House Bill Won't Criminalize Free Wi-Fi Operators

Velcroman98 sends word of a bill that passed the US House of Representatives by a lopsided vote of 409 to 2. It would require everyone who runs an open Wi-Fi connection to report illegal images, including "obscene" cartoons and drawings, or be fined up to $300,000. The Securing Adolescents From Exploitation-Online (SAFE) Act was rushed through the House without any hearings or committee votes, and the version that passed on a voice vote reportedly differs substantially from the last publicly available version. CNET reports that sentiment in favor of such a bill is strong in the Senate as well. Update: 12/07 06:22 GMT by Z : As clarified in an Ars writeup, this summary is a bit off-base. The bill doesn't require WiFi owners to police anything, merely 'stiffening the penalties' for those who make no effort to report obvious child pornography.

Sad, but predictable

[elrous0 (869638)]

Before the House vote, which was a lopsided 409 to 2, Rep. Nick Lampson (D-Texas) held a press conference on Capitol Hill with John Walsh, the host of America's Most Wanted

Wow, the all-too-common convergence of a political media whore and a television media whore. Between the election year and the Writer's Guild strike, these two must be as happy as pigs in shit right now. I can almost hear them screaming "Won't someone please think of the children?!?!" from here.

Yet another fine example of the kind of far-reaching, ridiculously broad pieces of legislation that we get thanks to election year pandering. Normally, I wouldn't worry too much about this sort of legislation, as the courts usually strip it down pretty quickly. But with the courts so packed with hardcore conservatives right now, we can no longer count on that.

Re:Sad, but predictable

[Cpt_Kirks (37296)]

Fucking Republicans! ...oh, wait. Never mind...

Re:Sad, but predictable

[neimon (713907)]

Hillary is a right-wing "Democrat."

Nevertheless, this isn't about party. It's about ignorance. You can't enforce this. You can't even define what's illegal content. It can only be used to harass people some district attorney doesn't like. Period.

Re:Sad, but predictable

[MyLongNickName (822545)]

What part of the Bill is unenforceable? It only states that if you run a free-wifi service and realize that one of your "patrons" is engaged in child pornography that you must report it. This to me is simply common sense. Nothing in the bill talked about offensive cartoons. Nothing referred to anime. The Bill states child porn which has already been defined by the U.S. Supreme court as NOT being animated.

I realize a lot of the reaction from Slashdot has been based on the article. However, the article bears little resemblance to the actual Bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:2:./temp/~c110gRla7T [loc.gov]::

Re:Sad, but predictable

[belarm314 (663118)]

Reportedly, the bill you link to bears little resemblance to what was voted on.

Re:Sad, but predictable

[MyLongNickName (822545)]

Ummmm. No. Only if you open it and discover it is. Otherwise, you are not responsible for reporting. The Bill even explicitly states that there is NO requirement to monitor. Only that if you do monitor or otherwise become aware of the activity that you must report.

Link? We don't need no steenking link!

[sm62704 (957197)]

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3791 ) to modernize and expand the reporting requirements relating to child pornography, to expand cooperation in combating child pornography, and for other purposes, as amended.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

The text of the bill is as follows:

H.R. 3791
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Securing Adolescents From Exploitation-Online Act of 2007'' or the ``SAFE Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION SERVICE PROVIDERS AND REMOTE COMPUTING SERVICE PROVIDERS.

(a) In General.--Chapter 110 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 2258 the following:

``SEC. 2258A. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION SERVICE PROVIDERS AND REMOTE COMPUTING SERVICE PROVIDERS.

``(a) Duty To Report.--

``(1) IN GENERAL.--Whoever, while engaged in providing an electronic communication service or a remote computing service to the public through a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, obtains actual knowledge of any facts or circumstances described in paragraph (2) shall, as soon as reasonably possible--

``(A) complete and maintain with current information a registration with the CyberTipline of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, or any successor to the CyberTipline operated by such center, by providing the mailing address, telephone number, facsimile number, electronic mail address of, and individual point of contact for, such electronic communication service provider or remote computing service provider; and

``(B) make a report of such facts or circumstances to the CyberTipline, or any successor to the CyberTipline operated by such center.

``(2) FACTS OR CIRCUMSTANCES.--The facts or circumstances described in this paragraph are any facts or circumstances that appear to indicate a violation of--

``(A) section 2251, 2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2252B, or 2260 that involves child pornography; or

``(B) section 1466A.

