House Bill Won't Criminalize Free Wi-Fi Operators 540
Velcroman98 sends word of a bill that passed the US House of Representatives by a lopsided vote of 409 to 2. It would require everyone who runs an open Wi-Fi connection to report illegal images, including "obscene" cartoons and drawings, or be fined up to $300,000. The Securing Adolescents From Exploitation-Online (SAFE) Act was rushed through the House without any hearings or committee votes, and the version that passed on a voice vote reportedly differs substantially from the last publicly available version. CNET reports that sentiment in favor of such a bill is strong in the Senate as well. Update: 12/07 06:22 GMT by Z : As clarified in an Ars writeup, this summary is a bit off-base. The bill doesn't require WiFi owners to police anything, merely 'stiffening the penalties' for those who make no effort to report obvious child pornography.
Sad, but predictable (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow, the all-too-common convergence of a political media whore and a television media whore. Between the election year and the Writer's Guild strike, these two must be as happy as pigs in shit right now. I can almost hear them screaming "Won't someone please think of the children?!?!" from here.
Yet another fine example of the kind of far-reaching, ridiculously broad pieces of legislation that we get thanks to election year pandering. Normally, I wouldn't worry too much about this sort of legislation, as the courts usually strip it down pretty quickly. But with the courts so packed with hardcore conservatives right now, we can no longer count on that.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1. GPS
2. The Internet
3. Doppler Radar
Not all defense projects blow up. Just sayin'.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sad, but predictable (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh my God, how horrible! She really must hate the American people to do that, to show up all those other politicians, I mean. You're like the Union workers who put the thumb on the new guy who's doing "too much", except it's only too much for you when the other party is doing it.
If she does for the country what she did for NY then... she would know the top issues of every state and the country as a whole, be able to list what she did about each issue - and the list would be substantive, not fluff.
Now, you might have a point if the "stuff" she did were an anathema to your values or political views, but... did you even note that the parent said even their Republican relatives voted for her because she gets stuff done?
Note: I am not endorsing Hillary here it's just that it does not make any sense to bash her based on a trait that most everyone else in the world would view as a good thing, oh except that the carrier is not in my "in group".
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hillary/Monica 08?
Re:Sad, but predictable (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And it is my responsibility how to help those 'unlucky' in the lottery of life?? Where in the constitution does it spell out taking my hard earned dollars, and giving it to other people? I'm talking primarily about fed. tax here. As for local taxes, that take care of the infrastructure, I'm cool with that...that is more a state level service, and
Let's Elect 9/11! (Score:5, Funny)
9/11!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sad, but predictable (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sad, but predictable (Score:5, Insightful)
Nevertheless, this isn't about party. It's about ignorance. You can't enforce this. You can't even define what's illegal content. It can only be used to harass people some district attorney doesn't like. Period.
Re:Sad, but predictable (Score:4, Insightful)
I realize a lot of the reaction from Slashdot has been based on the article. However, the article bears little resemblance to the actual Bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:2:./temp/~c110gRla7T [loc.gov]::
Re:Sad, but predictable (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Sad, but predictable (Score:5, Informative)
Link? We don't need no steenking link! (Score:5, Informative)
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 3791
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Securing Adolescents From Exploitation-Online Act of 2007'' or the ``SAFE Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION SERVICE PROVIDERS AND REMOTE COMPUTING SERVICE PROVIDERS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 110 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 2258 the following:
``SEC. 2258A. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION SERVICE PROVIDERS AND REMOTE COMPUTING SERVICE PROVIDERS.
``(a) Duty To Report.--
``(1) IN GENERAL.--Whoever, while 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, obtains actual knowledge of any facts or circumstances described in paragraph (2) shall, as soon as reasonably possible--
``(A) complete and maintain with current information a registration with the CyberTipline of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, or any successor to the CyberTipline operated by such center, by providing the mailing address, telephone number, facsimile number, electronic mail address of, and individual point of contact for, such electronic communication service provider or remote computing service provider; and
``(B) make a report of such facts or circumstances to the CyberTipline, or any successor to the CyberTipline operated by such center.
