Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Facebook Agrees To User Safety Plan

Posted by Soulskill on Fri May 09, 2008 04:18 AM
from the i'm-like-totally-18 dept.
Facebook has reached an agreement with the attorneys general of 49 states and the District of Columbia to develop and enhance controls to protect minors from inappropriate content. This follows a similar commitment from MySpace several months ago. The lone holdout in each case was Texas. News.com notes: "In the deal, the social network has agreed to develop age verification technology, send warning messages when an under-18 user may be giving personal information to an unknown adult, restrict the ability for people to change their ages on the site, and keep abreast of inappropriate content and harassment on the site. While the agreement is with U.S. state authorities, Kelly said that the tools deployed will apply to Facebook's international users as well. More than half of the site's 70 million users are outside the U.S."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Parents To Block Kids From Joining MySpace 337 comments
Reservoir Hill writes "A New York Times blog notes that attorneys general of 49 states are announcing a partnership with MySpace to fight sexual predators on social networks by letting parents submit the e-mail addresses of their children, so the company can prevent anyone from using that address to set up a profile. MySpace will also set up a 'closed' section for users under age 18 so only their established online friends can visit their pages. MySpace also promises to hire a contractor to identify and delete pornographic images on the site. 'This set of principles is a landmark and milestone because it involves an acknowledgment of the importance of age and identity authentication,' said Connecticut attorney General Richard Blumenthal." Blumenthal also actually said "If we can put a man on the moon..."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • For God's sake (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rik Sweeney (471717) on Friday May 09 2008, @04:32AM (#23347782) Homepage
    Maybe Facebook should also be made to come round to people's houses and teach them how to wipe their arses properly.

    While Facebook might have to provide some responsibility, the 49 states and Columbia should actually tell the PARENTS to supervise their child's usage of the internet.
    • Re:For God's sake (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Grimbleton (1034446) on Friday May 09 2008, @04:49AM (#23347868)
      I agree. I'm sick and tired of the government stepping in where they shouldn't. Aw, little Susy sent out naked pictures to her friends? Great, let's educate her and her parents, not hold the service she used to perform an action with responsible. Where's the personal responsibility these days?
      • Why not just outlaw internet use for those under 18? Before you laugh or mod me troll, hear me out:

        Youngsters don't need the internet to do research as they could go to a library and do their research the old-fashioned way. Youngsters have cell phones and text messaging, and if they don't have that then they could play sports or participate in a myriad of activities for social bonding.

        The internet is like a playboy magazine: it has articles totally unrelated to sex, and it has the pictures - would you le
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          Yes, and the same with TV and radio.
          • TV and radio are not bidirectional. A kid could see a murder on TV but if he thinks its cool to kill(and especially if he directly imitates the act) then he's an idiot and deserves to be punished. But, TV won't pretend to be an underage chick telling your kid to meet him at the park so that it can give him candy :)
            • TV and radio are not bidirectional. A kid could see a murder on TV but if he thinks its cool to kill(and especially if he directly imitates the act) then he's an idiot and deserves to be punished. But, TV won't pretend to be an underage chick telling your kid to meet him at the park so that it can give him candy :)

              TV may not be bidirectional, but the universe is. So if you stab someone, the consequence could be that they'd bleed to death. Another part of the universe, comprised of braincells contained within biological systems (often known as law enforcement bodies) will upon receiving this information (through lightwaves, soundwaves initiated by similar brain cells contained within any human subset of the class of organic systems etc.) would trigger a process that stimulates other brain cells in its proximity until

        • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 09 2008, @05:16AM (#23347970)
          HOW exactly was THIS modded UP?! I mean WHAT?! Even as AC, I am shocked.

          Oh sure, I am 18 now and working as search engine optimizer and PHP coder. Learning these skills from library, with years old books, etc. without the access to internet would have been kinda... impossible? People don't NEED the internet and neither they NEED moder medicine. Maybe we should also make medicine illegal for people under 18 because some can become drug addicts.
          • HOW exactly was THIS modded UP?! I mean WHAT?! Even as AC, I am shocked.
            It's modded "Interesting". Meaning some people may not agree with the poster, but the poster made an attempt to come up with an argument that isn't overhashed around here.

            It's an interesting opinion and an interesting point of view. There's no reason to squelch an opinion here just because you don't agree.
            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by Anonymous Coward
              The same AC here again (Hmmh... Should get registered some day as I comment about daily but really, I hate registarations of all kinds).

