On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 19:28:36 +0100, "mert1639"
 wrote:

>> And either the child should be old enough/wise enough to handle such a
>> risk, or the *parent* should have sufficient supervision and control
>> to prevent harm.

>The parents may be unable to monitor the child's internet use.  They may not 
>be IT savvy or the child could dupe them - perhaps after being groomed to do 
>so by the peado.

Parents who are unable to adequately supervise their children's
Internet use should not allow Internet access for their child at all.
None of the proposals will prevent online "grooming" - such as it
exists at all.  Not unless it bans all online social networking sites
and chat forums.  Though a far bigger issue AFAICS is online bullying
by the child's peers, and I cannot see how legislation can stop that -
but a child's parent could if they are sufficiently pro-active that
they are aware of it.

>>>Until I knew a child was old enough not to at risk of this I'd limit their
>>>exposure to the internet.  When they are, then I'd stop.  I would limit
>>>exposure to the computer anyway as I think children spend too much time
>>>using them and neglet other things.  I had time spent watching TV as a 
>>>child
>>>controlled until I was well into my teens.

>> Exactly - it woiuld be you as a parent who protects the child and
>> decides what risks the child is and is not ready to face, not the
>> government.

>Whats wrong with the government assisting the parents in their quest.

If it *only* consisted of assisting parents, I would have no problem
with it.  But banning sites on the grounds that they may harm
unsupervised children affects *everyone*.  Would you be in favour of
banning cars on the grounds that some parents are unable or unwilling
to supervise their children crossing the road? 

>Parents are responsible for looking after their children, but the govenrment 
>help out by reducing danger when they can: traffic claming, guards on 
>dangerous machines, etc.

But not banning the machines.

>Unless you are saying that the government should do nothing to make the 
>world safer for citizens?

In general no, I do not regard that as being the job of the government
at all, except wrt regulations affecting big businesses.  The
government's job is to provide common services to its citizens
(healthcare, roads, police, military etc.) and to provide adequate and
accurate *information and advice* to its citizens regarding risks and
dangers.

If sufficient parents wanted it, there would be a market for ISPs to
provide an *optional* filtered and censored Internet feed.  If you
want government intervention, then it should be the minimum necessary
to achieve the stated goals.  It could, for example, insist that all
children who use the Internet are *only* permitted to use a filtered
Internet connection, whilst leaving adults free to access all content.

Risk assessment on behalf of and protection of children should be left
to the children's parents.  Only if particular parents fall *greatly*
below a reasonable standard in that regard should the state intervene
on behalf of the *specific* children.

>>>Some people seem to think all efforts to protect children are a conspiracy
>>>to allow the government to control us by stealth.  I don't.
>>
>> Not all, but a great deal is *exactly* that.  Repression cannot be
>> implemented blatently, but must have the facade of a "good cause".
>> Protection of children is a theme that is a time-honoured front for
>> repressive measures by many governments throughout the ages.

>> Protection against grave dangers (the more nebulous the better) is
>> another.

>It all comes down to trust.  I trust the government, you don't.  Fair 
>enough. 

Do you believe that politicians are generally truthful, reliable and
trustworthy?  Do you believe , for example, that Tony Blair honestly
believed everything he claimed to justify our invasion of Iraq?

Do you *really* believe that most politicians put the your wellbeing
above their own ambitions?

-- 
Cynic

Cynic  wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 19:28:36 +0100, "mert1639"
>  wrote:
> 
>>> And either the child should be old enough/wise enough to handle such a
>>> risk, or the *parent* should have sufficient supervision and control
>>> to prevent harm.
> 
>>The parents may be unable to monitor the child's internet use.  They may not 
>>be IT savvy or the child could dupe them - perhaps after being groomed to do 
>>so by the peado.
> 
> Parents who are unable to adequately supervise their children's
> Internet use should not allow Internet access for their child at all.

In terms of actual dangers to children "The Internet" way, way down
the list.

> None of the proposals will prevent online "grooming" - such as it
> exists at all.  Not unless it bans all online social networking sites
> and chat forums.  Though a far bigger issue AFAICS is online bullying
> by the child's peers, and I cannot see how legislation can stop that -

There's also far more a victim of bullying can do online than in the
physical world though. It's not as if anyone can simply "switch off"
their "classmates".

