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."

Someone has to say it.

[CrazyJim1]

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

And just like putting a man on the moon can be faked, so can you fake your age on the Internet.

PS: I am not implying the moon landing was faked.

Costs

[Icarus1919]

'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.

So the question is, is the government willing to pay the amount of money it would require to make that kind of age verification system, much like they were willing to pay the money required to put a man on the moon? Oh wait, no, the companies have to pay for it.

What defines a "social networking" site

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect any site that allows message posting could be considered a social networking site under a poorly-crafted law and this will surely be poorly-crafted.

oh geez.....

[tx_kanuck]

We can put a man on the moon, so we can verify ages on the Internet? Yes, that makes a great logical leap there. We can build a car, that doesn't mean we can create skynet.

Why don't we also require some sort of age verification before anyone can call 1-900 numbers? There is no verification for that, and yet it's accessible to minors. OMG!!! Won't someone think of the children??

Oh wait, it's to stop older men from hurting younger women. I guess that means that someone is, just not the parents. Seriously, where does parental responsibility start these days?

How does this work?

[TubeSteak]

Does MySpace have to geolocate IP addresses & kick people from Connecticut through a verification process?

Maybe MySpace will change their signup process so that when you select "Connecticut" as your home state, you go through some verification process.

What if you pretend to be from another state, create your account, then change it to Connecticut? Does MySpace have to go back and verify your age?

Ontop of all that, how the F**K are they supposed to get your parents permission?
How do they verify that the "parent" actually is your legal guardian?

Trying to find technical solutions to a social problem is an uphill battle.

Blumenthal said parental permission might involve downloading a form, filling it out and mailing it to the site. Or perhaps requiring a parent to call and speak to a representative of the site.

Note how he uses words like "might" and "perhaps". The politicians have no clue how it could possibly be implemented.

Lazy parents.

[NumSlashZero]

There's enough of this "think of the children" crap when the majority of it could easily be solved by parents actually monitoring their children instead of relying on technology and things such as this. It's simple. All of these MySpace lawsuits and whatnot are complete bull, because every one of them could have been avoided if the parents actually paid attention to what their children were doing.

Re:Costs

[smartr]

I'm sure a large marketing media company run Rupert Murdock could never find any use for being "forced" by the government to collect "verification" information on all of its users. They certainly could be no benefit for that kind of company to create that kind of customer database.

Re:How does this work?

[DamnStupidElf]

Note how he uses words like "might" and "perhaps". The politicians have no clue how it could possibly be implemented.

Note that verifying ages is not going to stop 14 year old girls from talking to 18 year old guys, either. What are they supposed to do, prevent children from viewing the myspace profiles of adults and vice versa? Maybe the government should just build a Children's Earth and send all the children there, and ship them back when they turn 18. Maybe they should also build a Stupid Idiot planet and go there themselves.

One fundamental problem...

[zCyl]

Accurate age verification essentially requires accurate identity verification. And if this is mandatory, then anonymity is completely impossible.

Anonymity has long been a valuable component of free speech, and eliminating this is disastrous.

Re:Lazy parents.

[thrawn_aj]

Mod parent +1 (did I say that right? sorta new to this lingo =D). But to get back on topic, that is precisely where the responsibility lies. The Amish solved the problem nicely (although a bit extreme but that's just my opinion ;)). A slashdotter's signature I saw a few days ago was a quote by Heinlein about censorship. The same applies here; to paraphrase an old (East) Indian folktale - it's rather silly to install carpets in the entire kingdom; just wear a pair of shoes :P.

Conclusion: American politicians and american parents need to learn the philosphy of wearing shoes =D.

Re:It's easy!

[rootofevil]

clearly you have neglected the inevitable 'eye bleach required' entries.

One big difference...

[Todd Knarr]

There's one big difference, Mr. Blumenthal, between putting a man on the Moon and verifying someone's age over the Internet: when you're trying to put a man on the Moon, the laws of physics aren't lying to you at every turn.

False Comparison

[Dun Malg]

You know what the biggest problem is with the old "If they can put man on the moon, why can't they [X]" cliche? People who use it don't limit it to reasonable and/or humorous accomplishments, like "make a blister pack that doesn't cut you to ribbons opening it". No, instead we get an incessant parade of morons who can't tell the difference between a collaborative effort towards a single narrow goal, and a huge, distributed task with multiple causes. We get idiots wondering why we can't "fix the slums", "stop drunk driving", or (in this case) "positively verify age over the internet". I say we work together to stamp this out. The next time someone utters the "man on the moon" comparison in a non-humorous context, we all agree to rush them and punch them in the stomach until they shut up.

If they can put a man on the moon, then why can't we stop them from comparing stuff to putting a man on the moon?

In other news...

[cepler]

...in other news Montanna has outlawed those under 18 from speaking to anyone else under 18 citing cases of extreme violence caused by children teasing each other. President Bush has applauded this move saying it's about time a state take steps to stop needless violence in America.

Somebody who goes to these sites tell me..

[gd23ka]

Aside from the general control agenda they have with the internet, from the socioforming
perspective I wonder why they are moving against these social networking sites. I always
went with the theory that these sites actually immobilize people socially with surrogate
chatroom buddies they will never meet in real life. Could it be that these sites actually
cause people to meet up face to face in real life? (That would explain their upset).

Don't blow up at me or call me names. I'm just curious.

Re:Lazy parents.

[Nataku564]

Every single one of your scenarios involves adults controlling their children directly. Stop attacking the symptoms and go for the cause. Raise your child to be responsible, and trust them. If you can't do this - then that isn't my problem, nor is it myspace's. Leave our internet alone.

