Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Paul Pooh-Poohs Porn Panic
The Securing Adolescents From Exploitation-Online Act, a bill, according to CNET, "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," breezed through the House yesterday. The vote was an overwhelming—and frightening—409 to 2, with only Ron Paul and Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) opposing the bill. (Stay tuned for Dave Weigel's forthcoming profile of Broun.) As CNET notes, not a single Democrat voted against the act:
This is what the SAFE Act requires: 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 must (a) register their name, mailing address, phone number, and fax number with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children's "CyberTipline" and (b) "make a report" to the CyberTipline that (c) must include any information about the person or Internet address behind the suspect activity and (d) the illegal images themselves. (By the way, "electronic communications service" and "remote computing service" providers already have some reporting requirements under existing law too.)
The definition of which images qualify as illegal is expansive. It includes obvious child pornography, meaning photographs and videos of children being molested. But it also includes photographs of fully clothed minors in overly "lascivious" poses, and certain obscene visual depictions including a "drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting." (Yes, that covers the subset of anime called hentai).
Edward|12.6.07 @ 11:53AM|#
Ron Paul doesn't want to alienate his Nazi base. Very into porn, those Nazis.
VM|12.6.07 @ 11:53AM|#
HAY, Warren - time to start drinkin.
would
this pic of EDWEIRDOOOO be censored in this scenario? (yes,
that was unnecessary, but it is SFW, I guess)
Fluffy|12.6.07 @ 11:57AM|#
The whole "learns about" part of the bill is a gross canard,
disguised to make it appear to the public that if the coffee house
on the corner doesn't "learn about" what's going over their WiFi
net, they don't have to worry about it.
Bulllllll-sheet. It will take about five minutes for our crazed
Justice Department of psycho fuckwads to decide that not
scrutinizing your usage logs will constitute wilful ignorance.
|12.6.07 @ 11:59AM|#
Currenly, I leave my WiFi unsecured on purpose, as a freebie to
any neighbors who would like to take advantage of my unused
bandwidth. I don't have any way of complying with this bill (aside
from pulling the plug); I couldn't monitor what they were
downloading even if I wanted to.
Fucking Congress.
|12.6.07 @ 12:00PM|#
This law makes a lot of sense. This is nothing other than a
common-sense extension of the old grocer's responsibility
law:
If you sell a loaf of bread to someone, and they beat someone to
death with said loaf, you're responsible because clearly, the only
acceptable use for bread is beating people.
Got to keep your perspective, people.
Guy Montag|12.6.07 @ 12:03PM|#
JB,
Sorta the same here. I have a "secure" connection for one of my
neighbors. So, I guess I am in-the-clear on two counts since it is
not public and I do not see any of his traffic?
|12.6.07 @ 12:04PM|#
409 Congresssheep.
2 People with guts. (Note that both were Republicans. So much for
Democrat 'liberaltarians'.)
jimmydageek|12.6.07 @ 12:10PM|#
So, are they going to provide immunity when one of these providers gets hit with a lawsuit for releasing personal information?
|12.6.07 @ 12:10PM|#
I'm an electrical engineer so I'm pretty tech savvy but somebody correct me if I'm wrong. How is there any way to determine whether an image is illegal or not? All it is is 1's and 0's coming across the network. Even if it is in a standard format the only way to know that the image is illegal is for a human to view it. This means that the only way to prevent this from happening is to not have an open network. It seems to me that this is an attempt to effectively shutdown all open WiFi access points so that internet traffic can be more efficiently monitored. Call me crazy.
|12.6.07 @ 12:13PM|#
It is simply amazing how cowardly our representatives in
Washington are, especially during an election year.
Their modus operandi seems to be, "If it violates the Constitution,
but voting against it could look me look bad in someone's campaign
commercial, I'm a-votin' FOR it."
Weasels... all of them (except for 2).
|12.6.07 @ 12:13PM|#
Bet almost none of the 409 didn't read the bill, or listen to
any of their staffers who had. Their analysis in its entirety:
"It's about child porn. Gotta be for any bill that says its against
child porn. Imagine the hit pieces if I don't."
Hayseuss fricking Keerist.
And, of course, Edweird uses this example of Paul's almost singular
political courage to snipe at him.
Bad.