              Reasonable exemption for academic or vocational use? That just won't cut it, really. If I hadn't had full access to internet when I was 10 years old, I wouldn't have though "This thing is awesome! I want to make webpages too!" and asked my father to teach me how to do that (HTML). I wouldn't have started my first game reviews website (only lasted two months or so, though. ;
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              There's such a thing as being overprotective, and this is it.
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          Yeah, right. Because a small minority is unable to use something properly, outlaw it for all others as well. Make all people suffer because some people made errors. With the same mentality, pretty much everything should be outlawed, since you can always find a way to misuse something.
        • by digitig (1056110) on Friday May 09 2008, @08:47AM (#23349186)

          Why not just outlaw internet use for those under 18? Before you laugh or mod me troll, hear me out: Youngsters don't need the internet to do research as they could go to a library and do their research the old-fashioned way. Youngsters have cell phones and text messaging, and if they don't have that then they could play sports or participate in a myriad of activities for social bonding.
          Because growing up is about learning to live in the adult world. If we keep kids wrapped in cotton-wool and safe from the world until their 18th birthday, when you turn them loose they just won't be able to deal with what they encounter. Parenting, education and so on are largely about getting the kids used to the risks of real life, in a controlled way. Yes, that has its own risks -- kids will have to be exposed to the dangers of the real world in order to learn to cope, and sometimes they will fail to cope. So the risks need to be managed and controlled, but we must be aware that if we eliminate risk kids won't learn to deal with it. There will be tragedies, but that's because life is dangerous, not because we've under-legislated.
      • by elucido (870205) on Friday May 09 2008, @05:46AM (#23348108)

        Lets solve this problem once and for all and come up with ONE age of consent. One age which applies to all US territories and the internet, so that adults can know when they are breaking the law.

        To have no age of consent is equal to having the drinking age be different in every state and having some states have bars with minors in them and other states having bars set to be over 21.

        You cannot govern this way.
      • Because the voters seem to be damn inclined for the government to take care of their...

        retirement
        health care
        schooling of their children
        mortgages

        How are those three a function of government? I really don't understand how people who send their kids to public school can complain about government censorship related to children. Really, what do you think goes on in your schools? You can't get information in some states about what actually does go on. Worse, in a few medical issues with your children is off l
        • by c6gunner (950153) on Friday May 09 2008, @06:17AM (#23348234)

          Because the voters seem to be damn inclined for the government to take care of their...

          retirement
          health care
          schooling of their children
          mortgages

          How are those three a function of government? I really don't understand how people who send their kids to public school can complain about government censorship related to children. Really, what do you think goes on in your schools?
          Apparently, NOT learning how to count :)

          You're absolutely right, though. The more "liberal" (really socialist) a country gets, the more it becomes dependant on the government. You can't offer people cradle-to-grave welfare, free education, pretty much guaranteed medical help, etc, etc, without at least a small segment of your society regressing to the point of becoming children in adult bodies. If you then expect those individuals to raise children of their own, you're just asking for problems.
      • I am too really really sick of what's happening with all this "think of the children" craze. I've been trying to buy some software from EA Store (some booster packs for Battlefield 2 not some hardcore p0rn) and they tell me I need to buy from 23:00 to 06:00 because of some "young protection regulations" (the pack has some logo with "Violence"). What's the danger here? I give them a valid CC, I am (well) over 14/18/21. Are they thinking I'm somehow watched by some teens and they don't want to take any chance

    • The problem is not going to be solved just by telling parents to supervise the internet.

      Yeah if the child is actually a child, as in under 15, then yes the parents should be supervising the internet for them, but what about when they are over 15 and under 18?

      How can you have a chatroom or a "space" on the inernet which is not commercial, but which restricts the age limit to 18+? That is the question I'm asking. The law says that 18+ cannot have unrestricted communication with those under 18. The laws are
    • The reality of moves like this is that unless they require some kind of objective identification or background checks on every single user, minors will start accounts saying that they are older and pedophiles will start accounts saying that they are younger. The amusing conclusion is that pedophiles will only be hitting on eachother.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      While Facebook might have to provide some responsibility, the 49 states and Columbia should actually tell the PARENTS to supervise their child's usage of the internet.

      I'd like to see them implement parental supervision features, so that I can easily review what my kids are doing.

      The idea that parents should actively supervise and participate in their children's Internet usage SOUNDS good, but in practice it means two things: I have to spend all of my free time watching what my kids do on the net (leaving me no time for slashdot!), and I have to severely limit their Internet usage.

      This is especially problematic for parents with more than one or two children. I hav

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        The idea that parents should actively supervise and participate in their children's Internet usage SOUNDS good, but in practice it means two things: I have to spend all of my free time watching what my kids do on the net (leaving me no time for slashdot!), and I have to severely limit their Internet usage.
        Your kids, your problem. Don't try to screw up the Internet for the rest of us in an attempt to make it kid-safe enough to reduce your workload.
  • Texas, huh (Score:5, Funny)

    by patio11 (857072) on Friday May 09 2008, @04:44AM (#23347840)
    You know, any time its 49 to 1 on states in America, you can be pretty sure that Texas is sitting out. Or perhaps Utah. Just once, I'd like to have a boring, milquetoast state like Rhode Island try to have a bit of a personality. "We're not a state! We're a Commonwealth! And we won't be having with any of your Internets!"

