Slashdot Mirror
Congress@Work
BoKnowsBeer writes: "H.R.
1486 -
Sponsor: Rep Grucci, Felix J., Jr.. Title: To amend section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934 to require schools and libraries receiving universal service assistance to block access to Internet services that enable users to access the World Wide Web and transfer electronic mail in an anonymous manner." Grucci is quoted as saying privacy sites are used to recruit children into militant, pro-environmental causes. I want some of what he's been smoking. Meanwhile, Representative Billy Tauzin, who has forgotten that he lives in the U.S., put forward HR 2420, which will eliminate all of the requirements on the Baby Bell companies which keep them from destroying the competing exchange carriers, and finish off any remaining competition from DSL carriers such as Covad and Northpoint, which would no longer be permitted to lease space in the telcos' Central Offices for their DSL equipment. But the CLEC's are rallying - they went to their congressmen, handed them the requisite bags of cash, and got their own bill to rally behind.
The Honorable Felix J. Grucci, Jr.
1505 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
May 16, 2001
Representative Grucci,
On May 16, 2001, the Newsbytes section of the Washington Post quoted you as saying that militant environmental groups "use privacy sites on the Internet to anonymously contact one another and recruit our children. Then, using the environment or other worthwhile causes, they manipulate juveniles into committing crimes to further their own cause."
I'm concerned about the nature of such accusations, and by your characterization of these privacy sites as having no fundamental purpose beyond the commission of crimes. I hope you haven't forgotten that the right to anonymous and private speech is fundamental to the preservation of liberty and safety against persecution, both from government and from other citizens.
Perhaps privacy makes you feel uncomfortable. Are you concerned that these privacy sites are enabling countless whistle-blowers in both government and industry to bring corruption and other untoward activities to light? Would you rather have everyone's opinions forced out in the open so we can single out groups like radical environmentalists and persecute them "for the children?"
You should not be concerned about your citizens having their right to privacy and anonymity, unless perhaps you have something to hide.
I am fundamentally opposed to your bill, H.R. 1846. As a substitute for parental supervision, it falls horribly short. As a step back towards an era of terrified McCarthyism, however, it does a wonderful job. Consider the implications your bill would have on the American people before continuing with this effort. Thank you for your time. I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Rob Carlson
I'd like to send a copy of this letter to local newspapers in his district. If you know them please e-mail me.
A copy of this message is available on my web page.
--
Rob Carlson
How ironic that the act is titled the Who Is E-Mailing Our Kids Act, when it has absolutely nothing to do with people emailing kids, and everything to do with the ability of kids to email other people.
This bill should be relabelled the "Child Identification to Pedophiles Act of 2001."
By forbidding the use of anonymous email, this law mandates the disclosure of the identity of children when they use the internet.
If the purpose of the law was really to protect children, it would be completely reversed. It would require that any minor who wishes to use the net be provided with the ability to safely and anonymously do so, without the risk of their identity being discovered by third parties on the internet.
People always cry when something like this happens, or is introduced, but the fact is that if you did not vote, then you really cannot complain. So did you vote??? I did!
Ever wonder why old people get there way ? It is because they are the largest group of voters. The fact is that many (not all) of them do not understand technology so when they vote they get what they want.
I voted a lot of things down last year cause they were stupid. Mre taxie cabs in SF?? NO we don't need them, try calling the cab company that is what your cell phone is for.
You do realize that even if this is introduced as a bill it can be taken to the people at any point in time?? That is what petitions do, if enough people get petitions together they can force a vote on the ballot and prevent idiots like this from getting things like this passed. Get politically active and make a change!!
His thinking is flawed and we see that and hopefully so will some of the people in Congress when they realize that this is a total violation of privacy. It is in fact probably more close to the opposite. If you do not protect these people provacy then child molesters will have better access to the children. The truth is that if he knew what he was talking about he'd want to protect the privacy of people than do this. Sounds to me like he wants Big Brother to be watching you and me!
I don't want a lot, I just want it all!
Flame away, I have a hose!
Only 'flamers' flame!
Ugh.
First, I need to start by saying that I agree with your point that it's important to conisder people's arguments for what they are, rather than to reject them out of hand because of who espoused them. In logic/rhetoric, this is called "poisoning the well," where you forego attacking an argument because its proponent makes an easier/more attractive target.
It's kind of a shame, really, because this is one nasty, funky well. Dr. Laura is a bigoted creep who is fond of referring to gays and lesbians as "biological errors," and refers to the practice of homosexuality as destructive. Her justification for doing so isn't rooted in scientific research, but in her personal religious convictions. An example:
I don't have a problem with differing points of view. I do have a problem when people take their own personal moral decisions, thinly cloak them under a veil of pseudo-logic, and try to ram them down everyone's throat.
Tauzin's bill is H.R. 1542, *not* 2420.
This is basically the same bill that Tauzin introduced last year as H.R. 2420, but the bill number this year 1542. This is *important* as people calling to urge their congresspersons to kill this bill will need to get the number correctly.
Please correct this in the summary.
Thanks!
Jeff
One Republican incompetent (Mike Forbes) replaced by another. Sigh. Grucci was head of a fireworks company here before becoming leader of the Town of Brookhaven (affectionately known as "Crookhaven" - the Republican Party Chief here got busted a couple of years ago for some Mafia-related business). And now in Congress... his opponent in the general election was a nice old lady who had almost no money to run on (Mike Forbes, previously a republican, had spent all the Democrat's money in his primary challenge, which he lost to this woman, an environmental lawyer). And the people out here pride themselves on their environmental awareness too! Almost makes me ashamed to live here. Luckily I get to vote against him again next year...
Energy: time to change the picture.
