Connecticut Wants to Restrict Social Networking

csefft writes "According to the Hartford Courant, Connecticut became the latest state to want to restrict the use of MySpace and other social networking sites. The proposed bill would require that all such sites verify the identity and age of users, as well as get parent's permission for those under 18. Sites that failed to comply would be subject to a $5,000 per day fine. Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said of the proposition, 'If we can put a man on the moon, we can verify age on the Internet,' but quickly followed with the acknowledgment that there is no foolproof method."

Speaking as networking site owner...

[Heddahenrik]

>Under the bill, networking sites that failed to verify ages and failed to obtain parental permission before posting profiles of users under age 18 would face civil penalties of up to $5,000 a day for every day of noncompliance.

Hahahaha! Stuff that fine where the sun never shines! It will never reach my sexy Swedish butt, I can assure you.

Rule #1: If you want to work with media: Do it from another country than the one you're targeting!

Information for tracking the bill

[phiz187]

I contacted Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal's office and was advised that the initiative is being handled by the General Law Committee [ct.gov]. I contacted their office on 09 March 2007 and was informed that the proposed legislation would likely be attatched to House Bill #6981 [ct.gov]
-PHiZ

Dilbert Equivalent

[Erioll]

If we can put a man on the moon, we can verify age on the Internet

When I saw that quote, I immediately thought of a Dilbert strip. Luckily, somebody already put the transcript online [blogspot.com]:

Pointy-haired boss: "If we can put a man on the moon, we can build a computer made entirely of recycled paper."

Dilbert: "Your flawed analogy only shows that other people can do things."

Boss: "Maybe you should call other people and ask how they do it."

Dilbert: "Maybe they use good analogies."

The nature of humans

[Looce]

The nature of humans is such that, with sufficient desire to access something, they will do anything in order to do so.

This does not just affect technology, either. Just look at any child whose ball went into the street. He has the desire to access the ball again, so, even if it's in the middle of the road, he will try to reach it.

Similarly, in high school, it is considered "cool" to drink beer, and smoke pot. Many students succumb to peer pressure, and in order to access these forbidden substances, they will get someone who is over the legal drinking age (oh noes!) to get this kind of access for them.

Getting back to technology, little kids under 13 will say they are over 13 to play some games that abide by the COPPA [wikipedia.org]. Black-hat hackers try to use vulnerabilities to break into the Govt's computers.

And users of MySpace will lie about their age.

Unless (and until) the state of Connecticut creates and maintains a database of biometric data associated with its residents, and forces every one of them to have the scanner associated with the data collected (retinal scan, fingerprint etc.) to register with MySpace, let's face it, inaccuracies will still arise.

And after that, we will complain that we don't have privacy.

So, I must ask: Protection of the children, or Big Brother? ... Or take a more viable approach, that of educating children and parents about the impending dangers of these social networking sites?

Re:Enforcable?

[JackSpratts]

"Is this even enforcible if it gets passed? What if MySpace simply decides to not do business in Connecticut (as in, have no office nor servers there). " it isn't so simple or so localised. blumenthal is working with ags in 44 other states and while it's unreasonable to assume they will all have these bills, it's unreasonable to assume this will remain a connecticut-only issue that myspace can route around. expect to see many, many states jumping on this in the next several months - so many in fact it will seriously affect all so-called networking sites. these bills are as popular as the laws that prohibit sex-offenders from using parks and living near schools and for the same reasons - "protecting children." legislators find them impossible to resist in this climate. - js.