homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.163.91.250
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Local / Foo
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: incrediBILL & lawman

Foo Forum

    
Net Industry must fight online predators
BBC Article
jackofalltrades




msg:289003
 10:40 am on Jan 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

[news.bbc.co.uk...]

BBC Article about the UK Government laying out guidlines for ISPs and chatroom hosts to deal with the threat of paedophiles on the net.

It proposes that every chatroom has an online moderator, but it is argued that is not always possible.

I participated in BBCs live chat yesterday, and although i was late (story of my life! :)) they forwarded one of my email comments to the Home Officer minister and published it on the site, along with the other comments.

I argued that it is simple for a web designer to create a professional looking site that appears to be part of a large company.

Therefore by merely promoting awareness to parents and encouraging them to vet sites that their kids view can be a pointless endeavour - they may not be able to tell what site is safe and what isnt.

The burden of repsonsiblity should lie upon the company to moderate their forums or chat rooms, and if a company doesnt have the resources to do that, then they shouldnt have cut and pasted that freeware chat room software in the first place!

Just my 2 c tho!

JOAT

 

andreasfriedrich




msg:289004
 2:34 pm on Jan 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

In medieval times good christians had to fight witches...

So far I have never encountered anybody on the net trying to lure children into meeting them. As long as everybody has a different definition of said term and age of consent is varying widely in different countries I believe this is more or less a media hype.

Lets not be prepared to give up too much freedom to fight some alledged threats.

The burden of repsonsiblity should lie upon the company to moderate their forums or chat rooms

and actually it does.

Andreas



added
I did not intend to offend anybody and I did not try to infer that those "good christians" were in fact christians which I believe very strongly they were not.

[edited by: andreasfriedrich at 3:36 pm (utc) on Jan. 7, 2003]

jackofalltrades




msg:289005
 2:49 pm on Jan 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

>So far I have never encountered anybody on the net trying to lure children into meeting them.

No-ones ever tried to sell me a bra. It doesnt mean they dont exist.

>and actually it does.

If thats the case then the responsbility is not being met in a lot of cases. Im not saying that big brother should be watching our every move, but there should be tougher penalities for companies who dont meet their responsibility.

JOAT

Key_Master




msg:289006
 2:58 pm on Jan 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

My .02 cents...

Children have no business in a chat room to begin with and responsibility begins with the parents at home.

andreasfriedrich




msg:289007
 3:04 pm on Jan 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

It doesnt mean they dont exist.

Thatīs for sure. And it would be foolish to argue that way. All I was trying to say is that apparently you do not encounter these people everywhere on the net as some people want you to believe.

Children have no business in a chat room to begin with and responsibility begins with the parents at home.

Praise to the opinion of my learned colleague Key_Master!

Andreas

lorax




msg:289008
 3:05 pm on Jan 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

IMHO it's all too easy for parents to point fingers at on-line businesses and blame them because thier child chatted with someone about adult subjects. I'm not saying the businesses shouldn't take some responsibility but I am saying there're far too many lawsuits by parents for what I see as a lack of parenting.

I'm a parent and I've been a parent to a few teenagers. I've seen first hand how parents just abdicate responsibility for their child's actions on-line primarily because they have no clue or don't make the effort to know what the child is up to on-line. Think of it this way, if your child went out and purchased $1000 worth of goods from Amazon using your credit card - is it Amazon's fault? I don't think so.

The nature of the Inet is anonyminity unless we are willing to divulge information about ourselves. On the one hand we scream to maintain the right to remain anonymous. On the other we want to know who's out there and what their intentions are. We simply can't have it both ways. The legal system will only protect us so far. It takes common sense and good parenting skills to do the rest and IMO that's where the majority of the responsibility lies.

Marcia




msg:289009
 3:12 pm on Jan 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

It's a very real situation, I've seen predators in chat rooms first hand. Parenting chat rooms.

[edited by: Marcia at 3:15 pm (utc) on Jan. 7, 2003]

SlyGuy




msg:289010
 3:14 pm on Jan 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

Children have no business in a chat room to begin with

Unless it is a chatroom for children and very well moderated. At which point, the parents should still be very aware and involved. This goes for any online activities. Parents are the best moderators.

..responsibility begins with the parents at home.

Amen.

- Chad

martinibuster




msg:289011
 3:20 pm on Jan 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

Should common sense be legislated? Should a parents responsibility be surrendered to the government?

This is part of the governments (all governments) encroachments into our civil liberties.

China, Saudi Arabia and the United States are already filtering content. In Pennsylvania, it is the burden of ISP's to filter out kiddie porn.

