Peter Sinclair: Keeping kids safe on the net

A certain activity has gained a whole new lease of life on the internet, and I am not referring to the sale of books.

Let's just say the Old Adam is alive and kicking in cyberspace.

Butting your head against a brick wall is one of the prerogatives of democracy, though, and many powerful and persistent lobby groups in the United States aren't prepared to just leave him to it. They are giving their congresspersons hell.

With our own anxieties about shielding children from online pornography, concerned parents may be interested in the terms of the proposed Child Online Protection Act for possible relevance to New Zealand legislation.

Although approved by Congress, the Act has been prevented from taking effect by an injunction from those opposed to it, who argue that even minor renovation to the fabric of freedom can imperil the whole structure.

Still, I often get mail on the subject from worried mums, and it seems reasonable that some thought should be given to the problem as the porn industry grows increasingly opportunistic in promoting its product, often using highly deceptive techniques.

The Australian Government addressed it by rushing into law a draconian Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill 1999, which shot straight on to the statute book after only nine days of public submission (three were holidays).

But in spite of initial misgivings it seems to be working fairly well — blocking action is taken only against websites which are the subject of complaint. Its limitation is the speed with which online pornographers dart about the web, and the sheer volume of material.

Perhaps more sensibly, child online protection supporters last week proposed a system of "green areas," hosting content suitable for young children, by setting aside a block of the new IP version 6 web addresses.

Domain-names like .kid could then be filtered by parents to restrict their children's access to just these zones, a more practical solution than trying to force pornographers to use suffixes like .sex or .xxx.

Ironically, the sleaze is flying in American courtrooms at the moment over the most up-front domain-name of all: www.sex.com.

Until a couple of years ago, it was owned by Gary Kremen — when, he claims, convicted fraudster Stephen Cohen stole it by presenting forged transfer documents to domain registrar Network Solutions Inc. which duly actioned them.

Not surprisingly, Kremen sued both Cohen and Network Solutions. In a bizarre twist, the case against Network Solutions has just been dismissed on the grounds that a domain name is not "property" as legally defined (read about it at Wired.com); but Cohen (now a zillionaire) is still up for fraud.

Somehow, you can't help feeling it serves them both right.

Meantime, what's a concerned parent supposed to do? Sin-sentinels like Net Nanny and Cyber Patrol are probably your best bet in the ancient conflict between morality and human nature, but so mindless in their devotion to duty that they can block access to many legitimate topics. You'll just have to hope the kids don't get a school project on the sceptic philosopher Sextus Empiricus (250-325AD).

I rather like the totalitarian simplicity of the solution suggested by American TV commentator Dan Rather: forcibly relocate the kids' computer from their room to the lounge, where you can keep an eye on it and them.

Links:

Child Online Protection Act

Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill

Network Solutions

Wired: Sex.com Saga Still Sizzling

Net Nanny

Cyber Patrol

E-mail: petersinclair@email.com