W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > January 2011

[Bug 10904] <video> element needs to support some form of parental control solution

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 18:24:18 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1Ph4bq-0000pA-UA@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10904

John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
         Resolution|WONTFIX                     |

--- Comment #9 from John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu> 2011-01-23 18:24:18 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> 
> Like John, I would appreciate it if the editor would try to deal with this
> issue substantively and not brush it off and force everyone to go through the
> decision process.  My current line of thinking is that HTML5's current
> extensibility mechanisms (particularly microdata and RDFa) are enough to
> support this feature, and no further built-in support is needed.  If the W3C
> spec doesn't contain vocabularies for licensing or vCard or whatnot, why should
> it contain any details about other semantic vocabularies like parental
> controls?

(In reply to comment #8)
> I wasn't joking before. The right way to do parental controls is to
> actually be a responsible parent and watch your kid (or get someone else to
> watch your kid). Relying on technical solutions here is irresponsible. I'm not
> going to write a spec that lets you avoid your parental duties, sorry.

What part of this bug appears to be a joke? Perhaps with some real experience
as a parent you will come to understand how laughable your response actually
is.

Parents are unable to monitor their children 24 hours a day, and as part of
being a good parent you *shouldn't* be doing so. None-the-less, responsible
parents will seek ways and means to keep their children be safe, whether it is
buying a bicycle helmet so that they can safely ride to school each day, or
installing "nanny-cams" to remotely monitor their home environment while both
parents work, or checking a setting on their browser that blocks X-Rated videos
being streamed to the desktop. It is not even about the complete effectiveness,
but rather that a method, even if imperfect, exists: a bicycle helmet does not
instantly make riding a bicycle 100% safe, but it does help mitigate potential
harm.

As well, public institutions such as libraries, schools or other public
terminals might rightly want to have such a safe-guard available to them to
avoid exposure to content deemed inappropriate, and even potential litigation,
over accidental or deliberate actions by individuals. In cases such as these,
the institutions would seek to not necessarily protect "a child", but rather
their reputation and community standing by being responsible and taking
precautionary measures to avoid embarrassment

As Aryeh notes in comment #6, a real technical discussion around this topic is
both warranted and possible, and I respectfully but forcefully request that
such a discovery and discussion take place with a goal of finding *some*
mechanism that can address the need presented.

Failing that, this will be escalated to the Issue Tracker.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Sunday, 23 January 2011 18:24:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 23 January 2011 18:25:00 GMT