Those who will limit your freedom begin with something unobjectionable, then nibble away at bigger and bigger portions of your rights and freedoms.

jackofalltrades




msg:289012
 3:24 pm on Jan 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

>..responsibility begins with the parents at home.

How many kids know more about the net than their parents?

For that matter how many adults out there are completly freaked by technology?

There is no one stop solution for this, but my reason for starting the thread was to try and discuss what webmasters can do when running discussion forums or chat rooms.

I have seen too many sites just patch some freeware in (or some spending millions on developing custom software) then pulling in a younger audience and leaving it.

In the past month ive seen messages on forum aimed at children (called the "teen forum" - not the brand name or domain - just the forum label) that have made me sick. All because they company is not bothering to moderate or even monitor it.

Yes, parents need to be educated.

Yes, children need to be educated.

But, companies must be forced to take responsibility to monitor and mediate where children are involved.

JOAT

Marcia




msg:289013
 3:25 pm on Jan 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

Any chat room that has women as chatters needs to be well moderated, and it takes paid trained staff and a very keen eye to spot a lot of it. Even the parents need protection, most of them wouldn't spot a threatening situation if they saw it.

mayor




msg:289014
 3:58 pm on Jan 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

The weirdos do go on the net chasing naive children. I had one e-mailing my teenage daughter telling her he was a rock star and asking her to send nude pictures.

I do pay attention to what my daughter does online and believe me, scum abounds in cyberspace. Locally and not locally.

bill1234




msg:289015
 4:32 pm on Jan 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

So far I have never encountered anybody on the net trying to lure children into meeting them. As long as everybody has a different definition of said term and age of consent is varying widely in different countries I believe this is more or less a media hype.

I've encountered one while voluntarily helping run a community which stays at about 200.

Only one, but that one was targeting our youngest member who at that time was 14 years old. He met her in the community, got her AIM name and proceeded to woo her. We found out, *only* because the member considered me a friend and finally had second thoughts and came to me.

It was several months before she did that, and it took several hours of persuasion for her to hand over the member's name (quickly followed by the chatlogs and emails)

We banned him, reported him to AOL and his ISP (I assume they'd pass it to the police), spoke to a few friends who run similar communities as a heads-up, and checked around our other young members. At least one had also been approached. We dealt with it.

But you know, for all the guilt-trips we'd've liked to send ourselves on for not spotting it earlier... it didn't work. We went back, and checked every message he'd ever sent, and there *was* no neon "I'm hunting children" sign. No warning sign at all until the kid herself actually told us - and this in a 200 person community. In one as big as WebmasterWorld? Larger?

Sad as it is, the only way to combat internet predators is for parents to teach their kids good internet safety *and* to keep an eye on what they're doing. Because sometimes internet predators just don't give any clues until it's too late...

mayor




msg:289016
 1:52 am on Jan 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

bill1234 >> teach their kids good internet safety *and* to keep an eye on what they're doing

Right, you have to do both. You can preach safety all day and they probably won't listen. Kids just don't believe the wierdos are out there. You have to have access to their email accounts and their browser history logs at a bare minimum, and all their passwords to private sites. Don't allow them to password protect their computer from you. Not because you're spying on them, but because you're protecting them from the wierdos. Someday they'll understand, maybe even before you grow old and die.

They can still get into trouble with instant messengers so watch that one too.

If things really get out of control, unplug their modem.

If you don't believe the hazards are out there for children, get involved with your kid's surfing and see for yourself, unless you'd rather just have your head buried in the sand.

mivox




msg:289017
 2:02 am on Jan 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

>..responsibility begins with the parents at home.
How many kids know more about the net than their parents?
For that matter how many adults out there are completly freaked by technology?

If you're not willing to supervise your children's internet activities, you shouldn't give them access to an internet connection in your home. If your kids know more about the internet than you, educate yourself.

An automobile manufacturer is not responsible for teaching your children how to drive safely. A shopping mall is not reponsible for teaching your children how to spend money wisely. Etc., etc.

Marcia




msg:289018
 2:47 am on Jan 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

Unfortunately, kids can't always spot it. Even adults who are very net-savvy often don't spot the signs when one of those creeps is in their very midst. And there are plenty who cruelly accost grown women, too.

There are some police units set up that work undercover, but they can't be everywhere. I've worked as a chat moderator, as well as spending quite a while just hosting and/or just hanging out, and from what I've seen, my opinion is that any site that's not responsible enough to have full time moderation shouldn't be allowed to call itself G-rated.

