Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Proposed bill gets strict on privacy, gives parents access to kids' Facebooks (California)
Digital Trends ^ | May 16, 2011 | Molly McHugh

Posted on 05/16/2011 7:07:43 PM PDT by decimon

A recent Consumer Reports survey found that roughly 7.5 million Facebook accounts belong to users younger’ than 13 and that as many as 20 million are under 18. While that might seem like a relatively low number given Facebook’s 500+ million users, being a minor with a Facebook account is increasingly becoming a scary thing: Cyber-bullying on the site has reached frightening proportions and child predators are a well known concern associated with the site.

Considering Facebook’s apparent reach with children and the risks associated with having an account, it’s surprising it took this long for a bill giving parents increased access to their kids’ profiles to be proposed.

>

For now, the bill has only been proposed in California, so those would be the only parents lucky enough to have such powers. Of course, with such power comes responsibility, and Facebook isn’t entirely certain parents can handle it. Spokesman Andrew Noyes called the bill a “serious threat,” and it stands to reason that parents could abuse the system, asking for heaps of information to be removed from children’s profiles. There’s also the problem of objectivity: Some more conservative parents might want reasonably tame photos removed, or wall posts with foul language taken down – which could eventually become a large expense for Facebook not to mention the complicated moral objections this bill may raise.

>

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: calegislation; conservatives; facebook; morality

1 posted on 05/16/2011 7:07:46 PM PDT by decimon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

For the children ping.


2 posted on 05/16/2011 7:10:33 PM PDT by decimon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: decimon

You forgot the BARF ALERT!


3 posted on 05/16/2011 7:12:55 PM PDT by Gabz (Democrats for Voldemort.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: decimon

So teach your kids about “unfriend” and “report this user”, so if someone bugs them they can use the built-in Facebook ZOT function.

That’s the end of cyberbullying, built in.

The issue usually pushed leads to the end of net anonymity.


4 posted on 05/16/2011 7:13:23 PM PDT by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: decimon

Why do minors need access to Facebook or phone texting?


5 posted on 05/16/2011 7:14:51 PM PDT by Anti-Bubba182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gabz
You forgot the BARF ALERT!

At what do you aim your spew?

6 posted on 05/16/2011 7:15:18 PM PDT by decimon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Bubba182
Why do minors need access to Facebook or phone texting?

They have access. If not at home then elsewhere.

7 posted on 05/16/2011 7:16:34 PM PDT by decimon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DBrow
So teach your kids about “unfriend” and “report this user”, so if someone bugs them they can use the built-in Facebook ZOT function.

That’s the end of cyberbullying, built in.

The issue usually pushed leads to the end of net anonymity.

It's not just bullying but what they are exposed to. Where do you draw the line on what pictures and language they are exposed to? Different parents will draw different lines. They will, that is, if they know what their kids are seeing.

8 posted on 05/16/2011 7:20:45 PM PDT by decimon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: decimon
If I was a kid, and knew my parenþs might be able to get into my FB for ANY reason by ANY means, I wouldn't have a FB at all. The wife and I raised a girl for a little while through her teenage years - she had an absolute right, IMO, to a certain level of privacy. If adults expect privacy, then they should treat their children the way they expect in regards to said privacy.

And government shouldn't be involved at ANY level.
9 posted on 05/16/2011 7:23:14 PM PDT by arderkrag (Georgia is God's Country.----------In the same way Rush is balance, I am consensus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: decimon

“It’s not just bullying but what they are exposed to.”

There is no reason parents can’t know what their kids are exposed to online, or to limit that exposure.


10 posted on 05/16/2011 7:25:16 PM PDT by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DBrow
There is no reason parents can’t know what their kids are exposed to online, or to limit that exposure.

How can they know what the kid is seeing on FB if they can't see it unless they're standing over the kid? How about when the kid is out of the house?

11 posted on 05/16/2011 7:29:09 PM PDT by decimon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: decimon; glock rocks

You can download all of the contents from a cell phone onto a PC. For parents of minor children, this should become a normal task. How many of you think snooping in your children’s affairs is not proper behavior for a parent?


