Larry Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 Link The U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday overwhelmingly approved a bill saying that anyone offering an open Wi-Fi connection to the public must report illegal images including "obscene" cartoons and drawings--or face fines of up to $300,000.. . . Wednesday's vote caught Internet companies by surprise: the Democratic leadership rushed the SAFE Act to the floor under a procedure that's supposed to be reserved for noncontroversial legislation. It was introduced October 10, but has never received even one hearing or committee vote. In addition, the legislation approved this week has changed substantially since the earlier version and was not available for public review. 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. Coming soon: Telephone companies will be required to report all obscene phone calls. (Edit: Ron Paul looking a lot better to me. But I still think some of the other things I've read about his positions are too whackjob.) (No, that was not an invitation to hijack my own thread into a "what don't you like about Ron Paul" discussion.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 This is the first step in getting city wide free internet. Everyone is waiting on the legality of it. I know Philly is looking to be the first city but there are hurdles to climb with companies etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 6, 2007 Author Share Posted December 6, 2007 Uh, I must have missed something. Could you please explain to me how a law which makes, for example, Starbucks and Cox Cable liable if I visit an adult web site while I'm there, somehow leads to universal free internet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 LinkComing soon: Telephone companies will be required to report all obscene phone calls. (Edit: Ron Paul looking a lot better to me. But I still think some of the other things I've read about his positions are too whackjob.) (No, that was not an invitation to hijack my own thread into a "what don't you like about Ron Paul" discussion.) Hey man, Thats how many people I know came around to him too! Don't worry, we'll be patient with you and roll out the red carpet when you finally take the inevitable plunge! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 Uh, I must have missed something. Could you please explain to me how a law which makes, for example, Starbucks and Cox Cable liable if I visit an adult web site while I'm there, somehow leads to universal free internet? how many wireless laws are out there??? hmmmm its a start, maybe not the correct one but at least as start Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobisimo Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/06/1354232 Yeah. If anything, this seems to be a bill that is more inclined toward eliminating free WiFi. It puts the onus on the provider. And if I, the provider, deem that it is too risky to provide internet because I could be held accountable for people's activities... then the simple solution is to stop providing free WiFi. edit: If you're not sure about Ron Paul in general, but like his views on technology... maybe another candidate has similar views, and appeals more to you? http://www.ontheissues.org/Technology.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/06/1354232Yeah. If anything, this seems to be a bill that is more inclined toward eliminating free WiFi. It puts the onus on the provider. And if I, the provider, deem that it is too risky to provide internet because I could be held accountable for people's activities... then the simple solution is to stop providing free WiFi. edit: If you're not sure about Ron Paul in general, but like his views on technology... maybe another candidate has similar views, and appeals more to you? http://www.ontheissues.org/Technology.htm Yeah, with this law, if I was a service provider I'd only offer free WiFi if no images were involved. They users can have all the text they want :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 what is this law supposed to accomplish anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobisimo Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 Hahaha! Text-only internet! Sweet! You are at a pr0n site. There is an exit to the north. You see a wall filled with images of naked men and women engaged in various sex acts. > Look wall You try to look at the wall but it is too indecent. You avert your eyes. > Look wall Look, buddy. It's indecent. Stop looking. > Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 Hahaha! Text-only internet! Sweet! You are at a pr0n site. There is an exit to the north. You see a wall filled with images of naked men and women engaged in various sex acts. > Look wall You try to look at the wall but it is too indecent. You avert your eyes. > Look wall Look, buddy. It's indecent. Stop looking. > I used to play that game on a PDP-11. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 And if I, the provider, deem that it is too risky to provide internet because I could be held accountable for people's activities... then the simple solution is to stop providing free WiFi No you just need to put accountability on both sides and have better security on wifi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 what is this law supposed to accomplish anyway? I think the purpose is to require service providers to notify the authorities of child pornography when they come across it and retain records to help with prosecution. The concern is if you aren't aware of anything criminal going on on your network that you will be held criminally liable for it any way, and being a commerical entity are more likely to be sued for damages than the pervert with his latte. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 What the hell is an illegal image? 2girls1cup? This is an outrage. The Internet should never be regulated. We know what happens when things get regulated. This screams of lobbyists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 6, 2007 Author Share Posted December 6, 2007 Actually, I'd say it's aim is more nefarious than merely running all public hot spots out of business. For one thing, it doesn't just apply to public wifi providers, but all communications providers. IMO, this is another example of the Government's use of a new tactic to perform unconstitutional surveillance of US citizens: Mandate that private industry conduct the surveillance, and then make it illegal for people to sue the companies for spying on them. I'll clarify my analogy: Can someone explain the difference between this law, and a law that would make the phone company liable for obscene phone calls, unless the phone company recorded all phone calls, kept the recordings just in case law enforcement asked for them, monitored all of the calls, and called the cops whenever they found one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted December 6, 2007 Share Posted December 6, 2007 This part is disburbing: "the Democratic leadership rushed the SAFE Act to the floor under a procedure that's supposed to be reserved for noncontroversial legislation. It was introduced October 10, but has never received even one hearing or committee vote. In addition, the legislation approved this week has changed substantially since the earlier version and was