There's also a risk that making a big fuss about "online bullying" may
lead to other bullying being overlooked.

> but a child's parent could if they are sufficiently pro-active that
> they are aware of it.
> 
>>>>Until I knew a child was old enough not to at risk of this I'd limit their
>>>>exposure to the internet.  When they are, then I'd stop.  I would limit
>>>>exposure to the computer anyway as I think children spend too much time
>>>>using them and neglet other things.  I had time spent watching TV as a 
>>>>child
>>>>controlled until I was well into my teens.
> 
>>> Exactly - it woiuld be you as a parent who protects the child and
>>> decides what risks the child is and is not ready to face, not the
>>> government.
> 
>>Whats wrong with the government assisting the parents in their quest.
> 
> If it *only* consisted of assisting parents, I would have no problem
> with it.  But banning sites on the grounds that they may harm
> unsupervised children affects *everyone*.  Would you be in favour of
> banning cars on the grounds that some parents are unable or unwilling
> to supervise their children crossing the road? 

That's before you consider parents who are bad drivers carrying their
children as passengers. 

>>Parents are responsible for looking after their children, but the govenrment 
>>help out by reducing danger when they can: traffic claming, guards on 
>>dangerous machines, etc.
> 
> But not banning the machines.

Cars being a far more dangerous kind of machine than computers.
> 
>>Unless you are saying that the government should do nothing to make the 
>>world safer for citizens?
> 
> In general no, I do not regard that as being the job of the government
> at all, except wrt regulations affecting big businesses.  The
> government's job is to provide common services to its citizens
> (healthcare, roads, police, military etc.) and to provide adequate and
> accurate *information and advice* to its citizens regarding risks and
> dangers.
> 
> If sufficient parents wanted it, there would be a market for ISPs to
> provide an *optional* filtered and censored Internet feed.  If you
> want government intervention, then it should be the minimum necessary
> to achieve the stated goals.  It could, for example, insist that all
> children who use the Internet are *only* permitted to use a filtered
> Internet connection, whilst leaving adults free to access all content.

Thing is that different parents would have different ideas of what
they'd want filtered and censored. That would be a problem even if
"filtering software" providers were honest about what they were doing.
Whereas in practice it appears that these software companies are less
than honest, even if they arn't pushing some extreme political views.

> Risk assessment on behalf of and protection of children should be left
> to the children's parents.  Only if particular parents fall *greatly*
> below a reasonable standard in that regard should the state intervene
> on behalf of the *specific* children.
> 
>>>>Some people seem to think all efforts to protect children are a conspiracy
>>>>to allow the government to control us by stealth.  I don't.
>>>
>>> Not all, but a great deal is *exactly* that.  Repression cannot be
>>> implemented blatently, but must have the facade of a "good cause".
>>> Protection of children is a theme that is a time-honoured front for
>>> repressive measures by many governments throughout the ages.
> 
>>> Protection against grave dangers (the more nebulous the better) is
>>> another.
> 
>>It all comes down to trust.  I trust the government, you don't.  Fair 
>>enough. 
> 
> Do you believe that politicians are generally truthful, reliable and
> trustworthy?  Do you believe , for example, that Tony Blair honestly

IMHO it might not be a bad thing if anyone who would answer "yes" should
be legally considered a "child" whatever their age.

> believed everything he claimed to justify our invasion of Iraq?

On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 21:08:44 +0100, Mark Evans
 wrote:

>Cynic  wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 19:28:36 +0100, "mert1639"
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>>> And either the child should be old enough/wise enough to handle such a
>>>> risk, or the *parent* should have sufficient supervision and control
>>>> to prevent harm.
>> 
>>>The parents may be unable to monitor the child's internet use.  They may not 
>>>be IT savvy or the child could dupe them - perhaps after being groomed to do 
>>>so by the peado.
>> 
>> Parents who are unable to adequately supervise their children's
>> Internet use should not allow Internet access for their child at all.
>
>In terms of actual dangers to children "The Internet" way, way down
>the list.

However, in terms of perceived dangers to the government, "The
Internet" way, way up the list. That's why they're doing it. The net
is the one thing that governments have so far failed to regulate,
without going for a Chinese takeaway. And now child porn is being
officially combined with Islamic terrorism by the police, the urgency
will increase to control the net any which way they can.

MM