backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 55 comment(s) - last by jjabrams.. on Jan 16 at 6:44 PM
MySpace agrees to new user protection guidelines

MySpace has long been one of the most popular social networking sites online. As one of the most popular sites and one of the social networking sites with the largest amount of members, MySpace also has some of the biggest problems to deal with.

BusinessWeek is reporting that MySpace has come to an agreement with 49 states to make changes to its site with the intention of protecting users from sexual predators and others who misuse the site. Texas did not partake in the agreement.

MySpace has agreed to allow a third-party to monitor its site and will change the structure of its site. The new agreement was announced today in Manhattan by attorneys general from New Jersey, North Carolina, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Ohio and New York.

Some of the new security measures that MySpace agreed to include allowing parents to submit children’s email address to prevent anyone from misusing the address to set up a profile, making the default profile setting for 16 and 17 year old users private, and responding to complaints about inappropriate images and content within 72 hours. MySpace also agreed to strengthen software to find underage users and to create a high school section for students under 18.

In December of 2007 MySpace was sued by the family of a girl who killed herself after being sexually assaulted by a man she met on MySpace. Previously a 13 year old MySpace user committed suicide after being bullied by other users in comments posted to her MySpace page. These new safety measures will hopefully prevent this type of tragedy from happening again on MySpace.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Ugh..
By ZaethDekar on 1/14/2008 3:44:57 PM , Rating: 2
'Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.'

I don't know about you but I think it is complete stupid that suicide is happening because of myspace. All you have to do is delete the comment or block them from your page.




RE: Ugh..
By GhandiInstinct on 1/14/2008 3:54:03 PM , Rating: 3
First off, what is up with dailytech, you can only comment again minutes after your first comment.

Secondly, my space users are teenagers who are so impressionable and so sensitive and emotional that their entire lives depend on the acceptance of others. This is the primitive way to grow in this society, gain acceptance by being a poser or doing something crazy or w/e…. So sticks and stones don’t apply; for this generally simple anecdote is very esoteric.


RE: Ugh..
By TheDoc9 on 1/14/2008 4:19:38 PM , Rating: 2
Social acceptance is apart of all societies. Some of the newer theories on genetics suggest that years ago that people lived in small groups.

Basically it goes like this - If you were not liked by people in the group, particularly by a mate and you were cast out then not only did you loose the groups protection but it would also be validating your inferior genes and you would not be able to reproduce.

Why would you be cast out? Because you would either have to challenge a group leader for a mate, or you would have to pin EVERYTHING on being accepted by one person. This is especially true for males as the females traditionally do the choosing, unless of course you're the group leader then as a man you decide and all of the females - even the taken ones, are interested. In a small group of people everyone would know you were denied and the other mates would stay away from you which gets into the the idea of social acceptance. And imagine how few other humans you would run into in your possibly short lifetime. So at best you'd be a tag along and your genes wouldn't survive.

Now of course these people might not have been thinking this in there mind. It's simply a possible reason behind the reason so to speak.


RE: Ugh..
By GhandiInstinct on 1/14/2008 5:21:08 PM , Rating: 2
Doc9,

I took cultural anthropology, so I'm well versed on how primitive tribes worked and the psychology behind it all. I just don't feel I need to give history lessons on a tech site to mature adults.

Anyway, my response was in reference to sticks and stones and how society doesn't mold brains to be the stone part.


RE: Ugh..
By TheDoc9 on 1/14/2008 5:36:08 PM , Rating: 3
The post was for everyone else, I was simply expanding on what you said because I believe both apply. In fact I believe that up bringing and close social ties weigh the most. Most people are never thought these things and will likely never learn outside of accidentally picking it up somewhere, maybe it might help some put these tragedies into perspective.


RE: Ugh..
By Ryanman on 1/15/2008 3:09:20 PM , Rating: 2
If you took a class like that, I hope you believe that this is just evolution.
In my humble opinion, if you get so beat up over something like that you commit suicide good riddance.
Note that this is not in response to the rape case.... that is a tragedy and even my stone-cold heart agrees with that. But at what point to you determine Myspace is liable? It's a user-created site. Her parents shouldnt've let her try to compensate for real life relationships on the internet. And just so everyone notices, we don't sue bars for when drunk women get raped. There's a line, and prosecuting Myspace for crimes committed indirectly due to the service they proviede crosses it.