``(b) Contents of Report.--To the extent available to an electronic communication service provider or a remote computing service provider, each report under subsection (a)(1) shall include the following information:

``(1) INFORMATION ABOUT THE INVOLVED INDIVIDUAL.--Information relating to the Internet identity of any individual who appears to have violated a Federal law in the manner described in subsection (a)(2), which shall, to the extent reasonably practicable, include the electronic mail address, website address, uniform resource locator, or any other identifying information, including self-reported identifying information.

``(2) HISTORICAL REFERENCE.--Information relating to when any apparent child pornography was uploaded, transmitted, reported to, or discovered by the electronic communication service provider or remote computing service provider, as the case may be, including a date and time stamp and time zone.

``(3) GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION INFORMATION.--Information relating to the geographic location of the involved individual, hosting website, or uniform resource locator, which shall include the Internet Protocol Address or verified billing address, or, if not reasonably available, at least one form of geographic identifying information, including area code or zip code. The in

Ironically...

[Elemenope (905108)]

Two Republicans were the two "No" votes. Ron Paul was one (which warms my little black heart; how cute! A politician that doesn't pander with 'teh children'. He's doomed, but hopefully not before I can cast a ballot for him in my state's primary) and someone I'd never heard of--Paul Broun (R)- GA.

When this gets to the Senate, hilarity will undoubtedly ensue as the candidates trip over each other to save the children from the pixels that everyone knows make the Baby Jesus cry. I can hope that maybe one or two will rise above (Obama, I'm looking at you), but I'm not holding my breath.

Re:Ironically...

[Elemenope (905108)]

You misunderstand my mockery. I think Ron Paul is a long-shot but he isn't "doomed" by any stretch. However, the received political wisdom is that anyone who protects (pornographers/drug dealers/molesters) against "the children" and for "due process/civil rights" is unrighteously fucked in US national politics, and that was what I was riffing on. I care little for "received political wisdom", as it manages to nearly always to be wrong. HRC is busy self-destructing in Iowa by following it--and that warms my little black heart all the more.

I'm still not exactly sanguine about the possibility that R. Paul will last till my (sadly late and otherwise insignificant) state's primary. That does make me sad inside. ;)

Re:Sad, but predictable

[MyLongNickName (822545)]

From the actual Bill:

" (a) Duty To Report-

                        `(1) IN GENERAL- Whoever, while engaged in providing an electronic communication service or a remote computing service to the public through a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, obtains actual knowledge of any facts or circumstances described in paragraph (2) shall, as soon as reasonably possible--

                                    `(A) complete and maintain with current information a registration with the CyberTipline of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, or any successor to the CyberTipline operated by such center, by providing the mailing address, telephone number, facsimile number, electronic mail address of, and individual point of contact for, such electronic communication service provider or remote computing service provider; and

                                    `(B) make a report of such facts or circumstances to the CyberTipline, or any successor to the CyberTipline operated by such center.

                        `(2) FACTS OR CIRCUMSTANCES- The facts or circumstances described in this paragraph are any facts or circumstances that appear to indicate a violation of--

                                    `(A) section 2251, 2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2252B, or 2260 that involves child pornography; or

                                    `(B) section 1466A."

Basically, if you are operating a Wi-Fi service, and find out that one of your users is downloading or uploading child porn, you are responsible for reporting it. What part of that is controversial?

Re:Sad, but predictable

[darjen (879890)]

I don't doubt the law is well-meaning. But, we all know where good intentions get us. I predict it will stop kiddie porn about as well as the drug war stops drugs. And it is 100% certain that laws like this lead to enormous side costs, while doing nothing to stop the action itself. http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/17438347/how_america_lost_the_war_on_drugs [rollingstone.com]

Re:

[Tony Hoyle (11698)]

Wifi operators are not common carriers. They are legally responsible for what travels across their network.

If someone uses your connection to view kiddie porn, the police will go after you. No change there... the defense of 'someone else was using my computer' has been used too often and they don't believe it any more.

If you are insane enough to open your wifi then for gods sake setup a decent firewall and a proxy so you can log who's been viewing what, otherwise you could find yourself at the wrong end o

Re:It's unconstitional

[ktappe (747125)]

If you are insane enough to open your wifi then for gods sake setup a decent firewall and a proxy so you can log who's been viewing what, otherwise you could find yourself at the wrong end of the law. There is no change there, either.. this law changes nothing.

