Should Teens get banned from Smartphones for SnapChat

[peterb]

Indeed, 70% wouldn't know how, 25% would only know how to do it via a 'screen shot' which will trigger the protection in the app, sort of, it will also notify the sender you did that.

ORLY?

lets look at your own quote above:



70% wouldn't know how......

not quite ` everyone` is it.

I wonder about the excluded 5%?

you really have limited understanding about today`s teenagers do you. I am holier than thou will get you laughed at. frequently.

Indeed, - there is nothing quite like being a parent to alter ones perspective - although it is sobering to think of the risks we took as teenagers in various areas.

[TheAnimus]

70% wouldn't know how......

Comprehension strikes again.

I know that it is possible to build a large sized supersonic aircraft that is re-usable, I wouldn't know how to do it.

And peterb, the last 5% would be the ones who do it via systems that prevent the sender ever knowing about it. The latter is somewhat infeasible on no jailbroken iPhones.

[HalloweenJack]

again you have limited understading about teenagers - I wonder if you were born old , you know like properly old - 70 or something. and served in WW1....


really , your holier than thou attitude is quite sad when its misguided and misplaced. snapchat is last year and teens have moved on , as they have from facebook. but that's ok as you already knew that didn't you....


https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/snap...716560946?mt=8


apparently you can BUY `jailbroken apps` on the itunes store....

[TheAnimus]

Right, but look at it's chart ranking. How many have actually used it vs the Original client? Not to mention how it gets broken with each server tweak. One update it triggered the 'screenshot' warning. I'd happily suggest that it is a 3:1 type ratio. The much better solution is to use the true client, and simply intercept outside it.

The point is the vast majority won't know how to do this.

[opel80uk]

Granted, some people never grow out of that way of thinking. I've known anarchists who find it wrong, when to prove a point, I steal their drink.

That's because most Anarchists don’t believe Anarchy to mean the typical, lazy, media driven stereotype of individuals doing whatever they like, as exampled above. Your scenario implies that in an Anarchist society, individuals have no rights (in this case, the right to not have the drink stolen from you), which is completely incorrect in most, nay the majority, forms of Anarchist societies. Furthermore, any action taken against someone who does steal would be considered defensive in nature provided it was not meted out by any hierarchal, state-like body.

In relation to the opening post, it really is another example of how out of touch MP’s are. Unenforceable, ill thought out and, yet another, Elastoplast policy that does nothing to address the real issue of children being unaware of the consequences of their actions. The specific app is irrelevant really, and kids will move on to something else, but this is the first generation of children that have had to learn the hard way that what they post online will, unfortunately, be there for all to see for ever. I would guess that education will catch up in this regards and, much like children are warned about the dangers of smoking and drinking (and now food; In my Daughters school they are visited by the ‘Food Dudes’, who educate them on healthy eating), technology awareness will be factored in too. There will, of course, be some kids who, despite best advice, ignore it but sic semper erat.

[scaryjim]

again you have limited understading about teenagers

Don't make the mistake of thinking that because *your* teenager can do something, every teenager can do something. I'm pretty damn sure mine couldn't (he's appalling with technology). Also don't make the mistake of exhibiting the same behaviour you're accusing others of showing...

[herulach]

Don't make the mistake of thinking that because *your* teenager can do something, every teenager can do something. I'm pretty damn sure mine couldn't (he's appalling with technology). Also don't make the mistake of exhibiting the same behaviour you're accusing others of showing...

This, even within the same household I was quite happily running escalation attacks on the school PCs so I could play Red Alert multiplayer (IPX FTW!) whilst my sister could just about manage to use creative writer, and even that was a steep curve from MS Bob (she lives in macland now).

[mikeo01]

Put it this way, the risks and "rebel" behaviour kids do today is exactly the same as you lot (and me) did back when we was younger.

The only difference is, one's the digital world the other is the physical world.

It just so happens to be the digital world stays there long after you've gone. Whereas in the physical world there's practically little trace.


I think we need to educate people to understand a mild act of innocence (as it may be) can lead to greater consequences.
Out in the open you have at least the chance to run away from violence and trouble whereas you can't in the digital realm. Lurking on the Internet are your past actions, there is no escape from it.

Now I am not saying it's safer outside your house I am saying the digital world is basically like going outside to many different places where there is a camera taking a snap shot of your every move. Either you play low or you risk revealing yourself.


Bottom line is we need to educate people of these differences. We've all done something we found "wild" when we was younger, no matter what it is. Apply your childhood to the new generation's childhood. It's the same thing, only difference they are using the Internet.

Education is key.

[peterb]

Put it this way, the risks and "rebel" behaviour kids do today is exactly the same as you lot (and me) did back when we was younger.

The only difference is, one's the digital world the other is the physical world.

It just so happens to be the digital world stays there long after you've gone. Whereas in the physical world there's practically little trace.


I think we need to educate people to understand a mild act of innocence (as it may be) can lead to greater consequences.
Out in the open you have at least the chance to run away from violence and trouble whereas you can't in the digital realm. Lurking on the Internet are your past actions, there is no escape from it.

Now I am not saying it's safer outside your house I am saying the digital world is basically like going outside to many different places where there is a camera taking a snap shot of your every move. Either you play low or you risk revealing yourself.


Bottom line is we need to educate people of these differences. We've all done something we found "wild" when we was younger, no matter what it is. Apply your childhood to the new generation's childhood. It's the same thing, only difference they are using the Internet.

Education is key.

Yes - indeed. It is impossible to completely shield a child from harm - and neither should we seek to do so - the level of protection that should (and can) be provided inevitably reduces as the child matures (and children mature at different rates). But you can try and equip them with the 'tools' or knowledge to make informed decisions, and the potential consequences of some of those actions. Whether they will heed you is another matter.

The 'problem' with the digital age is the speed of advance and many parents may not be aware of what is possible - or indeed the risks. My parents probably played on bomb sites - I played on unfenced building sites - the dangers there were physical, and could have been life threatening - but I survived to walk away. The risks on the internet may not be immediately life threatening, but they may have much longer consequences - job seeking for example, or in extreme cases blackmail, cyber-bullying etc. That too may change as there may be more acceptance of 'youthful intent follies' as time passes, although it seems to me that in general, society seems less tolerant of children than previous generations... or perhaps that has always been the case.

But education and awareness of risks - and while a ban on smartphone ownership (to refer back to the OP and the link) may be impractical - perhaps the suggestion has raised the level of debate and awareness - and not just on HEXUS.

[TheAnimus]

I just really like the idea of an ephemeral model. If my mistakes had hung around journalled with the indefinite immutability of these services we have today. I would suffer immensely.

[wasabi]

Would be interesting to know how much NSA/GCHQ are all over this. A transmission medium with an inbuilt self-destruct must be a tempting target for big brother spook types.

[mysticmagic788]

Yet more government control. I think government should sort themselves out before dictating how us as parents bring up our kids.

It is our job, nay priveledge, to determine what our kids can and cant do. Parents parent. Thats what we do.

Politicians work out ways to make the people they represent and pay their wages poorer. That is what they do.

There is already more cameras in this country per head of each citizen than in any other country in the world.

Terrorists and paedophiles are potrayed by statues to celebrate their lives.

Censorship makes the old kremlin look like hobbyists.

History is constantly being rewritten.


It is very hard to gain a freedom. It is very easy to lose one

[mysticmagic788]

not really views per se. Everything I said has been well publicised in reputable media sources such as the times, telegraph and the mail.
As this topic was about something which was also publicised in the media I thought it relevant.

But I guess censorship takes all forms

[peterb]

Your original post made some sweeping and all embracing statements that could not be substantiated. It was edited while the legitimacy of your views/claims/allegations were considered.

I have removed the potentially libellous and defamatory comments and re-instated your post, edited to an acceptable form for HEXUS.

[mysticmagic788]

Thanks for reinstating it. I see which bit you have taken out.
I wont mention it again apart from saying that approximately 6 months ago every uk newspaper ran the story of what happened there.

[Saracen]

Thanks for reinstating it. I see which bit you have taken out.
I wont mention it again apart from saying that approximately 6 months ago every uk newspaper ran the story of what happened there.

I'm not convinced that what you said was necessarily defamatory, not least because of a lack of "identifyability".

But .... we're not lawyers, let alone defamation lawyers. Nor do we subject member's posts to our lawyers prior to publication, which the newspapers you cite undoubtedly did, prior to publication.

And consider, the EXACT way newspapers will have phrased their stories will have been carefully considered. Ever wondered why news and newspaper reports are liberally littered with "alleged", "suspected of" and a host of other caveats?

And also, newspapers can afford half a million quid, or more, to defend a defamation case, if they consider themselves to be in the right. Do you think HEXUS wants to risk even 10% of that over a member's posts? As "publisher", HEXUS is equally liable for defamatory comments as the person making them. See the argument between Demon Internet and Dr Godfrey for a taste of how that can work out.

If you make comments we consider MIGHT drop us, as well as you, into a potentially ruinous lawsuit, I'm afraid we reserve the right to not join you in the dock for your views, especially if we don't even share them.

Is this censorship? Sadly, yes. But it's utterly necessary to make a site like this viable.

We do extend as much scope as we can to members to express their views, freely, and with as few limitations as possible. But moderators, I'm afraid, do reserve the right to step in whenever, in our best judgement, we need to. My bet is that any long-term member will tell you we exercise a pretty light touch in editing or deleting memvers views (though swearing, gratuitous insults and offensivensss to other members gets stomped on, and spammers get banned on sight).

We all enjoy a good rant. I've had a few myself. But you'll soon work out how to have a rant and make your point, while staying clear of defamatory territory. I hope.