RE: Ugh..
By onwisconsin on 1/14/2008 4:56:03 PM , Rating: 2
How do you know? I don't use MySpace myself, but I do know plenty of 25+ that use it.


RE: Ugh..
By GhandiInstinct on 1/14/2008 5:25:34 PM , Rating: 2
How many 25+ people do you know commit suicide if a myspace boyfriend/gf dumps them?


RE: Ugh..
By Christopher1 on 1/15/2008 11:15:03 PM , Rating: 2
You are joking, right? Myspace users are teenagers who are so impressionable and so sensitive and emotional..... you know, I am getting tired of hearing crap like this.

This could only come from a person who does not hang out with teenagers like I do, and therefore doesn't know that teenagers are not as 'emotional' as people seem to think.

Most of the teenagers and even young children I have talked to have said that the girl in question in the MySpace suicide should not have been on MySpace in the first place because she was KNOWN to have a MENTAL ILLNESS!
Now, most teenagers do not have a mental illness and THAT is what made this girl a target and made her suicide.... basically, her parents were not doing their job and monitoring her relationships online and offline.

I also have to put a good half the blame on the people who were harassing her online. They knew her, knew that she was not the best psychosocially, and used that against her to get her to suicide.
In fact, thinking about it, I would call it a 'murder by proxy' plot, where you get someone to suicide but it is actually murder at your words.


RE: Ugh..
By eye smite on 1/14/08, Rating: 0
RE: Ugh..
By TomZ on 1/14/08, Rating: -1
RE: Ugh..
By Bioniccrackmonk on 1/14/2008 5:10:44 PM , Rating: 5
Maybe in your instance, but where I grew up, my friends and I stayed out of serious trouble for fear of the hand/belt/switch/whatever. I personally believe that the whole "spare the rod" is what's wrong with most of the kids today. Ground them, wow, just give them a reason to stay indoors and play video games.


RE: Ugh..
By TSS on 1/14/2008 7:44:22 PM , Rating: 3
probably like all statements made about the human psyche are to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

the fear of what my mother would do when i'd screw something up has totally killed my relationship with her. i'm 20 and i hardly see her once every 4 months and i'm happy with that. i moved to my dad when i was 12, which raised me in a total "spare the rod" enviroment and i've turned out ok after that. granted, i can't say i'd be ye ol' average joe but hey, who is nowerdays.

some people can take the beating, some people can't. some people can deal with the internet and it's dark corners and some people can't. and events that lead people to situations they can't handle and how they overcome them, is what natural selection is about. killing stuff off that can't deal with life in the first place.


RE: Ugh..
By eye smite on 1/15/2008 8:50:54 AM , Rating: 4
If we were talking about you and your age group on your conclusion, you could take that dispassionate point of view, and it would work fine. We're talking about kids though, whose responsibility it is to teach, guide and raise said kids is the parents that had them, not the cold unforgiving internet. I don't care what's said to me by who on here, to me it's just some dippy hiding behind a keyboard that would never have the courage to say the things they do here in person. But to a 13 yr old, they don't know how to make that distinction.


RE: Ugh..
By Christopher1 on 1/15/2008 11:29:39 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is that hitting children only teaches them one thing: that someone more 'in the right' than you has the right to cause you physical pain, and let's face facts here: most times when a child does something wrong, they do not know it is wrong or it is just an adult looking at them, seeing them doing something that the adult in question doesn't like, and the adult wants to punish them because of that.

Now, if it is ACTIVELY, PHYSICALLY harming someone else.... okay, they deserve to be punished. If it is causing damage to someone else's property, they deserve to be punished.
But NOT with physical force against them. I watch children as a side job right now, and I have NEVER, repeat, NEVER had to spank a child, because they have never done the same thing twice after I have told them that something was wrong and I always make it a point to explain to them why something is wrong instead of saying the usual "Because I said so!" that most people do.
Now, have they done something very similar to the thing that I told them was wrong? Yes, but I still do not punish them, because children's minds do not work the same as adults.... actually, hell, I'll say it: people do equate something that is even marginally different from something that they were told was wrong as still being wrong until they are told that again! That is especially true in the case of children, but it is true even with adults, and I'll be honest here: most 'rules' that parents put on children are not about protecting the children, they are about protecting the adults in question from the vitriol of other people who dislike children.

