House Bill Won't Criminalize Free Wi-Fi Operators 540
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Wouldn't be easier... (Score:3, Insightful)
Figures (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems that this is the way congress works in general these days.
Crap like this (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Sad, but predictable (Score:2, Insightful)
Bombs won't do it (Score:5, Insightful)
Stupid, moronic, fearmongering, etc. (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Wouldn't be easier... (Score:2, Insightful)
Now, right or wrong, we can see that this is a double edged sword.
If you leave your front door open, and hookers and on-the-run criminals move in, then you'll probably go to jail for running a brothel or harboring a fugative (etc).
Can't have it every way.
This is going to be interesting . . . (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm convinced congress has zero insight into technology. I, frankly, think this is a great place for lobbyists to step in and give these guys a clue.
Re:Wouldn't be easier... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
It's human nature (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Nothing to see here (Score:2, Insightful)
Reading the article, it doesn't look like it has much in the way of teeth with respect to Wi-Fi. There is no indication that you are required to monitor the wi-fi connection for such material, or, that in the absence of any such monitoring, that you would be responsible.
This comes as no surprise (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Sad, but predictable (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Sounds good (Score:1, Insightful)
They didn't think this one through... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
LOL! "Illegal Images"???? (Score:5, Insightful)
Go ahead and explain now the difference between an "act" and the "image of an act"... oh dear time for a coffee break...
Re:Wouldn't be easier... (Score:5, Insightful)
This law is a fundamentally awful idea in every way, but it stands atop many, existing fundamentally awful laws.
Re:yet another decision by the "moral majority" (Score:3, Insightful)
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 common wisdom here (Score:3, Insightful)
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).
With a name like that, (Score:3, Insightful)
How could you vote against something called the "SAFE Act"?
That would be like voting against something called the "USA PATRIOT Act"!
Re:Sad, but predictable (Score:5, Insightful)
" (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:Oblig. Ron Paul (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sad, but predictable (Score:4, Insightful)
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:the common wisdom here (Score:3, Insightful)
I think men should not be allowed to wear spandex. Let's make a law about it!
Age (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Stupid, moronic, fearmongering, etc. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Sad, but predictable (Score:2, Insightful)
And what happens when the presidential election is over? If she wins, her only use for NY will be as a source for campaign donations for 2012; if she loses, she'll probably decide to retire from the running for President..err, I mean, the Senate. And NY will be stuck with another low seniority senator.
Re:Ironically... (Score:3, Insightful)
MOD PARENT UP (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Figures (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Is a picture a picture without a CODEC? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Sad, but predictable (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's unconstitional (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Sad, but predictable (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Sad, but predictable (Score:2, Insightful)
That's what matters. Her failure to meet some fictional criteria about long-term commitment to the state is meaningless. A chain of one- or two-term senators who actually get results would be vastly preferable to what we have today. Ideal even.
That said, if it came to it, I expect I wouldn't vote for Clinton. Don't agree with her on the issue she's chosen as primary.
Re:Sad, but predictable (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Age (Score:1, Insightful)
Did you know that Richard Stallman is 54? That Vint Cerf is 64? That Dennis Ritchie is 66? That Don Knuth is 69? That Seymour Papert is 79? That John McCarthy and Marvin Minknsy are 80?
I often wonder if age's impact on someone's familiarity with technology plays a role in some of these voting sessions.
So tell me, what is "age's impact on someone's familiarity with technology", exactly? And what makes you think that the average 18 year old has any "familiarity with technology" beyond learning how to push the click wheel on his iPod, and would thus be more likely to understand the issues involved here than the people mentioned above?
Re:Stupid, moronic, fearmongering, etc. (Score:3, Insightful)
It couldn't be "universally" enforced, but it could definitely be "selectively" enforced.
Re:Sad, but predictable (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wouldn't be easier... (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't steal it from me if I'm freely giving it away. An open wifi is not the same as an open front door. The analogy is rediculously stupid.
If a bank robber uses my yard as part of his getaway route I should be prosecuted for not posting a "no tresspassing" sign, even if I don't care if people cut across my yard? WTF??? What country is this anyway, Oceana?
