http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-3791

Just passed yesterday. Basically, it says if a the owner of the public wireless internet access (i.e. individual, Starbucks, or hotel) doesn't rat someone out for "child pornography" (which is vaguely defined), then they are liable and could be fined up to $300,000 dollars.

Only two people who voted against it were Ron Paul and Paul Broun. Starting to like Ron Paul more and more. He really does understand the concept of civil liberties.

12/6/2007 1:10:51 PM

So they've defined it so vaguely that "child pornography" could be twisted to mean "anyone who ideologically opposes the current party in power?"

Actually, I think it's great that these sorts of things are being passed. Maybe people will start getting so pissed off that they'll actually be motivated to start the revolution.

[Edited on December 6, 2007 at 1:16 PM. Reason : you didn't say it was signed into law, only that the bill was passed]

12/6/2007 1:13:32 PM

is it going to be taken up in the senate (or has it already?)

12/6/2007 1:14:08 PM

Just passed the House. Going to Senate now.

12/6/2007 1:31:47 PM

Quote :

"Only two people who voted against it were Ron Paul and Paul Broun. Starting to like Ron Paul more and more. He really does understand the concept of civil liberties."

Not to troll here, but whatever happened to the Democrats' vaunted respect for the civil liberties and the First Amendment? Because last time I checked, the House consisted of more than Ron Paul and Paul Broun, neither of whom are even Democrats.

12/6/2007 1:50:24 PM

Quote :

"if a the owner of the public wireless internet access (i.e. individual, Starbucks, or hotel) doesn't rat someone out for "child pornography" (which is vaguely defined), then they are liable and could be fined up to $300,000 dollars."

i guess this implies that Starbucks, etc has to explicitly monitor all traffic through their connection? If not I'd think they could say something to the effect of "we have lots of users accessing thousands of websites, we can't closely monitor them all" in an effort to get out of the $texas fine

12/6/2007 2:08:21 PM

Quote :

"Not to troll here, but whatever happened to the Democrats' vaunted respect for the civil liberties and the First Amendment? Because last time I checked, the House consisted of more than Ron Paul and Paul Broun, neither of whom are even Democrats."

Well you see, the Republicans like to manipulate the American public who don't really know what's going on. If the Democrats had voted against this, the Republicans would have 100% held a press conference and said some shit about how the Democrats don't care about the children. Probably would have happened if parties were switched as well. Democrats politicize a lot of things, but there's no way they can even be compared to how unscrupulous the Republicans are at it.

12/6/2007 2:12:43 PM

Quote :

"Democrats politicize a lot of things, but there's no way they can even be compared to how unscrupulous the Republicans are at it."

keep telling yourself that

12/6/2007 2:15:52 PM

^^ I've heard this theory used to explain a lot of things, and it's starting to wear a little thin on me. Mostly because it's just like, "How stupid do they think voters are?" And second, because it never seems to work the other way. Somehow, the Republican party has a nearly omnipotent ability to get whatever they want via a threat of a bad press press conference.

At some point, I have to ask - is it really that the Republicans are that powerful? Or is it that the Democrats are just wimps? Wimps who, for all effective purposes, are more concerned about continual employment in Congress than actually say, doing something with that time in office.

[Edited on December 6, 2007 at 2:18 PM. Reason : ^^]

12/6/2007 2:18:03 PM

Quote :

"Well you see, the Republicans like to manipulate the American public who don't really know what's going on. If the Democrats had voted against this, the Republicans would have 100% held a press conference and said some shit about how the Democrats don't care about the children. Probably would have happened if parties were switched as well. Democrats politicize a lot of things, but there's no way they can even be compared to how unscrupulous the Republicans are at it. "

from the bill

Quote :

"Introduced: Oct 10, 2007 Sponsor: Rep. Nicholas Lampson [D-TX] Status: Passed House (Bipartisan support.) Go to Bill Status Page "

Also

Quote :

"If not I'd think they could say something to the effect of "we have lots of users accessing thousands of websites, we can't closely monitor them all" in an effort to get out of the $texas fine"

again from the bill:

Quote :

"`(f) Protection of Privacy- Nothing in this section shall be construed to require an electronic communication service provider or a remote computing service provider to-- `(1) monitor any user, subscriber, or customer of that provider; `(2) monitor the content of any communication of any person described in paragraph (1); or `(3) affirmatively seek facts or circumstances described in subsection (a)(2). "

So dont keep any logs and you're good to go.

[Edited on December 6, 2007 at 2:32 PM. Reason : .]

12/6/2007 2:31:29 PM

Quote :

"i guess this implies that Starbucks, etc has to explicitly monitor all traffic through their connection? If not I'd think they could say something to the effect of "we have lots of users accessing thousands of websites, we can't closely monitor them all" in an effort to get out of the $texas fine"

I guess, but what about individuals? They don't clearly define what "public" access means. I mean, what if a pedophile neighbor taps/faps off another neighbor's unsecure wireless access? Does that mean they are liable? Tdub law experts, please advise.

12/6/2007 2:31:53 PM

yeah i've wondered that too...if my neighbor uses my wireless to access something am i liable...vice versa....dunno though

12/6/2007 2:33:16 PM

The statute says "Anyone providing an "electronic communication service" or "remote computing service" to the public who learns about the transmission or storage of information about certain illegal activities or an illegal image "

also "Someone providing a Wi-Fi connection probably won't have to worry about the SAFE Act's additional requirement of retaining all the suspect's personal files if the illegal images are "commingled or interspersed" with other data. But that retention requirement does concern Internet service providers, which would be in a position to comply."

http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9829759-38.html?tag=nefd.top

I think everyone's getting worked up over this for nothing.

Quote :

"yeah i've wondered that too...if my neighbor uses my wireless to access something am i liable...vice versa....dunno though"

previously, as long as you can prove it came from another computer you didn't have control over, you'll get off. I doubt that will change here. And, again, you have to "learn of" these activities, not just be giving access to someone who is abusing it, to get in trouble.

[Edited on December 6, 2007 at 2:44 PM. Reason : .]

12/6/2007 2:42:47 PM

Quote :

"who learns about"

bam

pretty difficult to prove that someone has or hasnt learned about something if they deny learning about it

Quote :

"I think everyone's getting worked up over this for nothing."

12/6/2007 2:45:19 PM

Because vaguely-worded statutes have never been abused by federal authorities, especially those who have openly stated that hunting down pornography should be one of the nation's "top law enforcement priorities."

http://www.boingboing.net/2005/08/30/job-1-for-americas-a.html

12/6/2007 3:01:01 PM

Quote :

"Not to troll here, but whatever happened to the Democrats' vaunted respect for the civil liberties and the First Amendment?"

This falls under "protecting children", which is weird in that it's one of those things that people often value that more than a lot of rights.

I was just talking to someone today about how I'm morally opposed to the death penalty, but whenever I hear about a remorseless child molester my first thought is that he should be taken out back and shot in the head. Obviously that doesn't apply to the sexy female teachers who give it up to 14 year olds.

12/6/2007 3:05:03 PM

Well, it can be a big deal if it forces places like Starbucks to stop providing free internet access. I mean, I enjoy those types of services. I just don't feel like government should be involved in these kinds of things.

12/6/2007 3:05:47 PM

Quote :

"Obviously that doesn't apply to the sexy female teachers who give it up to 14 year olds"

"Nice..."

http://vidfan.com/media/203/South-Park---Nice.html

12/6/2007 3:07:41 PM

^^ well, in this case, they're not. see my previous post.

12/6/2007 3:17:22 PM

Quote :

"Obviously that doesn't apply to the sexy female teachers who give it up to 14 year olds. "

what about the fat ugly teachers with venereal warts who give it up?

12/6/2007 3:24:03 PM

Quote :

"Well, it can be a big deal if it forces places like Starbucks to stop providing free internet access. I mean, I enjoy those types of services. I just don't feel like government should be involved in these kinds of things."

not that it matters, but starbucks internet isn't free anymore (or so my gf has told me, i personally don't drink coffee)

12/6/2007 3:25:23 PM

So what about when one of my neighbors is leeching off me for wi-fi (which I do too when my router is down for some reason)? How can I possibly stop them or keep tabs on them?

12/6/2007 3:31:45 PM

WEP or WPA encryption for your own wi-fi should at least give plausible deniability. Using encryption is kind of like locking your doors to your house - sure, a burglar should still get in if he wants, but 1) it will keep out the "casual thief", and 2) if a real thief does get in, you can still tell your insurance company that you did all you should reasonably be expected to do by locking your doors and windows.

If you keep an open wi-fi connection and someone leeches off of you and downloads child porn and you or he is caught, that's like leaving your doors open. Sure, it's still illegal, but your insurance is not likely to cover you for your losses because you didn't even try. If you use WPA, it will 1) keep out most people, most likely your neighbors, and 2) at least you can say "hey, i did all that I can reasonably be expected to do" if someone does break your encryption and use your network for illegal activity.

Any reasonable and competent judge would realize that and not hold you accountable. Of course, with touchy subject like this, it's often the court of public opinion that condemns you without ever knowing or understanding what actually happened. If you want to get scared, though, you only need to look as far as the substitute 7th-grade teacher who was inches away from a 40-year prison term earlier this year because a computer in her classroom (running Windows 98) was infected with viruses and trojans and started popping up porn ads because of incompetent school IT officials, then incompetent police detectives, then incompetent judge/jury
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070111/122802.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070301/183426.shtml
Lucky for her, a judge with some sense came to her aide and struck down the guilty plea, but she still had/has to go through another trial
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070606/100109.shtml

12/6/2007 3:50:43 PM

^^already been addressed above.

12/6/2007 4:00:34 PM

^^ Wow, it's stuff like that that scares me. Even if found innocent, the crap and time you go through can't be replaced.

So if you don't have a WEP key or some sort of security for your wireless network you might be held accountable? Scary thought. I know plenty of people with unsecure networks. Three (3) of them in my neighborhood alone.

12/6/2007 4:09:49 PM

i scan my apt complex for unsecured wireless and shut them down

12/6/2007 4:14:32 PM

Quote :

"I just don't feel like government should be involved in these kinds of things. "

agreed.

they're in essence forcing companies into being yet another government "eye in the sky"

pretty soon you won't be able to be anywhere in a decently sized city w/o the gov being able to spy on you one way or the other.

atleast Ron Paul is standing up for us (or trying to).

12/6/2007 4:38:16 PM

Quote :

"I think everyone's getting worked up over this for nothing."

12/6/2007 5:17:25 PM

These laws while pissing on the people's 1st amendment rights and to act as a stepping stone to "intervene" on someone's wireless network to investigate other crimes; does not solve the problem.

We are using a lawnmower to cut the tops of the weeds w/o pulling out the roots. These perverted pieces of shit should be punished but the focus should be on tracking and shutting down the source of kiddy porn. This is like locking away all the heroin addicts we find; trying to stop people from using heroin. The dealers are the ones that are committing the real crimes beyond that of distribution of illegal materials. in this case not only distribution of child pornography but being the ones violating and sexually abusing the minors.

12/6/2007 5:18:54 PM

^ Thats world police stuff right there. For now I'm fine with the government imposing draconian punishments on anyone with child porn and letting them get the brunt of prison assrape in order to cut back on demand and make child porn distributors less money.

12/6/2007 5:28:45 PM

Quote :

"For now I'm fine with the government imposing draconian punishments on anyone with child porn and letting them get the brunt of prison assrape in order to cut back on demand and make child porn distributors less money."

I find this line of reasoning repulsive. No one deserves the conditions in our prisons. Especially not people who merely look at banned images and videos. Paying the child porn creators is considerably worse, but torturing such people isn't the answer.

12/6/2007 8:53:31 PM

WEP has been known to be broken for at least a couple years now

dont use it if you have an alternative.

its analogous to locking your house but leaving the key under the mat.

WPA is pretty solid.



[Edited on December 6, 2007 at 8:59 PM. Reason : ]

12/6/2007 8:56:36 PM

Yeah, you're right. Paying someone so that you have a child rape video to jerk off to is cool. What the hell was I thinking?

12/6/2007 8:59:57 PM

^ It's telling to you decided to go for that argument.

"If you don't think torture is the correct response to x, you must think x is perfectly fine."

12/6/2007 9:11:26 PM

It's a fair response to reducing the sexual exploitation of children to "banned images". I'm just playing by the rules that you set.

12/6/2007 9:17:37 PM

The images of child sexual exploitation are just that: images.

12/6/2007 9:19:54 PM

Child sexual exploitation happens so that those images can be created and distributed. It's not like somebody makes them with MSpaint and puts them out there.

12/6/2007 9:26:40 PM

The actual exploitation is what people should focus on stopping.

I'm not opposed to discouraging folks from looking at child porn. I just don't think torture in prison is the right way to do that.

12/6/2007 9:28:49 PM

Living in prison with a lack of respect from other inmates isn't torture.

12/6/2007 9:37:53 PM

Being raped and otherwise assaulted most definitely is.

12/6/2007 10:17:19 PM

The government isn't torturing anyone for looking at child porn. If you look like a mark in prison then that's your fault.

12/6/2007 10:33:04 PM

Quote :

"I'm not opposed to discouraging folks from looking at child porn."

If that's really the case then you are a terrible person.

12/6/2007 11:08:55 PM

he said he's not opposed to discouraging.
i.e. he is in favor of discouraging it

12/6/2007 11:24:08 PM

hey look - someone who has actually read and analyzed the bill!
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071206-safe-act-wont-turn-mom-and-pop-shops-into-wifi-cops.html

Quote :

"ISPs could face tougher penalties for failing to report child pornography under a bill passed yesterday by the House, but don't start searching the skies for the black helicopters yet: the bill doesn't require any active surveillance of user behavior, and it won't affect your local coffee shop's WiFi, despite what you may have read."

Quote :

"Now, what does the bill not do? It explicitly tells ISPs that they do not need to "monitor any user, subscriber, or customer," they do not need to "monitor the content of any indication," or even "affirmatively seek facts or circumstances." In other words, if you see it, you are legally obligated to report it, but ISPs do not need to become child porn detectives."

Quote :

"WiFi isn't mentioned in the bill. Neither are coffee shops, libraries, or individuals running access points in their basements. The bill's provisions apply to anyone "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." Parse that as you will."

Quote :

"Whatever the bill applies to, though, the law is quite clear that those who offer Internet access don't have to do any additional monitoring. There are no "restrictions" on their services. The bill updates an already-existing notifcation requirement and stiffens the penalties, but only for those presented with clear evidence of child porn who make a "knowing and willful failure" to report it."

12/6/2007 11:33:07 PM

Quote :

"The government isn't torturing anyone for looking at child porn. If you look like a mark in prison then that's your fault."

I couldn't disagree more. The abuses in prisons are horrible violations of human rights. I'm sickened that so many people accept them.

"Yeah, I'll lock you up, control damn near every aspect of your life. But if you can't fight off the rapists, it's your own problem. Why don't you defend yourself?"

Isn't wonderful how the least violent people end up doing the worst in this system?

12/7/2007 12:35:19 AM

is it just me, or does GoldenViper sound like a NAMBLA apologist?

12/7/2007 1:05:46 AM

the problem is not in stopping child pornography. the issue is that its stepping stones to the virtual elimination of privacy. I can see it now

"Dear, AOL,

We have credible 'evidence' that George Jung has child porn. please send us all his info, emails, etc according to Executive order 4243 approved by house bill 1959"

Turns out of course George Jung has no child porn evidence; but oh WAIT emails regarding drug transactions; let's bring in the DEA and bust him!!! The patriot acts have already been utilized for situations not involving terrorism. Sadly our gov't is evolving into a totalitarian state much like the transformation of the roman republic. The important part of learning about history is learn from mistakes of the past. Hopefully, this country can start moving in the direction to which it was founded with a deep respect for the constitution in order to safeguard civil rights.

12/7/2007 1:07:22 AM

Quote :

"is it just me, or does GoldenViper sound like a NAMBLA apologist?"

It's not just you. Others have made similar observations in the past. Most notably, GrumpyGOP did so way back when.

12/7/2007 1:21:16 AM

ok i think starbucks should be fined if they dont rat someone out while using their internet....which side of the votes am i on? the one that all voted for it, or the ron paul and other guy side?

12/7/2007 1:25:18 AM

Wouldn't the net affect of this bill be less logging of who logged onto what by companies and ISPs. Wouldn't they want to be able to use the deniability clause?

12/7/2007 1:52:15 AM