Franklin Harris|12.6.07 @ 12:14PM|#
So, basically, Congress just wants to scare people away from offering public wi-fi.
Eric Dondero|12.6.07 @ 12:15PM|#
The first commentor above makes a smart-ass remark about how
"Nazis are really into porn."
Actually, David Duke is indeed known to be a porno fiend. There are
extensive articles and interviews with him about this.
In the early 1990s, he even publicly advocated legalization of
prostitution.
Episiarch|12.6.07 @ 12:18PM|#
Jim is correct that there's no way (outside of something
super-advanced that the NSA might have/be working on) to "monitor"
binary images without a human actually looking at them.
So what are providers supposed to do, cache all images that come
down the feed? Every fucking web page is tons of images. Reviewing
all those images would be impossible, unless you hired (meaning
spend your own money) enough eyeballs to look at all images.
This is just another combo of 1) porn panic and pandering, and 2)
the government forcing private entities to enforce laws to push
their ever-escalating law enforcement costs off. Costs created by
idiotic laws like this and the WOD.
|12.6.07 @ 12:21PM|#
Great. Another "well-intentioned" law that won't stop child
pornography, but increases the chances of some unsuspecting person
to be smeared in a child pornography investigation.
I can see requiring someone to report this child pornography if
they stumbled across it, but as usual, they've worded it so that
the only way to be safe is to turn over all data .
|12.6.07 @ 12:23PM|#
Do NOT click on the link if you are easily
offended.
Does this
qualify?
Just askin'.
|12.6.07 @ 12:24PM|#
"Yes, that covers the subset of anime called hentai"
All hentai or just the one in which characters could be seen as
minors? http://i.somethingawful.com/hentai/criticalpoint/18.jpg
|12.6.07 @ 12:26PM|#
I couldn't monitor what they were downloading even if I wanted to.
Sure you could, if it's your router or access point that they're
connecting to. It doesn't matter anyway since the legislation is
nonsense.
I'm looking forward to that profile of Broun.
Ron Paul is up to 8% with likely Republican Primary
voters nationwide. That's 3 points behind McCain and 4 behind
Romney.
|12.6.07 @ 12:27PM|#
Is it any wonder that the saviour dem congress is viewed even more negatively than the Bush neocon administration? After the Revolution seats Ron Paul as POTUS our work will just be beginning as We The People replace our failed representatives in Congress.
Jozef|12.6.07 @ 12:29PM|#
So, basically, Congress just wants to scare people away from
offering public wi-fi.
And we have a winner! Or at least someone who thinks like me. When
I first read the CNet story, my first thought was that the
politicians are just as stupid as they look (as they say never
attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence); after
all, they don't know the difference between the Internet and a
sewage system. Then I realized that, just with other laws, SAFE was
written by a third party with vested interest, and not politicians.
I see this act as an early, veiled attempt at crushing mesh networking,
which presents the first serious threat to centralized ISPs since
Al Gore invented the Internet.
.|12.6.07 @ 12:32PM|#
"I'm an electrical engineer so I'm pretty tech savvy but
somebody correct me if I'm wrong. How is there any way to determine
whether an image is illegal or not? All it is is 1's and 0's coming
across the network. Even if it is in a standard format the only way
to know that the image is illegal is for a human to view it. This
means that the only way to prevent this from happening is to not
have an open network. It seems to me that this is an attempt to
effectively shutdown all open WiFi access points so that internet
traffic can be more efficiently monitored. Call me crazy."
Jim - Its POSSIBLE to figure out how all the various packets go
together, and what sort of file format they should be, but it isn't
particularly easy. Its probably impossible for most home wireless
routers without some type of software update (and probably
impossible to store the amount of data going through even a home
network anyways with one of those things, meaning more devices are
required) and its unlikely that the local Starbucks has something
significantly more powerful than the average home wi-fi router as
well.
So, are you except from this law if you are using technology unable
to store all images that go through the network?
Fluffy|12.6.07 @ 12:32PM|#
So what are providers supposed to do, cache all images that come
down the feed?
Episiarch, there is software available to allow you to capture the
browsing, download and keystroke history of anyone using your WiFi
connection.
This would enable you to duplicate the session of any "suspicious"
user. You could see what sites they visited and what files they
downloaded, and you could then report them if the images they
download are "obscene".
