Privacy: June 1998 Archives

When was it that everyone started to talk about rights, and forgot all about responsibilities?

Before I begin, let me set some context. I'm a parent, I have two terminally cute daughters; one six, the other four. I've heard that the number one correlation between sexual conservatism and other factors is whether a person has daughters. Maybe things will be different when they reach adolescence, but so far my values haven't changed.

So now we have had a summit, and everyone's talking about how to protect the rights of parents on the internet. This is apparently something that greatly concerns many parents, although from a reading of the statistics, I can only assume that it's primarily a concern of parents who are not on the internet, since those that are, aren't even using the available tools. But I don't mean to belittle the core desire--parents want to make sure that children's exposure to new concepts and people is consistent with their beliefs, whether that exposure is on the internet, the street, or the corner store.

And that's the fundamental issue I have with all this ruckus. The internet doesn't exist as a thing, it isn't something that's safe or not safe. The internet is a community of people, and the things you have to teach your kids in this community are the same as the things you teach them in your own. Be polite, don't interrupt, don't speak unless you have something to say, stay away from the seamier parts of town, and of course, don't go off alone with strangers. Those are values I try and teach my kids. If I haven't gotten them across by the time they learn to send email, it's probably too late anyway. But these values are not specific to the internet--I expect them to be applied online, and down at the coffee shop.

I think I know where things went wrong. Some parents thought that if their kid was staying home in front of the computer, that they were safe and could be left alone--just like when they were sitting in front of the television. They were wrong of course, the two mediums are not comparible--there is far more violence and sex on television.

But on the internet, no one knows you're a dog. What good does it do to teach your kids right from wrong, if someone can pretend to be a teenage soulmate, when they are actually a lecherous old man? There is some validity in this, but frankly, anyone who has spent much time in online communities very quickly learns that identity is both central to, and yet completely apart from, the online experience. I spent my freshman year in college hooked on "the con", as it was called by those of us with access to Dartmouth's Time Sharing System–years before AOL's forums and IRC. We all knew the story of the guy that gets all excited about this great girl he's been chatting with for hours, only to walk over to his roommate's cubby to tell him the news--and find out he's been chatting with him all this time. The notion of an online identity, or identities, that is separate from your physical one is fundamental to the system--our children will understand that long before their parents. This isn't the dark side of the internet, this is one of the liberating things about the internet. (Note that having multiple identities is not the same as being anonymous, I'll talk more about that some other time--if you want some mandatory reading on that subject, check out "The Transparent Society : Will Technology Force Us to Choose Between Privacy and Freedom" by David Brin.)

"But...," (says my wife), "it is different, you think they are safe because they are in the house. With other communities, you know where they are." Well, one can hope, but the teen pregnancy rate in the U.S. would seem to argue otherwise. The fact of the matter is that, the older your kids get, the less control you have over them. That's why I see this whole thing very differently. This isn't an issue of parent's rights, it's a question of parent's responsibilities, and that's a word that seems to be very much out of favor recently. All the internet is doing is bringing home that our job as parents is not to control, but to guide.

Here is FamilyPC's "Internet Bill of Rights" proposal, with my responses. They asked if they could publish by responses, so if you see it in a physical copy, let me know which issue.

1. Parental blocking software should be integrated into every Internet browser.
   Including experimental ones? Ones meant for developer use only? Ones running on PDAs that don't have the necessary memory or CPU? No. If the demand is there, the industry will provide it. Protection of children is the responsibility of the parent, not something that can be regulated.
2. Web site creators must rate their sites in an industry-standard way that is recognizable by the browser (for now this means using RSACi or SafeSurf or PICS).
   Aside from being unenforcable, there is no need to do this. If people stop going to unrated sites, then sites will rate themselves. The fact of the matter is the majority of sites that rate themselves are adult sites--they don't want minors on their sites. The rest of sites don't have the time or interest to rate themselves.
3. An arbitration board should be created to arbitrate discrepancies in site ratings.
   That implies that ratings have the force of law. Ratings are going to be relative my definition. An independent board cannot be created to legislate free speech. If we were talking about signs on a front yard, this wouldn't stand up in court for a second.
4. Webmasters who do not comply with voluntary ratings should not be listed on the major search services.
   Absolutely not. This restricts adult access to sites, never mind access to sites outside of the United States. Search engines are already beginning to offer alternative, rated-only search facilities. There is no need to legislate this.
5. Children's chat rooms will be monitored to keep them safe; monitoring can be human or electronic.
   If you are worried about what your children say to whom, then monitor them. Don't forget to tape phone conversations and follow them to the school bathroom as well. Chat room monitoring is neither practical or workable.
6. Web sites must fully disclose what they do with information collected from people who register at their sites.
   This is a general issue that has nothing to do with the specific issue you are addressing here.
7. Advertising must be clearly labeled as advertising and kept separate from editorial content.
   Ditto.
8. If online shopping is involved, advertisers must require parental permission prior to purchase. Parents will be able to cancel an order mistakenly sent by a minor at no charge to the parent.
   The standards here should be the same as they are anywhere else. Use of a credit card is deemed to be an indication of adult status.
9. If an advertiser communicates with a child by e-mail, the parent should be notified and should have the option, with each mailing, to discontinue mailings.
   If you want to disallow communications with children by advertisers, I might consider that a good goal. However, "on the internet no one knows your a dog". It's impossible to tell whether you are communicating with a child on the internet. As for the ability to remove yourself from commercial mailings--go for it, but this is a general issue, not one specific to children's/parent's rights.

   Frankly I find the whole concept of a "Parent's Bill of Rights" to be misguided. First we need to construct a Parent's Bill of Responsibilities. For the past 15 years my closing email signature has been the same. And every year I feel it is more and more appropriate. "I'm not sure which upsets me more; that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's."