You also have to realize that in a lot of situations where children are being punished.... they are being punished unjustly. I cannot COUNT the number of times that I have had to give someone a 'dirty look' in order to get them to rethink their actions when their child has been 'acting out'.
Usually, when a child is acting out, the parent has put them into the situation where they can act out (taking them somewhere where they will be bored, taking them somewhere where they might want something WITHOUT telling them, as I do, that they are not getting something beforehand, etc.) and the parent holds about half, if not more, of the blame.

I am what people would call a 'extremely liberal parent', and my older children (now grown or near grown) act better than more conservative people's children in public and in private.


RE: Ugh..
By eye smite on 1/15/2008 8:45:43 AM , Rating: 3
Thank you, that's exactly what I mean. The consequences you learned were not worth you breaking the rules.


RE: Ugh..
By Christopher1 on 1/15/2008 11:33:22 PM , Rating: 1
That is called fearing someone into being 'respectful' of rules, and I am sorry to say this, but if you have to do that..... the rules are not very good in the first place and they should rethink those rules.

That's a 'period and done with' thing that many people say now: if you have to fear someone into not doing something, then the rules in question are not good or have some problem with them, and therefore they should be rethought.


RE: Ugh..
By Christopher1 on 1/15/2008 11:33:22 PM , Rating: 2
That is called fearing someone into being 'respectful' of rules, and I am sorry to say this, but if you have to do that..... the rules are not very good in the first place and they should rethink those rules.

That's a 'period and done with' thing that many people say now: if you have to fear someone into not doing something, then the rules in question are not good or have some problem with them, and therefore they should be rethought.


RE: Ugh..
By Bioniccrackmonk on 1/14/2008 5:11:27 PM , Rating: 2
By the way, your link doesn't work.


RE: Ugh..
By TomZ on 1/14/2008 5:26:24 PM , Rating: 2
DT bug: remove the final period which is not part of the link.


RE: Ugh..
By The Sword 88 on 1/14/2008 5:14:37 PM , Rating: 2
Right because all children who were spanked turn out screwed up.

ANyway, your link is broken


RE: Ugh..
By TomZ on 1/14/2008 5:37:16 PM , Rating: 3
I didn't say that - did I? - my point is that all corporal punishment accomplishes is immediate and short-term compliance by the child (and a feeling of power by the adult). The child doesn't actually learn right from wrong by experiencing the natural consequences of their actions, and the child therefore has no basis for making right decisions when mommy and daddy are not there to beat them when they make a mistake.

Heck, even in the area of pet behavior, people have figured out that beating the pet is ineffective - funny people somehow think it works well for children.

Anyway, this is OP, and my last post on this subject.


RE: Ugh..
By jjabrams on 1/15/2008 4:52:54 AM , Rating: 2
they do it because its easy not because it works.


RE: Ugh..
By jjabrams on 1/15/2008 4:54:53 AM , Rating: 3
let me clarify that - its easy because of the effort put in yields a good enough result.

Hitting someone will need 10% effort, but yield 50% results
Teaching someone needs 100% effort and yield 100% results

5:1 ratio or 1:1 ratio - thats the difference.


RE: Ugh..
By SandmanWN on 1/15/2008 10:09:36 AM , Rating: 1
Let me fix that for you...
quote:
Hitting someone will need 10% effort, but may or may not yield results.
Teaching someone needs 100% effort, but may or may not yield results.

I think I've seen enough nagging moms trying to explain the same damn thing for the millionth time to some worthless punk kid to know your 1:1 ratio is full of crap.

It all depends on the child at hand. Broad overgeneralizing statements like yours are entirely too short sided. A good parent can find the way between the two.