I wasn't kidding or playing the slippery slope card above. I am
convinced that no slippery slope is needed here. Failure to monitor
will be seen as wilful ignorance. If you put monitoring software in
place, the JoD will declare that this creates the presumption that
you know about all the content on your network. No one will be able
to claim that they had no idea what people used their networks
for.
|12.6.07 @ 12:33PM|#
If big p2p companies with big servers and savy engineers could
not stop that type of content from flowing in their servers.How do
they expect individuals or "Coffe shops" to monitor what is going
in and out of their small wifi networks !!
Who lobbied for this bill ? the digital cable companies ?
|12.6.07 @ 12:33PM|#
Sure you could, if it's your router or access point that
they're connecting to. It doesn't matter anyway since the
legislation is nonsense.
Seriously, if I have a wireless router for my DSL, and my neighbor
uses it, how on earth can I tell what they are looking at?
|12.6.07 @ 12:34PM|#
it also includes photographs of fully clothed minors in
overly "lascivious" poses,
In this definition, anyone allowing kids access their MySpace pages
will be a criminal.
|12.6.07 @ 12:36PM|#
If it saves just one child, it's worth building a police state where big brother can molest the privacy of every citizen. Just make sure I can get an abortion on demand and vote for Every law that protects children and we will finally have utopia!
|12.6.07 @ 12:37PM|#
Just another law that creates oodles of new "criminals". It's really useful for a police state.
Paul|12.6.07 @ 12:39PM|#
You are still crying over spilled milk huh? Still trying to
paint Ron Paul with your "Nazi" brush to "pay back" some perceived
slight that your former boss enacted upon you by firing your
war-mongering ass when you steadfastly attempted and failed to sway
him on supporting the Iraq war.
What's wrong you Neo-Con worm? Isn't your attempt to oust Ron Paul
from his Congressional seat going well? Of course not. You have
neither the brains nor the principles needed to effectively
represent Paul's district and the constituency's resounding absence
of support for your candidacy is sending you a message.
The message is "We know you are a self-aggrandizing Neo-Con prick
and you need to crawl back underneath the rock that hid
you...worm." I'll bet you'd have voted for this assault on personal
freedom...wouldn't you?
.|12.6.07 @ 12:39PM|#
"Seriously, if I have a wireless router for my DSL, and my
neighbor uses it, how on earth can I tell what they are looking
at?"
There's probably not a "log content" setting, but its possible. It
would require work from you to set it up, and then continuous work
from then on to monitor it.
|12.6.07 @ 12:41PM|#
Of Course the above post is specifically for Eric Dondero...Ron Pauls ex-aid sand a smear-meister for the Neo-Cons.
VM|12.6.07 @ 12:42PM|#
Warren -
Old Weller 107.
*pours*
Jsub - that's how hysterical suburban soccer parents know that the
authorities are keeping them safe. (success = number of types of
criminals they're protecting you from)
Episiarch|12.6.07 @ 12:43PM|#
Episiarch, there is software available to allow you to
capture the browsing, download and keystroke history of anyone
using your WiFi connection.
Of course. But this requires storage space (a lot) which costs
money. Examining the images takes humans which costs money.
Besides all the bullshit of this plan described by many posters, it
also would place a serious monetary burden on compliance.
So it would in essence be a law-enforcement tax. Fuck you,
Congress.
|12.6.07 @ 12:43PM|#
So should I report this image? Actually, if this law passes, everyone should report the image, and all images like it. It's best to err on the side of protecting the children from predators like Leo, after all!
|12.6.07 @ 12:43PM|#
"they say never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence)" that philosophy only is applied to Congress. They are the only ones who seem to get a pass for steering us in the wrong direction. The rest of you need to toe the line and get in step. Who told you you could look into what they're doing? The only way to get elected president is by proving to the power brokers that you're dirtier and slicker than the rest of the country. Support our troops, but be sure to support policies set by draft dodgers, deferrment takers, AWOLer's, and of course The Military Industrial complex--Pay no attention to the men behind the curtain!
