Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
The Internet Government Censorship Your Rights Online

Congress May Require ISPs To Block Certain Fraud Sites 180

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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • by QuantumRiff ( 120817 ) on Thursday November 05, 2009 @10:01AM (#29994204)

    Things like SPF, and Domain Keys, and signed DNS would all prevent this. They would all help ensure that emails are coming from who they say they are coming from.

    Instead of "blocking" things, why not force all government agencies to setup SPF and Domain keys, and maybe start signing the .GOV domain?

  • by elrous0 ( 869638 ) * on Thursday November 05, 2009 @10:20AM (#29994424)
    It's been clear for some time now that it was only a matter of time before the feds began forcing ISP's to block controversial sites (probably with about as much "proof" of wrongdoing as we see in the infamous DMCA takedown notices). It's sad that the days of simply typing in or even a lot of legitimate sites' URL's and having the site just pop up are coming to an end. From now on out, it's going to be a constant fight between users and their ISP's, with the RIAA/MPAA exclusively deciding which sites we can see or not see. Of course, we /. clever types can find ways around it, but again, it will be a constant fight from now on (like homebrew on a console or jailbreaking an iPhone, it will be a constant state of we-figure-out-a-new-workaround-they-find-a-way-to-block-it). What a shame.
  • Re:good or bad? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by relguj9 ( 1313593 ) on Thursday November 05, 2009 @10:31AM (#29994524)
    I know I'm not the only one who FREAKING HATES the idea of bureaucrats making decisions on this shit about which they have NO IDEA what they are talking about.

    Argh, I know it's happened and will happen for years, but I hate hate hate it. They need to make a board of legitimate professionals in the industry who know WTF they are talking about to come up with any regulations that might be made.
  • by phorm ( 591458 ) on Thursday November 05, 2009 @10:52AM (#29994802) Journal

    Now I don't suggest we have a domain for everything, but ".bank" sounds like a good idea and something useful for that particular industry. Much like you need to be an educational institution to use .EDU or a government entity for .GOV, why not allow only properly registered banks to use a .bank domain, with some checks to ensure they're not scammy duplicates.

    After a year or two, anything not using the ".bank" domain should hopefully raise enough suspicion to become fairly obvious as a scam.

  • Re:good or bad? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by kungfugleek ( 1314949 ) on Thursday November 05, 2009 @11:01AM (#29994876)
    Actually I was just excited at the chance to use an internet meme before someone else did. I was going more for a facetious/sarcastic thing. And to maybe make a point that you can abuse that phrase to dissuade people from outlawing almost anything. For example, "When they came for the rapists, I did not speak up because I was not a rapist." But in the end, it's probably best to forget that I said anything!
  • Re:Why not all spam? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by NotBornYesterday ( 1093817 ) * on Thursday November 05, 2009 @11:32AM (#29995260) Journal
    Duh, you forgot the most important part: liability!

    Any Internet service provider that, on or through a system or network controlled or operated by the Internet service provider, transmits, routes, provides connections for, or stores any material containing any misrepresentation (of the SIPC) shall be liable for any damages caused thereby , [emphasis mine] including damages suffered by the SIPC, if the Internet service aware of facts or circumstances from which it is apparent that the material contains a misrepresentation.

    Dude, if we could get the ISPs to pay us for everything that ever goes wrong on the Internet, think of how much money we could make!

  • Re:OpenDNS (Score:4, Interesting)

    by commodore64_love ( 1445365 ) on Thursday November 05, 2009 @12:06PM (#29995650) Journal

    Well I for one am extremely happy with this bill, and all the previous actions of Clinton, Bush, and Obama.

    Their ever-increasingly central control via government of private citizens' lives, homes, and communications will make it MUCH easier for me. I and my brownshirts will be able to sweep-in to the Congress, declare emergency powers, turn-off the communication networks, and consolidate power with ease. Thank you Bill, George and Barak.

    Napoleon the X

    EXAMPLE: Man detained by U.S. government because he was carrying $4000 in cash from St.Louis to Arlington Virginia - []

Someday your prints will come. -- Kodak