The Dope on DOPA

[deza]

In early 2006, Representative Mike Fitzpatrick (R-PA) presented a bill to the House called the Deleting Online Predators Act, or DOPA. The reasoning behind the bill was fairly simple: since many of the highly-publicized cases of online pedophilic predation involve the use of either Internet chat rooms or social networking sites (i.e. MySpace, Bebo, LiveJournal, etc), then making it harder for kids to access those sites would also make it harder for predators to reach kids. The bill was defeated once, then re-introduced as the Deleting Online Predators Act of 2007 by Representative Mark Kirk (R-IL).

Representative Fitzpatrick and Kirk’s idea is to amend the Communications Act of 1934 (already amended by the 1996 Telecommunications Act) to require schools and libraries to prevent minors from reaching chat rooms and social networking sites. The bill also requires that those same schools and libraries be able to disable the blocking for adult use. The bill makes no provisions for funding the additional blocking software required nor for the additional hours of work involved in evaluating unblocking sites for adult users. The bill would also put any future changes in what sites could be blocked in the hands of the Federal Trade Commission, instead of requiring Congressional involvement. This effectively circumvents the Constitutional Right to Free Speech.

This bit of knee-jerk legislation is one of the most idiotic ideas currently being contemplated by the US Government. The language of what kinds of sites must be blocked is incredibly vague—so much so that any site that provides an opportunity for a user to set up a profile and discuss issues in a forum will be blocked. Say goodbye to Amazon and the other online retailers that allow wishlists and reviews. Don’t try to get information from Salon.com, SlashDot, CNet podcasts or any other online news source that allows reader feedback, either. Forget about getting your email from Yahoo and GMail, too, as they provide chat functions. Wikipedia is right out as a reference source. Oh, and gamers? All those messageboards will be gone—and so will most of the MMO games. This may not affect those who have the luxury of Internet access in their homes, but the millions of people who rely on the public library for their Internet use will be denied.

The bill completely overlooks the valid educational uses of social networking sites. Forward-thinking teachers have started incorporating blogs and wikis into their curriculum; this would have to stop. Schools that use blogging software to update their webpages would be forced to block themselves. Unlike current filtering applications mandated by CIPA, sites would be blocked because of the types of software running on them, not for content.

The real kicker here is that the 2004 Youth Internet Safety Survey (widely quoted by Rep Fitzpatrick in his original defense of DOPA) has indicated that Internet predation on minors has dropped since the late 90s. This indicates that as kids are getting more Internet savvy, they are learning to recognize and avoid predators on their own.

This bill purports to protect kids in the absence of their parents. Wouldn’t it make more sense to task parents with protecting the kids themselves? How hard is it for parents to monitor the websites their kids are visiting? There are plenty of resources available for parents to use to discuss Internet safety and privacy with their kids—sites like CyberSafety Tips for Parents and Be Safe Online. The true key to protecting kids from Internet predators lies in teaching them what to watch for and what to avoid, not in banning broad categories of websites.

Want to learn more about DOPA? You can track progress of the bill through Congress yourself or sign up for the news alerts from DOPA Watch.

Want a say in dealing with this idiocy? Contact your Congressperson (secondary site here).

Comments

Playing Devil's Advocate

[tall-man.livejournal.com]

Disclaimer: I don't like DOPA -- the legislation, as written, sucks. It's overly-broad, primarily, although there are enforceability issues too (the authors seem to have never heard of a proxy server).

However, the spirit of the act is a good one -- it's very easy to build a profile of a person through their journal. Take a fictional example, containing 3 bits of information: "My Dad donated new uniforms to the school softball team," "We made the State Championship game!" and "My new job at Omelet Yurt is going well."

All a predator would have to do to find out the identity of the poster would be to cross-reference Omelet Yurt locations with state championship softball schools, and look in local papers for stories about a school getting donations of new uniforms from a parent. With that info, the predator has a good idea:

1. Who the poster is (look for the girl with the same last name as the donor, or note the donor is "John Smith, father of star center fielder Janie Smith.").
   
2. Where they live -- she's going to be within the district boundaries of the school, likely the school's attendance boundary, both of which are public info on the school district's website. Additionally, the predator can guess that she lives near the Omelet Yurt in that zone, as people -- especially teens, who tend to have limited transportation options -- work near where they live.
   
