10 Years Of V-Chip: Utter Failure

from the that-about-sums-it-up dept

Matt Cutts reminds us via Twitter that we're coming up on the 10th anniversary of TVs being required to have the v-chip, and what an utter failure this program has been, despite hundreds of millions spent on it (including tons of taxpayer money for "education"). Cutts points to a 1996 NY Times opinion piece accurately predicting what a waste the V-Chip would be, and it seems to be quite right. The fight over the V-Chip, if you don't remember, was in some ways similar to some of the arguments about violent video games today. It involved lots of politicians grandstanding about needing to "protect the children" from the dangerous effects of seeing violence on TV (despite a serious lack of real evidence of any impact). Then it required TV makers to install this chip, followed up by $550 million "education" campaign. And the result? A dismal failure and a waste of money. A 2007 FCC analysis (warning: pdf) of the program isn't impressed:

Based on the studies and surveys conducted to date, we believe that the evidence clearly points to one conclusion: the V-chip is of limited effectiveness in protecting children from violent television content. In order for V-chip technology to block a specific category of television programming, such as violent content, it must be activated. However, many parents do not even know if the television sets in their households incorporate this technology and, of those who do, many do not use it.

But do politicians learn? Of course not. They still grandstand and still talk about the need to protect the children, and push for laws to get their names in the headlines.

But because there are no metrics and no official process for review to make sure a law actually does what it claims it's supposed to do (and, of course, no backup plans), these laws get passed, hundreds of millions of dollars get wasted... and we're left a decade later with a total waste and failure.

At what point can we at least get new laws to require a review period to see if they actually do what they're set out to do, and then reject the ones that fail?

65 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Congress Wants WiFi Owners To Keep Log Files For 2 Years... For The Children

from the it's-always-for-the-children dept

Similar ideas have been proposed before, but new bills have been proposed in both the House and the Senate that require anyone offering internet connectivity to retain log files for two years. There's no good reason for this, of course. It's been shown that such data retention laws actually make it more difficult to track down the information you need while being expensive. But, of course, the politicians are claiming this is "to protect the children." Of course. They even have come up with a silly acronym so that the title of the bill (Internet Stopping Adults Facilitating the Exploitation of Today's Youth Act) spells out "Internet SAFETY Act." Of course, that's a load of crap, because this bill has little to do with protecting children, and won't do much, if anything to actually protect children.

It will, however, be a huge nuisance for just about everyone. That's because the bill, as written, doesn't just apply to big ISPs, but to anyone providing internet access -- meaning all of you with your home routers fall under this law and will need to keep log files for two years or, you know, be accused of helping child predators. I can't wait until prosecutors are looking to charge someone with something -- and since they have no actual evidence on whatever it is they're looking for, they'll make use of such a law to prosecute. For the children. Of course.

Can someone pass a law that says that any politician who proposes a law "for the sake of the children" or "to protect the children" automatically gets thrown out of elected office? Protecting children is great -- but why is it that every law that is supposedly there to protect the children never actually has anything to do with protecting children?

61 Comments | Leave a Comment..

UK Culture Secretary Andy Burnham Wants Websites To Be Rated... To Protect The Children

from the can-we-rate-Andy-Burnham-instead? dept

The UK sure does have one impressively clueless culture secretary in Andy Burnham. We first came across him nearly a year ago, when he was suggesting that it should be ISPs' responsibility to deal with file sharing by monitoring usage and cutting off users who file share. Then, just a few weeks ago, he made an incredibly poorly thought out speech, where he pushed for copyright extension on performance rights, not for any good reason -- but because of some odd "moral" compunction to take content away from the public and give it to the record labels. For this he was roundly criticized by those who actually understand the topic.

But, of course, it appears he can't stop there. His latest move is to suggest that all websites should be rated and ISPs should be responsible for blocking access to inappropriate content, "for the children" of course. Burnham seems to think that the proliferation of information online is a bad thing:

"If you look back at the people who created the internet, they talked very deliberately about creating a space that governments couldn't reach. I think we are having to revisit that stuff seriously now.... There is content that should just not be available to be viewed. That is my view. Absolutely categorical. This is not a campaign against free speech, far from it; it is simply there is a wider public interest at stake when it involves harm to other people. We have got to get better at defining where the public interest lies and being clear about it."

