Virginia Becomes First State to Mandate Internet Safety Lessons 262
kaufmanmoore writes "The Commonwealth of Virginia has become the first state in the nation to require that students in all grade levels receive a form of internet safety lessons. The story is scant on details about the lessons, but describes one recently at a high school where the presenter showed a social-networking profile of a convicted sex offender posing as a 15 year-old girl. "
This is great but... (Score:5, Insightful)
But I'd rather see mandatory parenting.
kneejerk reaction (Score:5, Insightful)
I know the usual kneejerk reaction here to any government act taken in regards to children is to immediately stick one's fingers in one's ears and shout NANNY STATE until one is hoarse, but I really don't see anything especially forbidding about teaching some basic internet safety skills in school.
Re:kneejerk reaction (Score:4, Insightful)
Careful . . . (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is great but... (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember once helping out at a teacher conference in summer between 8th and 9th grades to help teach them (the teachers) how to use their new Macs (back around 1992).
Re:This is great but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is great but... (Score:5, Insightful)
The web, in general, may be an inappropriate venue for a young child, but it's hardly treacherous. In fact, I'd say that the risk of being targeted and hunted down in some manner is probably far less than your local playground. Which is to say the risk is small enough to put aside, and hardly something that merits the exaggerated press coverage, let alone the subject of a government mandated safety policy.
Besides, if a child of any age is inclined to participate in "chat rooms", then they'll have plenty of supervisory company from law enforcement officials and TV celebrities.
What would real Internet Safety Program look like? I'd start with something that includes unhiding file extensions on Windows systems to prevent the
But I'd rather see mandatory parenting.
Agreed. But they're both working, and too busy or too tired, trying to make a living. Guess the responsibility falls on the rest of us, huh?
No Mandatory Parenting (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a good case for holding parents responsible when their kids break laws their parents should be responsible for teaching them not to break.
But schools should teach kinds the minimum that makes them safe. Kids whose parents already taught them will have it easy, and thereby get a reward, as well has see reinforced the stuff their parents teach them that most kids think is just their own parents' weird hangup, so they're more secure in following it.
And kids whose parents disagree with what the school teaches them can also teach their kids to ignore what the school teaches them, which is probably the most important lesson.
Re:This is great but... (Score:2, Insightful)
It's obviously going to a series of endless classes and fear mongering for the pedo fud machine.
And you can't just ignore the fact that a lot of the "innocent" kids actually go out looking for trouble, either because they want att ention, hate their parents, or want to screw over some pedo.
This is a move in the wrong direction.
They need to simply ban minors from the entire internet.
Re:This is great but... (Score:5, Insightful)
These are the same. And abstince-only education doesn't work with sex either. The point is to teach them safe habits.
Well, to a large degree, that's true. If you never give anyone enough information to track you down, and never meet people off the internet, then you are pretty safe. If they find out your IP address they might be able to find out your neighborhood/block. But you even avoid that by not directly connecting with people.
That does discount spyware, but that seems like a second class of issues (or second class by the school.).
Wow, way to combine three typical slashdot dislikes. First, it was the federal government who gave us the DMCA, not Virginia. Second, a lot of the DMCA makes sense (the safe-harbor provisions). I suppose you are talking about the generality of the term 'encrption scheme' so that it applies to ROT-13 and the law against having mechanisms to get around it? Well, even that seems more carelessly written than evil.
And even if there was a lot of anti-piracy in the class, that 1) seems valid, as pirated software is more likely to have spyware than the non-pirated alternative (exception that proves the rule, P2P clients). 2) Even if it was used to curb piracy, how does that lead to a lack of innovation? I would understand software patents, but... 3) Even if that was a negative consequence, teaching kids good online habits seems to outweigh it. 4) Piracy *is* illegal, and the government *should* support upholding the law.
Political rant: I don't understand how the Republicans/Libertarians can win elections with attitudes like yours. Of course, if you think government will always fail, and you are in charge of it, it will. My coworker claims that all architecture meetings take forever and end indecisively, but of course he has the power to cause that outcome.