If I had children now I would not let them access any type of instant messaging at all, whatsoever.

martinibuster




msg:289019
 3:26 am on Jan 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

any site that's not responsible enough to have full time moderation shouldn't be allowed to call itself G-rated.

I agree with this. If they're advertising themselves as a safe place for kids, the site should indeed have some monitoring.

But the sneaky part of this government intrusion is this:
ISPs should also ensure that adult content is not easily accessible to children

In other words, INTERNET FILTERS, just like in China. Can we really trust Big Brother in their wars against the new and myriad villains?

I say no. This is an alarming escalation in the war against our freedom of thought.

jackofalltrades




msg:289020
 9:49 am on Jan 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

>In other words, INTERNET FILTERS, just like in China. Can we really trust Big Brother in their wars against the new and myriad villains?

With all due respect martinibuster, in every post you have turned the issue into a conspiracy theorist's dream.

This is not about taking away civil liberties from anyone - its fair and reasonable to expect that responsiblity be taken by (or forced upon) governments or companies or individuals to ensure that children dont get bombarded with porn or get "groomed" by weirdos online.

Just like its fair and reasonable to expect the streets to be policed so they can go outside in safety.

The problem individualism and a government (or big brother) free society is that we are as a whole are a pretty <expletive>-up race.

How is ensuring that children dont have access to porn in any way "sneaky"?

Protecting children surfing on the Internet is NOT an attempt to subdue our freedom of thought. As hard as it may be to believe, there are still some of us out here that aren't meglomaniacal control freaks - some people do genuinely just want to help.

JOAT

martinibuster




msg:289021
 3:46 pm on Jan 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

Hi joat,
I understand your thoughts, however, the part that I object to is when content is filtered and controlled at the ISP.

Taken within the context of the current environment, where our privacy has already been diminished by the "Patriot Act" which gives law enforcement the ability to again spy on citizens. (Remember co-intelpro? That was the FBI program that framed and jailed innocent citizens).

The New York City Police Department has launched court action to remove longstanding limits on its ability to spy on political groups and activists.

Or this, reported in ZDNet [zdnet.com.com] a couple days ago:
the Washington Post reported that the federal government may permit unmanned aircraft to fly above the United States. "I believe that the potential applications for this technology in the area of homeland defense are quite compelling," said Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Senate Armed Services committee

Then there's the Total Information Awareness system, meant to track citizens' every move, from Web surfing to doctor visits, travel plans to university grades, passport applications to ATM withdrawals. There's more about it at Wired [wired.com] as well as an article about it in the NYTimes by William Safire.

There was also an article in the New Yorker about how Ashcroft wants to essentially turn the special ops into a death squad to eliminate people who present a danger to national security, but that the special ops generals are resisting that, because assasination is not what they were trained to do.

Thus, the CIA is manning the predators and assasinating the bad guys. Ashcroft complains that the military has been "Clintonized" and seeks a change of attitude in the folks who control the special ops.

Seen against this backdrop, I do no see it as a "conspiracy theorists dream" that filtering content at the isp is another step in the overall climate of increasing amounts of information coming under the control of the government. It fits right into the current trend.

OK... I live in San Francisco, but San Francisco has historically been at the forefront of modern trends (like civil rights for people of color).

[edited by: martinibuster at 3:54 pm (utc) on Jan. 8, 2003]

jackofalltrades




msg:289022
 3:52 pm on Jan 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

Eh,ok...all US issues there....naturally they effect the rest of as well...but all US issues nonetheless.

The orignal point was about the UK governments scheme to raise awareness (and not actually DO anything...) of safe surfing by targetting adults.

My point was that wasnt enough and companies should be forced to take responsibility, not through snooping, but through legislation (that forums / chat rooms should be moderated) and fines, ect.

There is no issue with civil liberties or privacy here. Its all about the safety of the children surfing the net and the responsibility of the companies.

JOAT

martinibuster




msg:289023
 3:57 pm on Jan 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

Hmm... Maybe I misinterpreted what the BBC wrote?
The UK Government has laid out practical guidelines for internet service providers (ISPs) about dealing with the threat of paedophiles on the internet.

That's what I was getting my underpants in a twist about. Government control of information at the level of the ISP.
:)

jackofalltrades




msg:289024
 10:05 am on Jan 9, 2003 (gmt 0)

I was focusing on the public awareness campaign that the home officer minister announced a few days ago.

I would interpret "practical guidlines" as a code of conduct, or advice for practice and not an attempt to control the information, although not having seen the guidlines, then I cant really comment on it.

JOAT

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Local / Foo
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved