Sponsored links
|
|
Material that is harmful to minors. This includes information, coding or
programs that:
|
|||||||
Is not suitable for minors. Suitable information includes
material that:
|
|||||||
| Specific topics, including mature content, pornography, inappropriate language, violence, hate speech, drugs, alcohol, tobacco, gambling, weapons, and criminal activity. | |||||||
| Hyperlinks to other web sites that are outside the KIDS.US domain. | |||||||
| Provides File Transfer Protocol, telnet, E-mail, gopher and other functionality. | |||||||
| Asks for personal information from children under 13 years of age without parental consent. |
Restricted is:
| "Two way and multi-user interactive services" such as bulletin boards. |
Another matter of concern to webmasters involves costs of maintaining a KIDS.US web site:
| The wholesale price of the domain is $65.00 in U.S. funds per year. This is in excess of ten times the cost of a COM domain. | |
| NeuStar charges $250.00 content review fee per year. | |
| If a site is ordered off line because of content violations, it costs $400 to get back online. |
Melinda Clem, Director of Business Development for NeuStar, expected that there would be thousands of registrations. On that basis, she said that the company would be working with "thin, basically nonexistent margins." 8
NeuStar arranged with Cyveillance® to routinely scan KINDS.US web sites using automated spidering technology. Cyveillance informs NeuStar of any questionable material. NeuStar will normally allow the offending webmaster to remove the improper material. In serious cases, NeuStar will shut down the site. For example: NeuStar's regulations call for terminating an offending web site's connection to the Internet if it is found to contain mature content or inappropriate language. Web sites containing hate speech are apparently considered less serious. They allowed to continue spreading hatred online for four hours while the webmaster is allowed to change the content.
Shutting down a site is not absolute. Associated with a web site URL is an IP address of the form nnn.nnn.nnn.nnn where nnn is a number between 0 and 255. If the IP address is substituted for the name of the web site, then access could still be obtained to a KIDS.US web site even if its name were taken offline.
![]()
![]()
NeuStar was not enamored of the law. On 2002-SEP, a
representative suggested to a Senate committee that the bill:
|
|||||
| Rob Courtney, a policy analyst at the Center for Democracy and Technology, expressed some concerns: He said: "Closed space and heavy restriction on the Internet will create a false sense of security. Monitoring thousands of Web pages would be expensive and time-consuming." He was not convinced that many companies would open KIDS.US web sites. Subsequent developments show that he was right. | |||||
| Lisa Melsted, an analyst at Yankee Group, an Internet research and consulting company questioned whether parents will be satisfied with NeuStar's standards of what is appropriate for their children. | |||||
| Representative Fred Upton (R-MI), a co-sponsor of the bill explained KIDS.US "...will help parents establish a firewall, so that kids will learn to use the Internet in a safe way, and will be prepared to use it in a responsible fashion as they mature." 9 | |||||
| Rep. Edward J. Markey, (D-MA), another co-sponsor explained that the bill was "crafted to help organize content suitable for kids in a safe and secure cyber zone where the risk of young children clicking outside of that zone to suitable contents or being preyed upon or exploited online by adults posing as kids is vastly diminished. Organizing kid-friendly contents in this manner will enhance the effectiveness of filtering software and enable parents to set their children's browsers so their kids only surf within the .kids domain." 10 | |||||
| The International Society for Technology in Education suggested that some "...educators expressed concern that the dot-kids domain would soon be overcrowded by commercial rather than educational content. Further, some educators are afraid that the dot-kids domain would be unworkable in a school setting where children constantly use resources in other domains such as dot-com, dot-edu, dot-net, and dot-org." 11 | |||||
| Eric W. Anderson posted the following to the GigaLaw.com discussion list: "I don't understand why people believe that it's necessary - or acceptable - to impose stronger restrictions on web content than printed. To the best of my knowledge, if an eight year old walks into a public library and asks for the Kama Sutra, they get it. If a .kids.us site is prohibited from linking to a (potentially) questionable site, that seems comparable to saying that children's literature may not legally mention the existence of anything which isn't also a children's book. That strikes me as a profound imposition on the right to free speech as I understand it." 12 | |||||
|
Ian Betteridge commented in a forum on the MacUser.co.uk web site:
"The lack of features like chat rooms and instant messaging services mean that sites in this domain space will be unattractive to exactly the audience that it is trying to draw. Children, even more than adults, love the chatting and social aspects of using the Internet, so any service that doesn't provide these is unlikely to be of interest to them. The plan, despite its good intentions, is typical of the kind of half-baked measure intended to protect children that in fact does nothing of the sort. Unless you manage to prevent children accessing every other part of the Internet, it won't work. You might be able to limit Web access on a single machine, but kids will always find another computer to use, unfettered. Rather than control every technology, the answer lies in education. The best way to prevent children from falling into the hands of [abusive] pedophiles is to teach them what is and is not acceptable behavior from adults, to help them understand that the world can be a dangerous place and to show them how to explore it without exposing themselves to dire risk. Have we, as a society, become so addicted to the notion of innocent children not being exposed to any risk that we will fail to arm them with the knowledge they need to survive?" 13 |
![]()
The sunrise period for registration of trademarked names in the KIDS.US domain ended on 2003-AUG-15. General registration was activated by Neustar on 2003-SEP-8.
Representatives Fred Upton (R-MI) reported that over 1,700 web sites had been registered on KIDS.US by 2004-MAY-6, some nine months after registration started. 14 However, essentially all of them appear to be parked domains: registered URLs with no actual web site attached. Most were probably purchased on speculation, with the assumption that KIDS.US would be wildly successful.
On 2004-APR-01, the ABC Television Network announced that it will be the first broadcast network to contribute to the KIDS.US domain. Alex Wallau, president of ABC said: "Young people linking to www.ABCKids.kids.us will now have additional access to top-quality Internet fare that represents an extension of ABC’s popular Saturday morning kids’ lineup." 16
As of 2005-JUN-18, there were only 23 live web sites in the KIDS.US ccTLD -- an average of one addition per month. This compares with over 30,000 domains on COM, NET and ORG that contain the word "kids." 15 All are linked to a menu at http://www.kids.us
NeuStar has published a PDF brochure titled: `The Web`s first and only Child Friendly domain, at: http://www.cms.kids.us/
The KIDS.US experiment appears to have largely failed to reach its potential.
![]()
![]()
The following information sources were used to prepare and update the above essay. The hyperlinks are not necessarily still active today.
** These are PDF files. You may require software to read it. Software can be obtained free from: ![]()
![]()
|
Home > Christianity > Christian history, belief... > Beliefs > Sex > here |
|
or Home > Christianity > History, practices... > Christian practices > Sex > here |
|
or Home > Religious Information > Christian practices > Sex > here |
|
Home > Religious laws > Internet > here |
|
Home > Religious conflict > Specific conflicts > Internet > here |
![]()
Copyright © 2005 to 2010 by Ontario Consultants on Religious
Tolerance
Originally written: 2005-JUN-18
Latest update: 2010-MAY-28
Author: B.A. Robinson
![]()