Slashdot Mirror

While checking up the House Sub-Committee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection, I decided to look at some other bills that they are considering. This is highly misleading (w/o reading the text of the bills) but some of the titles are very interesting.

H.R.543: A bill to require the installation and use by schools and libraries of a technology for filtering or blocking material on the Internet on computers with Internet access to be eligible to receive or retain universal service assistance. (obviously to screen out /.)

H.J.RES.47: A joint resolution expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the need for a Surgeon General's report on media and violence. (where Dr Koop when you need him?)

H.R.313: A bill to regulate the use by interactive computer services of personally identifiable information provided by subscribers to such services. (Note: This one actually looks good, hence it will never pass)

H.R.515: A bill to prevent children from injuring themselves with handguns. (Great title, totally misleading)

Keep in mind that only a small amount of bills even get out of sub-committee. This is a good thing. Back onto the subject at hand, IMO the other sub-committees are going to gut the export provisions of HR850. IOW, those aspects (exports) may not reach the House Floor for a vote.

Hopefully you realize that Pascal's wager is based on the vindictive human-nature atribted to the Christian God. Not all religions attribute eternal damnation to failing to heed the word of some messiah.

Moreover, I question that Pascal would be able to "choose to believe in" every god whose religion threatened post-mortem doom. Remember, just because Chrisitanity calls their god "God" doesn't make him some sort of meta-deity over all other religious entities.

To bring the conversation back on-topic: The ten commandments are primary texts used by a dominant religion. I am far more afraid of the use of this document as a form of oppression than I am some third-hand mythology that is taught jokingly in English class.

Consider how you were taught greek and norse mythology: "What a bunch of wacky people! Man-boy love, Gods on Mount Olympus... Crazy neanderthals--though the Greeks were on to something with that democracy stuff."

I just read the first amendment last night. It's short--45 words covering 5 topics. It is tough to ascribe the 16 words concerning religion their broad public impact. However, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." certainly applies in the case of this particiular amendment.

Finally, I hardly disagree with some of the 10 commandments as text, indeed, Jesus had some good things to say about the meek and respecting others. However, these moral lessons can be taught independent of religion. Not everyone needs the fear of eternal damnation to behave in a civil and respectful manner to their fellow humans.

The constitutional amendment.
The unconstitutional amendment.

The text of the amendment is not yet available online, but should be available within a day or two at this page (look for a reference to an entry in the Congressional Record printing the text of the Franks amendment).

The text of the amendment is not yet available online, but should be available within a day or two at this page (look for a reference to an entry in the Congressional Record printing the text of the Franks amendment).

I don't know about votes (I've only been following bills in the early stages), but http://thomas.loc.gov seems to have everything else you ask for (and maybe even the votes; I don't know)

Isn't that near impossible? Is there really any way to control ALL of the content that passes thru a web server?

In this case, the legislation is apparently requiring the use of systems that will block from a list of URLs (or IPs). That is very easy to do.

In doing this don't you infringe on basic human rights of privacy issues? (I'm in the US not sure about other countries.)

Basic human rights are, by definition, not tied to one's nationality. Different philosophies have different ideas of what basic human rights are. In America, people discussing basic human rights refer to those laid down in the Declaration of Independence. These are enumerated life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The interpretation of these has been hashed over by greater scholars than I.

The rights concerning privacy and censorship are laid down for Americans in the Bill of Rights. This is why the CDA could be shot down: because what it attempted was forbidden by the US Constitution. The US government has provisions for the judicial branch to declare laws as unconstitutional.

I am not familiar with the Australian laws and legal system, but would be keen to hear from somebody who does.

It is worth noting that this is not a privacy issue, but rather a censorship issue, unless blocked URLs are logged.

Does anyone else see this as a potential problem? Obviously there will have to be software written to do this. People to monitor this. Many other potential issues. This is ludicris!

The software is trivial to write. Some parts have been written, and the rest combine programs that are already availible. Look at your ISP's home page; they have a link to that sort of software.

Clearly, lots of people feel strongly about this. This means that there will be funding to hire people to maintain the lists.

The issue isn't a technical one. There are no technical impediments to implementing this. It's easy. The issue is one of censorship and of law.

--
Fourth law of programming:
Anything that can go wrong wi

Isn't that near impossible? Is there really any way to control ALL of the content that passes thru a web server?

In this case, the legislation is apparently requiring the use of systems that will block from a list of URLs (or IPs). That is very easy to do.

In doing this don't you infringe on basic human rights of privacy issues? (I'm in the US not sure about other countries.)

Basic human rights are, by definition, not tied to one's nationality. Different philosophies have different ideas of what basic human rights are. In America, people discussing basic human rights refer to those laid down in the Declaration of Independence. These are enumerated life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The interpretation of these has been hashed over by greater scholars than I.

The rights concerning privacy and censorship are laid down for Americans in the Bill of Rights. This is why the CDA could be shot down: because what it attempted was forbidden by the US Constitution. The US government has provisions for the judicial branch to declare laws as unconstitutional.

I am not familiar with the Australian laws and legal system, but would be keen to hear from somebody who does.

It is worth noting that this is not a privacy issue, but rather a censorship issue, unless blocked URLs are logged.

Does anyone else see this as a potential problem? Obviously there will have to be software written to do this. People to monitor this. Many other potential issues. This is ludicris!

The software is trivial to write. Some parts have been written, and the rest combine programs that are already availible. Look at your ISP's home page; they have a link to that sort of software.