I'm not sure I can disagree more. First of all, the moment you install a logging proxy, you suddenly become legally responsible for constantly monitoring those logs. Authorities are sure as shootin' gonna ask why you didn't if this law is brought to bear. "Your honor, the logs were right there. He invoked them himself. All he had to do was LOOK to save teh children!" and you're totally screwed.

Next, there are some very valid reasons for there to be open WiFi access points. All coffee joints and hip restaurants in any given town have them, and they should. It is "a good thing"(tm). Unfounded fear of pron should not take away one of the best sociological innovations of our era, and you should not be advocating that it does.

Let's Elect 9/11!

[spun (1352)]

I mean Rudy, jeez, why do I always think "9/11" when I think Rudy Guiliani? He's done so much for 9/11. I mean New York. If he's elected president, I know he'll 9/11 the whole 9/11 into a brand new bright and shiny 9/11.

9/11!

Re:Sad, but predictable

[jvkjvk (102057)]

And she'll scrape you off her shoes when she has no further use for you. Remember, this is a person who had no connection to the city or state of NY before she decided to run for senate; if NY's residency laws for candidates were even remotely sane, she would have gone to another state, and someone else would be talking about "done more for XYX in the few years she's had than most XYZ senators do in a lifetime".

And here's why partisanship is such a bad idea. You admit that Hillary has done more for NY in a few years than most NY senators do in a lifetime. You go on to say that she would have done this well in any random state.

Oh my God, how horrible! She really must hate the American people to do that, to show up all those other politicians, I mean. You're like the Union workers who put the thumb on the new guy who's doing "too much", except it's only too much for you when the other party is doing it.

If she does for the country what she did for NY then... she would know the top issues of every state and the country as a whole, be able to list what she did about each issue - and the list would be substantive, not fluff.

Now, you might have a point if the "stuff" she did were an anathema to your values or political views, but... did you even note that the parent said even their Republican relatives voted for her because she gets stuff done?

Note: I am not endorsing Hillary here it's just that it does not make any sense to bash her based on a trait that most everyone else in the world would view as a good thing, oh except that the carrier is not in my "in group".

Re:Sad, but predictable

[Enigma2175 (179646)]

"Bush halving the budget deficit" != "we don't need fiscal responsibility"

Who? Our current president? I think you are mistaken. Bush took the deficit to levels that have never been seen before. He inherited a surplus and quickly turned it into the largest deficit in history. Here [uuforum.org] is a graph of the deficit for the last 50 years. Notice the steep red line starting in 2000. Why is it that the "fiscally conservative" party is the one that racks up the most debt?

Wouldn't be easier...

[Kranfer (620510)]

Wouldn't it be easier to mandate to the companies that make the wifi access points to mandate customer education on locking their routers down with WEP of WPA or something along the lines of tin foil around their house? However, $300,000 fine for an unknowing user having wireless and someone doing something criminal on it is just way too much. However, I can see Best buy taking advantage of it. New Geek Squad Commercial.... "Hire our Agents to encrypt your 802.11g, or lose your home!"

Re:Wouldn't be easier...

[morgan_greywolf (835522)]

If you RTFA, it's not just WiFi providers the bill applies to, but to ISPs, social-networking sites, e-mail providers and more:

That broad definition would cover individuals, coffee shops, libraries, hotels, and even some government agencies that provide Wi-Fi. It also sweeps in social-networking sites, domain name registrars, Internet service providers, and e-mail service providers such as Hotmail and Gmail, and it may require that the complete contents of the user's account be retained for subsequent police inspection.

I just hope this gets stripped down by the courts. I mean, hello?! Isn't policing the job of, oh, I dunno...law enforcement officials, and not ISPs? This is like passing a law requiring the electric company to turn you in should they discover marijuana growing in your backyard when they check the meter!

I think we should do what we did with the CDA. Everyone with a website should turn their pages to black the day this law gets passed.

Re:Wouldn't be easier...

[MyLongNickName (822545)]

And if you RTFB, you will see:

(1) IN GENERAL- Whoever, while engaged in providing an electronic communication service or a remote computing service to the public through a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, obtains actual knowledge of any facts or circumstances described in paragraph (2) shall, as soon as reasonably possible--

So, it does not require any actual monitoring. If monitoring does occur and you find a user d/ling child porn, you must report. If you think that we should shut down the internet for a day to protest this, you are nuts.

Re:Wouldn't be easier...

[ajs (35943)]

However, $300,000 fine for an unknowing user having wireless and someone doing something criminal on it is just way too much.

No... you don't get it. The unknowing user whose home wifi got hijacked (or who mistakenly downloaded the wrong thing) goes to jail for a very long time and is systematically raped and tortured by the inmates for being a "child molester" only to have to register as a sex offender for the rest of their lives when/if they get out, because of existing laws. It's the companies that can afford to mount a more coherent legal defense that this law will attack, and that's why the Slashdot blurb speaks about the economic impact on small, free WiFi operators. Oh, and it also makes community WiFi impractical, which just happens to benefit the phone companies who can afford to mount massive wiretapping operations to find and remove users with questionable content.

This law is a fundamentally awful idea in every way, but it stands atop many, existing fundamentally awful laws.

Re:Wouldn't be easier...

[MartinB (51897)]

What would be easier would be if nobody had to forcibly monitor anything, but if they did happen to see someone downloading child porn, then report it.

Funny that - it's pretty much what the Bill appears to say. But don't let that get in the way of the hysteria.

Figures

[kpainter (901021)]

the version that passed on a voice vote reportedly differs substantially from the last publicly available version

It seems that this is the way congress works in general these days.

Re:Figures

[bendodge (998616)]

Every bill should have to be read in it's entirety before a full session before they can vote on it. That would put a quick stop to 6-inch thick bills.

Stupid

[DeeQ (1194763)]

It seems stupid to me to hold them responsible for what goes over their networks. However Ron Paul voted no!

Crap like this

[idontgno (624372)]

makes me wish I hadn't had children, so that common sense and basic liberty wouldn't be taken hostage in their names.

But then rationality returns to me and I wish that the parents of those tards in Congress hadn't had children.

Sorry, that was unnecessarily harsh and unfair to the mentally retarded, comparing them to Congress.

Bombs won't do it

[Gordonjcp (186804)]

America will *legislate* itself into the Stone Age.

Re:Bombs won't do it

[Ihlosi (895663)]

America will *legislate* itself into the Stone Age.

No, terrorists could use rocks as weapons.

Stupid, moronic, fearmongering, etc.

[cbiltcliffe (186293)]

Regardless of the sheer idiocy of this bill, is it even remotely enforceable? Around here, probably 35% of wireless networks are open. (This is in Canada, but I can't imagine the US would be much different.) I'd guess from my wardriving excursions that more than half of households in my city have wireless access points. So if you're making a law that automatically criminalizes 20% of your population, isn't there something wrong?
I realize the answer to that question is "Yes," and that's how the US government works. Make laws to make most people criminals, then when we throw them in the slammer, we can show the sheep^W people how tough we are on crime in election years.
But really...are you going to have cops driving around residential areas stopping at every other house handing out tickets for $300,000 fines?

Seriously, your country is fscked up.

Re:Stupid, moronic, fearmongering, etc.

[MyLongNickName (822545)]

Nope. The actual Bill simply states that if you run an oipen access service and realize that a user is using it for child porn that you MUST report it. In fact, the Bill goes as far as to say:
" `(f) Protection of Privacy- Nothing in this section shall be construed to require an electronic communication service provider or a remote computing service provider to--

                        `(1) monitor any user, subscriber, or customer of that provider;

                        `(2) monitor the content of any communication of any person described in paragraph (1); or

                        `(3) affirmatively seek facts or circumstances described in subsection (a)(2)."

So, if you don't monitor, you are not in trouble. I realize the article made incorrect statements about the Bill, but the Bill itself is, at worst, ineffective, not Orwellian.

Re:Stupid, moronic, fearmongering, etc.

[Ddalex (647089)]

Maybe you oversee the legislative scope of any wanna-be-dictatorship government: to make everyone a criminal so they always be vulnerable some sort of seemingly-legal over-punishment. But not make any law extremely broad because people would notice it and rebel - like it is the case now; no, you have to work in small steps, so when a ludicrously low gets passed, the majority don't bother checking - after all, if the majority isn't concerned, who's gonna fight you ? (not vote you in office next elections). And proceed as needed to get all the population under the expanding umbrella of this para-legal system.

As anyone with experience living in ex-communist country, I can tell you this system works well. You, as government, don't have to actually prosecute (! or even accuse !) everybody, just make sure that your people know anybody can get stepped over at government's will, without much harm to others (so not to be forced to organize themselves against you), because it's impossible to live a normal live and not cross an absurd law with extensive consequences.

