Jump to content

House Passes Internet SAFE Act, Yay Censorship!


Passion
 Share

Recommended Posts

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."

 

The SAFE Act represents the latest in Congress' efforts--some of which have raised free speech and privacy concerns--to crack down on sex offenders and Internet predators. One bill introduced a year ago was even broader and would have forced Web sites and blogs to report illegal images. Another would require sex offenders to supply e-mail addresses and instant messaging user names.

 

Wednesday's vote caught Internet companies by surprise: the Democratic leadership rushed the SAFE Act to the floor under a procedure that's supposed to be reserved for noncontroversial legislation. It was introduced October 10, but has never received even one hearing or committee vote. In addition, the legislation approved this week has changed substantially since the earlier version and was not available for public review.

 

Not one Democrat opposed the SAFE Act. Two Republicans did: Rep. Ron Paul, the libertarian-leaning presidential candidate from Texas, and Rep. Paul Broun from Georgia.

 

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 ? 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).

 

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. So would e-mail service providers, including both Web-based ones and companies that offer POP or IMAP services.

 

"USISPA has long supported harmonized reporting of child pornography incidents to the (NCMEC). ISPs report over 30,000 incidents a year, and we work closely with NCMEC and law enforcement on the investigation," Kate Dean, head of the U.S. Internet Service Provider Association, said on Wednesday. "We remain concerned, however, that industry would be required to retain images of child pornography after reporting them to NCMEC. It seems like the better approach would be to require the private sector to turn over illicit images and not retain copies."

 

Failure to comply with the SAFE Act would result in an initial fine of up to $150,000, and fines of up to $300,000 for subsequent offenses. That's the stick. There's a carrot as well: anyone who does comply is immune from civil lawsuits and criminal prosecutions.

 

There are two more points worth noting. First, the vote on the SAFE Act seems unusually rushed. It's not entirely clear that the House Democratic leadership really meant this legislation to slap new restrictions on hundreds of thousands of Americans and small businesses who offer public wireless connections. But they'll nevertheless have to abide by the new rules if senators go along with this idea (and it's been a popular one in the Senate).

 

The second point is that Internet providers already are required by another federal law to report child pornography sightings to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which is in turn charged with forwarding that report to the appropriate police agency. So there's hardly an emergency, which makes the Democrats' rush for a vote more inexplicable than usual.

http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9829759-3...ml?tag=nefd.top

 

I strongly suggest you guys read all of this.

 

Combating child pornography is one thing, going after anything deemed 'obscene' and leaving it open to interpretation is another. I also think it is ridiculous to have every small business and coffee shop monitor people who are using their wireless internet and then potentially fining them substantial amounts of money.

 

This bill is troubling to someone who uses free and open Wi-Fi often, like myself.

 

Kudos to God Paul for being one of two to vote against this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This article is about as biased as can be but as Phantom said most parts of this can't hold up. It's just like the porn in the library case from about 10 years ago. Just too broad to possibly be left alone although the courts are far more conservative these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what happens when people who do not fully understand certain technologies become reactionary. I have to deal with decision makers like these on a daily basis. All they would have needed is a dissenting opinion from any member of their IT staff to shed some light on the subject and this never would have gone through.

 

Crazy.

 

On the flip side, how do you prevent abuse on free wi-fi networks?

 

Back to the counter point, how many home users do you think are tech savy enough to know how to lock down their wi-fi, hide their ssid, set up wpa, and would think to go to the trouble [and expense] of installing a content filter?

 

Completely unenforceable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what happens when people who do not fully understand certain technologies become reactionary. I have to deal with decision makers like these on a daily basis. All they would have needed is a dissenting opinion from any member of their IT staff to shed some light on the subject and this never would have gone through.

 

Crazy.

 

On the flip side, how do you prevent abuse on free wi-fi networks?

 

Back to the counter point, how many home users do you think are tech savy enough to know how to lock down their wi-fi, hide their ssid, set up wpa, and would think to go to the trouble [and expense] of installing a content filter?

 

Completely unenforceable.

 

Dude, you're right... I have no idea how to lock my own wi-fi...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What part of "Congress shall make NO law" is so dam hard to understand? Leave it to the states to regulate these things.

 

 

As a side note, I am vehemently-anti pronography, so my disdain for this is on constitutional grounds.

Just curious, why?

 

I take a functionalist view when it comes to vice in this country. I think legalizing and regulating most all of it would do a lot of good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What part of "Congress shall make NO law" is so dam hard to understand? Leave it to the states to regulate these things.

 

 

As a side note, I am vehemently-anti pronography, so my disdain for this is on constitutional grounds.

Just curious, why?

 

I take a functionalist view when it comes to vice in this country. I think legalizing and regulating most all of it would do a lot of good.

At heart, I am a religious nut-job who takes the "turn the other cheek" and "lusting after a woman is audltry" stuff that jesus said seriously. But also, it exploits women who are often addicts who resort to such acts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...