Clearly, lots of people feel strongly about this. This means that there will be funding to hire people to maintain the lists.

The issue isn't a technical one. There are no technical impediments to implementing this. It's easy. The issue is one of censorship and of law.

--
Fourth law of programming:
Anything that can go wrong wi

Doggieh hits it on the nose. Feist pretty much slams the possibility for protecting any databse whose structure and organization is essentially determined by function. This is not true for any database, however -- many databases can be protected (and have been protected) by courts since Feist.

On the other hand, NSI will have substantial difficulty distinguishing its database from the white pages in Feist, given the essential function and operation of whois.

BUT BEWARE! The lawyers in Feist have not lost their mind. They may not have an advantage under today's law, but the law may be about to change:

Legislation to give what we lawyers call sui generis (read "special treatment") protection for databases is presently pending before the Congress as we speak. It was a part of last year's Digital Millenium Copyright Act, but (thank g-d) was pulled at the last minute.

Even worse, the definition of "collection of information" was so broad in last year's bill, and the elimination of a traditional "fair use" exception, threatened to make this sui generis bill swallow the few saving graces left in Copyright law.

But like all pieces of special interest legislation -- and the database bill is no different -- It's BAAACK! While the present legislation is far superior to last year's, in that it does have a fair-use-like exception built in, it is all the more dangerous because of its acceptability therefor. Congress may well pass the bill in this form this term or next, unless folks quickly mobilize against it.

What's wrong with HR354? Well, the whois database is an excellent example. After the database legislation passes, NSI might well succeed in making its claims stick.

Does anyone know the bill number for the Bliley bill? Slashdot's link seems to be broken, and I can't find any digital signature bill by Bliley on Thomas.

It should be noted that none of these bills specify a particular digital signature technology. The Digital Signature Act directs the appropriate government agencies to draft guidelines within 6 months (for use in transactions with the government). The Millennium act just says that "the parties to an interstate transaction may establish by contract" the technologies they want to use (one wonders how you are supposed to sign the contract).

Does anyone know the bill number for the Bliley bill? Slashdot's link seems to be broken, and I can't find any digital signature bill by Bliley on Thomas.

It should be noted that none of these bills specify a particular digital signature technology. The Digital Signature Act directs the appropriate government agencies to draft guidelines within 6 months (for use in transactions with the government). The Millennium act just says that "the parties to an interstate transaction may establish by contract" the technologies they want to use (one wonders how you are supposed to sign the contract).

Does anyone know the bill number for the Bliley bill? Slashdot's link seems to be broken, and I can't find any digital signature bill by Bliley on Thomas.

It should be noted that none of these bills specify a particular digital signature technology. The Digital Signature Act directs the appropriate government agencies to draft guidelines within 6 months (for use in transactions with the government). The Millennium act just says that "the parties to an interstate transaction may establish by contract" the technologies they want to use (one wonders how you are supposed to sign the contract).

Where are the "lies" in the article you are replying to? Yes, some Democrats supported the CDA (it was introduced by a Democrat, Senator Jim Exon, and cosponsored by a Republican, Senator Slade Gorton). But Clinton was originally against it, as it was written, because it violated the First Amendment. He did want to work out some compromise, though, that would not violate Constitutional rights. You can read what the EFF has to say about this he re. Exon was backed by the Christian Coalition, the Family Research Council, and the National Law Center for Families. He was opposed by the ACLU and the EFF. Here's one letter written by groups in favor of Internet censorship, from the EFF's page:

fundamentalists_cda_congress_101695.letter
Letter to leaders of Congressional committees with the power to successfully introduce Internet censorship legislation even worse that Exons, from the Christian Coalition, Ed Meese, Morality in Media, and other fundamentalist pro-censorship groups. Address Rep. Henry Hyde took the bait, introduced their suggested legislation, and it was his version of the Comm. Decency Act that passed into law, Feb. 1996.

Add onto that, the first House members to come out vocally against the CDA were:

Jun 21, '95: Several prominent House members publicly announce their opposition to the CDA, including Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA), Rep. Chris Cox (R-CA), and Rep. Ron Wyden (D-OR).

Yes. And in the Senate, a week earlier, on June 14, two Democratic senators, Leahy and Feingold, spoke "passionately" against the bill, because they thought it went against the First Amendment.

I found a list of senators who voted to attach the CDA to the Telecom Reform bill (on the same day). Assuming I counted correctly, fourteen Democrats and two Republicans voted against that. Fifty-two Republicans and 32 Democrats voted for it. So 69.6% of the Democrats, and 96.3% of the Republicans, that participated in the Senate vote voted for it.

You're right, though, that almost all of Congress eventually voted for the Telecom Reform Bill on Feb. 1, 1996. In the house, fifteen Democrats, one Independent, and no Republicans voted against it. In the Senate, four Democrats and one Republican voted against it. Here's one link to a lot of that info (with links to who voted for it about a third or so down the page; search for "Feb 1, 96" a few times), and here's another.

So a lot of people from both parties voted for it. But people on Slashdot, for some reason, make it out to be something that President Clinton forced on us. And that's incorrect. There was (somewhat) greater support for it among conservative politicians and groups. By 1998, Clinton was weakened politically by all of the scandals he got himself into, and he had to give in under pressure from the Senate and "family values" groups.

from the Library of Congress Website thomas.loc.gov. Lots of good info there, you should check it out.

Amendment XIV

(1868)

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they
reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any
person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state,
excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States,
Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such
state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of
representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of
age in such state.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the
United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state
legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against
the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in
suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid
of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held
illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.