Re:Stupid, moronic, fearmongering, etc. (Score:3, Insightful)
So just don't monitor anything. Who would want to assume this massive liability of monitoring in exchange for nothing other than being a "good citizen"? This is yet another example of a law which drives citizens to take an out of sight out of mind approach to their lives and makes the very criminal activity that it is attempting to control more likely than it otherwise would have been. Nobody wants to be the messenger when the messenger makes a convenient scapegoat when the "real" bad guys cannot be found (and you know that there will be massive pressure for the authorities to bust someone and who do you think will be left without a chair when the music stops? Surely not the "good citizen"...yeah right).
Re:Ron Paul (Score:3, Insightful)
re: Borderline Libertarian...that's a good way of putting it; I share a similar sentiment.
re: "The side of the room", I think that Ron Paul is attracting the fringes because the fringes are those who are hurt the most consistently by government being powerful. His message attracts those who feel persecuted by government action, which has to include right-wing wackos and organized hate groups; if a politician says "I will defend freedom of association" and means it (as R. Paul seems to) associations of people that most would find distasteful will naturally gravitate towards that person. If you want to know what a politician stands for, and where you should be judging you allegiance, it is better to look at what ideas and what people the candidate responds to. People decide their vote for all sorts of reasons, and it is a fallacy to say "I voted for Candidate A and David Duke voted for Candidate A, therefore Candidate A must agree with David Duke (and/or) I am in allegiance ideologically with David Duke". I'm absolutely sure that some righteously vile asshats voted the same way I did last election, but I don't as a consequence feel like I'm somehow standing shoulder-to-shoulder with them (whoever they may be).
For what it's worth, the campaign's response to this ilk's support was literally (paraphrasing, but not by much) "hey, if they want to donate money and votes to us because you think we are your people, that's unfortunate for you because we aren't but that's your problem, not ours." And I think that's exactly the right approach; politicians should make clear what they stand for, and if others mistakenly think that they stand for something else, too bad for them but we'll still take their money. If they have a reputation for good character, then the money can't in good faith be interpreted as an allegiance.
Your point at the end, re: Michael Moore, is exactly why the side of the room shouldn't be an issue; all politicians attract fringes that nobody likes. The question is whether the politician him or herself stands for something meaningful to you, and on that question it is not generally useful to give a damn if Al Sharpton or David Duke are listening from the back corner as they undoubtedly care about other things and are there for other reasons.
Re:Stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:the common wisdom here (Score:3, Insightful)
1. insane law, sane security practices
2. sane legislators, insane security lapses
The only good thing about a law like this is that it gives the government one more thing to put the hammer down on a large subset of the population and provide politicians (and I certainly include DA's in this category) the ability to show they are "doing something" about "XYZ". Oh wait, that doesn't sound so good for the average person. Hmm.
Unless, of course, we go quite a bit farther into a controlled society, such as licenses to have a (government approved) computer chock full of "Trusted Computing". I believe that laws mandating this could provide the platform for a solution to our computer security woes but I'm pretty sure many people here would be against that.
So does the physical adage survive translation to a digital adage? If you give up your freedom for security...
Re:Sad, but predictable (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Ron Paul (Score:3, Insightful)
I can tell you exactly what it is.
The constitution was designed to make things difficult for the government with regard to things done in privacy, which is a system of social boundaries well understood both then, and now. It safeguarded your communications, personal records, your home, basically set things up so that in order for the government to come after you, they had to have either someone who would swear a verbal oath or write an affirmation, publicly and personally taking the responsibility for the accusation, a warrant, a description of exactly what they were looking for, and exactly where they were going to look. This is the essence of the 4th amendment.
Today, without the required amendment to change these constitutional requirements, the government has assumed the power to violate the citizen's privacy without warrants, oath or affirmation. Further, as communications matured beyond the papers mentioned in the 4th, and speech as mentioned in the 1st, the government has further violated the obvious implications of the 4th (although we see some activity to protect, such as the telecommunications privacy laws, now cast aside in actuality if not by law.)
The combination of the 1st and the 4th, if obeyed by the government, creates an environment where your privacy and your opinions, presumably as a citizen not actually committing violence against, or otherwise directly harming other citizens, is very well protected. This is a worthy accomplishment, and one you may well be grateful for, especially when you are having discussions about why you despise the current political leadership or the actions of the government. And this is, in fact, why these provisions were deemed so important to the authors of the constitution. The 1st gives you public immunity for anything you say (although there exist many misguided exceptions that have trimmed the 1st back, sad to say.)