Because, that's just what the world needs: more government censorship determining what is and what is not "appropriate" online. This is the typical mistake made by politicians who think the internet is a content platform, and not a communications platform. If he's going to censor the internet for such content, will he also make it illegal to say bad things over the phone?

To make it even more ridiculous, he wants to take the UK's libel laws -- already some of the most draconian around -- and make them even worse. He wants it to be easier than ever to sue for defamatory speech, apparently not noticing how many bogus defamation lawsuits are brought by those who are merely upset at being criticized, rather than defamed. Making it easier only encourages more bogus lawsuits.

Would it really be that out of line to suggest that a culture secretary actually understand the internet before trying to regulate it?

49 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Internet Filtering Appearing On Various Wishlists For Obama

from the hopefully-this-goes-nowhere dept

It's tough to get that worked up about the various "wishlists" being sent by different interest groups to President-elect Obama. After all, you'd expect the groups to basically push for their entire agenda, and there's no indication that an Obama administration will agree to any of these -- but it's still worth watching. For example, the MPAA's wishlist includes plenty of forced filtering and a "three strikes" policy that Europe recently rejected as taking away basic human rights (there's that MPAA spirit!). Then, we've got a group focused on "protecting the children" asking Obama to create a child protection czar, who apparently will take on the role of "first parent" in the White House, because it's not like we can expect parents to be responsible for protecting their own children.

34 Comments | Leave a Comment..

UK Politicians Demand YouTube Vet Content To 'Protect The Children'

from the the-end-of-safe-harbors dept

Various safe harbors for service providers that protect them from the actions of their users make a lot of common sense. It's simply wrong to blame a service provider for the actions of its users. We don't blame the telephone company when someone commits a crime using the phone. And we don't blame the car company for providing the getaway car. Nor do we ask those companies to do anything to block those actions. That's because we all realize how silly that is -- to blame a tool provider for the actions of its users. Yet, for some reason, when we move online, that concept gets confused. While most of the focus has been on safe harbors concerning copyright or defamation, when you toss in a bit of "but think of the children!" it gets even more ridiculous.

We've already seen this with US politicians bullying ISPs into blocking "objectionable" content, even though they have no legal basis for this (and, in fact, such blocking will only make it more difficult to track down those actually responsible). And, now we see it in the UK. UK MPs are claiming that Google needs to vet all of the content uploaded to YouTube "to protect children from harmful content." Seriously.

I guess it's only in the techie community that we recognize that the phrase "to protect the children" is almost always followed by a plan that does the opposite.

The politicians seem concerned that occasionally, questionable content is found on YouTube, and it might take them (gasp!) 24 hours to take it down. Apparently it has not occurred to those behind this demand that perhaps they should be focused on using the content being uploaded to track down those actually responsible for the objectionable (illegal?) content, rather than demanding that Google proactively hide the evidence. Next up, we'll be expecting the report where politicians demand that telephone companies "proactively" review all telephone calls to make sure there is no objectionable content "to protect children."

39 Comments | Leave a Comment..

As COPA Goes Down, DOPA Comes Back

from the ropa-dopa dept

But think of the children! It never seems to stop. Just as yet another court has ruled that the COPA law is unconstitutional, some folks in Congress are trying to bring back its sister legislation, DOPA. COPA (the Child Online Protection Act) required websites to block objectionable material. DOPA (the Deleting Online Predators Act) is much more narrowly focused, requiring schools and libraries to put in place filters that block access to social networks. Why? Well, politicians are under the false belief that this somehow stops predators.

There are just two big problems with this reasoning. First, studies have shown that the supposed "threat" of online predators has been blown way out of proportion. Most kids are not targeted by online predators on social networks, and the few who are tend to know enough to deal with them. But you won't hear the politicians pushing DOPA say that. Instead, they claim: "as more children flock to social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook, we've seen a corresponding increase of online sexual predators." According to whom? Over the past few months we've pointed to three separate reports showing that the reports of the threat have been greatly overstated.