RE: Ugh..
By jjabrams on 1/15/2008 10:55:20 AM , Rating: 3
I thought it would have been blatantly obvious that my comment was a generalization, just like your comment of nagging moms and punk kids.

Teaching a child is indeed 100% effective, its just what you'd classify as teaching. Explaining verbally may be enough for some, some may need a demonstration; and these extreme "punk kids" of yours may need moral guidance as well as medication. All of these solutions however require a lot more effort than raising your hand.
Its just a very effective solution when you cant find a way to explain/educate.
The problem years I think are with kids 2 and under, where they have no capacity to learn but for other kids its just a matter of if the kid has the intrinsic quality to learn and/or respect the person that is doing the teaching.
A "part time" parent that hits 80% of the time and teaches 20% of the time isnt exactly going to get through to the child because they're 80% expecting to get hit and get it over with.
If that child's idol however said "thou shall not...." you'd get some results quick smart.


RE: Ugh..
By SandmanWN on 1/15/2008 1:22:35 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds like a load to me. 100% of anything and human nature is a fallacy of reasoning. By its very nature human behavior is random.

Making up percentages is getting really old from you. I'm going to have to request proof from these oddly round and one sided numbers you come up with.

You can teach a kid the stove is hot over and over again. You can tell the masses that drunk driving is dangerous. You can show them the burnt hands of others and the photos and videos of accidents, but I'll be damned if it just keeps happening. There is always something deep down in the human psyche that simply must experience these things. It often happens even when the outcome is well known in advance, yet it still occurs time after time.

I don't mind people using "spare the rod" method and I abhor wrongful corporal punishment. There are extremes to either side of the equation. What I do mind is the group that pushes their ideals on others and thinks their way is the only way. Human nature is too random for absolutes and I must regard your self proclaimed conclusions as inherently false.


RE: Ugh..
By jjabrams on 1/15/2008 9:17:23 PM , Rating: 2
self proclaimed conclusions?
just like your one of human nature always doing dumb stuff?

how long is a piece of string?
that was my conclusion - I have no idea what you're talking about. I gave 3 examples of how there may need to be degrees of "teaching"
If you're challenging me to prove my point - im going to challenge you to procure these kids that keep burning their hands on hot stoves again and again.

Is what you're saying is that there are some kids that after being told not to touch the stove, shown that the stove is very hot, gone to the hospital after being burnt and seeing all the other kids who have 3rd degree burns far worse. Come home, taken some ritilin; and still run straight for the stove to burn themselves???
Even a monkey isnt that stupid

Sometimes, people have to expierence the mistakes; guess what that's called == LEARNING , but to do it again?


RE: Ugh..
By SandmanWN on 1/16/2008 10:41:44 AM , Rating: 2
You don't get out much do you? Do it again... yes they do. Have you experience parenthood yet? Have you seen the world today?
quote:
Sometimes, people have to expierence the mistakes; guess what that's called == LEARNING , but to do it again?

Interesting. I find that to be a breakdown in the learning process, not a successful learning system. Everyone is told hurting someone is bad, drinking and driving is bad, killing someone is bad, and a host of other things. If they actually carry out this so called learning process to its end then you would say its OK because they couldn't possibly do it again. But what happens when they do? Ahhh, I would imagine you would come up with an exception to your own rule that grays and blurs the lines then. Does the 100% guarantee on the learning method you speak of account for these people? I guess they must all have been born crazy or something.


RE: Ugh..
By jjabrams on 1/16/2008 6:44:28 PM , Rating: 2
well if you're a sociopath then yes there isnt much there can be done, even in the way of medication.
However for the other 99.99% of us catered learing is indeed effective.

What you're getting confused with is that I believe that everything that happens in real life is called learning.
Jail is not a form of learning, its a form of spanking.
It shows that doing bad stuff is ok as long as you get away with it. All your examples of people doing bad stuff is all due to the assailants thinking they can get away with it because either
a) they got away with it last time
b) the punishment they thought was very light so they can risk doing it again

Is what you're saying that there are some people who are not sociopaths that have no capacity to learn? Why do people repeatedly drink and drive? Well thats because they dont fully understand the consequences. If a family member has been killed by a drunk driver, there is a greater chance that they wont drink drive again?