12 posted on 05/16/2011 7:38:46 PM PDT by B4Ranch (Allowing to America is akin to injecting yourself with AIDS to prove how tolerant you are..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: decimon

FB is accessible everywhere, not just in your house. There are software solutions to this, that lead to the parent always having the password.


13 posted on 05/16/2011 7:46:01 PM PDT by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: decimon
At what do you aim your spew?

At this stupid nonsense from the article:

Some more conservative parents might want reasonably tame photos removed, or wall posts with foul language taken down – which could eventually become a large expense for Facebook not to mention the complicated moral objections this bill may raise.

As a parent it is MY DECISION what is reasonably tame, and it doesn't matter a bit if I'm conservative, liberal, or whatever.......I'm the parent.

I guess I'm overly sensitive, but this kind of stuff -- arguments opposing what amounts to parental responsibility drives-- me nuts. That the government is getting involved just rubs me the wrong way.

14 posted on 05/16/2011 7:49:07 PM PDT by Gabz (Democrats for Voldemort.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
For parents of minor children, this should become a normal task. How many of you think snooping in your children’s affairs is not proper behavior for a parent?

The children are minors so the parents have, or should have, extraordinary rights and responsibilities regarding their welfare. Within reason, it should be the parents and not the schools deciding what the children are exposed to. Ditto Walmart, McDonalds and Facebook.

So, is this proposed legislation a good thing? Beats me but I thought this a good topic for discussion.

15 posted on 05/16/2011 7:50:46 PM PDT by decimon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: DBrow; decimon

my husband gets every message, every comment that comes to our son’s FB... he usually sees it before our son does...


16 posted on 05/16/2011 7:51:54 PM PDT by latina4dubya ( self-proclaimed tequila snob)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: DBrow
FB is accessible everywhere, not just in your house. There are software solutions to this, that lead to the parent always having the password.

I guess having the FB password would work. Without that you wouldn't know what your kid is doing on FB from some other kid's PC or tablet.

17 posted on 05/16/2011 7:53:57 PM PDT by decimon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: latina4dubya
my husband gets every message, every comment that comes to our son’s FB...

By some Facebook function or by other means?

18 posted on 05/16/2011 8:00:59 PM PDT by decimon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
How many of you think snooping in your children’s affairs is not proper behavior for a parent?

Wholeheartedly agree. I have a minor child. Trust, but verify... and trust builds character. Haven't had a problem with it.

19 posted on 05/16/2011 8:03:20 PM PDT by glock rocks (Wait, what?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: decimon

That’s stupid. I set up my kids’ Facebooks. I control them if necessary. And if they set up clandestine pages, they won’t have access to a computer any more.


20 posted on 05/16/2011 8:05:44 PM PDT by Politicalmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: glock rocks

Discreet “surveillance” is not at all improper. After all the kid is using your internet service. But confrontation if any needs to be done with equal discretion, since it’s like the proverbial squeezing of the wet bar of soap, it will likely scoot away.


21 posted on 05/16/2011 8:07:47 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Hawk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Politicalmom

Discretion is urged, because while the kids may be whining to you about “oh I have no Facebook” they may actually have one set up through a friend whose parent is not so careful.


22 posted on 05/16/2011 8:10:08 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Hawk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: decimon

>>The children are minors so the parents have, or should have, extraordinary rights and responsibilities regarding their welfare.<<

Would you support your child if they refused to listen to a socialist teacher and walked out of the classroom during a dissertation on the benefits of socialism. Let them know ahead of time you would and then don’t be surprised if they do it.

We cannot control what our children will be exposed to in their life while under our care. Open non restrictive, non-confrontational conversations during dinner of after supper give parents the opportunity to hear what the kids are thinking and to guide them away from making poor decisions.

A great opening line to these discussions is, “What did you do or say today that you wish you hadn’t done or said?” or “What happened today that you wish had not happened?”

It doesn’t hurt to say grace before dinner — sets the tone for the evening.


