Well, waddya know!
It only seems like a couple of days ago [actually it was only a couple of days ago] when I scribbled about how they want to police the Interwebs for “hate crimes”. Now they are worried about porn and paedophiles as well?
So they want to put an age limit of thirteen on Interweb access? They overlook one very simple fact and that is that most kids under thirteen know infinitely more about the Interweb than they apparently do.
How would this idea work? The days are long gone where people had to register for an on-line account where they dialled up from a single computer. These days it’s all wi-fi so anyone with a device can connect anywhere in the home. Even out here in the wilds, there are about six or seven wi-fi networks from neighbouring houses so what would it be like in the suburbs? How many of those aren’t password protected? And what about free wi-fi which is cropping up everywhere, even on the buses and trains?
So password protect the kids’ devices? A ten year old will find a way around that. Uninstall network devices such as browsers? The kids will just reinstall them. Put some kind of security device where the kids have to enter their age? The kids lie.
There is a simple solution which has fuck all to do with the gubmint. It’s something that used to be employed in my day. It’s a novel idea called education which is the responsibility of parents, not the state.
Of course they will probably suggest a few ideas taken from the smoking ban. First of all, make it the legal responsibility of the parents to ensure that the kids are banned, so if a child gets on-line, it’s the parents’ fault, not the child’s.
And when that inevitably fails, just call for a ban on the Interweb altogether for everyone.
For the sake of the cheeeldren, of course.