.|12.6.07 @ 12:48PM|#
If this applies to open networks only, couldn't you encrypt it, make the SSID: "The network key is 1234", still allow anyone access, but be exempt from the law because it is a protected network.
|12.6.07 @ 12:48PM|#
Jesus, VM... you need stronger warnings on that sort of thing. It gave me goatse flashbacks.
|12.6.07 @ 12:48PM|#
A VERY SAD IN MUDVILLE. I have been watching for sometime as our public officials ignore our pleas and requests to curb the governments intrusion into our lives. This is designed to jettison Americans from our country and leave it to mindless drones who do what they are told continue to eat the mind numbing garbage feed to us by the press "Uncle Sam"' see how long ago they started making the government some kind of "Uncle" family member who were are responsible to give our lives for. It is all a fake. They are afraid of us taking the "RED PILL" = R.P. ="RON PAUL". Wake the heck up..time is running out....
|12.6.07 @ 12:51PM|#
It says any open wi-fi "offered to the public"...so i assume that would not apply to your private home wi-fi...while a coffe shop is doomed...I don't think this applies to us having to monitor our neighbors....even though it may be an unsecured network, you are not "offering" it to the public.....(lol-i hope)
|12.6.07 @ 12:51PM|#
Jsub - that's how hysterical suburban soccer parents know
that the authorities are keeping them safe. (success = number of
types of criminals they're protecting you from)
I see. Like body counts in Nam. Everything old is new again.
VM|12.6.07 @ 12:52PM|#
Jake:
you're right. I should have included this warning:
One mustache, one cup!!
|12.6.07 @ 12:57PM|#
Say I were to log everything that goes through my router and
then review every piece of data. If somebody pulled up kitty porn
and I downloaded it again in the review, wouldn't reporting it open
me up to charges of possession of kitty porn?
It's not like that hasn't happened in the past.
Reinmoose|12.6.07 @ 1:01PM|#
let's see, who benefits from this?
Sprint
Verizon
Time Warner
Comcast
...etc.
As I see it, what this basically means is that the liability has
increased on those providing free unsecured wireless service in
their business. Who doesn't like that sort of thing? Companies who
would rather that each individual person buy internet service from
them. You want to be able to surf the internet while in a coffee
shop? Get the verizon broadband card for $60 a month! or find a
coffee shop who's willing to take on the liability of monitoring
your web usage.
|12.6.07 @ 1:03PM|#
If this is the same article I read, the scariest part was the
last sentence of the second paragraph.
" 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."
Police inspection of our email may become routine?
VM|12.6.07 @ 1:05PM|#
Smacky - knew what you meant :)
(cuz DUNDEROOO and EDWEIRDOOO are monopolizing it at present)
*pours drink and serves cheezburger*
hay - Chicago the 21st when LITTLE FYODOR is playing at Western and
Fullerton at Mutiny.
10pm. Friday, Dec 21.
see you then!!
Silvester The Cat|12.6.07 @ 1:08PM|#
Say I were to log everything that goes through my router and then review every piece of data. If somebody pulled up kitty porn and I downloaded it again in the review, wouldn't reporting it open me up to charges of possession of kitty porn?
Sufferin' Succotash! What a dethpicable thing to do!
Ska|12.6.07 @ 1:10PM|#
Here's an idea - go to your least favorite public library, community university, airport, etc. etc. that offers wifi to the public. Download some finely animated hentai. Tip off someone at said establishment, but someone who would have absolutely no fucking clue what to do about it. Tip off authorities regarding non compliance. Watch as (preferably government agencies) get fined and penalized because someone watched cartoon sex and didn't report it to the Cyberdouche line .
VM|12.6.07 @ 1:14PM|#
See what happens when Silvester doesn't know his sex ed:
hier
und hier
and shamefully,
aqui.
Reinmoose|12.6.07 @ 1:17PM|#
Will we start seeing hentai that is prefaced by "All characters
depicted in this porn are intended to be of age 18 or older?"
And by "we," I most definitely only mean those of you who watch
hentai porn
xtrabiggg|12.6.07 @ 1:19PM|#
Ron Paul was right to oppose this bill. It is so vague and
overreaching that ANYONE who provides access to a Wi-Fi connection
will be subject to prosecution. This bill is the equivalent of
prosecuting camera manufacturers for promoting child pornography,
since their camera was used in the process.