Abdication of responsibility (Score:5, Insightful)
Soon schools will also have to teach kids to dress: "Now remember class, you can't wear a striped shirt with plaid pants".
It does seem that school is getting to be less about education and more about daycare (so that parents can go and have careers instead of raising kids).
Re:A good idea that won't turn out well (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh wait, I forgot! The most important benefit of this program is actually for the state legislators who passed this, because it makes them look like they're "thinking of the children" and trying to "protect the precious little snowflakes", so that some numbnut can get re-elected and steal more money from the state's coffers. Yes folks, this is how politics works in Virginia. Surprised? You shouldn't be.
Re:Fine but (Score:4, Insightful)
wrong topic (Score:5, Insightful)
The real issues that teens and pre-teens need to be taught about in regards to the internet are:
1. If you post text, a picture, or video on the internet it will be there indefinitely, and everyone will potentially have access to it. This works for pics of all types, from sexually inappropriate things to pics from a party where people are drinking to social networking 'interests' lists. We've all heard stories of people getting turned down from a job b/c of a facebook profile. Young people need to know about this early.
2. Cyber bullying. For crying out loud, this is huge, and young people are the most vulnerable. Kids need to know that what gets put online has real consequences, and conversely, to not take rumors or gossip posted online seriously. We've all seen the story about the girl who killed herself b/c a neighbor (parent posing as a teen!) was saying hateful things about her.
3. What the internet is...a computer network. No more, no less. It's a powerful communications tool, just like a car is a powerful transportation tool. If you don't understand and respect what it can do, you or someone else will pay for it.
I know I kinda sound lame and schoolmarm-ish on that last one, but it's true...damn I'm getting old.
The Virginia school classes are nothing more than ignorant reactionary bs meant to calm the irrational fears of soccer moms who watch too much Dateline.
Re:What kind of predator? (Score:3, Insightful)
B) A sexual predator with a sexual predator fetish.
Bah... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:wrong topic (Score:5, Insightful)
This is absolutely correct. Not only that, it is WAY better to have your kid learn the basic rules of safety when there is a thousand miles of wire between them and the person that is trying to take advantage of them. (sexually or not) The idea that kids should learn how to deal with these people in face to face situations FIRST is just not logical.
I agree with #1 and #2, but 'Cyber Bullying' is exactly the same situation as sexual predators. Bullying is not a different situation because it is on a computer. Schools want to pretend like it is because it allows them to extend their authority and thus power outside of the schools. In a hundred years, schools have not addressed real life bullying that includes the same things that happens online as well as physical assaults. Your example of the girl who killed herself, helps make this clear. The girl never did know that the person who first pretended to like her, and then said very mean things was an adult. The fact that it WAS an adult is totally irrelevant. The fact is that boys have pretended to like girls, only to spurn them later has been happening for as long as we have recorded history of male female interactions. It is safe to assume that it was going on well before we started recording history. The same can be said of girls pretending to like boys and then spurning them, as well as adults to adults. The girl killed herself because she was infatuated and got dumped. No one would have blamed the telephone for this if it happened over the phone, or the school if a boy had done this to her there.
I would want to see the schools dealing with real live bullying before they start even considering dipping their greedy hands into my home. Heck
Re:This is great but... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's one thing to say "don't meet strange people handing out candy." It's a good lesson and one that schools should mention since a lot of parents don't remember to. Heck, when I was in elementary school (pre-Internet) they taught us that kind of basic safety lesson.
But not all 3rd graders will extrapolate from "don't take candy from strangers" to "don't expose yourself on a webcam for a 'girl' in another state." [reputation...erblog.com] I'm sure that any future-slashdotter would figure that one out without any help, but not all kids are above average.
If this is really just adding lessons about Internet common-sense to lessons about real-world common-sense then it's probably on the net a good thing. Kids haven't developed their common sense yet and can easily get hurt by it.
Re:This is great but... (Score:3, Insightful)
You may find the behavior unacceptable, but there's usually no trickery involved (beyond the level of trickery involved in any date).
