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.

So if I left my keys in the car

[Timberwolf0122]

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.

Huh

[faloi]

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.

the common wisdom here

[circletimessquare]

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

Ironically...

[Elemenope]

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.

Is a picture a picture without a CODEC?

[flyingfsck]

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?

Home wireless networks?

[ConfrontationalGrayh]

I wonder if this applies to home networks that are wide open. How would a home user be expected to monitor traffic at that level? Another point (perhaps more valid) is this. Will companies with open wireless networks now simply lock them down so that they're no longer open, to avoid having to deal with this?

Re:Sad, but predictable

[samkass]

I'm no longer a New York State resident, but Hillary Clinton has done more for New York in the few years she's had than most New York senators do in a lifetime. She can name the top issues for every county in the state and what she's done to try to address them. You can make a lot of arguments against her (I personally want her to stay out of my and my family's videogame-buying experience), but asserting that she hasn't done anything for New York is so untrue as to completely discredit you from and valid political opinion in my mind. My family in New York are all Republicans, but they all voted for her because of her ability to get things done for New Yorkers.

Re:This is going to be interesting . . .

[ericlondaits]

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 a very bad direction.

Re:Ironically...

[Elemenope]

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:Oblig. Ron Paul

[dada21]

Paul Broun ran on a "Ron Paul" ticket for Georgia and won based on those views. No doubt he's a decent politician (if I can use those terms).

Article about his Paul-like ideals [opinionjournal.com]

Maybe the Republic IS moving towards more freedom and less tyranny. 400 more like these guys and I may actually shut up about 70% of my gripes. Not all, but most.

Re:Sad, but predictable

[R2.0]

"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."

Nope, I didn't say that. The GP stated that, and I wasn't challenging his belief, but that doesn't mean I believe it. I was pointing out that Clinton's primary motive for her actions is helping herself, NOT the people of NY. And motives are definitley domething to look at when deciding a president. Did the people of NY benefit from her (primarily) selfish actions? The GP thinks so (I have my doubts), but he should certainly not labor under the illusion that she actually gives a shit about her constituents.

Mind you, I believe MOST senators, and a majority of Reps, have long ceased caring about their actual constituents, regardless of "what they have done" for them. They serve their shadow constituents - corporations, unions, special interest groups, and campaign donors. This makes Clinton just another hack, and not nearly as special as her supporters have been led to believe.