Those people you don't like - the white supremacists, people who worship in ways not palatable to you, they want the 1st obeyed, so they can state their positions in public and not have to worry that the government will come after them - "hate speech", that sort of thing. They want the 4th obeyed so they can pursue their private lives in private (and frankly, I'd just as soon they did, most of them) and without feeling like the door is going to be broken down. They also want to be sure they'll get a quick hearing, and a trial, and representation - you know, those things the government is now in the process of eroding.
In an environment where the government actually has to abide by the constitution, the things that benefit you will also benefit those who you don't get along with. Liberty for all, until they directly step on your toes, pretty much. That's why those people are gathering up to support Paul. And if you let them discourage you, you're going to end up with the same situation you have now, where everyone's privacy is at risk of being unconstitutionally sundered at the whim of any law enforcement officer, bounty hunter, or various other arms of government.
Cool (Score:3, Insightful)
Today kiddy porn, tomorrow 'dissident' knowledge.
Be afraid.
Re:Sad, but predictable (Score:4, Insightful)
I wonder (Score:1, Insightful)
I can't help but thinking that regardless of intent, this bill would allow the telco's to 'legally' monitor and record all information passed through their ISP services. After all, they were only complying with the law when they began keeping records of everything you access. Once they find a single shred of 'obscene' material, they have all the authorization they need to spy on your internet and pass it on to the government. They're not performing 'illegal wiretaps' at that point, just protecting themselves and 'thinking of the children'.
And with as loosely worded as it is, would any connection -really- be free of 'obscene' material, since even a mildly raunchy political cartoon could be counted?
Perhaps I'm being paranoid, but it wouldn't be the first time that a law would be turned to a use completely apart from its apparent intent.
Re:Sad, but predictable (Score:3, Insightful)
1. GPS
2. The Internet
3. Doppler Radar
Not all defense projects blow up. Just sayin'.
Re:Adversarial system (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Sad, but predictable (Score:3, Insightful)
And it is my responsibility how to help those 'unlucky' in the lottery of life?? Where in the constitution does it spell out taking my hard earned dollars, and giving it to other people? I'm talking primarily about fed. tax here. As for local taxes, that take care of the infrastructure, I'm cool with that...that is more a state level service, and those in charge can be held more accountable by the public they serve.
I don't mind charity...I'd much prefer to give of my own accord. I have nothing against the aged that have had bad luck, or the infirmed that can't work. But, I should under no circumstances be forced to support worthless assholes who fuck up themselves (drugs, not getting an education, failed rap star, etc) and are trying to dodge the personal responsibility for their mis-actions in life. The world needs its ditch diggers too as the saying goes. Why should I pay to keep up projects and the like which do nothing but perpetuate the vicious cycle of poverty and welfare? Anyone that can work...should work, and not look for my support.
You are not owed a fine car, stereo, and plasma tv in life....those are luxuries.
"How can you claim that republicans are fiscally responsible when they've borrowed against Social Security?"
I never did...if you reread what I said...I said I was pissed at the Reps....for NOT being fiscally responsible. They cut taxes...that was nice, but, Bush until this year I think, didn't seem to find a spending bill he didn't like...and passed all kinds of pork. I don't like that. Cut taxes...cut spending and entitlements and govt. to cover it.
"How can you claim that republicans are fiscally responsible when we're spending billions destroying and rebuilding Iraq? "
Well, in war, things get blown up. I am extremely disappointed in the mis-management of the war. If we'd gone in with overwhelming force and blown everything out of there instead of stopping short, we'd be far more on the road to recovery, and being out of there. We did stupid things and let the insurgancy take root. Tons of costly mistakes...I'm not happy with that at all, no.
That being said...I don't like the Dems. They will raise taxes...and KEEP spending on. They obviously aren't gonna do much different about the war, they've been in charge of congress now, and nothing has changed.
I really wish there was a viable 3rd party....someone leaning more towards Ron Paul's views...more Libertarian, more Constitutionalist.
I'm positively scared as hell right now, as to how the Dem's will define "wealthy". Someone making a bit over $100K a year is NOT wealthy....they are often a small business owner...and given time...will employ others. Hell, $200K isn't rich. You aren't doing bad, but, you are not wealthy. And those and lower levels are what I'm afraid the Dem.s are gonna target with taxes.
I don't have the figure with me, but, don't the top 10% also currently pay 80% or so of the taxes in the country as we speak?
I'd prefer some kind of Fair Tax myself..but, that's another thread entirely.