What sheer idiocy?

[ToasterMonkey (467067)]

You are already required [smith-lawfirm.com] to report cases of child abuse in most states.

The article mentions this existing law...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00013032----000-.html [cornell.edu]
No monitoring requirements, no evidence preservation, weak, etc.
So, you already have to report known cases.

This bill [loc.gov], or is it this [loc.gov] one.. is a lot more specific.

The only new monitoring requirement is that a court may require convicted child abusers to use a monitored internet connection and the provider will get an extra $50 a month.
Here's another useful tidbit..
`(f) Protection of Privacy- Nothing in this section shall be construed to require an electronic communication service provider or a remote computing service provider to--
`(1) monitor any user, subscriber, or customer of that provider;
`(2) monitor the content of any communication of any person described in paragraph (1); or
`(3) affirmatively seek facts or circumstances described in subsection (a)(2).

I'm confused by the different versions too, but what is all the fuss over? I don't see where this will have any real impact on commercial WiFi providers, or individuals.

So if I left my keys in the car

[Timberwolf0122 (872207)]

And someone stole my car and used it in a crime I would be (under that logic) liable for that crime too?

Running an unsecured WiFi is not a smart idea but we can't punish people for being stupid otherwise many of my friends would spend there lives in jail.

It's human nature

[techpawn (969834)]

It's human nature to fear and try to destroy what you don't understand.

I think we all remember "It's a series of tubes" and these are the people deciding how the future generations will use it because they wanted to "protect" them? Protecting children is what parents are for. When we where kids we played in the streets with rusty metal and no one cared. Now child services would be called on our parents.

Huh

[faloi (738831)]

the Democratic leadership rushed the SAFE Act to the floor under a procedure that's supposed to be reserved for noncontroversial legislation.

Is it any wonder that their approval rating is in the tank? All this talk of transparency in government, and they pull oddball stunts like this.

Oblig. Ron Paul

[JeepFanatic (993244)]

Not one Democrat opposed the SAFE Act. Two Republicans did: Rep. Ron Paul, the libertarian-leaning presidential candidate from Texas, and Rep. Paul Broun from Georgia.

I knew when I saw the two votes against that one would be Ron Paul.

Re:Oblig. Ron Paul

[richarddshank (842901)]

It has become quite obvious that he is the only presidential candidate that is interested in our individual rights. It was disgusting to watch the CNN/YouTube debate which just turned into a pissing contest between the "top" 4 candidates, while the other candidates just stood by and watched. If you don't know about Paul, watch this interview at Google. Its a little long, but you'll get an idea of who the man really is. http://youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg [youtube.com]

Read The Bill..

[Chris_Jefferson (581445)]

OK, I don't claim this is a good bill. However, it only refers to people who "learns about the transmission or storage of information about certain illegal activities or an illegal image". Therefore free Wi-Fi operators are fine. Never look at what people are doing on your Wi-Fi, and you are fine. This could almost be good in some ways, as ISPs who sniff traffic could end up with much more work, while those who leave well alone will be fine.

This comes as no surprise

[Jehosephat2k (562701)]

The purpose of this law is to provide more legal means for government and corporations to monitor everyone's internet traffic.

Remember, whenever these people say "it's for the children", there is a more insidious motive behind it.

If they just said that they were going to require monitoring everyone's Internet traffic, there would be an uproar. But, if it is to find kiddie porn, well, then hell yeah, 409-2! Same effect. One really has to wonder what percentage of traffic will actually have these offending files. This will require serious scrutiny to find anything. Game, set, match.

They didn't think this one through...

[StickyWidget (741415)]

the SAFE Act's additional requirement of retaining all the suspect's personal files if the illegal images are "commingled or interspersed" with other data.

So, let me get this straight. If a pedophile starts up an open Wi-Fi access point, then he connects to it with a laptop that can't be traced to him, he can monitor the traffic, and save all the images that go across the wire. Then he tosses the laptop, reports it, and then he has a perfectly legal excuse as to why he's holding kiddie porn on his computer.