23 posted on 05/16/2011 8:19:32 PM PDT by B4Ranch (Allowing to America is akin to injecting yourself with AIDS to prove how tolerant you are..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Gabz

“I guess I’m overly sensitive, but this kind of stuff — arguments opposing what amounts to parental responsibility drives— me nuts. That the government is getting involved just rubs me the wrong way.”

Dittos. My 16-year old boy has FB and my wife (also on FB) keeps tabs on it to a degree by being a “friend” or whatever, and also having his password. She keeps him honest once in awhile. (Last time it was because he made a quip about Obama being dead - “opps, I meant Osama”.) As much as you can’t stand the guy, you shouldn’t be saying stuff like that - especially when your name is attached to it!

My 13 year-old daughters don’t have it, but every so often they mention it. One of these days they will.

And the only on-line computers they can use are in family areas of the house.


24 posted on 05/16/2011 8:30:05 PM PDT by 21twelve ( You can go from boom to bust, from dreams to a bowl of dust ... another lost generation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

I’m not a control freak. That stuff usually backfires anyway.

How about bars? What if there were no laws against children entering or being served in bars? Think maybe a lot of kids would be coaxed in by others despite the efforts of their parents to keep them out?


25 posted on 05/16/2011 8:34:07 PM PDT by decimon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: 21twelve

My daughter will be 13 in July, so she’s basically the same age as yours. She has FB and I have the password. Except when she’s at school or a friend’s house the only online access she has is either my laptop or my husband’s laptop, but since his is a company one, she doesn’t have much access to daddy’s puter :)

She knows the rules about being online and she asks one of us to check out something, that she’s interested in signing up for before she does it. So far I haven’t said no to anything. about 90% of what she does revolves around various book series that she’s into and involve writing their own concepts of scenarios involving the characters.


26 posted on 05/16/2011 8:44:43 PM PDT by Gabz (Democrats for Voldemort.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: decimon
By some Facebook function or by other means?

i will ask him... he is a computer geek...

27 posted on 05/16/2011 9:22:28 PM PDT by latina4dubya ( self-proclaimed tequila snob)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: decimon

There were no such laws before prohibition and things worked fine. It wasn’t until the moralist busybodies got involved that those laws appeared.


28 posted on 05/17/2011 6:17:27 AM PDT by arderkrag (Georgia is God's Country.----------In the same way Rush is balance, I am consensus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: arderkrag
There were no such laws before prohibition...

I doubt that.

29 posted on 05/17/2011 10:48:46 AM PDT by decimon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: decimon

Doubt it all you want, it’s reality. There were very few laws concerning the consumption of any kind of chemicals in the US iuntil well into the Prohibitionist movement. Except in rare standout cases, morality was left up to the common man to decide. If a bartender/opium dealer/marijuana grower didn’t want to sell to a kid, they didn’t. Government was rarely involved. The only reason such substances are regulated now is because of sticky tax reasons. People get sold the nonsense “moral” reasons for the laws, never realizing it would be more moral to let individuals govern what they take in and let the details work themselves out.


30 posted on 05/17/2011 1:09:01 PM PDT by arderkrag (Georgia is God's Country.----------In the same way Rush is balance, I am consensus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: arderkrag

Prohibition was federal. Most laws regarding children were state and local.


31 posted on 05/17/2011 1:21:02 PM PDT by decimon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: decimon

You don’t understand the word “movement”, do you? “The Prohibitionist movement” encompasses both state and local laws. It covers the entire mindset that government needs to be our nanny to protect us from the big, bad drugs.


32 posted on 05/17/2011 1:26:51 PM PDT by arderkrag (Georgia is God's Country.----------In the same way Rush is balance, I am consensus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: arderkrag

If you have some tangential drum to bang then you bang alone. This has nothing to do with what I wrote.


33 posted on 05/17/2011 1:43:11 PM PDT by decimon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: decimon

If that were true, then you wouldn’t have responded in the first place. Prohibition is always going to be the perfect example of out-of-control oversight. And it’s a great parallel to giving parents oversight in regards to FB. Oversight is oversight, and an overreach is an overreach.


34 posted on 05/17/2011 2:15:19 PM PDT by arderkrag (Georgia is God's Country.----------In the same way Rush is balance, I am consensus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson