Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Government Censorship Your Rights Online

Congress May Require ISPs To Block Certain Fraud Sites 180

Posted by Soulskill
from the just-getting-warmed-up dept.
FutureDomain writes "A bill which just passed the House Financial Services Committee would require Internet Service Providers to block access to sites hosting financial scams that pose as members of the government-backed Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC). The bill, called the Investor Protection Act and sponsored by Paul Kanjorski (D-PA), is broad enough to block not only websites, but email and any other 'electronic material.' 'Internet providers are also worried that Kanjorski's requirement — and the accompanying civil penalties and injunctions — would apply even if the blocking is not technically feasible.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Congress May Require ISPs To Block Certain Fraud Sites

Comments Filter:
  • OpenDNS (Score:2, Informative)

    by LinuxIsGarbage (1658307) on Thursday November 05, 2009 @09:45AM (#29994030)
  • Re:good or bad? (Score:5, Informative)

    by FlyingBishop (1293238) on Thursday November 05, 2009 @10:37AM (#29994600)

    I don't think you have a proper understanding of what a bureaucrat is. A congressman is not a bureaucrat. A bureaucrat is a member of the treasury department (and the treasury wisely included no such provision as this in their bill.)

    A bureaucrat is also a member of ICANN or the FCC, the former of which has regulated the Internet so well that most people aren't even aware of its regulatory authority. The latter has demonstrated such a thoughtful and intelligent understanding of the issues at play that the ISPs have tried to smash the FCC down before it manages to rein in the ISPs' flagrant abuses of power.

    Bureaucrats who have no idea what they're talking about are terrible things. However, if you look around you'll find most bureaucrats know exactly what they're talking about. It's the politicians you need to watch out for.

  • by natehoy (1608657) on Thursday November 05, 2009 @10:51AM (#29994778) Journal

    Unfortunately, a lot of people don't understand that "the internet is not .com". I run a couple of web sites for organizations, and I have to get the .com as well as the .org for any domains, because 20-30% of visitors come to the .com one, and if I don't snag the .com immediately I'll get complaints that the organization I support is a front for porn or ad sites.

    I once tried to give out a .org address to someone, and they asked (I am not making this up), "so that's xyz dot org dot com?" - I finally gave up and made it a habit to grab the .org AND .com for any org I set up.

    PS: annualcreditreport.gov does work. It redirects to the FTC, which has links to annualcreditreport.com. Annualcreditreport.com is a non-Governmental organization, set up in response to demands from the government that consumers get annual free access to their credit reports. So giving them a .gov URL would be inappropriate.

    Freecreditreport.com, on the other hand, belongs to consumerinfo.com, and is a pay-for site that is desperately trying to pretend to be the FTC-mandated free credit check service, but is in fact a "free trial with automatic renewal at $15 a month after seven days" service. As with many such services, good luck canceling it before you get whacked $15 a month for the rest of your life.

    And, of course, you can't stop such a service by non-payment. I mean, after all, it's run by Experian. Imagine what your credit report would look like if you tried to stop a payment to a credit reporting agency. Might as well slash your wrists now and save the agony.

  • by daninaustin (985354) on Thursday November 05, 2009 @11:04AM (#29994908)
    I think we should be more concerned about politicians who earmark millions of dollars for their family. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0907/5667.html [politico.com]

It is better to give than to lend, and it costs about the same.

Working...