House vote on illegal images sweeps in Wi-Fi, Web sites

[Newsjock]

Source: CNet

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.

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.

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 and Ernie Allen, head of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

Allen said the legislation--called the Securing Adolescents From Exploitation-Online Act, or SAFE Act--will "ensure better reporting, investigation, and prosecution of those who use the Internet to distribute images of illegal child pornography."

... 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.

Read more: http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9829759-38.html?tag=ne...

[ixion]

1. isn't it grand how they can unite to pass unconstitutional laws

but can't take the time to impeach the worst criminals of all?

[trogdor]

16. Kiddie pr0n isn't protected by the First Amendment.

Thought you ought to know that.

[ixion]

19. true, but otherwise 'obscene' images are

thought you ought to know that.

[The Doctor.]

126. Describe 'obscene'.

Personally, I find this obscene;



$300,000 !!!
.




.

[ixion]

141. holy crap! kitty porn!

[Occulus]

22. Kiddie pr0n isn't at all what this is about- here are my suspicions:

This is a first step to criminalizing "obscene" online content, itself an excuse to get the net so controlled and watched by Authoritarians that it may as well be shut down, period.

Authoritarians of all stripes hate the internet. It enables us to resist them as never before, and is the single largest barrier to establishment of a dictatorship in the US. But for the internet, I very firmly believe that is exactly where we would be today. Color me paranoid if you like, but this is one example. Another example would be the push by the large ISPs (mostly cable companies) to prevent entire cities from setting up public wifi access in the entire city. I do believe there are a couple cities that tried and were taken to court by the local cable ISPs, as getting that established would have lost them most of their customers "because you can't compete with free".

Well, you can, but you have to do more than what the free alternative does. In Europe, their broadband cable costs half of what it does here and has twice the bandwidth. They get 10M/sec connections. For half the cost we pay for 5M/s connections.

Sick, ain't it? But it only underscores my point: this law is not and never was about child pr0n or keeping kids safe online or any of that tug-the-heartstrings use-the-liberals-protective-mentality-against-them bullshit. It's about, ultimately, having laws in place that can be used to control or influence (or outright scrub) online content and/or access for other purposes.

Another user said we shouldn't have legislation being written by people who don't understand what they're legislating. I agree, but I don't think that's the case here. I think some of these people know exactly what they're doing, and that the truth bears no resemblance to their public reasoning.

I just can't seem to be able to look at anything political these days without having to consider an ulterior motive. Maybe that's a good thing.

[superconnected]

44. Excellent post!

[BadgerKid]

54. Tend to agree. One more thing:

This might create new revenue/pork for companies whose services/software are used to perform the filtering.

However, there already is one notable counterexample, and that is Google. Google already offers to hide "unsafe" images as well as allow users to tag images. I could imagine there being a top-level block on media tagged in any one of several ways.

[Swagman]

74. this is NOTHING to with child porn-it's about control of the free

internet.

As if these people give a stuff about abused children and that includes the disgusting host of America's Most Wanted who has made $$ millions out of crime AND USED THE DEATH OF HIS OWN NEGLECTED CHILD FOR PROFIT..

Do they care about the children of Iraq , Asia or Africa with 28000 children DYING EVERY SINGLE DAY ?.

Gonzales lied through his teeth about the on-line child porn business claiming it was worth billions of dollars a year..without the slightest proof. TV shows that lure men into contacting a child ( middle aged police office who needs help from a shrink in my opinion) while the pysical , mental and sex abuse of thousands of children happens every day of the week.

Negelct of children is increasing..they are dying in greater numbers in agony but all these creeps can do is make political advantage out of scaring parents.

[sarcasmo]

82. Well said.

[ooglymoogly]

85. I'll second that. nt

[Prophet 451]

114. Gonzo said that?!?!

He's talking complete horseshit. Based on arrest records, monitoring and a bit of educated guesswork, teh FBI estimates that firstly, kiddie porn is less than one tenth of one percent of internet traffic and secondly, the VAST majority of it is exchanged for free through newsgroups, not pay sites.

[heliarc]

76. The internet....

Is also the single largest enemy of capitalism at the same time that it is its only growing marketplace....

Media, and software have become Capital in this world and now marks the first time in human history where there is only one tool you need to "mechanically reproduce" --to use Benjamin's old model-- product. I can give you a copy of an application that you can use to be just as productive as I was with the same application. It doesn't require a foundry, steel and machines. It just requires a computer to create media and other Intellectual property. The boundaries of capital are broken down by the infinite replication of potential value. We already see how powerful Youtube can be at distributing media by authors who did nothing more than liberate their own creative spirit (However atrophied) in front of a webcam. Limitations of geography previously prevented all but the most wealthy from finding the cheapest labor markets in the colonized world... now individuals can even "outsource" their work by hiring personal assistants from cheaper Labour markets using the internet as the method of communication and dissemination. Capitalist powers are very very afraid. When freedom of speech can mean freedom of money, capitalists get very afraid that they will lose their handle on the market.

[ooglymoogly]

84. you have got it exactly right

[Gonnuts]

96. but, but - the children?

Couldn't agree more with you. Welcome to the New World Order.

Isn't it amassing that all the terms the Nazi's used, New World Order, Homeland Security are being accepted here without a peep.

The horrendous H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 was pasted 406 to 6. Makes one wonder if they even read the damn things first before they vote. They see the words "terror" and "prevention" and automatically go, "gee, can't seem to be seen weak on "terror", must vote "yes" - next bill please".

Well, enjoy it while you can folks - it won't be long now.

[lonestarnot]

100. First step in control using the kiddie porners as an excuse.

[Canuckistanian]

104. This is the library Internet access issue all over again

Only at a different venue.

They would have LOVED to shut down Internet access to libraries. But they didn't count on one thing - librarians.

I'm not surprised that there was NO public discussion of this beforehand.

[Auggie]

110. My bet is the money issue is first and foremost.

[Triana]

124. BINGO! The child-porn excuse is just a pretense folks, a RUSE (n/t)

[NBachers]

135. Pimping out Kiddie Porn

You're right. They're pimping out the Kiddie Porn problem to the control freex who want to imprison us for saying things they don't agree with - like, say for instance, the truth. By making net providers accountable, they restrict free and wide access.

How's this going to affect the municipalities who are trying to put up free access points for all?

[TheWatcher]

28. .....

[trogdor]

49. Ouch

[Jacobin]

50. Read the definition in the statute before you make that statement

[DU9598]

55. This only addresses kiddie porn?

No - it seems much more broad and it allows government the right to peer into my web searches ... I thought there was a right to privacy from our governoment - hence, unconstitutional.

[Webster Green]

86. Don't you recognize the slippery slope here?

Give these fascists an inch....?

[endarkenment]

95. including "obscene" cartoons and drawings

that would be all sorts of pr0n.

How much freedom are you willing to sacrifice to rid the world of all images of naked children?

[NashVegas]

146. But This IS

[DissedByBush]

149. Don't Panic!

Our Democrats aren't doing any harm, although they're not doing much good either. This only says that you have to report it if you see evidence of a crime, and must hold that evidence for a short time. ISPs and people running an open WiFi router usually don't monitor individual images by eye so this is mainly a "see, we're doing something" law with likely little effect.

[ixion]

150. that's where it always starts... it's a slippery slope

just this one step, then another, then another, and pretty soon there's a cop on every block monitoring everyone's internet traffic.

[DissedByBush]

152. Paranoid

I'm normally pretty paranoid about this stuff, but all I see is the electronic equivalent of telling you that you have to report a robbery if you witness one. Does a citizen have a responsibility to report a crime? I'd think so.

The stuff to be paranoid about has already happened, with Carnivore, CALEA and Bush's unconstitutional use of the NSA.

[moggie]

157. Don't you ALREADY have a responsibility to report a crime?

So why is a new law necessary?

[ixion]

161. Paranoia is simply a heightened sense of awareness, as the saying goes

and if you think we've seen the worst of Police State USA, it is my opinion that you are sorely mistaken.

[Warren Stupidity]

162. And how exactly are you supposed to determine what 'it' is?

This sort of law is an abomination.

[Brrrp]

168. No more child porn at Starbucks? Sigh. :) nt

[guruoo]

2. Smells like commercial broadband providers trying to hobble free wifi n/t

[robinlynne]

8. My impression too. Why was wifi specifically chosen as opposed to all internet connections?

[xxqqqzme]

66. exactly my first thought.

Why single out wi-fi?

[trogdor]

17. Think about it.

If you were a trafficker in the sort of illegal stuff this bill addresses (child porn, etc.), would you do it from your desktop PC at home, or would you take your laptop to McDonald's, which offers free Wi-Fi and probably doesn't even expect you to register as a user? Heck, if I were a manager of such an establishment, I wouldn't even need Congress to tell me I ought to turn in scumbags who use my bandwidth for illegal shit.

[pokercat999]

18. What the hell is an illegal cartoon?

[Xithras]

27. Google "Hentai" with the family filter off.

I believe that this stuff was banned a few years ago. Basically, it's computer generated and drawn depictions of child rape and molestation. I've seen a few pieces over the years (hard to avoid if you look at porn at all) and some of it is VERY hardcore.

There's a bit of debate over whether it should actually be illegal since there is technically no victim (normal kiddie porn is banned because it's theoretically the fruit of a crime), but I don't think the USSC has actually ruled on it yet.

I think it's disgusting, and as a parent I'm horrified that people actually get off on this stuff, but I'm on the fence as to whether or not it should actually be illegal. Art is a form of speech, and the last time I checked we still have that freedom in this nation.

[Chovexani]

77. All hentai is not child rape

That's like saying all live action porn is child porn.

[Xithras]

91. Ah, I wouldn't know. I don't look at it.

I prefer my porn to include real women of legal age

My understanding was that hentai was cartoon kiddie porn. I HAVE seen cartoon kiddie porn under the hentai name, and it was some sick stuff. A few years ago these photos popped up all over the place on the gallery sites.

[Chovexani]

140. It's not really my cup of tea

Honest (tentacles and demon wang don't really do it for me but to each their own). But yeah, hentai is more of a style than an entire genre. It's as varied as real pr0n.

I think it has that reputation because the truly disgusting crap gets the most attention from people who don't know anything about anime.

[FatDave]

128. "I'm on the fence as to whether or not it should actually be illegal"

If there is no victim, then to make it illegal would be thought crime, wouldn't it? And where do you draw the line? What about textual descriptions (i.e. dirty stories) featuring pedophilia? Or models over the age of 18 dressed to look much younger? It's all out there. Is it all illegal?

[pokercat999]

158. Thank you, your description is enough, I'm not going to view

it. At 57 my idea of a cartoon is something Walt Disney would draw. A "dirty" cartoon could be found in "Playboy" magazine.

With todays technology I could see where the line between reality and fantasy could be blurred beyond recognition. Thus the line between legal and illegal could be equally blurred. I wonder if there is real harm in this fantasy? Could the viewing of this garbage actually "cool" those pedophile urges of the mentally ill who prey on children or does it spur them to action? I would rather see the government trying to solve this problem than killing people in Iraq.

[Gonnuts]

98. good question ...

and how many of these so-called perverts are doing their communications through cartoons? Now they got me curious, God, to think that I might get targeted if I Google "cartoons porn". And of course this opens a whole can of worms, like what's "obscene""? Who is going to arbitrate this? and on and on ... shit - don't these idiots have anything better to do? Like maybe impeach somebody or something?

[pokercat999]

160. Think what is the real target here? It's the free wi-fi

service. The phone companies have figured a way to force more of us purchase their mobile broadband service, just get congress to "outlaw" free wi-fi which this law effectively does.

[Usrename]

155. ????

[guruoo]

29. One big problem with wireless network monitoring...

Let's see if I can provide a small sample of just one aspect of the problem here.
By coincidence, this week I've been traveling out of town,
away from my home pipe and thus have had to rely upon wifi for web access.
Right now I'm looking at 8 AP's that are well in range of the
converted snow disk dish-adapter that I'm using.
7 of these are privately owned, with the settings maintained to allow for public access,
with only the 8th one being restricted.
Keep in mind that this is only what I'm seeing with the antenna aimed out a window,
pointed in one direction.

To me, that the sheer number of available open AP's makes this a law that
would be virtually impossible to enforce, IMHO.

Personally, I believe, that for obivous reasons, the big broadband providers had a hand in
creating this legislation.

[LiberalArkie]

80. You have hit it.. The person using that open wap is not paying..

They HATE that.

[guruoo]

92. They obviously hate the people that provide free wifi too. n/t

[Shipwack]

105. These things don't have to be enforced...

Not consistently anyway.

I think the old Soviets had a phrase for it..."When everything is illegal, everyone is a criminal..."

"Mr. Smith... are you the owner of this wireless access point with no encryption?"

"The wired whaaa? Oh, the routing thing. Yeah, I got it for my son's X-Station... he wanted to play with..."

"That's not important, sir. We have reason to believe that a child predator has been using your internet access to stalk a neighborhood child. Under Federal law, that makes you an accessory. We can take you in right now. Unless.... what can you tell me what you friend Joe does on Thursdays."

[guruoo]

142. In other word, it can be

like just another tool in their toolbox.

[robinlynne]

143. In reality that just menas that mcdonalds can't have wifi anymore, because they can't possibly check

what people are doing on their computer. At&T can because it has a spy system set up and working already.

[robinlynne]

144. So this actually legitimizes illegal spying. Which is the big FISA argument right now

being debated.

[Hugin]

3. As usual...

Somebody somewhere was happy.

They can't stand it. It disturbs their sleep.

Pretty well cinches it, what am I doing here? I have nothing in common with any of these people.

[mikeytherat]

4. Puritanism.

"A Puritan is someone who is desperately afraid that, somewhere, someone might be having a good time." --Henry Louis Mencken

mikey_the_rat

[Hugin]

6. Mencken...

I wonder what he'd have to say about the sorts around us now.

[Shipwack]

106. Mencken thoughts,,, The first is most relevant

The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
H. L. Mencken

Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under.
H. L. Mencken

In the United States, doing good has come to be, like patriotism, a favorite device of persons with something to sell.
H. L. Mencken

It is inaccurate to say that I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes me forever ineligible for public office.
H. L. Mencken

[B3Nut]

5. How can they report what they cannot even see?

If some perv hooks up to a wi-fi link at Starbucks and uploads porn to a server, there's nothing at that Starbucks that can detect what that is, or even to store it. It goes through the access point, through the router, then up the net to the server which could be anywhere in the world. There is no way to even know, unless you sniff every packet and manually look at any graphics files you catch. It's yet another example of why politicians have NO BUSINESS attempting to regulate that which they so glaringly do not understand. They have no concept of how networking or computers work. They are attempting to legislate the technically impossible in order to look good to their constituents, most of whom don't "get" technology either. All this will do is chill open public wireless access, which I'm afraid is the real impetus behind this unworkable legislation, with the horrid spectre of child porn used as an excuse.

Todd in Cheesecurdistan

[Newsjock]

7. And there's not even one Democrat in Congress who opposes this?

The mind boggles. Not even one. Just in case that didn't sink in, let me say again: Not. Even. One.

[JBoy]

11. But anyone voting against this

would obviously be solidly in the pro-child porn camp. There could be no other reason for not supporting the legislation.

[flashl]

23. This is how they shutdown the ma and pa ISPs who didn't comply with the government

Remember the FBI's Carnivore?

[sandnsea]

134. Exactly

Who can store all these emails. Ridiculous.

[lvx35]

111. Its hillariously assinine.

What you said is just the beginning. I wouldn't have a difficult time writing a proxy that will get past just about any filter right now, simply using AJAX and a remote server, if I was too lazy to make a client app. But the real details of this are that people don't KNOW what they are going to get when they click a link, any link. Want to shut down the coffeeshop that is your competition? Just send an email to somebody with a blind link to a naughty cartoon When they click it, complain to the feds that the coffee shop failed to report it.

yes, that's right. If the coffeeshop offering you WIFI didn't READ YOUR EVERY EMAIL they can be shut down by this. And if anybody sends you a naughty pic in a blind link in your email, the coffee shop is not only required to read your email, but to report you. Wake up congress.

[Prophet 451]

112. Damn, dude

Words out of my mouth. The stated purpose of this legislation is unworkable.

[FatDave]

116. You are exactly right.

It's all just packets as far as the router and access points are concerned, and they're meaningless bytes of hex until assembled. It's only an image at the two end points. You would have to sniff and assemble every packet at the router and assemble all of the packets, then determine which of those were images. But a computer can't tell what's porn and what's not, so you'd need a live person looking at every picture transfered over the network, which on a good sized network would be a lot of pictures. So now every business that provides wifi will have to hire a team of people to monitor what everybody is looking at?

Of course, there's also text-based porn. In fact it covers not only pedophilia, but rape, snuff, torture, pretty much anything you can think of. So I guess they'll need to hire speed readers to make sure nobody's transmitting textual descriptions of illegal sexual acts.

And let's suppose they do catch somebody downloading "obscene" material. What will they have to identify the perpetrator by? Their MAC address. A MAC address is the unique string of hex bytes that identifies your network card. It's unique to your computer, and it's the only thing unique to your computer (from a networking standpoint anyway). So what do they do when they see a packets making up an obscene picture going to a specific IP address? Lock the doors and check the MAC address of everybody's laptop?

If I thought that the members of congress had any idea how difficult what they propose is, the only remaining motivation could be to shut down wifi sites. We really need to find out who lobbied for this law and why it was kept so quiet prior to being voted on.

Edit: highlighted bits not previously mentioned

[guruoo]

147. change+MAC+address

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=change+mac+address...

[killbotfactory]

166. Agreed

This is just crazy.

[robinlynne]

9. more justification for telecom immunity and FISA? They HAVE TO track every

internet movement to obey this law...

[zbdent]

10. You mean obscene images like this one?

[LiberalFighter]

45. They should amend the bill to require reporting obscene images like this.

[VWolf]

57. Agggggrrrrrhhhhh My eyes! My eyes!

Obscene doesn't begin to describe what I just saw.

[dethl]

12. Incentive for Wi-Fi operators....

"There's a carrot as well: anyone who does comply is immune from civil lawsuits and criminal prosecutions."

So if we operate an access point we are ENCOURAGED to spy on everyone else using it. This is something out of "1984".

EDIT: If this gets passed I'm going to recommend to everyone that uses open Wi-Fi points to start using Virtual Private Networks or even a simple SSH socks4/5 proxy (and make sure the endpoint is outside the US). The amount of abuse this bill could lead to is insane.

[Prophet 451]

115. DING! There it is!

I was wondering what had happened to the Operation TIPS incentive to spy on each other and there it is. This is pushing toward teh nightmare of Soviet Russia: Everyone informing on everyone else.

Thankfully, I'm in England.

[rockybelt]

13. You will

only publish pictures that show the state in a good light. All others are verboten!

It is only a matter of time until the law will be interpreted that EVERYONE will have the "complete contents of the users account be retained for subsequent police inspection."

Do you read this the same way that I do? I can see dubya and his signing statement pen scribbling away now. The law will be changed, in the dark, to read that everything anyone sends to anybody anywhere at any time will be "retained for subsequent police inspection."

I cannot believe that the dems did not stand up and say HELL NO! Ron Paul and Paul Broun? Are you kidding me?

[tridim]

26. SwampRat will be in for some major trouble.

See you all at Gitmo.

[robinlynne]

145. EXACTLY.

[villager]

14. "the Democratic leadership rushed the SAFE Act to the floor under a procedure...

...that's supposed to be reserved for noncontroversial legislation"

Remind me again of the iota of difference between the parties?

[wellst0nev0ter]

15. Ah, I See The Hard Won Committee Chairmanships Are Working As Expected

you'd think that fascists' wet dreams such as this would simply die in committees thanks to the Democratic majority, but I guess the specter of being labeled protector of pedophiles loomed too much in their brains for them to revise the bill and narrow the definitions.

[pokercat999]

20. Ron Paul? Where was Dennis K? I sure as hell

hope he missed the vote.

[dethl]

21. Nope. He was there...and voted FOR it

Took me long enough but I found the roll call: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll1131.xml

My support for Kucinich just disappeared.

[pokercat999]

159. Mine too, this is just a bill to enable the phone company to

force us all to get their mobile broadband internet service. This congress has got to go they are all simply "on the take" regardless of party.

[hunter]

24. How the hell would you do that?

Look at every image coming through the pipe? Install mystery software provided by the Federal Government that lets them snoop?

This is bullshit. It's just another tool they will use to harass their political opponents, and shut down any internet service provider that refuses to snoop for Big Brother.

[yodermon]

25. complete bullshit. This technically impossible to accomplish.

public wi-fi providers simply cannot preserve, examine, and source every packet that passes thru their routers. They can log addresses, ports, and MAC addresses, but the actual content would be too voluminous.

If someone were to download kiddie pr0n from usenet or P2P in a starbucks, starbucks cannot examine (let alone preserve) every bitstream to deduce that what's being transferred is, in fact kiddie pr0n.

If someone were stupid enough to set up an actual website with such material, they'd be busted in the normal ways with laws already on the books.

something stinks.

[guruoo]

34. A Congressional Christmas present to the corporate broadband cabal. n/t

[tridim]

36. They'll "discover" that it doesn't work down the road..

and then say, "We need to figure out how to make it work, since we've already passed the law". That's how big brother creeps in.

[Javaman]

43. How about this little nugget?

suppose joe blow A has home wifi set up. Joe Blow A goes home and checks out some porn on the net.

However, what Joe Blow A doesn't know, is that Joe Blow B and his family have been stealing some of Joe Blow A's bandwidth and have been surfing for free.

Now suppose Joe Blow B agrees with the fact that, "yes, there is obscenity on the net" and supports this stupid ass bill.

then Joe Blow B goes on to report that Joe Blow A's wifi is "interfering" with his home computer thus giving him "unwanted access" to porn.

Do the cops now bust Joe Blow A for not making sure that his wifi connection is not being picked up by Joe Blow B, C, D, etc???? And if he's not doing that, is he liable?

Sure this is stretching things a bit, but it's not really out of the realm of reality.

[BronxBoy]

109. Actually you are not stretching things at all...

If I was a pedophile, you think I would be going down to the local Starbucks to watch or download kiddie porn?

Take a laptop into any densely populated area and you will pick up TONS of unsecured wireless access. If I were a sexual predator, I head straight for one of those before I'd park on a public wi-fi network.

Really clueless people are running this country.

[Jacobin]

52. Here's a thought on how to 'enforce' that law

Set up all servers to automatically forward a copy of every single word, image and thing that goes through them to whatever the reporting site is on a daily basis, with the following statement:

"Pursuant to the provisions of blah blah blah, this is our report of possibly obscene or illegal material that has passed through our portals. Since we cannot determine what a court will determine to fit within the broad definition of objectionable material as defined in blah blah blah, wee are reporting all digital data that comes through our servers for the appropriate enforcement officials to investigate."

[MetaTrope]

72. In a nation where the only "terrorists" caught so far have been malcontents given uniforms by FBI

this "law" has been MADE for entrapment. Somebody you don't like have unsecured wi-fi in their home? Just park on the street, plug into their signal, download some Homeland Security listed porn, and wham! time for an arrest!

[cosmicdot]

30. Senate version of the bill

S.519

Title: A bill to modernize and expand the reporting requirements relating to child pornography, to expand cooperation in combating child pornography, and for other purposes.

Sponsor: Sen McCain, John (introduced 2/7/2007)

sponsor = John McCain

co-sponsors:

Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham - 3/20/2007
Sen Hutchison, Kay Bailey - 7/30/2007
Sen Kyl, Jon - 2/7/2007
Sen Schumer, Charles E. - 2/7/2007
Sen Smith, Gordon H. - 2/16/2007
Sen Snowe, Olympia J. - 4/10/2007

http://tinyurl.com/25xr8b


Or, give your recipients confidence with a preview TinyURL:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/25xr8b

[KamaAina]

59. co-sponsors: Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham - 3/20/2007

Hmmm... I don't see Obama, Biden or Dodd on that list. Do you? Think about it.

[benld74]

31. Nucking futs once again

[Psephos]

32. "It's for the children!!!!"

Every single Dem voted for this. Think about it.

[brokensymmetry]

33. So a cartoon of a certain Beloved Pretzeldent...

if it were sent over WiFi...would be, if regarded
as obscene...reported.

My, isn't that interesting?

[Mrspeeker]

35. Ah the Democratic Congress at work

And this is why Impeachment if of the table because there is so much important work to be done. Like burning the Constitution and Bill of Rights!

[MaineYooper]

37. I believe every image of Pat Robertson is obscene-

Can they be banned through this legislation?

I think that wireless packet sniffing will become a very popular activity if this comes to pass...

[Initech]

38. So what constitutes as an obscene image, exactly?

The definition, it looks like, is way too broad. God damn, our freedoms are going away one by one.

[Psephos]

39. Oh, don't worry, just leave it to the police n/t

[Javaman]

40. Slipping away? they are gone. The concept of freedom is that we have a say

in the running of the country.

When was the last time they actually listened to us?

[brokensymmetry]

42. Is that image obscene?

I think it is. I'd better report it,
lest someone accuse me of failure to report it.

Nothing personal.

[Javaman]

48. LOL. nt

[Pacifist Patriot]

107. This was the first obscene image that came to my mind.

[Initech]

122. HA!

[McCamy Taylor]

41. Is this about copywrite protection for Japanese anime and manga?

The Japanese government recently appealed to the US government to stop fan subbers--volunteers who translate manga and anime into English and then distribute it free of charge on the Internet. These are usually manga and anime titles that are not licensed outside of Japan and which Americans who do not read Japanese can not enjoy otherwise. For years, this is how anime and manga has developed an audience in the US. Titles such a "Bleach", "Naruto" got their start because dedicated fans introduced them and then publishers were willing to license them after there was already a broad market established. The current system ensures that arty and unusual writers and artists get noticed and has lead to the wide variety of titles of manga available.

However, I guess that Viz and Tokyo Pop and their counterparts in Japan have forgotten that the fan subbers do their promotion for them for free. Now, they want to prevent anyone from fan subbing anything, even titles that will never in a million years be released in the US, because they are too fringe or too shocking for US taste or just too plain weird (or that they think are too plain weird. It is funny how some stuff that seems weird and which Viz and Tokyo Pop won't touch is an underground hit when the fan subbers do it and suddenly, two or three years later, the official publishers want it and they can sell it because everyone has heard all about it already.)

Anyway, we know why the Republicans would back a stupid bill like this.

Are the Democrats backing it as a sneaky way to attack anime and manga fans in the US? So that they can court US publishers and Japanese publishers and US film studios (like Disney) and Japanese film studios? Lots of movie in the entertainment industry. And almost every anime and manga nowadays shows some high school girl with a panty shot.

A victim of this craziness will be the web-comic industry in the US, an American owned and operated venture which also has cute little elf maidens in cute little provocative poses available on-line. The same laws that can be used to force manga fan sites off the internet can be used to force web-comics out of business. Marvel and DC and the others will just love that.

Think about it. The Democratic base could care less about some scantily clad drawings of elf babes. But the Democrats in Congress seem determined to make money.

[Chovexani]

78. I don't think politicians even know fandom exists

Much less know what any of it is. This vote has everything to do with curtailing freedom of expression on the Internet. It has nothing to do with fandom. American anime/manga distributors aren't even on these people's radar--they don't have the money or the clout to push bullshit legislation like this.

Fandom is a just an unfortunate unintended victim in this.

[nealmhughes]

46. That will be nearly physically impossible to imeplement. Web servers rely upon self-policing.

There is no way to physiclly audit every image that a given customer chooses to upload on their website. In the first place, web content is dynamic. It is an open complex system, not a closed simple system.

One had might as well outlaw thoughts. The odds of finding evil thought and evil images are about the same, I would think, especially since a skillful manipulator of the dark craft of web design can easily design a page that would not have such images readily visible, rather, hidden and it would take a decryption program to find them. Guess the children savers did not think of that.

Kiddie porn is already illegal throughout most of the known world. But there is no secret as to where it originates: East Asia and Central America and Eastern Europe, i.e., where people are poor and desperate.

[Uncle Joe]

47. And this paragraph, reminds me of the the Republican head of the FCC's tactics

in further trying to conglomerate the media in to fewer hands.

"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."

I believe this is just a sickening power grab.

[happygoluckytoyou]

51. IM OKAY SO LONG AS WE COVER WHAT IS IS

ILLEGAL PORN NEEDS TO BE MONITORED--- AND INDEED IT SHOULD INVOLVE THE SITE.OWNER AS WELL AS THE SITE.POSTER AND SITE.HOST.....

NO PROBLEM WITH THAT... IT IS ALREADY ILLEGAL, THE POWERS THAT BE HAVE DECIDED HOW TO ALLOCATE THE BLAME AND RESPONSIBILITY TO SOME EXTENT


---WHERE THERE IS A PROBLEM..... THE LINES AND RULES NEED TO BE CAREFULLY DRAWN....

[Jacobin]

53. Must you scream?

[BronxBoy]

113. You do know

that the 3 parties you cited may and probably will not be the owner of the wi-fi network that this law covers?

And just exactly how are they responsible for the site owner, site poster and site host?

Just Asking

[Warren Stupidity]

163. so trusting and all caps too. nt.

[kimmylavin]

56. The SAFE act?

This is about as safe as the PATRIOT act was patriotic.

[DCKit]

58. So, it follows that: If I put WEP or WAP encryption, I do not have an "OPEN" connection

I can give the pass key to anyone I want and they can't do SHIT.

[CatholicEdHead]

61. Ideally WPA (or even better WPA2), as WEP can be cracked in 10min

with software on the web.

[DCKit]

64. Not MY fault : )

Besides, I can't afford new equipment.

[ElboRuum]

129. Ahh. Yes... BUT!

Any encryption at all implies that the owner of the WiFi network has made a reasonable attempt to secure that network, and thus attempted to make it private.

[NYC Liberal]

139. How much you want to bet, if you asked all of the MOC who voted for this

none of them would even know what WEP or WAP is?

[TechBear_Seattle]

60. Define "obscene"

(Which, of course, the law does not do.)

By "obscene," do they mean child pornography? Otherwise legal pornography? Art such as Maplethorpe's photographs or a picture of Michelangelo's David or Botticelli's Birth of Venus? An image of a tasteless but not pornographic greeting card?

What about a political cartoon such as Shrub with his head up Cheney's bottom? Or a prayer card of Mary that's been photoshopped to show her taking it doggy style?

[liberal N proud]

62. America the police state

You looked at a dirty picture.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

63. What is obscene?

This?


This?


How about this?

[California Griz]

65. Moronic

This is paramount to charging the bullet maker with murder. It also forces an undue burden on anyone running an open wireless to monitor usage. This would be like charging a bank that gets robbed with the crime itself because it had it's doors open. I will be forced to upgrade the wireless for 2 of my clients who must run in hidden open key due to encryption incompatibility of their equipment.

[Mountainman]

67. I'll tell you, this Democratic controlled congress sure hasn't been the body I expected it to be!

[AllyCat]

68. My personal anecdote why I think this has NOTHING to do with kids

My sister is trying to nail her soon-to-be ex-husband (R-Of Course) for exactly this kind of stuff. She made a snapshot of his hard drive (with the help of someone else as she's not a computer geek). She cannot get a SINGLE entity to even look at it. Not law enforcement, not a computer forensics specialist, not a private investigator.