RE: Ugh..
By eye smite on 1/15/2008 8:59:47 AM , Rating: 3
Oh I'm sorry, did your little sensitive self find this to frustrating to debate? You're speaking of this in terms of child abuse. People who spank their children the right way talk to them about why the spanking is happening either before or after it's happened. This is to get the child to use their mind and THINK. They have to decide in the future, is this worth doing and getting beat or should I ask first. As they get older this turns into thinking before you do, and just maybe it will keep them off the darwin awards website. Furthermore, dogs and cats discipline their own offspring in the same way. A dog will knip her puppies when they're acting up because sometimes a growl isn't enough. Now, I know that analogy doesn't work for you because you're thinking too high in the clouds with the educated intellect full of website links on studies that prove this or that. Were you beaten as a child?


RE: Ugh..
By clovell on 1/15/2008 4:43:15 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, so explain to the kid why they're getting spanked and make don't spank out of anger - that's what most advocates recommend.

Now the kid understands why they were spanked, you have compliance, and the fear is abated by keeping a cool head and explaining the situation.

I don't think either way on its own is the answer. I only spank in cases where there is a clearly deliberate and serious act of disobedience on which words have little effect, and then, I do it responsibly.


RE: Ugh..
By Christopher1 on 1/15/2008 11:38:43 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, that is pretty much the case. Look at the people who are caught spanking children to death or punishing children to death in other ways: for the most part, in fact almost all, were not raised in a liberal family.

They were raised in a conservative family where they were raised with the idea that children are the parent's property and therefore they can do anything to them without the interference of outside people.

Now, it is ANY surprise that they take this to the extreme when they have things in their lives that are causing them pressure and making their minds not as 'with it' as usual?

I don't think so.

That is the reason why I tell children whenever I see them that their parents are NOT allowed to violate their bodies or cause them physical pain in order to teach them that something is 'wrong'. Do other things to teach them that something is wrong, yes, but not cause them physical pain.
I also tell them that they should challenge their parents on whether something is 'wrong' or not, and that if their parents cannot give them good reasons why something is wrong, that they should DISREGARD those rules.
Some parents have given me dirty looks and gotten on my case because of that, but most have applauded me for making children THINK about whether something is wrong or not, and learn to think about that whenever they do something.


RE: Ugh..
By BucDan on 1/14/2008 6:22:48 PM , Rating: 2
well, i really disagree really. it really all depends on the people you grow up around. i mean my parents beat me all the time, for being bad, bad grades, etc. and i turned out to be a perfectly good person. maybe because of my maturity at such a young age that i understood what was good from bad. i guess growing up in the ghetto helped me out with understanding my surroundings and how to deal with them yourself.

Getting beat isnt exactly bad, at least in my eyes since it really worked for me. I mean i was scared to get beat yes, but it proved to keep me out of trouble or else. well i dont want to get racial, but as you can see, caucasians tend to be a bit soft on their children, so the children can grow up being polite, but also learn that they can do w/e they like. Asians tend to be really tough, to do good in school etc. mainly because our parents want us to do very good in life expecially since my parents started out with nothing(im asian). Hispanics that i see around do use discipline but are showing it in the wrong way. african americans are also using discipline but it really depends on how you grow up with the beating.

pretty much it depends on how much things affect you and how much of an impact you friends and family have on you to get you to get your decisions down and hopefully the correct way.

anyone to comment?


RE: Ugh..
By INeedCache on 1/14/2008 8:16:03 PM , Rating: 2
I did not spank my children all that much when they were little, but did use it on occasion when I thought it was warranted. It was never anything but a spanking, as I do not believe in hitting or slapping children anywhere but on their backside. My children have turned out fine. They are law-abiding, happy, and non-violent. I know there are people who are against spanking, and do the time-out stuff. I just wonder what they do when the time comes that they tell the child time-out and the kid pretty much says the heck with you and blows you off. Good luck with that.


RE: Ugh..
By zombiexl on 1/14/2008 8:27:12 PM , Rating: 2
I use a mixture of spankings and taking away things. My kids are nto afraid of me, but they know when they've pushed too far and it only takes a look (most of the time) to get them to straighten up.

