirely ignored by the proposed system, yet is apparently more significant than the threat of "unwanted" web content.
Your filter does nothing to protect Amanda from being targetted and bullied by her peers on MSN.
You keeping an eye on her, watching her behaviour while online is far more likely to indicate a problem, which can then be addressed.
Report wrote:Minors are not equally at risk online. Those who are most at risk often engage in risky
behaviors and have difficulties in other parts of their lives. The psychosocial makeup of
and family dynamics surrounding particular minors are better predictors of risk than the use
of specific media or technologies.
Maybe I'm putting words into their mouths, but I'm reading that as "If your family situation is crap, it'll be crap whether the net has porn or not."
That social problem doesn't have a technological solution.
The report does however go on to express "optimism" with regard to various technologies developed to help protect children.
Report wrote:Technology can play a helpful role, but there is no one technological solution or
specific combination of technological solutions to the problem of online safety for minors.
Report wrote:The Task Force does not believe that the Attorneys General should endorse any one
technology or set of technologies to protect minors online. Instead, the Attorneys General should
continue to work collaboratively with all stakeholders in pursuing a multifaceted approach to
enhance safety for minors online.
Right. Which would be exactly what isn't happening in Australia.
Not that I expect the Yanks to take
their reports any more seriously than we did
ours.
Report wrote:Parents and caregivers should: educate themselves about the Internet and the ways in which
their children use it, as well as about technology in general; explore and evaluate the
effectiveness of available technological tools for their particular child and their family
context, and adopt those tools as may be appropriate; be engaged and involved in their
children’s Internet use; be conscious of the common risks youth face to help their children
understand and navigate the technologies; be attentive to at-risk minors in their community
and in their children’s peer group; and recognize when they need to seek help from others.
Any
good technological attempt at a solution results in a tool or further empowerment of the parents and family to look after their kids.
A policy founded on broad stroke filtering, particularly one shown to be ineffective, and a complete lack of parental education or even regard for education and advice only serves to further disempower parents.
Parents who are already outstripped by their children when it comes to knowledge of the web and internet services.
Who do you think you are? If you'd stopped winning, you could have been the Biggest Loser, if you gave up, you could have been a Survivor, if you'd stopped reading Orwell, you could have been on Big Brother!