No one cares. No one wants to get involved.

This bill has little to do with stopping people who traffic in obscene images of children. It has everything to do with helping Big Telecom and spying on ordinary citizens for OTHER things. Obscene is in the eye of the beholder. And when the beholder is the current state of government in our country, I don't trust it one bit.

[progressivebydesign]

73. that's because the courts are clogged with accusations during ugly divorces.

Sad for the people, like your Sister, that have reasonable proof of wrongdoing. The courts and police are so overwhelmed with bogus claims against ex- and soon-be-ex spouses, that they don't have time for the real ones.

[AllyCat]

75. You make a good point, but wouldn't they want to see it just to be able to say

"stop wasting your time lady" or "holy crap, this guy is certifiable" and move her case to the front of the pack?

Probably not, I guess.

[mtnester]

69. Hmm...let's say I have WiFi at my house

and I live out in BFE, WAY back a long drive, with NO neighbors except my parents house.

Let's say my WiFi is wide open so anyone at our house or my parents house can get on, any time, with no hassle. I do not have anything sitting on that open connection thar monitors any other computer's use, nor do I have anything sitting on there that is a network or important to me. It is strictly for Internet surfing. I have not advertised that I am providing open WiFi. HOW will I monitor this? I think the key is that I am made AWARE of it or LEARN of it and then report it. Unaware means no issue.

That said, this bill is wrong IMO. ISP companies are NOT the police or a specialized victim unit. There are good units and good organizations whose goals are to shut down child porn, and they do a good job...we should be looking at more of them instead of this mess. My issue is, a barrista is NOT the person you want policing my internet use, or the person assigned to catch a child pornographer or pedophile...and neither is my co-worker.

Bad idea not thought through. Good intentions, poorly executed, and it reaches WELL over the line on my privacy rights.

Did ANYONE even THINK to bounce this off a small business owner or small government agency or end user/provider (small fry)...probably not.

[rAVES]

70. Big Brother is watching you!

[progressivebydesign]

71. I applaud any efforts to stop Child Pornography, this just seems unworkable.

Perhaps I'm missing something here. How could WiFi providers have a clue what you were accessing while there? All they provide is a frequency, so to speak, there is no info passed through anything. Do they mean that baristas need to report if they see child porn on a screen when are sitting in the cafe?

With this so overwhelmingly approved by Congress, there must be more to this than we're understanding.

And I'd hardly throw any support Ron Paul's way because he voted against it. Has that woman-hating racist libertarian voted for ANYTHING? Ever?

[endarkenment]

97. "any efforts"? really?

So why not enable the police to access all computers connected to the internet and randomly search them for illegal images? That is entirely workable. While they are inside your computer, the police might as well make sure you are not engaged in any terrorist activities, or involved in the transportation, manufacture, or distribution of any illegal drugs, or engaged in other felonious behavior. We will be much safer then.

[Prophet 451]

118. Sure

I think most of us would applaud a genuine attempt to crack down on kiddie porn (which isn't all that common anyway) but for that purpose, this bill is utterly useless. What it would be very good for is providing incentive and protections for people to spy on citizens for, well, just about anything.

[pleah]

79. They just keep chipping away at any freedom you have left.

While proclaiming it is all for the children.

[FiveGoodMen]

88. Never occurs to anyone that the children grow up into a crappy world because of our "protection"

[backscatter712]

81. Any way this garbage can be Constitutionally challenged?

Maybe it can be shot down on free speech grounds - the definition of "obscene" images is too broad, or that the monitoring and reporting requirements are too burdensome, and thus interfere with First Amendment expression.

[ooglymoogly]

83. It seems we have elected a dem congress more repuke than the repukes.

anyone who cannot see this is an effort to shut down the internet is a fool or a wolf in sheep's clothing. I suspect the latter.

[sui generis]

87. always pandering to the lowest common denomator

Can't babysit your kids? Just call congress and make everyone else babysit yer brats.

Unable to deal with someone else's business in someone else's weener website while you're praying and swaying on holyrollers.com? sue the bastards. I suppose whitehouse.org and snopes.com are on the list too.

I would like to add, if my overcaffeinated children are exposed to religion at STARBUCKS by some sick fucking bastard trying to convert them to their evil ways, I'll sue their ass into a new color, after I'm done introducing them to their savior.

oh what a world, what a world

[sss1977]

89. for fucks sakes

When will Congress learn to start reading the laws they pass instead of just the titles and the advertisement for it?