    Hey, it could happen.
  • Age of majority (Score:5, Informative)

    by NoobixCube (1133473) on Friday May 09 2008, @04:49AM (#23347870) Journal
    I've always thought the broad-sweeping American-influenced use of age 18 on the internet is amazingly arrogant and blind. 18 is the arbitrary age of majority in some western cultures. In other western cultures, it's 21. In Japan (and perhaps other Asian countries, though I don't know), it's 20. Age of majority is probably even lower in some countries, and even higher in others.
    • except (Score:5, Informative)

      by nguy (1207026) on Friday May 09 2008, @05:14AM (#23347960)
      Except that the age of consent is actually lower in many countries, even if their age of majority is the same or higher.

      So, for example, in many places in Europe, the age of majority is 18, but the age of consent is 15. Even in the US, there are state-by-state discrepancies.
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        I was going to mention age of consent, but I thought it would seem like too much of a pointless rant if I went off on that tangent. In Australia, some states say 16, some say 17, and Victoria actually has a special provision, where the age of consent is 16, but if either or both people are under the age of consent, then there can't be more than two years' age difference. Strange, but at least it stops people from becoming sex offenders if they're 16 with a 15 year old girlfriend or boyfriend.
        • You then did proceed to mention age of consent and you were correct in your thinking that it might end up a pointless rant.

          Well done.

      • Instead of having the age of consent be state by state, why don't these federal politicians who want to pass all these internet laws to ban free speech, simply pass one age of consent bill which once and for all sets the age of consent across the entire country?

        It's a lot easier to protect children when we actually know what a child is in the eyes of the law.
      • Try your northern neighbour. Here the age of majority is 18, but you can't buy booze and cigarettes until you're 19....and you can have sex at 14. Makes sense, no?
  • by mrcdeckard (810717) on Friday May 09 2008, @04:52AM (#23347880) Homepage
    before i get modded to hell, i'm usually not a doomsdayer.

    however, i think this may be the point that we have all been dreading since the internet began -- the day we have to provide *real* identification to get access to casual (non commerce) sites.

    i guess the glass-half-full part of me is wondering how facebook can verify age without compromising anonymity (and convenience for that matter).

    one way to address this is to not allow unverified people to network with minors (what adults really would, anyway, unless they're spying on them or, well, the pedophiles this system is trying to address). although this is a bit ageist in that this would require minors to provide real id. this doesn't actually address the issue, only postpones full-compliance to future generations. . .

    so, yeah. once this becomes commonplace (ie. when the infrastructure is in place), i can see the day when we all have to show our (real) ID at the door of every site we go to.

    often it occurs to me that i will be looking back to these days and think, "wow, those were the days when the internet was free," as i hold my nationalIDcard up to the computer screen to be scanned . . .

    mr c
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      one way to address this is to not allow unverified people to network with minors (what adults really would, anyway, unless they're spying on them or, well, the pedophiles this system is trying to address).
      What about someone who is 18 sending a message to someone who is 17? Or a grandmother sending her 13 year old granddaughter a message? Or a myriad of other circumstances?
    • i guess the glass-half-full part of me is wondering how facebook can verify age without compromising anonymity (and convenience for that matter).

      Facebook doesn't want anonymous users; they make that quite clear when you sign up.


    • A safe internet, designed for minors to access. This internet should require adult verification from their parents allowing their children to access the sites.

      And an unrestricted unsafe internet where anything goes. And anyone who chooses to access this internet should be in no position to turn to lawsuits and press charges on people.

      The key is, you can't mix the two worlds. The best way to protect minors is to build an internet for minors. The current internet is designed for adults and is unrestricted bec

    • As far as I'm concerned. It's better to be safe than sorry. Assume 18 is the absolute minimum age, because from a legal perspective, if they are over 18 then you can't be sued as easily.

      And I don't think we'd need ID's in every area of the internet. But if you want uncensored communication, because of how vague the current laws are, they can use the current laws to limit your free speech if minors are in the room.

      It would be best if minors were not in the room, or if you could have anonymous / secure / priv
  • by elucido (870205) on Friday May 09 2008, @05:20AM (#23347992)

    In my opinion, I see no reason for minors to be using the same social networking services as adults, and in my opinion if they are under 15 they shouldn't be on social networking sites at all.

    Can anything good come from letting minors access the adult oriented internet? We don't let them into clubs and bars, so why Myspace and Facebook?
    • That is really faulty logic. The legal reason why we don't let them into clubs and bars is because alcohol is served in those venues. Alcohol is not served on MySpace or Facebook.