I teach them that I dont spank them becuase i dont love them, but that it is becuase i love them that I have to teach them about having consequences for their actions. I dont want them to end up in jail or worse in the future.


RE: Ugh..
By eye smite on 1/15/2008 8:43:33 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sorrry dude but they're not really spanking their child then. When I came up I was asked to do something twice, then told, then the belt came out. Many times I didn't get beat because I knew it was coming and would rather do what I was asked than take the consequences. That's the very thing you learn and the very thing you have to teach kids with getting the tar beat out of them. I wasn't abused and that's not what I'm talking about here, but the old man lit my ass on fire, and that didn't happen very often. The youth of today is not learning consequences. I'm 38 yrs old next week and wow knock on wood I haven't been to jail for anything in life. I'm not saying that's cause of ass beatings alone, but I sure learned consequences as a result, do you understand?


RE: Ugh..
By Polynikes on 1/14/2008 4:14:31 PM , Rating: 2
These tragedies don't occur because of something that happens on myspace. Most people don't commit suicide over something small like a little cyber-bullying; there are clearly larger underlying problems.


RE: Ugh..
By eye smite on 1/15/2008 9:07:05 AM , Rating: 3
Of course there are and again it goes back to the parent tossing their child more toys or the internet or a game console so the child is out of their hair. The child is so desperate for some attention they aren't getting or some positive attention instead of the usual negative at home that they seek it on my space or whatever. I'm betting the 13 yr old girl committing suicide.........I'm betting my space was just the catalyst for something that had reached critical mass.


49 States?
By Sulphademus on 1/14/2008 4:59:51 PM , Rating: 2
So which one state (or two if you're counting DC) did MySpace not make this agreement with?




RE: 49 States?
By EntreHoras on 1/14/2008 5:50:57 PM , Rating: 2
Alaska and Hawaii. They are the forgotten states.


RE: 49 States?
By ThisSpaceForRent on 1/15/2008 8:50:11 AM , Rating: 2
What is the 51st state? If you take Alaska and Hawaii out, you only have 48.


RE: 49 States?
By lennylim on 1/14/2008 6:47:21 PM , Rating: 2
It's in the article (well, might have been updated after you posted).

quote:
Texas did not partake in the agreement.


RE: 49 States?
By boobot on 1/15/2008 10:21:36 AM , Rating: 2
I was wondering why (since I live here). I heard this on the news and here is a news article about it (basically they do not think it's strict enough or will work at all).

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said in a letter to MySpace's chief executive officer that he was not endorsing the agreement because it takes no action to verify people's ages.

"We do not believe that MySpace.com -- or any other social-networking site -- can adequately protect minors" without an age-verification system, Abbott said. "We are concerned that our signing the joint statement would be misperceived as an endorsement of the inadequate safety measures."

Abbott, who has made a crackdown on child predators a leading issue for his office, said the steps announced by MySpace are "remedial measures" that "constitute a starting point rather than a point of conclusion."

However, he praised MySpace for its willingness to work with his Cyber Crimes Unit.


attorneys general
By ElFenix on 1/14/2008 4:22:22 PM , Rating: 2
they're not generals, they are attorneys.




RE: attorneys general
By Chernobyl68 on 1/14/2008 4:46:06 PM , Rating: 3
I guess they have't seen that episode of "The West Wing"

Attourney's General.
Court's Martial.

Also, I'm wondering which state they didn't get an agreement with...? I didn't see it in the business week article.


RE: attorneys general
By Chernobyl68 on 1/14/2008 4:47:49 PM , Rating: 2
I shouldn't have used apostraphies. The BW article states it correctly.

Chern


RE: attorneys general
By Chernobyl68 on 1/15/2008 11:22:03 AM , Rating: 2
Also, Surgeons General.

Chern


Way to waste taxes..
By zombiexl on 1/14/2008 8:11:10 PM , Rating: 2
Before someone says it didnt cost any taxes. Where do you think the attorney's general get their paycheck?

We have simple minded people that probably shouldn't be allowed to use a computer killing themselves and now the govt needs to step in.