But, more importantly, even if predators are a threat on social networks, isn't it a much better solution to let kids use them in schools and at libraries where there can be reasonable oversight, and where educators can teach the kids how to deal with online threats? Banning access from schools and libraries only guarantees that kids will find other ways to get to those social networks when no one's there to watch them. And, by making it seem like it's somehow underground, it will seem even "cooler" to make use of those sites. And, at the same time, teachers, parents and librarians won't feel compelled to teach kids how to use those sites safely, because the use will be totally hidden from view. How is that possibly a good result?

19 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Congressman Freaks Out About Second Life; Demands Ban In Schools

from the fear!-save-the-children!-be-afraid! dept

Just a few months after worrying about terrorists hiding in Second Life, now at least one Congressional representative is worried about how Second Life is corrupting your children. He's trying to drum up support to ban Second Life from schools and libraries, hyping up the fact that "bad stuff" happens in Second Life and, gosh, we wouldn't want kids to learn how to deal with bad stuff in an environment where they're protected from any physical harm. It'll be much better when they learn to deal with it out on the streets.

This is actually an attempt by Rep. Mark Kirk to reintroduce DOPA, the Deleting Online Predators Act. It was last introduced almost exactly two years ago (note the timing: right before Congressional election season...). Because very few politicians want to give an opening to challengers to their seats to put out an ad saying they voted against "protecting the children" last time around the law was quickly approved by the House by a massive 410 to 15 vote, at which point it moved on to the Senate to die (not having all Senators up for re-election at the same time has its benefits). Of the 15 dissenters to the original bill, Rep. John Dingell was the one who said what needed to be said (and which so few other Reps were willing to say):

"So now we are on the floor with a piece of legislation poorly thought out, with an abundance of surprises, which carries with it that curious smell of partisanship and panic, but which is not going to address the problems. This is a piece of legislation which is going to be notorious for its ineffectiveness and, of course, for its political benefits to some of the members hereabout."

Yes, the law would effectively ban a ton of internet sites from schools and libraries, including ones like LinkedIn, Slashdot and Amazon.com, based on its overly broad language. On top of all that, study after study after study has shown that social networks and virtual worlds (despite the FUD) are not "breeding grounds" for predators. And, of course, parents are finally coming to terms with this and are no longer freaking out about kids using these sites. So, explain why we need such unnecessary and overly broad legislation again? Oh right, it's election season...

28 Comments | Leave a Comment..

EU Tells Videogame Industry To Protect Children; Doesn't Explain From What

from the disconnect dept

Just as even more research is coming out showing the lack of any evidence that playing violent video games leads to violent activities, it appears that EU politicians have decided that they don't care about the facts, but will simply go with the false fears that the video games are dangerous. The EU has now warned the industry that it needs to come up with a way to keep the games out of the hands of kids, within the next two years. At least that's better than just coming out with a new law, but it does seem misguided (especially given the evidence). Besides, what's wrong with parents determining what's okay for their kids to play?

22 Comments | Leave a Comment..

UK Gov't Report Recognizes That 'Protecting The Children' Can 'Hurt The Children'

from the protecting-the-children? dept

Politicians absolutely love to come out with laws saying that they're "protecting the children" as it plays well during election time. The problem, though, is that many of these laws do exactly the opposite. What they end up doing is actually preventing children from actually being able to learn necessary skills and how to deal with situations they will almost certainly face later in life. Yes, children can be much more vulnerable, but the answer isn't to hide them away from everything, but to teach them how to better deal with situations they may face. However, that tends not to be politically popular -- which is why it's that much more surprising to hear of a new report, requested by the UK Prime Minister pointing out just how problematic the rush to "protect the children" can be. As Slashdot points out, the key line from the exec summary is worth repeating:

"Children and young people need to be empowered to keep themselves safe -- this isn't just about a top-down approach. Children will be children -- pushing boundaries and taking risks. At a public swimming pool we have gates, put up signs, have lifeguards and shallow ends, but we also teach children how to swim."

This reminds me, too, of a line used last year by famed judge (and IP expert, to boot) Richard Posner in striking down an anti-video game law:

"Violence has always been and remains a central interest of humankind and a recurrent, even obsessive theme of culture both high and low ... It engages the interest of children from an early age, as anyone familiar with the classic fairy tales collected by Grimm, Andersen, and Perrault are aware. To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it."

If only more people would recognize such things.

24 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Author Of SAFE Act Insists He Didn't Mean For It To Cover WiFi... But Won't Promise Any Changes

from the well-that-helps dept

Yesterday we posted on the no-discussion-necessary rapid approval of the SAFE Act, and highlighted some of the more questionable problems in the bill. While the post was pretty clear about why we (and others) believed it covered WiFi (the broadly worded language in the bill, which we had in the post), we've been getting some emails from folks who say that we twisted the legislation out of context. It probably doesn't help that whoever submitted our post to Digg (and got it Dugg onto the front page) did so in a misleading way, making it sound like our post said something it did not. However, with so much interest in this bill, it's worth digging a little deeper. The bill's author quickly responded to the charges by saying that it wasn't intended to cover open WiFi networks, but the bill itself doesn't make that clear -- and the courts tend to go by the text of the law, rather than intent (intent can be helpful, but it's much less important). The author of the original article has a clarifying conversation with the author of the bill, asking him if he'll change the text to make it clear that open WiFi is not covered -- and he gets no promises. Instead, in typical "protect the children" fashion, the guy just goes on about what an awful problem this is. The thing is, no one is denying that child pornography is a terrible thing. What we're worried about is incredibly broadly worded bills that were clearly written and approved in a hurry with little oversight, and which do not appear to take into account the unintended consequences of what they're putting into law.

6 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Congress Rushes Through Law To Protect The Children... And Make Open WiFi A Huge Liability

from the congress-folks-at-work dept

Congress was apparently busy on Wednesday moving forward with incredibly bad laws that are designed to look good to certain constituents, but are highly questionable in real terms. We already discussed the new PRO IP bill, but the House also rushed through approval of the SAFE Act, which is one of those ridiculous bills that everyone feels compelled to vote for to "protect the children." Only two Representatives voted against the bill (and, yes, for his fans, one of them was Ron Paul). As Declan McCullough's report makes clear, the backers of this bill rushed it through Congress for no clear reason. They used a procedural trick normally reserved for non-controversial laws -- and made significant changes from an earlier version, never making the new version available for public review prior to the vote.

So what's so awful about the law? Well, like most "protect the children" legislation, it goes way overboard in terms of what people are expected to do, and like most legislation having to do with technology, seems utterly clueless about how technology works. The bill would require anyone providing an "electronic communication service" or a "remote computing service" to record and report information any time they "learn" that their network was used for certain broadly defined illegal activities concerning obscene images. That's double trouble, as both the illegal activities and the classification of who counts as a service provider are so broadly defined. McCullough notes that anyone providing an open WiFi network, a social network, a domain registry or even a webmail service probably qualify under the law. Glenn Fleishman describes what the law could mean in practice, points out that anyone who runs an open WiFi network for the public is now basically required to snitch on anyone they think may be doing anything deemed "illegal" in this act, including viewing or transmitting certain obscene drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings. As Fleishman notes, it "sounds like viewing an Abercrombie and Fitch catalog could qualify." Even worse, part of the snitching is that beyond sending a report and the images to the gov't, you're supposed to retain the "illegal" image yourself -- which would seem to open you up to charges of possession as well if you somehow screw up (if you follow everything exactly to the letter of the law, you are granted immunity).

If you don't snitch on anyone suspected of viewing or transmitting these images, then you, as the network "operator" are suddenly liable for huge fines. Honestly, the liability is so big that anyone offering WiFi is probably better off no longer doing so. This is one of those laws that politicians love to pass, because they think it makes them look like they're protecting children -- when all they're really doing is creating a huge and unnecessary headache for all kinds of service providers, from open WiFi operators to social networking sites to webmail offerings. But, of course, it moves forward -- with no public scrutiny and no discussion -- because almost no politician wants to allow a politician to accuse him or her of voting "against" protecting the children.

111 Comments | Leave a Comment..