Whats next? Your kid has a friend with an XBOX? ZOMG! We can't let that happen - lets have laws mandating that all XBOX Live voice chat must go through age verification.

Of course, even if you put constraints on all media/communication ever (may that day never come to pass), your kid will still just be able to wander down the street to the local mall and pick up the hot older guys. The internet isn't nearly this bad, since it requires your kid to be really stupid and post personal information in order to be harmed.

When I was a kid, my parents told me not to do stupid things, and then (for the most part) left me alone. They didn't scream in my ear to stay away from drugs. Far from it. My dad said they felt great ... then he went through all the withdrawl symptoms. He told me which ones were probably best left alone, and which probably wouldn't do anything to you at all - despite what the DARE officer may say. He, of course, said he would prefer me not to do drugs, and they should never be in the house, but my life was mine to screw up as I please. To this day, I have not done any drugs. I have immense respect for the trust my parents placed in me, and that alone kept me more in line than any punishment I can remember.

Re:Costs

[Icarus1919]

How are you going to age verify for any reasonable amount of money with multiple users on a home computer? In an average home environment, how is a computer supposed to tell if dad, mom, or kids are using at any given time? Even if a corporation WANTED to, it's a fool's errand.

Re:Someone has to say it.

[Seumas]

I suppose the idea is that verification will be "simple" because every adult can just verify using a credit card. Oh, wait -- you don't have a credit card or you don't like to use your credit card or give out the details to every website you come across? Well, too bad for you. This should be a boon to Visa and MasterCard! Well, alternately, you may also send us a photocopy of your birth certificate, driver's license, state identification card, social security card and a paystub.

Of course, the preferred method will still be a credit card. After all, ONLY ADULTS CAN HAVE CREDIT CARDS. Well, and children. And people's dogs... and... whoever else they randomly send them to these days.

Remember, the burden should not be on the parent to guide and monitor their children! The burden should be on the rest of society to nerf everything for the precious flesh they squirted out in the backseat of the car after the prom!

Never Worked

[Doc Ruby]

If the state could stop me from buying alcohol under age 21, it would have, but it didn't. Didn't stop it from trying, though.

Instead, my parents raised me right, and I learned to drink without driving or anything else stupid.

Making sure kids are exposed to only healthy environments is the parents' job, not the state's. Because the state will only get it awfully wrong, while parents can get it right for the specific kid.

The state might have to punish parents when their kids actually damage someone (or themselves) by taking more risks than they can handle. But starting from the point that no parents can allow their kids to do things they are ready for, even though they're not at the arbitary state age, just damages another generation of kids who should be learning from those actually responsible for them, not some official puritans and their nerveless, clumsy bureaucratic hands. Even if the scaredy-nannies want to vote for the latest buzzkill-in-chief.

Re:Anyone miss the 20's?

[alx5000]

If we can put a man on the moon...

• ... we can build cars that drive themselves.
• ... teletransportation doesn't seem so difficult to develop.
• ... we can make those autodriving cars fly.
• ... we can deploy safe cold fusion in your living room.
• ... cancer's cure will be announced in a matter of minutes (by a non-Iranian country)
• ... etc

That argument is the most stupid one I've heard in ages. Someone please establish a connection between NASA getting someone to the Moon and MySpace verifying users' authenticy*. I'm really curious.

* What really creeps me out is that someone WILL find one and be modded both funny and insightful.

Re:One fundamental problem...

[Danse]

We are talking about social networking sites in the US, not some political organization in China. Anonymity in this case is not about free speech, but about the "right" to not take responsibility for what we say. Personally, I find anonymity more of a problem as it is a major cause of pollution.

What's the difference really between a social networking site, and any other site where people communicate, be it about politics, religion, health issues, etc? Who says which ones can be anonymous and which can't, and why should we trust them?

Re:Goodbye Anonymous Coward

[malkir]

Mod parent +1 That's EXACTLY what I was thinking. We should be spending more time educating stupid parents about what their children are doing, not essentially banning people from the internet. AIM is considered social networking, MSN is considered social networking, video games could be considered social networking ('o hey where u from?'). All for the sake of the children.
What these idiots don't realize is that sites like myspace are only there because of popularity -- if they ban people from social networking, they're just going to find something else either equally as 'bad' or possibly worse to do.
If I didn't have the capability to converse with people outside my immediate area, I'd be smoking a lot more than marijuana.

Re:One fundamental problem...

[zCyl]

Anonymity in this case is not about free speech, but about the "right" to not take responsibility for what we say.

How about the right to not be held to consequences for our political speech? If 50% of the employer's in the country would fire you for your political views unrelated to your job, do you have free speech? If the government finds you a suspicious character because of your political speech and decides to monitor you (reference the FBI during the civil rights movement), do you have truly free speech?

Anonymity says you can speak without reprisal, which is an essential component of freedom of political speech. For speech to be free, you have to be able to speak without punishment, and no one can punish you if they don't know who you are.

So what if the garbage ratio in areas that allow anonymity bothers you. Don't look at it. But leave the route open for those who have a legitimate and controversial viewpoint to express.

Re:Anyone miss the 20's?

[init100]

Someone saying "if we can put a man on the moon, we surely should be able to do X" is a certain sign that this someone does not have the faintest idea of what he is talking about.

Re:Anyone miss the 20's?

[paeanblack]

Someone saying "if we can put a man on the moon, we surely should be able to do X" is a certain sign that this someone does not have the faintest idea of what he is talking about.

What is even funnier is the fact that right now, we can't readily put a man on the moon. However, back when we could put a man on the moon, we could also readily verify the age of everyone on the internet.