3. What she looks like -- again, look at the local paper for "Softball Team goes to State Championship." There'll be a picture, likely of the whole team, with names nicely noted in the caption. Failing that, the softball team may have a webpage on the school's site, with names nicely listed. Beyond that, all a predator has to do is attend one of the games and get a program -- look for Janie Smith to be announced, or keep an eye on her listed position.

That kind of detective work, plus a little more info that's easily available on a teenager's blog ("I broke up with my boyfriend! Oh noez!") can paint a great background picture for a predator, and that gives him a huge advantage in attempting to predate upon her. Note that, at no time does the child have to give out her personal information directly, and really, I don't think many parents would consider the information I've fictionalized here to be risky on a blog.

After all, how easy was it for you (deza.livejournal.com/1115959.html) to find a child's personal info on MySpace, even though the profile was set private? If a well meaning librarian (ok, "assaulted librarian") can do it, a pedophile or stalker can too.

The upshot? I don't think any amount of Congressional legislation is going to do anything -- look how well it's done for curbing online poker! To really make a difference, social networking and chat sites (and MMORPG's) would have to begin requiring proof of age somehow -- I can think of at least one cryptographic protocol that might work -- and that would cut back on their eyeballs-on-screen numbers (imagine a MySpace without 14-year-olds!), lowering their ad revenue, and they view that as a Bad Thing^tm. So we'll get a fundamentally useless and overly broad bill in Congress that'll likely get shot down for 1st Amendment reasons (bloggers=free press). Therefore, sites like that would likely prefer to have this crappy legislation go through, rather than anything well-written and researched.

Limiting potential contact between predators and children is a good idea -- especially when you consider how net clueless most parents are; I doubt that 2/3 of the parents in our county who have children with a MySpace (or Xanga, etc) truly monitor their children's blog (or, failing that, the tech-savvy kids have 2 blogs, one for show and one for tell as it were, or any number of other social engineering workarounds).

[cmpriest.livejournal.com]

Laws of that sort are doomed to fail regardless of whether or not they are implemented, because they are written by people who do not understand technology -- and intended to protect people who do

[ladyleo.livejournal.com]

Agree wholeheartedly.

[majilique.livejournal.com]

No wonder my lunch hour of surfing at school is a dismal failure. Cumberland County has locked out so many sites it's not funny. But what is (and isn't), is that kids know how to get under and around those firewalls to get into the off-limit sites. As told to me by my Wonder Geek child, who was able to put games on the school system last year and got his skinny arse in deep trouble.

The bill completely overlooks the valid educational uses of social networking sites. Forward-thinking teachers have started incorporating blogs and wikis into their curriculum; this would have to stop. Schools that use blogging software to update their webpages would be forced to block themselves.

And like you say there are articles like this that are very pro blog and very right on the money with what we do need to do with our kids.

http://www.collinseducation.co.uk/Resources/Extracts/Blog.pdfHow hard is it for parents to monitor the websites their kids are visiting?

Thing is that a lot of parents aren't monitoring their kids. They look at the internet and gaming sites as keeping the kids out of their hair. Luckily, WGC hates me for keeping tabs on what he's into and on everyday. even at school when I'm there as a Sub. (does help that he's one of the kids who works on the computers too.) I'm always asking about who he's talking to. :) Evil Mom that I am. :)

Kids today are very savvy and they are learning to watch out for the predators. idiots like the Congress need to be leashed. Not the internet through the school systems.

Thanks for posting all this, Deza!!!!

[mr-black-cat.livejournal.com]

As it's written, it doesn't sound too awful, except for the lack of funding to pay for it or any guidelines for implementation. Lets look critically:

1. The reason for the law makes sense. Protecting children from molestors is good, yes. I think we can all agree there.

2. The definitions: Kinda vague, but thats probably intentional, in order to catch as much as they can. Old white guys dont always understand the internets too well.

3. The implementaion: Pretty weak, it deposits the requirements into the law, but thats it. No funding to implement it, no guidelines for implementing it. Not even any reccomendations.

Verdict: A decent idea with nothing to back it up.

[toddmichael.livejournal.com]

This was a really well-written post!