The internet is merely a morally-neutral TOOL that can be used in
numerous ways. A hammer can be use to build a Habitat for Humanity
Home, or can be used to bludgeon someone. Do we ban use of all
hammers or require government regulation of each and every use? Of
course not! That would be as ridiculous as the provisions of this
House Bill!
xtrabiggg
+++++++++++++++++++
|12.6.07 @ 1:23PM|#
Reinmoose,
I think they already do that. A disclaimer such as "all of our
characters are age 18 or older". I saw it on a website that
reviewed hentai video games (or whatever they're called). I myself
don't watch hentai.
|12.6.07 @ 1:24PM|#
Remember, libertarians, all those large corporations that bought up Congress are a good thing....
|12.6.07 @ 1:48PM|#
All this is going to do is make businesses do everything they can to make sure they don't know what people are looking at. So instead of throwing someone out who's looking at porn in a coffee shop they're just going to pretend they didn't see it.
|12.6.07 @ 2:03PM|#
Lamar, sweetie,
Without the lawmaking power of the government, those corporations
wouldn't be much of a threat.
That's why big business loves big government.
|12.6.07 @ 2:11PM|#
So is the picture/video illegal? Or is the event that was
captured on the picture/video illegal? Both?
I see convenience store robberies on court TV all the time. So by
the same rationale, these videos and images are illegal, albeit
without the sicko element. Am I breaking the law by watching those
two bank robber gunmen in LA? Or the Rodney King Beating? How about
the video of the planes crashing into the world trade center? That
is a pretty sicko thing, yet there's no laws stopping people from
passing them around on the internet. I think I'm confused.
|12.6.07 @ 2:13PM|#
even though it may be an unsecured network, you are not
"offering" it to the public
I suggest to you that the distinction between a network that is
"available" to the public and "offered to" the public may not be
obvious to prosecutors who struggle with the distinction between,
say, a tennis shoe and a deadly weapon.
Reinmoose|12.6.07 @ 2:14PM|#
Just wait until we all have to register our camera with the government and there are federally mandated signatures on all pictures that identify which camera they came from. Who says 15 years from now? Do I hear 10?
Sara|12.6.07 @ 2:16PM|#
Would Starbucks count as "public" if they're charging people for
access? How is that different from a normal ISP that charges for
access?
What if there was a simple "become a member of our free private
network" link and then Voila! Access.
Another Phil|12.6.07 @ 2:20PM|#
Seriously, if I have a wireless router for my DSL, and my
neighbor uses it, how on earth can I tell what they are looking
at?
It depends on the router. I used to use one of the home network
type Linksys routers at the office I manage. It came with an
activity logging utility. You install the utility on one of the PCs
on the network (you have to give that PC a fixed IP address). You
then enable logging using the browser-based router management
software, pointing it to the IP address of the PC running the
logging software. You can then see every incoming and outgoing
request made to the router.
That's not the only way to log traffic, but it's a way you can do
it using only your PC and a router you can buy for $50. Then all
you'd have to do is follow every single URL in the log, devoting
your life to it, and opening yourself up to charges of possession
of child pornography for having downloaded the images.
|12.6.07 @ 2:23PM|#
Wsa the Reason pillow girl of age?
I want proof, or I'm reporting Moynihan and the entire Reason staff
to the feds.
Then I'm going to turn myself in.
Edward|12.6.07 @ 2:25PM|#
Warren,
How will you deal with this urge to throw your money away when this
is over?
Max|12.6.07 @ 2:27PM|#
Even if someone with the knowhow could track down every
"offensive" image how do you know if it is kiddie porn until one
tracks down the photo-star to check his or her papers?
Is it the idea of kiddie porn, the actual kiddie porn, or both they
are after?
Is fake kiddie porn going to be targeted too?
What about innocuous images of children that get sickos off? Are
they going to be targeted too? No more flicker account for my
sister to send me those god-awful, boring pictures of my niece on
the swing-set. I wouldn't want to be an upstart.
Give me a fucking break.
jj|12.6.07 @ 2:34PM|#
If I remember correctly Paul Broun ran as a "Ron Paul
Republican," as he put it. As a relative unknown he succeeded in
beating out formidable opponents.
