An Internet User's License?

For some strange reason, a comparison popped into my head. Are our student Internet use policies similar to the concept of teens obtaining driver's licenses? Should they be? Random points:

* When trying to obtain a driver's license, you're required to study some content and take aptitude tests (both of the written variety and 'road' variety) before obtaining a license. Is it that way with Internet usage in schools? We DO require children to have signed Acceptable Use Policies. We are starting to hear more about cyberbullying (plug for the KY Center for School Safety) and the need to teach the elements of 'digital citizenship'. Should certain instruction be a prerequisite for Internet access?

* Nowadays, most states have a 'graduated' driver's license program. The teen gets his/her license and then can drive under certain restrictions (certain hours of the day, only one passenger, must be an adult with driver's license, etc). With time and no violations, these restrictions are lifted. I suppose it's similar to various filtering policies that districts implement at certain grade levels. Whether that's right or wrong is a debate for another time. Should there be some kind of 'graduated' Internet use policies based on age, 'good behavior', etc?

* Along those lines, repeat traffic offenders are given progressively worse punishments. Occasionally, the police let someone go with a warning. Often, this is not the case. Traffic school can be an option to erase some violations from a bad driving record. If you've been caught speeding twice and get pulled over again, you're not getting a warning. Ideally, the punishment is dictated in part by the pattern of behavior that the user demonstrates. In some schools, everyone gets the proverbial 'slap on the wrist' every time. Then we wonder why constant attempts are made to bypass Internet filters, abuse computer hardware, etc. Likewise, some policies are quite stern and seek to take away access to sites that may well be used for effective instruction. Shouldn't the punishment for Internet abuse be related to the type of violation and the history of the user? This data should be there. Do we use it?

* Lastly, driving is a privilege and it can be taken away. You lose your license for driving under the influence, and the penalties and rules differ when minors are involved. A judge can offer some type of work release, but it certainly isn't a requirement. Suffice to say that, if the violations are severe enough or frequent enough, a driver can have his/her license revoked. Need to get to work? Find a ride. You can't function without a car? You should have thought of that before committing the crime.

It certainly isn't a necessary punishment in every situation, but Internet access and computer access is also a privilege. We've come to believe that it's a right and I've heard many well-intentioned people get very frustrated when they see technology 'taken away' in the name of discipline. I would agree that, if done in the wrong situations for the wrong reasons, removal of the technology can be excessive. However, I think we need to acknowledge that there comes a time where, if a user has signed off on an AUP and knowingly engages in destructive and/or highly inappropriate behavior, removal of access is the proper punishment. Need a computer and don't have one at home? Go to the library or a friend's house. Unable to complete the assignment without a computer? Work something out with your teacher and find another way. That's hopefully an extreme and rare example, but I don't think it can be taken completely off the table simply because users "have to have it".

/end rant