[LINK] NetAlert Campaign 'truth' finally coming out

[Craig Sanders]

On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 09:40:53AM +1100, Ivan Trundle wrote:
> I have to disagree with this, though not in defence of a past
> government edict.
>
> As a parent of offspring who use the net extensively, I am aware
> of the significance of a 'friend of a friend' - which is simply a
> euphemism for 'someone I don't know'. In every sense, they are a
> 'stranger', and in the IM world, a friend of a friend is not at all
> equivalent to someone you might, say, meet at a party by way of a
> friend's introduction.

i thought "FOAF" often meant "me, but i don't want to admit it in
writing in public".


and personally, i can't see what the fuss is about. really, who cares
if they *talk* (remotely, over a telecommunications medium) with some
complete stranger as long as they know:

1. not to give their address or other identifying information

2. not to arrange a meeting without a parent or other adult to supervise

3. that every single piece of information (name, age, photo, etc) 
   provided by the person online could be fake and SHOULD be regarded
   as 100% fake until proven otherwise (i.e. via an adult-supervised
   face-to-face meeting).

kids are actually savvy enough to realise this - and they generally
know it better than their parents.


> All said and done, I'm no fan of NetAlert: the principle here is for 
> parents to take more interest and control, rather than abrogating their 
> responsibilities to the government of the day. And the same goes for the 
> workplace.

yes.  as always.

and, also as always, the government of the day wants to present itself
as if it is or can 'do something' about the 'problem'.


> On 15/12/2007, at 8:35 AM, Jan Whitaker wrote:
>
>> http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/coalition-internet-campaign-inaccurate/2007/12/14/1197568265011.html
>>
>> Coalition internet campaign 'inaccurate'
>> Peter Mares
>> December 15, 2007
>>
>>[...]
>>
>> One advertisement said a survey had shown that more than
>> half of 11-15-year-olds who chatted online were contacted by
>> strangers. Another claimed a survey had shown that almost half
>> of 11-14-year-olds had viewed websites their parents would find
>> alarming. Similar statistics were quoted in the NetAlert information
>> booklet sent to every household.

i also don't see that teenagers viewing web sites that 'their parents
would find alarming' is necessarily a problem.

there are lots of perfectly legitimate sites that (some) parents would
hate which they have no right or compelling interest to prevent their
child from accessing....the child is an individual with their own
rights, not just a possession of the parent.

such sites include: sites with info about evolution, about sexuality,
about contraception, about drugs, and many other potentially
controversial topics.

sure, children and teenagers need to be protected from physical dangers,
but they do not need to be sheltered from information.  IMO, doing that
is child abuse in itself.



"Stranger Danger" is 99% bullshit anyway. the greatest danger to
children of physical, sexual, or emotional abuse is, always has been,
and always will be from their own immediate family, extended family, and
friends of the family.


craig

-- 
craig sanders <cas at taz.net.au>

BOFH excuse #294:

PCMCIA slave driver