``(2) FACTS OR CIRCUMSTANCES.--The facts or circumstances described in this paragraph are any facts or circumstances that appear to indicate a violation of--
``(A) section 2251, 2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2252B, or 2260 that involves child pornography; or
``(B) section 1466A.
``(b) Contents of Report.--To the extent available to an electronic communication service provider or a remote computing service provider, each report under subsection (a)(1) shall include the following information:
``(1) INFORMATION ABOUT THE INVOLVED INDIVIDUAL.--Information relating to the Internet identity of any individual who appears to have violated a Federal law in the manner described in subsection (a)(2), which shall, to the extent reasonably practicable, include the electronic mail address, website address, uniform resource locator, or any other identifying information, including self-reported identifying information.
``(2) HISTORICAL REFERENCE.--Information relating to when any apparent child pornography was uploaded, transmitted, reported to, or discovered by the electronic communication service provider or remote computing service provider, as the case may be, including a date and time stamp and time zone.
``(3) GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION INFORMATION.--Information relating to the geographic location of the involved individual, hosting website, or uniform resource locator, which shall include the Internet Protocol Address or verified billing address, or, if not reasonably available, at least one form of geographic identifying information, including area code or zip code. The in
Ironically... (Score:5, Interesting)
Two Republicans were the two "No" votes. Ron Paul was one (which warms my little black heart; how cute! A politician that doesn't pander with 'teh children'. He's doomed, but hopefully not before I can cast a ballot for him in my state's primary) and someone I'd never heard of--Paul Broun (R)- GA.
When this gets to the Senate, hilarity will undoubtedly ensue as the candidates trip over each other to save the children from the pixels that everyone knows make the Baby Jesus cry. I can hope that maybe one or two will rise above (Obama, I'm looking at you), but I'm not holding my breath.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ironically... (Score:4, Interesting)
You misunderstand my mockery. I think Ron Paul is a long-shot but he isn't "doomed" by any stretch. However, the received political wisdom is that anyone who protects (pornographers/drug dealers/molesters) against "the children" and for "due process/civil rights" is unrighteously fucked in US national politics, and that was what I was riffing on. I care little for "received political wisdom", as it manages to nearly always to be wrong. HRC is busy self-destructing in Iowa by following it--and that warms my little black heart all the more.
I'm still not exactly sanguine about the possibility that R. Paul will last till my (sadly late and otherwise insignificant) state's primary. That does make me sad inside. ;)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
re: Borderline Libertarian...that's a good way of putting it; I share a similar sentiment.
re: "The side of the room", I think that Ron Paul is attracting the fringes because the fringes are those who are hurt the most consistently by government being powerful. His message attracts those who feel persecuted by government action, which has to include right-wing wackos and organized hate groups; if a politician says "I will defend freedom of association" and means it (as R. Paul seems to) associations of peo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I can tell you exactly what it is.
The constitution was designed to make things difficult for the government with regard to things done in privacy, which is a system of social boundaries well understood both then, and now. It safeguarded your communications, personal records, your home, basically set things up so that in order for the government to come after you, they had to have
It's unconstitional (Score:2)
What a nation of paranoid nannies we're becoming.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If someone uses your connection to view kiddie porn, the police will go after you. No change there... the defense of 'someone else was using my computer' has been used too often and they don't believe it any more.
If you are insane enough to open your wifi then for gods sake setup a decent firewall and a proxy so you can log who's been viewing what, otherwise you could find yourself at the wrong end o
Re:It's unconstitional (Score:5, Insightful)
Next, there are some very valid reasons for there to be open WiFi access points. All coffee joints and hip restaurants in any given town have them, and they should. It is "a good thing"(tm). Unfounded fear of pron should not take away one of the best sociological innovations of our era, and you should not be advocating that it does.
Re:Sad, but predictable (Score:5, Insightful)
" (a) Duty To Report-
`(1) IN GENERAL- Whoever, while 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, obtains actual knowledge of any facts or circumstances described in paragraph (2) shall, as soon as reasonably possible--
`(A) complete and maintain with current information a registration with the CyberTipline of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, or any successor to the CyberTipline operated by such center, by providing the mailing address, telephone number, facsimile number, electronic mail address of, and individual point of contact for, such electronic communication service provider or remote computing service provider; and
`(B) make a report of such facts or circumstances to the CyberTipline, or any successor to the CyberTipline operated by such center.
`(2) FACTS OR CIRCUMSTANCES- The facts or circumstances described in this paragraph are any facts or circumstances that appear to indicate a violation of--
`(A) section 2251, 2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2252B, or 2260 that involves child pornography; or
`(B) section 1466A."
Basically, if you are operating a Wi-Fi service, and find out that one of your users is downloading or uploading child porn, you are responsible for reporting it. What part of that is controversial?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And if you think kiddie porn should be legal, you are a nut.
Re:Sad, but predictable (Score:4, Insightful)
Wouldn't be easier... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Now, right or wrong, we can see that this is a double edged sword.
If you leave your front door open, and hookers and on-the-run criminals move in, then you'll probably go to jail for running a brothel or harboring a fugative (etc).
Can't have it every way.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't steal it from me if I'm freely giving it away. An open wifi is not the same as an open front door. The analogy is rediculously stupid.
If a bank robber uses my yard as part of his getaway route I should be prosecuted for not posting a "no tresspassing" sign, even if I don't care if people cut across my yard? WTF???
Re:Wouldn't be easier... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think we should do what we did with the CDA. Everyone with a website should turn their pages to black the day this law gets passed.
Re:Wouldn't be easier... (Score:5, Informative)
(1) IN GENERAL- Whoever, while 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, obtains actual knowledge of any facts or circumstances described in paragraph (2) shall, as soon as reasonably possible--
So, it does not require any actual monitoring. If monitoring does occur and you find a user d/ling child porn, you must report. If you think that we should shut down the internet for a day to protest this, you are nuts.
Re:Wouldn't be easier... (Score:5, Insightful)
This law is a fundamentally awful idea in every way, but it stands atop many, existing fundamentally awful laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wouldn't be easier... (Score:4, Informative)
Figures (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems that this is the way congress works in general these days.
Re:Figures (Score:4, Insightful)
Stupid (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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
I don't see any monitoring requirements imposed by the bill as summarized in the article. As such, the bill imposes an obligation to report these activities only if you somehow learn about them, i.e. you can't knowingly allow these activities on your network without reporting them. That's a lot different than holding network operators responsible for what goes over the network, whether they know or not.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Crap like this (Score:4, Insightful)
makes me wish I hadn't had children, so that common sense and basic liberty wouldn't be taken hostage in their names.
But then rationality returns to me and I wish that the parents of those tards in Congress hadn't had children.
Sorry, that was unnecessarily harsh and unfair to the mentally retarded, comparing them to Congress.
Re: (Score:2)
I tend to agree, but keep in mind there is no shortage of morons to replace them.
Bombs won't do it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bombs won't do it (Score:4, Funny)
No, terrorists could use rocks as weapons.
Re: (Score:2)
Stupid, moronic, fearmongering, etc. (Score:5, Insightful)
I realize the answer to that question is "Yes," and that's how the US government works. Make laws to make most people criminals, then when we throw them in the slammer, we can show the sheep^W people how tough we are on crime in election years.
But really...are you going to have cops driving around residential areas stopping at every other house handing out tickets for $300,000 fines?
Seriously, your country is fscked up.
Re:Stupid, moronic, fearmongering, etc. (Score:5, Informative)
" `(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, if you don't monitor, you are not in trouble. I realize the article made incorrect statements about the Bill, but the Bill itself is, at worst, ineffective, not Orwellian.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So just don't monitor anything. Who would want to assume this massive liability of monitoring in exchange for nothing other than being a "good citizen"? This is yet another example of a law which drives citizens to take an out of sight out of mind approach to their lives and makes the very criminal activity that it is attempting to control more likely than it otherwise would have been. Nobody wants to be the messenger when the messenger makes a convenient
Re:Stupid, moronic, fearmongering, etc. (Score:4, Insightful)
As anyone with experience living in ex-communist country, I can tell you this system works well. You, as government, don't have to actually prosecute (! or even accuse !) everybody, just make sure that your people know anybody can get stepped over at government's will, without much harm to others (so not to be forced to organize themselves against you), because it's impossible to live a normal live and not cross an absurd law with extensive consequences.
MOD PARENT UP (Score:3, Insightful)
What sheer idiocy? (Score:5, Informative)
The article mentions this existing law...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00013032----000-.html [cornell.edu]
No monitoring requirements, no evidence preservation, weak, etc.
So, you already have to report known cases.
This bill [loc.gov], or is it this [loc.gov] one.. is a lot more specific.
The only new monitoring requirement is that a court may require convicted child abusers to use a monitored internet connection and the provider will get an extra $50 a month.
Here's another useful tidbit..
`(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).
I'm confused by the different versions too, but what is all the fuss over? I don't see where this will have any real impact on commercial WiFi providers, or individuals.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It couldn't be "universally" enforced, but it could definitely be "selectively" enforced.
So if I left my keys in the car (Score:4, Interesting)
Running an unsecured WiFi is not a smart idea but we can't punish people for being stupid otherwise many of my friends would spend there lives in jail.
The 2 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
It's human nature (Score:3, Insightful)
I think we all remember "It's a series of tubes" and these are the people deciding how the future generations will use it because they wanted to "protect" them? Protecting children is what parents are for. When we where kids we played in the streets with rusty metal and no one cared. Now child services would be called on our parents.
Huh (Score:4, Interesting)
Is it any wonder that their approval rating is in the tank? All this talk of transparency in government, and they pull oddball stunts like this.
Nothing to see here (Score:2, Insightful)
Reading the article, it doesn't look like it has much in the way of teeth with respect to Wi-Fi. There is no indication that you are required to monitor the wi-fi connection for such material, or, that in the absence of any such monitoring, that you would be responsible.
WTH Hentai? (Score:2, Funny)
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).
Since when did *hentai* ever harm children?
Oh, please think of the E-children, please!!
Oblig. Ron Paul (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Oblig. Ron Paul (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Article about his Paul-like ideals [opinionjournal.com]
Maybe the Republic IS moving towards more freedom and less tyranny. 400 more like these guys and I may actually shut up about 70% of my gripes. Not all, but most.
Read The Bill.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you DO find out someone was using your personal WAP to spread kiddy porn, do your best to report them. There are already reporting requirements [smith-lawfirm.com] for child abuse in most states.
This will affect anyone providing internet access by any means, not just WiFi.
Also, it says IF you find something worth reporting to the NCMEC, report it. No
The Actual Bill (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:The Actual Bill (Score:4, Informative)
"while 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, obtains actual knowledge of any facts or circumstances described in paragraph (2) shall, as soon as reasonably possible--"
This indicates to me that 1) You are intending to provide a service, and that you obtain knowledge. You are not required to monitor your users' behavior.
So, sounds like a really ineffective law. Hardly Orwellian.
This comes as no surprise (Score:4, Insightful)
Remember, whenever these people say "it's for the children", there is a more insidious motive behind it.
If they just said that they were going to require monitoring everyone's Internet traffic, there would be an uproar. But, if it is to find kiddie porn, well, then hell yeah, 409-2! Same effect. One really has to wonder what percentage of traffic will actually have these offending files. This will require serious scrutiny to find anything. Game, set, match.
They didn't think this one through... (Score:5, Insightful)
So, let me get this straight. If a pedophile starts up an open Wi-Fi access point, then he connects to it with a laptop that can't be traced to him, he can monitor the traffic, and save all the images that go across the wire. Then he tosses the laptop, reports it, and then he has a perfectly legal excuse as to why he's holding kiddie porn on his computer.
I. Call. Bull. Shit.
~Sticky
/First, all the politicians.
//Then, the lawyers.
///Then, the pedophiles.
the common wisdom here (Score:4, Interesting)
however, the same slashdot crowd will kvetch about computer noobs running wifi without any security, not even weak wep. i can look for wifi near my apartment and list about 5 such open connections, as could a lot of slashdotters anywhere in the country, or the world. and i myself have used such open connections to suck down pirate media (and you know that the next logical extension of "think of the children" is "think of the starving music executive"), as have some slashdotters here i bet
so the security-minded slashdot crowd will say you need wpa at least and encrypt everything that goes over the air anyways (and limit access by mac addresses, and block unnecessary ports, etc.)
ok, fine. well an insane law like this is the only thing that will get us such a world. i'm sorry, but that's the truth
what i'm saying is, noobs can not be motivated to be careful, unless the penalties are severe. in fact, the penalties are fundamentally unjust and insane must be to force such motivation on noobs to stop being careless and lazy and uneducate don the issue. i bet a lot of them even know all about the issue, but are just too lazy to configure their set up
so take your pick slashdot:
1. insane law, sane security practices
2. sane legislators, insane security lapses
you can't have both in this world with today's wifi technology
i'm not saying this dichotomy is correct, i am just saying it is reality
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Which, to me, seems very reasonable, and perhaps even positive.
You already *are* guilty if you neglect to report crimes you know about (no not copyright infringement, which is exempt from this).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think men should not be allowed to wear spandex. Let's make a law about it!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
so take your pick slashdot:
1. insane law, sane security practices
2. sane legislators, insane security lapses
I can't believe that you are a proponent of laws to fix technical issues, but that does appear what you're going for with this post.
ok, fine. well an insane law like this is the only thing that will get us such a world. i'm sorry, but that's the truth
It is my belief that as soon as laws catch up with technology this will be true, uh, wait! the law will never catch up with technology! So you end up with a bunch of insane laws and insane security lapses. Wonderful.
The only good thing about a law like this is that it gives the government one more thing to put the hammer down on a large subset of the population and provide
LOL! "Illegal Images"???? (Score:5, Insightful)
Go ahead and explain now the difference between an "act" and the "image of an act"... oh dear time for a coffee break...
You don't want to know. (Score:2)
Their own wireless... (Score:2)
But I somehow doubt they'll be the ones paying the $300,000 fines.
Nobody likes child pornogrpahy (Score:2)
The really bad guys will hide in encryption and other privacy protection technology. In 2 years this law will be abused to use this law against common criminals like downloading music( sarcasm?). It is the letter of the law that counts.
But they did think correct about including forbidding computer generated images. There were reports that very lifelike stuff was created, where the boun
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe when we get some real leaders in politics we might get sensible laws but that requires people not be sheep because the sheep vote for whoever they think will stop th
If any of you are, or know, John Galt... (Score:2)
_somewhere_ there has to be a society for responsible, sane people.
New Rally Cry: (Score:2)
-Grey [silverclipboard.com]
Is a picture a picture without a CODEC? (Score:5, Interesting)
Time to celebrate... (Score:4, Funny)
A link to goatse and the best wardriving software on the web... stat!
With a name like that, (Score:3, Insightful)
How could you vote against something called the "SAFE Act"?
That would be like voting against something called the "USA PATRIOT Act"!
Home wireless networks? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I have an idea, report them... (Score:2)
Age (Score:5, Insightful)
Overreaction (Score:3, Informative)
Cool (Score:3, Insightful)
Today kiddy porn, tomorrow 'dissident' knowledge.
Be afraid.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Pot. Kettle. Black.
50 comments based on one writer's spin on a Bill. I'd like to see the actual Bill text to see what the law really says. My guess is when we see what is really in the Bill it will have very little to do with the article summary.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I don't know about that.
From TFA:
"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 etc. etc. etc."
Easy solution: don't learn about the activities going on over the connection. This may be a c
Re: (Score:2)
Now I will admit, I did not read this particular article, although I did read a few elsewhere, and no where in the bill does it state that joe consumer has to run monitoring hardware/software on his network equipment.... and maybe I should not be giving them any ideas...
On the bright side.. be
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)