[sllug-members]: Re: Deseret News Article

[Erik Falor]

On 3/16/08, Bradley Daw <BDaw at utah.gov> wrote:
>
> All,
>
> In the letters I have received, there has been a lot of questioning
> whether or not I was overreacting. I hope these and subsequent articles will
> put those concerns to rest and will get all of you thinking about how we can
> solve the problem before it gets to the level presented in the article. I
> can assure you that every single perpetrator of a sex crime got his or her
> start with an addiction to pornography.
>
> http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695261701,00.html
> http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695261747,00.html
> http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695261976,00.html
> http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695261702,00.html
>
> Brad Daw
>

I see your four articles, and raise you three:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/28029.html
http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/assessing-the-dangers-of-the-internet-for-children/
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/02/fear_of_interne.html

Nobody disagrees that child predators are a threat.  Nobody disagrees that
something should be done to protect our children.
The disagreement is centered around the fact that your HB 139 would have
done nothing to disarm them.  HB 139 would not
have any power to stop the threats child predators present.

Of the four articles you referred to, only the first so much as mentioned
the Internet.  The following words were not present
in any of the above articles: wireless, pornography, wifi, computer.

The DesNews articles describe a problem.  I believe there is a solution that
can improve the status quo.  HB
139 is not that solution.  Most, if not all, of the anecdotes
contained in those stories involve people who were molested before the
Internet became prevalent, and for that matter, before
wireless Internet became widespread.  Could Oprah's abuse have been
prevented
by your measures?  The problem child molesters present is not
technological, and the right solution will likewise not be technological.

Let me put this another way: any technological solution we can dream up to
protect people from themselves will either be too intrusive
to be used, or will be broken down by hackers in under a week.  An example
of the former is User Account
Control<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Windows_Vista>(UAC)
on Windows
Vista; most users disable it out of annoyance despite the security benefits
it can offer.  An example of the latter is the HD-DVD encryption
controversy <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AACS_encryption_key_controversy>,
where a
key to unlock movies
was discovered by someone with knowledge and time applied
himself/herself to the problem.

The problem Windows Vista UAC attempts to solve is user discipline.  People
expect the computer to do their bidding, no questions asked.
Therefore, they use their computer with Administrator privileges enabled,
allowing them to do any operation, even dangerous ones,
without eliciting error messages.  This invites the user to make
mistakes which can destroy data on their computer, and
allow viruses and
worms to propagate.  Because UAC
is optional, users will inevitably choose to disable it when
it gets in their way.  Then the user has gone
back to square one, operating their
computer in an unsafe mode.  If only they were taught to exercise discipline.


The problem HD-DVD encryption attempted to solve was theft.  But theft
existed before computers and HD-DVDs existed.  In fact, this
very same problem of recording counterfeit movies was already hashed out in
the Supreme Court<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betamax#Home_and_professional_recording>in
the 1980's.  But every time a new
technology is developed, we go through this tired debate again.

Because this encryption scheme was forced upon consumers with no choice to
opt-out, someone discovered a way around it.  The utility
of the encryption scheme was destroyed from that time on, and all of the
effort put in to devise and implement it were rendered obsolete.
The problem of theft?
 It hasn't been fixed through technology yet, and nobody should expect
that it will be.
 There always has been, and
always will be thieves.  Let us find a balance between raising high barriers
to deter crime and making technology useful to non-criminals
instead of betting on a technological silver bullet.

Please consider an approach that addresses the real issue: children need to
be educated about what sorts of information they
ought to be giving out to strangers.  It doesn't matter whether they meet
them online, on the street, at school, in a comic-book store.
The fact that predators use
the Internet doesn't change the nature of the threat; it's simply a
new venue to use the same old tricks.
We teach our children to not accept candy from a
stranger; do we teach them to not accept a fileshare from an unknown
user online?


When a doctor prescribes
a medicine that he/she knows will not treat a particular patient's
symptoms, it is a wasted effort.  If the
doctor is aware that the side-effects of said medications are harmful, it is an
immoral effort.

I submit that you either do not understand the consequences of the course
you are proposing, or that you are indeed overreacting.
HB 139
would have harmed commerce, information access, and our state's
reputation.  Let us not approach this problem as Luddites, but
rather as technology users who understand what technology can and cannot do.

Respectfully,
Erik Falor

-- 
Erik Falor
Registered Linux User #445632 http://counter.li.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://sllug.org/pipermail/sllug-members/attachments/20080320/e3de4c75/attachment.htm