not available for public review." What a stupid law, and even worse how it was secretly rushed, with changed wording. Really, what are they attempting to accomplish? It's stupid. I am happy that Paul always sticks to his guns and was a voice of reasoned opposition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 7, 2007 Author Share Posted December 7, 2007 No you just need to put accountability on both sides and have better security on wifi. Uh, please, tell me what kind of security Starbucks can install that will prevent people from accessing a category of pictures that, I'd bet, the law itself doesn't specifically define. Where do I get software that will monitor dozens of internet conversations simultaneously, and that can tell me, in real time, if the following image includes a minor in an "overly lascivious pose"? Are car companies liable if their product is used in the commission of a crime? Phone companies? Now, IMO, if it can be shown that a particular product or industry tends to be involved in a lot of crimes, then I can see singling out that industry for additional surveillance requirements. For example, I don't have a problem with pawn shops being required to get ID from people selling things, or to report the items sold, with serial numbers, to the cops, because (as I understand it), a lot of pawn shops used to be involved in "laundering" stolen goods. But, as far as I'm concerned, the number of people who are doing legal things vastly outnumber the people doing illegal things. Just as, to go back to my example, yeah, kidnappers use telephones to make ransom calls. But that doesn't make the phone company liable for kidnapping if they fail to block ransom calls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 Love the placement of the picture, but it brings back too many happy feelings for this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobisimo Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 Uh, please, tell me what kind of security Starbucks can install that will prevent people from accessing a category of pictures that, I'd bet, the law itself doesn't specifically define. Exactly. So, if it's either going to cost me a sum in maintenance or a sum in fines after I get busted because it was discovered that some child pornographer was using my provided access point, then I'm going to simplify the situation by removing myself from the equation. No free WiFi for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 Exactly. So, if it's either going to cost me a sum in maintenance or a sum in fines after I get busted because it was discovered that some child pornographer was using my provided access point, then I'm going to simplify the situation by removing myself from the equation. No free WiFi for you. It's the lobbyists man, trust me. The Actors in this American Corporate Capitalist economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan133 Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 This is the first step in getting city wide free internet. Everyone is waiting on the legality of it. I know Philly is looking to be the first city but there are hurdles to climb with companies etc... it might be free money-wise, but it will most definatly not be FREE, as in liberty. your speech on the internet will be regulated, whether you like it or not. through fear or through policy, it doesnt matter. if the government is watching the internet like they want to, i will be extra cautious in what i say, not becasue im a criminal, but because i don;t want anything taken the wrong way. for example, if i visit the US communist partys website for a school project, do i want my computer to be tracked by the fbi? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 Uh, please, tell me what kind of security Starbucks can install that will prevent people from accessing a category of pictures that, I'd bet, the law itself doesn't specifically define. Where do I get software that will monitor dozens of internet conversations simultaneously, and that can tell me, in real time, if the following image includes a minor in an "overly lascivious pose"? Larry you do know there is software that can block anything you want Remember the wireless is on THEIR network, and in IT there is software that can be installed to block anything you want on that network. To me it seems the government is pretty much telling people if we are going to go to wireless for everything then we have to find ways to secure it. The same if you are in your office and I run your IT department I have the abilty to track every keystroke and everything you see and you don't even know So yes it can be done. Maybe in a weird way they discovered that before a perp strikes most likey they are looking at pics to get them excited, don't know but it could be seen as being more proactive then reactive to molestors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 be FREE, as in liberty This is my problem with libertarians, you need to wake up we live in a different world and not everything can be "free". The government is not watching everything on the internet what they want is people providing networks to be smarter about what is going on in your network. It is the exact same thing you have in any work envionment. We can not allow people looking at kiddy porn during work or on company computers. Personally I think anyone who has wifi at home and does not have basic security on it should be beating with a dumb stick , and part of that blame is on the provider. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 Larry you do know there is software that can block anything you want Remember the wireless is on THEIR network, and in IT there is software that can be installed to block anything you want on that network.To me it seems the government is pretty much telling people if we are going to go to wireless for everything then we have to find ways to secure it. The same if you are in your office and I run your IT department I have the abilty to track every keystroke and everything you see and you don't even know So yes it can be done. Maybe in a weird way they discovered that before a perp strikes most likey they are looking at pics to get them excited, don't know but it could be seen as being more proactive then reactive to molestors. There are ways to get around blocking software, since some images may be imbedded in websites that aren't blocked. Also, who is going to determine what is or isn't"smut"? Really, in order to block images that may be considered offensive, you'll have to block access to most websites. This will still be a huge pain in the arse - it is a pretty lame legislative effort, overall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 What the hell is an illegal image?2girls1cup? This is an outrage. The Internet should never be regulated. We know what happens when things get regulated. This screams of lobbyists. That's what I was wondering. Who gets to deem what is and isn't 'obscene'. Is it going to be one of those 'I know it when I see it' deals? Hell, we got a guy on here who wants to ban the use of Goddamn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted December 7, 2007 Share Posted December 7, 2007 This law is unconstitutional.... stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupids... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.