I. Call. Bull. Shit.

~Sticky
/First, all the politicians.
//Then, the lawyers.
///Then, the pedophiles.

the common wisdom here

[circletimessquare (444983)]

will be the stupidity of the "think of the children" motivation for any laws, and how fundamentally flawed that concept is. and i agree

however, the same slashdot crowd will kvetch about computer noobs running wifi without any security, not even weak wep. i can look for wifi near my apartment and list about 5 such open connections, as could a lot of slashdotters anywhere in the country, or the world. and i myself have used such open connections to suck down pirate media (and you know that the next logical extension of "think of the children" is "think of the starving music executive"), as have some slashdotters here i bet

so the security-minded slashdot crowd will say you need wpa at least and encrypt everything that goes over the air anyways (and limit access by mac addresses, and block unnecessary ports, etc.)

ok, fine. well an insane law like this is the only thing that will get us such a world. i'm sorry, but that's the truth

what i'm saying is, noobs can not be motivated to be careful, unless the penalties are severe. in fact, the penalties are fundamentally unjust and insane must be to force such motivation on noobs to stop being careless and lazy and uneducate don the issue. i bet a lot of them even know all about the issue, but are just too lazy to configure their set up

so take your pick slashdot:

1. insane law, sane security practices
2. sane legislators, insane security lapses

you can't have both in this world with today's wifi technology

i'm not saying this dichotomy is correct, i am just saying it is reality

Re:

[OeLeWaPpErKe (412765)]

Except you misunderstand the law passed in extreme. IF YOU SPY ON YOUR USERS you are liable, otherwise no. So if you open up your wireless this bill in effect criminalizes spying on the traffic.

Which, to me, seems very reasonable, and perhaps even positive.

You already *are* guilty if you neglect to report crimes you know about (no not copyright infringement, which is exempt from this).

Re:

[imgod2u (812837)]

Please get it through your head. There is a *HUGE* difference between wanting people to secure their WiFi and wanting THE GOVERNMENT to pass A LAW requiring it. It boggles the mind how people are unable to grasp such a vital distinction.

I think men should not be allowed to wear spandex. Let's make a law about it!

LOL! "Illegal Images"????

[presarioD (771260)]

WTF??? There is such a thing as an "illegal image"???? I must have missed the memo... next thing you know, there will be "illegal sounds" and "illegal ideas"! LOL! This planet is getting more and more fucked up by the day and nobody seems to notice...in fact watch the answers to this post, people will be quick to point out how this is perfectly normal...for example (drum rolling, music peaks) a child being molested is an "illegal image"!!! You see now, bozo?

Go ahead and explain now the difference between an "act" and the "image of an act"... oh dear time for a coffee break...

Is a picture a picture without a CODEC?

[flyingfsck (986395)]

Ferinstance: Somone sends a Windows DRMed video over my Linux AP and I don't have a CODEC for it so I cannot view it since it is just a jumble of bits. Is that stream of bits a picture?

Time to celebrate...

[lpangelrob (714473)]

Sounds like it's time to celebrate Obscene Images Over Open Wireless Networks Day!

A link to goatse and the best wardriving software on the web... stat!

With a name like that,

[urcreepyneighbor (1171755)]

it's sure to pass!

How could you vote against something called the "SAFE Act"?

That would be like voting against something called the "USA PATRIOT Act"!

Age

[Emperor Tiberius (673354)]

Did you know that the average age of the representatives is 55? I often wonder if age's impact on someone's familiarity with technology plays a role in some of these voting sessions.

Re:

[MyLongNickName (822545)]

"least amount of understanding of how it works."
Pot. Kettle. Black.

50 comments based on one writer's spin on a Bill. I'd like to see the actual Bill text to see what the law really says. My guess is when we see what is really in the Bill it will have very little to do with the article summary.

Re:The Actual Bill

[MyLongNickName (822545)]

Thanks. The first thing I notice:

"while engaged in providing an electronic communication service or a remote computing service to the public through a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, obtains actual knowledge of any facts or circumstances described in paragraph (2) shall, as soon as reasonably possible--"

This indicates to me that 1) You are intending to provide a service, and that you obtain knowledge. You are not required to monitor your users' behavior.

So, sounds like a really ineffective law. Hardly Orwellian.

Re:

[ericlondaits (32714)]

Yeah... but with that rule in place someone will create filter software that detects certain stuff on the net, and then the government will push it as a "strongly suggested piece of software" before making it mandatory to run it on any open services. They'll probably also make it mandatory to keep logs of activity in open networks... ... perhaps I'm being to paranoid, but it seems to me that even with that wording, that's a law you don't want to have hanging over your head. It's a step (even a baby step) in