Re:This is great but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is great but... (Score:3, Insightful)
How do I do that in Evolution? But adblockplus won't run under IE12, what do I do?
In the end, it will end up a MS/**AA fud fest because F/OSS communities do NOT have the resources to dedicate training or funds for training to teachers in all those schools.
Sure, you can put together a nice website for their use but can't mandate it as a teaching certificate quality thing. Teachers WILL have to be qualified by the state to teach the course and guess who will provide that training? Ubuntu?
Keep dreaming....
Re:This is great but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Screwing the rest of the teens out of the resources to make better choices sure beats encouraging teenage rebellion.
This is somewhat more complicated, and there is a responsibility to educate kids so that they can take care of themselves. There is no valid reason for suggesting that teens shouldn't be provided with the means to effectively protect themselves. Parenting can only go so far, having an additional level of protection isn't some big, bad, scary danger.
The only downside to this is going to be cost. And if they can also include other online safety things like virus, spyware and phishing protection, it's a really good idea.
straw man (Score:3, Insightful)
I never said that, or made any statements that insinuate it either. Your logical fallacy is called the straw man. [wikipedia.org]
You construct a widely exaggerated statement (kids should learn how to deal with inappropriate adults face to face first vs. over the net), then attribute it to me, then unleash an argument against it that sounds good but is actually completely meaningless, b/c I never said anything like that.
I said:
And that's exactly why your argument is a straw man. My point was that ALL age-inappropriate issues are essentially the same, the difference is the method of communication, therefore, internet issues should be addressed in the same arena as other issues: health class. I'm actually advocating the opposite of what you falsely attribute me of advocating.
I know we're not supposed to feed the trolls, but it feels good to just let loose with a torrent of simple, provable logic every now and again.
as to your point about cyber bullying...
that holds a little more water, but I still think it's different. Adult/child sexual abuse is different than bullying b/c bullying is done between peers (by definition, if it was not between peers, then it would just be assault or abuse). It might be good to include a lesson on bullying in health class that covers the topic as you suggest, incorporating all forms of bullying. I'd buy that idea.
thanks for your comment
Re:This is great but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is great but... (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see how this is possibly a bad thing as long as they are only communicating established facts. And a spyware course (and other Internet common sense education) is much more relevant today than a baking course in today's world, in my opinion.
I am not sure why this is tagged "thinkofthechildren". While technically a correct tag, it is used on Slashdot to refer to unreasonable legislations that involve holy cow arguments involving children. That is not the case here.
Re:This is great but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure (and I agree that responsibility lies with parents), but the kids taking these lessons will be parents eventually. You could mandate safety lessons for adults also, but it's not all that convenient once they've left the structured environment (fixed times and lesson plans) of a school.
Re:Abdication of responsibility (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:This is great but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:straw man (Score:4, Insightful)
As for the bullying... The schools clearly have no interest in stopping bullying. It would be great if they did, but a hundred years of inaction shows that they don't. So, you have to ask why they want to do something about 'cyber' bullying when they have done nothing about assaults and abuse physically in front of them. The answer is clear. They want to take over being in charge of your kids when they are at home also. Assault and battery between peers does not make it something other than assault and battery. You and I are presumably peers, but if you punch me in the face, it is still assault and battery.
The problem with having a health class that covers assaults is that the people committing them know full well what they are doing. No one is confused about it. They also know full well that the school doesn't give a crap if they do it as long as the teachers and administration don't have to deal with it. On the bullying, I think we may just have to only half agree.
Re:This is great but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Abdication of responsibility (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean that it's not like the golden days of the 1950s when the precious little snowflakes were taught how to cook meals for themselves and balance their checkbooks in their home economics classes?
Re:wrong topic (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is great but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Shit, it should be mandatory that the parents show up with their kids! If this was some kind of morality thing pushing one view over others it would be one thing. MANY people simply are not aware of the dangers out there. Seriously, go talk to your average joe types, many of them believe you can't do many of these things, or that you can't get away with it because the cops will swoop in and get you. They simply do not understand the risk.
Would you ask a blind man to teach a driving school?