There may indeed be coat tails to the Ron Paul Revolution.
|12.6.07 @ 2:36PM|#
For starters, how the hell can they go after drawings/cartoons,
considering the "virtual child porn" ruling of a few years
ago?
Aside from that, did anyone actually read this law, or were they
just told "Child Porn Bad! Vote for Law! 9/11!" and it ended
there?
Paul|12.6.07 @ 2:44PM|#
< i>Seriously, if I have a wireless router for my DSL, and
my neighbor uses it, how on earth can I tell what they are looking
at?
You figure that out, RC, or you'll be facing a $300,000 fine.
Geotpf|12.6.07 @ 3:13PM|#
This law is almost certainly unconstitutional, if anybody ever
bothers to file a prosecution using it.
Under the unconstitutional, and ridiculous, legal theory that "a
depiction of a minor naked is kiddie porn even if no minor is
involved" (which keeps coming up), a PG-13 movie which grossed $1.9
billion in theatrical grosses (Titanic) would be classified as
kiddie porn. Kate Winslet's character was 17 in the movie (even
though the actress was older), and she appeared topless in
it.
Of course, even though it's unenforceable, it's still horrible to
have such a blatantly stupid law on the books.
|12.6.07 @ 3:13PM|#
This bill does not go nearly far enough. What about the
liability of the PC manufacturers? What about the compression
algorithm inventors (AVI, MP4, MOV)? What about the power company??
IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN!
If it were not for the firm constricting hand of government, the
welfare of children would be up to their parents alone!
Oh wait, wasn't there some sort of "Congress shall make no law…"
thingy in an old document somewhere?
|12.6.07 @ 3:50PM|#
Am I breaking the law by watching those two bank robber
gunmen in LA? Or the Rodney King Beating? How about the video of
the planes crashing into the world trade center? That is a pretty
sicko thing, yet there's no laws stopping people from passing them
around on the internet. I think I'm confused.
Lemme clear that up for ya. It's about SEX. SEX, except for making
babies in a government sanctified relationship, is EVIL. It must be
stopped at all costs. Adults have to be prohibited from viewing
SEXUALLY related material to "protect the children!"
Does that help?
|12.6.07 @ 4:02PM|#
I offer unsecured Wi-Fi for anyone that can hook up to it because I like to be a nice neighbor. Looks like I'm going to have to secure my connection now, though. Fucking Congress.
Ali (aka iih)|12.6.07 @ 4:14PM|#
I offer unsecured Wi-Fi for anyone that can hook up to it
because I like to be a nice neighbor. Looks like I'm going to have
to secure my connection now, though. Fucking Congress.
I left mine free for a couple of months as pay back to all the
generous people who had theirs free for all. I lived off of them
for about 4 years, in around 4 major cities and towns. Would that
be a fair deal?
Fucking Congress.
Just saying that might violate HR
1955, regardless of what you say is meant literally or
figuratively.
Ah, free speech!
|12.6.07 @ 4:16PM|#
Seriously, if I have a wireless router for my DSL, and my neighbor uses it, how on earth can I tell what they are looking at?
As Another Phil mentioned above, many routers already have this
logging capability built into them. If you want a lot of features
(like reconstructing entire sessions), you can use one of
many commercial products available. There is also plenty of
open
source software for monitoring network traffic. Really, if
you're not encrypting your wireless traffic, the only condition
that needs to be satisfied for someone to monitor your traffic is
that they are within range of the access point.
Remember, libertarians, all those large corporations that bought up Congress are a good thing....
Huh??? Why?
I suggest to you that the distinction between a network that is "available" to the public and "offered to" the public may not be obvious to prosecutors who struggle with the distinction between, say, a tennis shoe and a deadly weapon.
Very good point. If I'm broadcasting the SSID of my unencrypted
network, you can definitely make the argument that I'm "offering it
to the public".
|12.6.07 @ 4:26PM|#
`Subtitle J--Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown
Terrorism
`SEC. 899A. DEFINITIONS.
`For purposes of this subtitle:
`(1) COMMISSION- The term `Commission' means the National
Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and
Homegrown Terrorism established under section 899C.
`(2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term `violent radicalization'
means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief
system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence
to advance political, religious, or social change.
`(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism' means the
use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a
group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily
within the United States or any possession of the United States to
intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian
population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in
furtherance of political or social objectives.
`(4) IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term `ideologically based
violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or
violence by a group or individual to promote the group or
individual's political, religious, or social beliefs.
OOOOHHHHHH the irony. The very mechanism that found this country is
to be considered terrorism. I'm sure that was the British point of
view back then.
If you make it punishable by death, you can justify what Saddam did
to those rebelious Shias after Gulfwar I.
|12.6.07 @ 4:39PM|#
2girls1cup will prevail over this tyranny!!!!
What we clearly need is for Max Hardcore to testify before
Congress.
|12.6.07 @ 4:40PM|#
Here's some humor.
"`(8) Any measure taken to prevent violent radicalization,
homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence and homegrown
terrorism in the United States should not violate the
constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United
States citizens or lawful permanent residents."
Does this mean they have to stop illegal wiretaping?
In the name of anti-terror, we can do anything to visiting
tourists, and illegal aliens. No wonder it's a hit.
|12.6.07 @ 4:55PM|#
A bit of libertarian trivia:
In "The American Zone" a certain "representative Paulchinsky" is
exiled from the US and his political career destroyed on
accusations of child porn....
|12.6.07 @ 5:18PM|#
Very good point. If I'm broadcasting the SSID of my
unencrypted network, you can definitely make the argument that I'm
"offering it to the public".
If I leave my front door unlocked and open, because I like the cool
summer breeze at night, that's not an offering to the public to
come in and use my stuff.
|12.6.07 @ 5:24PM|#
"There are only 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who
understand binary, and those who don't."
There are things you can buy to do this and more, but I used a free
program called Ethereal to capture my minor daughter's
instant message traffic. It wasn't easy--And that traffic is all
plain text.
It's possible to reconstruct JPEGs from the payloads of dozens of
1500 byte packets (I've done it) and conceivable to reconstruct
video streams in near-real-time. But that takes some serious CPU,
storage and connectivity.
Who in
their right mind would want to do something like that?
|12.6.07 @ 6:05PM|#
Should I construe this act as an attempt to shut down and burden
public Wi-Fi with unreasonable rules? Doesn't this destroy some
business plans for distributing Wi-Fi cheaply and
economically?
Who thinks some big corporations were behind this to start
eliminating competition or raise their own bottom lines? This is
adding a ridiculous cost overhead that isn't necessary and won't
prevent anything.
|12.6.07 @ 6:55PM|#
If I leave my front door unlocked and open, because I like the cool summer breeze at night, that's not an offering to the public to come in and use my stuff.
We're not talking about your property behind your front door. If
your unencrypted signal reaches public space or someone else's
private space (neighbor's apartment), you can't expect them to have
to ask to use it. You didn't ask if they wanted it in their space.
It's no different that radio, or even loud music. You can't blast
your music loud enough for all your neighbors to hear and then tell
them they're no allowed to listen to it.
Now, while you can get really technical about the meaning of
"offer" (does it imply intent to offer:), all I said was "you
can definitely make the argument".
|12.6.07 @ 6:58PM|#
Dont worry the same 409 votes will also soon vote to regulate
and tax the internet.
They will be the same to further step over and destroy the bill of
rights and the constitution.
The monitoring seems good, but it is a slippery slope and with
stuff like this getting past so quick I fear it is beyond a
slope... more like a 90 degree drop.
|12.6.07 @ 7:07PM|#
In the last 24 hours at least 1,284 people have pledged to give
a hundred bucks for the Ron Paul Tea Party on Dec. 16. Total
pledges are over 2.6 million. I don't know if it'll reach the 10
million goal, but it sure looks like 5+ is well within range.
Must be kitty porn lovers, all. Ain't that right,
Edwonderooooo?
Anna Nicole Sith|12.6.07 @ 7:47PM|#
I just think it's really great and awesome that Eric Dondero
(whatever he's calling himself these days) is so diligent on
keeping up with David Duke's porn habits.
Gloriosky!
LarryA|12.6.07 @ 9:06PM|#
(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism'
means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence
by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating
primarily within the United States or any possession of the United
States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the
civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof,
in furtherance of political or social objectives.
(8) Any measure taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown
terrorism, and ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism
in the United States should not violate the constitutional rights,
civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or
lawful permanent residents.