      I think you have to remember that Facebook was started for college students, then extended to high school students. This isn't a case of minors trying to strongarm their way into "the adult oriented internet". It's quite the opposite. If anything, Facebook should probably shut their doors to those not affiliated with a college or h

      • Look, I'm not saying ban all who are under 15 from accessing the internet. If someone is under 15 and their parents give them permission to access the internet, they have every right to access the internet. Their parents should be responsible for monitoring their use of the internet if their parents believe their child has a right to access.

        However the current trend is that parents expect MySpace, and adult users of MySpace to change our behavior and protect THEIR kids from the dangerous internet. It's not
      • Slashdot is not a social networking site, and I'm pretty sure you know that. If you don't know the difference then you may have just made OP's arguement even stronger. OP was talking about places like Myspace, etc., where lots of personal information is freely available and kids such as yourself are often too naive and inexperienced to know better.

        That being said, I prefer letting parents have control. My daughter isn't allowed to use myspace/facebook etc. She'll be 18 soon then she can use anything she w
  • by arthurpaliden (939626) on Friday May 09 2008, @05:48AM (#23348118)
    Sounds good and does absolutly nothing. The best was to keep children safe on the internet is called ... wait for it ... PARENTING. So put the household computer in a high traffic area by the kitchen and take and interest in what your kids are doing.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Bingo! As your kids are growing up, do not give them a computer with net access in their own room. Keep an eye on them; they are in uncharted territory and are learning as they go. Help them learn some of the dangers and pitfalls of the internet.

      As they grow up, you can gradually give them more privacy with computer and internet issues (as you should be giving them in other things as well), easing them into "adulthood." I don't understand how people expect an individual that has been sheltered her entire

  • by clickety6 (141178) on Friday May 09 2008, @06:10AM (#23348202)
    I've seen sites that ask for adult verification via a credit card number but how do you verify that a minor is a minor? See if they don't have a credit card?
  • It's all about the chiiiiildren!

    Whoring out the data of the adults to the commercial partners is just fine!
    Posting their private actions to all their facebook mates is just fine!

    Facebook are slimy bottomfeeders who don't give a shit about their users.

    But then, cui bono ? The users aren't paying Facebook, the advertisers and commercial partners are.

  • Because noone could ever get another free email from Yahoo/MSN/Google/RediffMail/DMX/insert free email provider here and register for a new account if they are operating under nefarious purposes, you know, like spammers do.

    Age verification technology - how will this work without requiring giving more personal information to facebook, who will then use it to further tail advertisements, could you imagine if they had your postal address?

    The only part that makes sense is alerting when minors send information to adults.... but to do that it means monitoring personal communication without a warrant, and how do they really _know_ the child and adult know each other in a non-threatening way, and on the other side, how do they know that they arent relatives or have some other benign relationship... The solution is for parents to be parents and stop letting the computer/tv/playstation/wii parent your kids for you... nobody forced you to become a parent, take some responsibility.

    "In the deal, the social network has agreed to develop age verification technology, send warning messages when an under-18 user may be giving personal information to an unknown adult, restrict the ability for people to change their ages on the site, and keep abreast of inappropriate content and harassment on the site. While the agreement is with U.S. state authorities, Kelly said that the tools deployed will apply to Facebook's international users as well. More than half of the site's 70 million users are outside the U.S."
  • by Manip (656104) on Friday May 09 2008, @07:09AM (#23348472)
    Honestly why must adults who make up most of the population suffer for the minority?

    Just add a "Kid Flag" to the browsers. Have the parents set the "Kid Flag" and have sites have to enforce rules around it.

    e.g.
    If there is a kids flag either the service doesn't work or has reduced functionality.

    This allows parents to decide on the what age their kids are wise enough to use said services and puts the power entirely with the parents (as it should be).

    Stop trying to get everyone else to be a parent. I mean it seems like teachers, police, equipment makers, service providers, etc all have to be some kind of parent for all these silly like kids that these morons keep dropping into the world.

    Frankly the DNA pool might be better if some of the less intelligent kids (or kids with less intelligent parents) got taken out.
    • Just add a "Kid Flag" to the browsers. Have the parents set the "Kid Flag" and have sites have to enforce rules around it.

      Or even better... have the adult population actually grow up, think rationally for once and realize... it's a computer. It can't kill you (unless you bring it into the bathtub when it's plugged in). It can't hurt you (unless you drop it on your foot). All it can do is expose you to other peoples thoughts and ideas. If being exposed to other people's thoughts and ideas is all it take

  • Facebook IS the issue. It's Never the parents. All parents are perfect with the upbringing of their child. point the finger at... media. gta. facebook.


    • Why did they open their product to children anyway?
      They should have kept it as an adult college generaton product. I'd probably still be using it if they didn't open it to everyone.