Antisocial Networking

...
...This afternoon I came to a conclusion. Our so-called representatives in Washington might be just as dangerous as predators that can be found on social networking sites like Facebook, MySpace and Xanga. That’s not necessarily because they want to cause harm, but more because their clueless nature and naïveté can lead to harm.

...C-Span recently re-aired hearings that were originally held in late-June concerning protecting children from online predators, and it gave viewers a wonderful opportunity to see just how clueless our politicians really are when it comes to computer-savvy teens and technology in general.

...Congressman Bart Stupak had some of the most comical ideas: Create a special site that would be exclusively used for 14- and 15-year-olds. Yes, that’ll obviously work; teens always want to go places where adults tell them that they must go. Come on, Congressman. Teens go to sites that they perceive as being “cool”; a site “exclusively” for 14- and 15-year-olds will probably be have few teen users and be flooded with pedophiles more than anyone else.

...Since Stupak’s brilliant idea hinges upon the idea of users being honest about their age, that segues into another brilliant idea that was mentioned: Each of the representatives on the panel wanted some kind of perfect way for accurate identification verification. None of them had an idea of how to do it, but all were quick to demand it. A few of the Congressmen liked the idea of credit card numbers and charging users, but few seemed to understand that when you begin to charge people for something that might otherwise be free and off-set by advertisements, the number of users will drop dramatically. I’m guessing that most politicians don’t understand this concept because when it comes to finances, they’re accustomed to spending money that they didn’t earn.

...Not to single-out Stupak, but I was also amused by his “pornography expert” idea when it comes to who might decide what photographs are acceptable on social networking sites. A representative from Facebook explained that the Website has a group of people who determine what is allowed on their site and what isn’t. Stupak’s response was that the panel members are probably computer experts—not pornography experts. No offense, Mr. Stupak, but what the hell is a “pornography expert” and how does a person become one?

...The politicians also liked the idea of a national paid staff who can answer distress calls from instant messenger users 24 hours a day, seven days a week. A police officer who was testifying to the committee tried to explain that such a staff would have to be massive, considering how many people use the Internet at any given time, but again, he was saying this to a group of people who spend other peoples’ money, so fiscal reality meant little.

...The last idea that I thought was most impressive (for any politicians who might be reading this, I’m being sarcastic here) was to have the federal government establish standards for social networking sites. Yes, these standards would be established by men and women who have little, if any, understanding of anything that happens outside the beltway.

...Not to sound condescending, but here are a few tips for those of you who are “representing” (I use that term loosely, because I can’t name one person in Congress who represents me) us in Washington:

• If you want to accurately identify any computer user, show up on their doorstep, interview them face-to-face, and demand a birth certificate. You can argue for using drivers’ license numbers, but keep in mind that companies will have to pay state governments since they’ll be using databases that are handled by departments of motor vehicles and/or state police agencies. They don’t work for free.

• If you mandate the use of credit card numbers as identification, you’ll have to charge users for the sites. If you do, those sites will lose millions of users, and most of those users will probably be younger ones. Any pedophile users will more than likely be willing to shell out money to stay, so what you’ll then have is a social network with an unusually high percentage of nothing but pedophiles.

• If you think that ordering 14- and 15-year-olds to use sites that are designed for only 14- and 15-years-old, you must be completely ignorant to how teenagers act. They don’t want to act their age; they want to be perceived as “adults”—even when they don’t act mature.

• Similar to the first point, pedophiles can lie about their age, too. Even if you want to create a “special” site which is for 14- and 15-year-olds exclusively, keep in mind that pedophiles can very easily create fake profiles saying that they, too, are 14 or 15. What’s most dangerous here is that it’s easier to lie and make yourself younger than it is to lie and make yourself older.

...Unfortunately, I have a feeling that we’re on the cusp of seeing a “war on terror” approach to the Internet and pedophiles. By that I mean that we’re going to hear more politicians cry “safety” and label anyone who isn’t supportive of massive federal Internet regulation as being “against protecting our children” or “against safety.” This can be likened to those who currently say that dissenters of the “war on terror” and all aspects of “fighting” the war (such as the Patriot Act, for instance) as not being patriotic or even being in favor of the terrorists.

...After all, if we regulate all aspects of the Internet to the point where no one wants to use it anymore, we won’t have to worry about any of the dangers that come with it, will we?

...Internet safety has to come from educating parents and children on the dangers of predators and how to avoid them. It won’t do any good to sit around and wait for solutions from Washington. For one thing, we should be more hands-on with our personal security; for another thing, we probably won’t see any realistic solutions coming from Congress.