Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006^[1] (DOPA) is a bill (H.R. 5319) brought before the United States House of Representatives on May 9, 2006 by Republican Pennsylvania Representative (R-PA) Mike Fitzpatrick. The proposed act would amend the Communications Act of 1934, requiring schools and libraries that receive E-rate funding to protect minors from online predators in the absence of parental supervision when using "Commercial Social Networking Websites" and "Chat Rooms". The act would prohibit schools and libraries from providing access to these types of websites to minors. The act also requires the institutions to be capable of disabling the restrictions for "use by an adult or by minors with adult supervision to enable access for educational purposes."

The proposed act is considered controversial because the definition could potentially limit access to a wide range of websites, including many with harmless and educational material. Arguments for the bill focus on the dangers of adults contacting children on MySpace and similar websites. However, many Internet websites -- ranging from Yahoo to Slashdot to Amazon.com -- allow user accounts, public profiles, and user forums, which fits the bill's definition of "social networking". The bill places the onus upon the Federal Communications Commission to clarify this, which would be outside of direct legislative control.

1 History of the Bill
2 Specifics of the Bill
- 2.1 Definitions
- 2.2 FTC Requirements
3 Controversy
- 3.1 Arguments in Favor
- 3.2 Arguments in Opposition
4 References
5 See also
6 External links

[edit] History of the Bill

The bill was introduced on May 9, 2006 by Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick (R-PA) as part of the Suburban Caucus agenda. Along with co-sponsors, he spoke in favor of it.

On July 26, 2006, it was brought up for debate and an immediate vote. It was criticized by Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA) and Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) for being hastily rewritten prior to its vote and did not get markup of a full House Committee.^[2] The House of Representatives voted 410-15 (7 Not Voting), on a Roll Call vote, to pass the bill as amended.^[3] The following day, the bill was received in the U.S. Senate and referred to the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee.

As a House bill, it will be passed to the Senate for approval. (A bill must be passed by both the House and Senate and then be signed by the President before it becomes law. See Act of Congress.)

[edit] Specifics of the Bill

[edit] Definitions

"Commercial Social Networking Websites" were originally defined within the bill as:

Sec.2(c)(J) a commercially operated Internet website that-

(i) allows users to create web pages or profiles that provide information about themselves and are available to other users; and

(ii) offers a mechanism for communication with other users, such as a forum, chat room, email, or instant messenger.

The term "chat rooms" were defined as:

Sec.2(c)(K) Internet websites through which a number of users can communicate in real time via text and that allow messages to be almost immediately visible to all other users or to a designated segment of all other users.

Popular websites fitting this definition include MySpace, Friendster, and LiveJournal. However, this definition could potentially cover a much broader range of websites. Many news websites such as Slashdot and blogs like RedState permit both public profiles and personal journals. Amazon.com allows personal profiles including photos, interests, and contact information. In addition, many media companies, such as News.com publisher CNET Networks, permit users to create profiles displaying photos and other personal information, as well as sending email to other members. Some popular chat services include ICQ, AOL Instant Messenger, and Yahoo! Chat.

Prior to the floor vote in the House, the bill was amended to read:

(J) COMMERCIAL SOCIAL NETWORKING WEBSITES; CHAT ROOMS—Within 120 days after the date of enactment of the Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006, the Commission shall by rule define the terms `social networking website' and `chat room' for purposes of this subsection. In determining the definition of a social networking website, the Commission shall take into consideration the extent to which a website—

(i) is offered by a commercial entity;

(ii) permits registered users to create an on-line profile that includes detailed personal information;

(iii) permits registered users to create an on-line journal and share such a journal with other users;

(iv) elicits highly-personalized information from users; and

(v) enables communication among users.

Under the new language, the Federal Communications Commission, not Congress, will define these terms, using the five criteria as guidelines. It is unclear whether the new definition would ultimately be broader or narrower than the original one, but commercial operation no longer appears to be an absolute requirement, and it could potentially encompass other websites such as Wikipedia. Like all other provisions of the bill, it is subject to change in a conference committee should it become law.

[edit] FTC Requirements

The act also requires the Federal Trade Commission to issue a consumer alert about the online predation dangers of commercial social networking websites and chat rooms and to create a website for parents, teachers, school administrators, and others about the dangers of these types of websites, including a list of such websites.

[edit] Controversy

Both sides spoke out in favor of blocking online predators. The controversy was over the effectiveness and drawbacks of the specific measures called for.

[edit] Arguments in Favor

The bill's proponents, including members of the Suburban Caucus, argue that restrictions on access to social networking websites are necessary to protect children from online predators, whether they be sexually oriented offenders or even simple online bullies. In introducing his part of the Suburban Caucus agenda, Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick (R-PA), said that as a father he was concerned that, since the "world moves and changes at a dizzying pace," he felt he could no longer keep up in protecting his children, especially when they had Internet access in places other than their own home. He believed legislation was therefore necessary. In his speech, he noted that one in five children had received an unwanted online solicitation of a sexual nature and that child pornography had increased by 2,000 percent in the past decade.^[4] The former is most likely a reference to the Youth Internet Safety Survey from University of New Hampshire, while the latter is a reference to the increase in arrests from the FBI's "Innocent Images National Initiative".^[5]

Rep. Judy Biggert (R-IL) added that children have often been taught never to talk to strangers, and that the Internet makes the temptation to talk to strangers stronger. In fact, she noted, a minor in Michigan had traveled halfway across the world to Jericho to meet someone she met on MySpace.^[6]

Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (R-FL) spoke and referred to the murder of Jessica Lunsford by John Couey, and said that stalking could now occur online as well as in person.^[4]

There are many online safety concerns for children using MySpace, including the amount of specific personal information to use certain website tools, lack of validation for other members' information, and lack of sufficient moderation by the website for review of user violations.^[7]

[edit] Arguments in Opposition

The arguments against have focused on revising it to directly address the problem of online predators, and prevent the blocking of harmless and/or educational websites. Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) summarized: Unfortunately, child predators are not the target of today's bill. This bill will not delete online predators. Rather, it will delete legitimate Web content from schools and libraries.^[6]

[edit] Overly Broad Definition

As noted in the Definition section, many websites allow public user profiles and provide forums. Examples include Yahoo, Amazon.com, Slashdot, RedState, CNET Networks, and thousands of others. This potentially qualifies them as social networking websites regardless of the content within the websites.

[edit] Educational Use

Most school libraries already have filters on incoming internet access due to the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA). Opponents of the bill point out that the language of the DOPA bill would extend such filtering to include websites based on specific technologies rather than specific content, including websites based on those technologies which are used for educational purposes. Some educators have incorporated blogs and Wikis into classroom lessons for students due to their usefulness as a critiquing and editing tool for students' work and as a forum for comments and suggestions by teachers and other students. These educators also favor such technologies because they enable discussion outside of the classroom that can involve students and teachers as well as parents.

Some examples of educational use of these technologies:

Will Richardson, a teacher in New Jersey, set up a blog for student discussion of The Secret Life of Bees and invited author Sue Monk Kidd to join the chat. She was able to answer the students’ questions about the book and give more insight than the teacher alone would have been capable. A separate blog was set up to allow parents to discuss the book in parallel with the students. ^[8]

Some school administrators are using blogs to communicate news and information about events to parents and students. The homepage for the Meriweather Lewis Elementary School in Oregon is updated with notes from the PTA. The principal and teachers are using blogging software and RSS to allow parents and students to view up-to-date information from the school. ^[8]

The Pawtucket Public Library in Pawtucket, Rhode Island is one of a number of public libraries that have created their own MySpace profile webpage. These libraries are attempting to communicate with young adult patrons more effectively through the use of online methods to which young adults are becoming accustomed.

The bill would allow minors strictly limited access to those sites. For schools, access would be allowed only with adult supervision and if the site is being used for an educational purpose. For libraries, access would be allowed only if parental authorization is given and the parents are informed that “sexual predators can use these websites and chat rooms to prey on children.” ^[1]

[edit] The American Library Association

The American Library Association [1] is asking its members to oppose DOPA. ALA president Michael Gorman said, "We know that the best way to protect children is to teach them to guard their privacy and make wise choices. To this end, libraries across the country offer instruction on safe internet use".^[9] On July 11, 2006, the Executive Director of the Young Adult Library Services Association (YALSA), Beth Yoke, testified before the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet under the Committee on Energy and Commerce. She defined the ALA and YALSA combined stance on the issue by saying:

Youth librarians believe, and more importantly know from experience, that education about safe Internet practices—for both youth and parents—is the best way to protect young people. We believe that the overly broad technological controls that would be required under DOPA are often ineffective given the fast-moving nature of modern technology. Further, such technological controls often inadvertently obstruct access to beneficial sites. In essence, we believe that this legislation will lead to the blocking of essential and beneficial Interactive Web applications and will further widen the digital divide.^[10]

The ALA and other opponents of the bill also believe that this issue is one that should be determined by local authorities, such as local library trustees, community members, and school boards. This federal action potentially degrades the authority of those responsible for safe use of the libraries; whereas up to 80% of the funding for the library or school is locally derived.^[10]

Following the House vote, the ALA issued a press release recommending libraries demonstrate the utility of the same technologies that would be barred by DOPA. ^[11] One of the wiki-based resources run by YALSA includes safety instructions for parents and teachers concerning Internet safety, suggestions for concerned individuals to be politically active on the issue, and encouragement for parents and children to sign up for social networking websites^[12].

[edit] Effectiveness in Protecting Minors

Rep. Diane Watson (D-CA) and Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) argued in opposition, on the basis that the bill fails to combat the threats to minors, and places a burden on schools and libraries to block millions of sites with largely innocent information. Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) suggested that the law should focus upon directly blocking and prosecuting predators as well as providing tools to educate children on how to avoid dangers -- noting that most Internet access, especially to social networking sites, occurs in the home.^[6] Education and prevention programs regarding predators and social networking could help reduce the rate of sexual assaults overall -- whether over the Internet from home or offline. The Youth Internet Safety Survey from the University of New Hampshire, which was implicitly cited by Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick, found two cases of rape/sexual assault through Internet solicitation in its two surveys covering 3,001 children ages 10 to 17. According to the FBI's criminal victimization tables' national rate for sexual assault, one would expect 7 rapes or sexual assults among such a group every year.^[13]

Overall, the Youth Internet Safety Survey suggested that fewer children are actually being sexually solicited online in 2005 than in 1999, hypothesizing that those who encounter solicitations knew better now to rebuff or ignore these solicitations. However, children ages 10 to 17 report more harassment and bullying online -- largely from their peers, not the strangers from which Michael Fitzpatrick believes children should be protected.^[14]