Just to state the obvious:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
1. Not "citizens or lawful permanent residents." All
men.
2. We have the right to "alter or abolish" government as we see
fit. If it takes "force or violence," so be it.
|12.6.07 @ 9:46PM|#
We're not talking about your property behind your front
door. If your unencrypted signal reaches public space or someone
else's private space (neighbor's apartment), you can't expect them
to have to ask to use it. You didn't ask if they wanted it in their
space. It's no different that radio, or even loud music. You can't
blast your music loud enough for all your neighbors to hear and
then tell them they're no allowed to listen to it.
I get your point, but you use poor analogies. In the loud music
case, you are creating a nuisance and your neighbors are within
every right to demand you stop broadcasting it. It's also a passive
experience. You need to do nothing to hear the music (other than
listen of course).
In the case of an open AP, it's anything but passive and it's clear
to anyone that the transceiver is hosted on someone else's
property. You have to take an affirmative action to use an open
AP.
A better analogy would be window with the shades up and you looking
into it from across the street using binoculars. Yes, I can pull
down my shade, but you can also go on the intertubes for your
porn.
It's a gray area, I fully admit that, but in the end it boils down
to a lack of respect on a neighbor's part to take a free ride on
your AP without your explicit consent. That said, my AP is tightly
locked down, with a very long passkey.
Eric Cartman|12.7.07 @ 1:27AM|#
Paul Pooh-Poohs Porn Panic
Congressman Paul, if you were in German Schiesse Video, you'd tell
me, wouldn't you?
Mad Max|12.7.07 @ 1:27AM|#
Apart from the First Amendment, there appears to be a problem
with this bill from the standpoint of the following clause of the
Fifth Amendment: "No person . . . shall be compelled in any
criminal case to be a witness against himself."
You can't be legally required to report information to
law-enforcement that a prosecutor (including an unethical
prosecutor) might seek to use against you. Congress could avoid
this problem by giving immunity to the person who provides the
information, but this bill specifies that there is no immunity for
"intentional misconduct."
So, if you report potetial porno of which you have "actual
knowledge" as a service provider, could a prosecutor (including an
unethical prosecutor) use that information against you? Heck yes!
Whether you're guilty or not, the prosecutor could say you were
deliberately hosting porno.
Anthony|12.7.07 @ 1:56AM|#
So did anyone actually go and look up the bill? Or are you all
so credulous as to actually believe Declan McCullagh without
fact-checking his ass?
The bill is stupid because it's pretty much redundant to existing
law. Even without it, any prosecutor who thinks someone's
downloading kiddie porn (or kiddie hentai) on your network can
subpeona your ass, and basically accomplish everything this bill
purports to accomplish.
This bill does not:
-change the definition of child porn
-change the government's power to eavesdrop on your network
-make a network provider criminally or civilly responsible for any
porn on the network, unless they fail to comply with the provisions
of the bill.
Reason ought to know better than to breathlessly repeat internet
hype without at least checking the text of the bill.
|12.9.07 @ 10:22AM|#
someone posted:>"They say never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence." that philosophy only is applied to Congress. They are the only ones who seem to get a pass for steering us in the wrong direction."
|12.9.07 @ 10:25AM|#
someone posted:"they say never attribute to malice what can be
explained by incompetence)" that philosophy only is applied to
Congress. They are the only ones who seem to get a pass for
steering us in the wrong direction."
But to be blind of the opposite is more dangerous. It should be,
from my view: "Never attribute to incompetence what can be
explained by malice." There's a saying in conspiracy truth circles:
If it's implemented by governments, it's so done with purpose and
intent. Our controllers are not incompetent. Complient...maybe;
incompetent...no. They know exactly what they are doing!
|12.9.07 @ 11:06AM|#
Speaking of Nazis and such: "For the sake of the children",
should we also ban from the 'net images of Nazi symbols, flags,
swastikas? And what about the Confederate battle flag? Perhaps net
cafes in Southern states should be required to report downloading
of Confederate battle flag images.
Or perhaps downloading images of WTC building 7 collapsing from an
obvious controlled demolition should be illegal, for we certainly
don't want to poison the minds of children with such images.
The 'slippery slope' seems to always start with, "for the sake of
the children"!
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245