I always thought it was heavy metal that made kids kill themselves. For me it's rap, i know everytime i hear (c)rap i wanna kill something..

What ever happend to survival of the fitest?

WAAAAAAAHHHHH!!!! you called me a name... i'm gonna kill myself...




RE: Way to waste taxes..
By roadrun777 on 1/15/2008 7:03:36 AM , Rating: 3
DING! DING! DING! We have a winner!
This is a blatant attempt at controlling speech and funneling more money into creating spy programs to break into your computers and "check" up on you.
I have staff members from myspace breaking into my machine through their advertisement servers, because they didn't like my political views, or I pissed off one of their chat moderators. If you use a computer with a hard drive attached and you log into myspace, I guarantee they have a backdoor installed into your computer. They have been waiting for some teen to commit suicide so they can blame their enforcement actions all on one single event, and you can bet they will play this up with sappy music and cheesy commercials. Some guy that looks like Hitler will be yelling in the senate talking about "control! control! control!" and how they must sensor everything. They intend to do this to youtube also. Mark my words, as it will happen. The criteria for surveillance is "if they find anything objectionable about your opinions" which WILL be interpreted as you having an opinion that differs from theirs in anyway, such as on politics (like not agreeing with mainstream political agendas).
Statistics say that when you have a form of social interaction, eventually you will be able to link a death, in some shape, form, or fashion, to said means of communication; then you have the Hitleresque right come in and stomp their feet about how we need to crack down, and make tougher regulations (tougher tougher tougher!, its like a sick used car commercial). Then the funneling of money starts to happen, then the rampant abuse of law enforcement to achieve some statistical measure of success (after all they have to measure success somehow, so you can bet it in number of convictions, which will turn it into a witch hunt).
This is truly a sad day. So now we have given over zealous morons the ability to use the silly things people say in chat as evidence against them. One bad apple has taken away the rights of them all, and they have sneaked this in under the child protection act crap. They always use that anytime they want to spy on Americans and violate amendment rights. Just like they did with the cell phone companies.
WAAAAA! We are protecting our kids! NOT! Pull the F*ING plug if you want to protect your kids. Your children shouldn't be getting their ego affirmations from online communities, they should be getting them from YOU! Another sad moment for individual rights (flushing toilet sound).


RE: Way to waste taxes..
By The0ne on 1/16/2008 9:40:54 AM , Rating: 2
You're very paranoid, you MUST shoot everyone that you love and then yourself :) Why live you have no rights any longer ;; poor you.

*passes loaded shotgun but accidentally pulls it off*, consider it a favor :D


RE: Way to waste taxes..
By xti on 1/15/2008 11:31:52 AM , Rating: 2
catch22-

1. you say its a waste of taxes to even humor or pay attention to this

yet...

2. the second they start being picky about what movements get support in order to save some dough, someone will say 'they arent serving the people'.

conclusion: spend efforts looking up porn instead of getting mad.


Of Course
By BMFPitt on 1/15/2008 7:22:42 AM , Rating: 2
It's a good thing that kids have never figured out how to lie about their age or get an extra email address...




RE: Of Course
By Christopher1 on 1/15/2008 11:42:03 PM , Rating: 2
That is a good point. If they are also going to do this, they are going to have to have a way that a person can 'prove their age' and teenagers have no way to do that right now.

Really, we need a ID card with a person's age on it that they use to get into adult websites and other things, mandated by the federal governments around the world.


Parenting
By MagnumMan on 1/14/2008 4:54:26 PM , Rating: 2
I do not feel myspace is to blame in these cases. If a child is unstable enough to commit suicide it is because their home life fell apart and did not provide the support they needed... that or they were chemically unstable (i.e. mental illness). I won't discount other causes as well, but it's the parents job to raise their kids and know their kids, and get them the help they need. If they are too busy to do that it is by their own choice, or by sheer necessity - the latter being most unfortunate.

The problem with technology is that it makes it much easier than before to say something to someone else and not have to be there physically to back it up. But there's really no stopping it, we have to raise better parents, so they can raise better children.




"DailyTech is the best kept secret on the Internet." -- Larry Barber

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki