This question kept nagging me since it was raised in class. It was not phrased exactly this way: the reasoning went more along the lines of, "if people are no longer ashamed of what they do, then they'll do anything that they want. If they do that, it will be the end of society." According to that logic, therefore, we need shame. We value it. Without shame, we would not have a productive society.
             I felt my disdainful reaction at the time had the possibility of being inappropriate. After I discussed it with some of my friends, I got more reinforcement of that possibility, but the more I thought about it, the stronger I felt about the converse. What good did shame do, outside of the theoretical value of deterrence? Was it good to impart shame to an entire new generation of people as a deterrent or protective measure?
             I propose that with software such as the cyber nanny, we are sidestepping the wishful thinking that many of our parents engaged in during our formative years, when they simply chose not to expose us to certain types of activities by picking our friends and our physical location. Instead, our parents are taking the step of preempting information from reaching children's eyeballs and minds, and instead of being discriminate as an active parent that is spending time with that child, the parents are buying into a belief that someone else has decided morality for them.
             This decided morality has far reaching effects. This develops another basis for shame, but this one is further reaching than a family or household. This is when the software doesn't work. When it can't work because of the complexity of the medium. The only alternative, it seems, is to stop the information at the source.
             How do you stop the producers? There are a few ways. Legislation is an avenue, but one that is growing increasingly inadequate in the face of a changing Internet. With smart routers, multiple copies of information at different junctures, ...