1) Environmentalists using privacy sites to recruit children? Yeah, wouldn't want out kids to be politically active, they need to be consuming/producing machines that only vote for the Parties, not some fringe group. Won't someone please think of the children? This is America after all, can't have anything other than Mom, the Flag, and Apple Pie in kids' minds. Thought is corruption. Ignorance is strength.
Slightly miffed ranting aside, unless the good Congressman is privy to information no one else has, using the "protect the children" gambit is akin to busting out the race card; a last-resort measure that has been abused to the point where no one takes it seriously anymore. Perhaps he's more concerned about children developing political awareness earlier than voting age, before the Republicrats can program them to vote only for the Big Two, or they're Throwing Their Votes Away, like it's a horse race or something.
2) Michael, you do realize other languages exist in the US, right? They may not be official, but I didn't realize there was some law preventing elected officials from putting any language other than American -- excuse me, English, on their page, even when the rep's constituents speak something other than English.
If you want an English translation, perhaps you could e-mail the good man's website maintainers about providing an English translation? Is that so hard, or is it easier to make thoughtless comments on your soapbox?
*exhale*
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
The first sentence of the privacy policy on his Web page
Congressman Tauzin is a strong supporter of individual privacy on the Internet. http://www.house.gov/tauzin/privacy_policy.htm Hypocrite
This post touches on the bribes aspects of this story. Which was covered last night in the BBC's (www.bbc.co.uk) flagship current affair programme Newsnight (www.bbc.co.uk/newsnight/) in the UK.
Whilst I was aware that US Politians are regularly accused of accepting cash from companies for political 'favours', I always considered it to be an urban myth, however I found the reality of it shocking, VERY shocking.
The gist of the allergations is that Bush is completly corrupt. He received 50 Million dollars in bribes^H^H^H^H^H^H 'political donations' from US energy companies, and has just given them 5 Billion dollars of subsidy back.
There are also a host of other connected issues, which give a 10 fold return of investments for these companies. Through reduced liabilities, subsidies and law changes, etc, which quite frankly left me deeply disturbed.
This is the summary: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/events/newsnight/ newsid_1319000/1319141.stm
Transcript http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/events/newsnight/ newsid_1338000/1338493.stm
Streaming Media http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1315000/video/_13191 41_payback_vi.ram
The US Congress is also passing another law affecting the internet and freedom, entitled 'We Have Our Yearly Operating Data About Dangerous Youngsters'. The law is designed to collect daily internet usage by minors and aggregate it to have a central computer decide (on its own) which minors are dangerous by looking at the sites they visit, and expelling them from school before they act out.
:>
- --
Passing through the house and Senate, 'WHOYODADY' has already been marked as an immenent success in protecting our children (at the expense of a teeny bit of freedom).
Well, at least they're becoming less subtle.
-----------------------------------------------
Laissez Le Bon Temps Roule!
Rep. Slaughter:
I am writing this letter to you today to voice my opposition of H.R. 1486. HR 1486 is a requires schools and libraries receiving "E-rate" discounts for internet funding to block access to anonymous e-mail services.
The bill, sponsored by Rep. Felix Grucci (R-NY), has inheret implications to rights of privacy and freedom of speech that we, as Americans, hold dear.
Not only am I offended by the law, but the rationale for the law. Rep. Grucci is quoted in the Washington Post: [privacy site users] "are made up of loosely knit groups from across the country that endorse militant action in the name of a particular cause." This statement
There are numerous legitimate cases where access to these "anonimyzers" are very nessecary. Students, just like anyone else in the world, may wish to use anonymous e-mail services to inform employers, supervisors, or other school officials to situations where a student feels unsafe, but would fear reprocussions from teachers, school administrators, co-workers, or other students.
This is very similar to the current "whistleblower" protection statutes in the federal law books desgned to protect individuals from reprocussions from reporting threatening situations to superiors or government agencies.
Another legitimate use of "anonymizer" services is to protect ones' self from Unsolicited Commercial Email (better known as Spam). Anonymizer services my be employed to hide from programs that gather e-mail addresses from the internet and fill mailboxes with spam.
Children, and students, and people in economically disadvantaged communities are going to be hurt by this law because they won't have the ability to keep their privacy on the internet.
"For the benefit of the children" is being used to push this bill through, but I am asking "for the sake of the children" that you oppose HR 1486.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
... (Of course I put my real name here... though I think it would be just as good a statement if I didn't.)
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
1. Give your bill a "cute" name: Who Is E-Mailing Our Kids Act.
2. Give your initiative a "cute" acronym: Hands Off Our Kids (HOOK)
Politics: The last refuge of the nincompoop!
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
- Ed the Sock
Did you think Tauzin might represent a predominantly Cajun district in Louisiana, and would thus consider French as an appropriate language to use on his web site?
Per my reading of the text (not complete, but not finished yet either) the authors don't spell out what constitues 'anonymous' access. If I send you email from 72946@yahoo.com, that's a name, but seems pretty 'anonymous' to the receiver. Will schools have to block access to Yahoo! and other services?
"...require schools and libraries receiving universal service assistance to block access to Internet services that enable users to access the World Wide Web and transfer electronic mail in an anonymous manner. "
OK, wait...
"...is enforcing a policy regarding anonymous Internet connection that includes the operation of a technology protection measure with respect to any of its computers with Internet access that prevents use of such computers to access an online privacy service that enables a user
`(I) to send electronic mail anonymously; or
`(II) to access the World Wide Web anonymously;
What I'm seeing here is that they want schools to prevent students/users from accessing anonymizing services. Hardly the 'who is emailing our kids act'. This is far more 'don't let our kids even think of being able to anonymously do ANYTHING on our systems' act. Perhaps a valid piece of legislation, if you consider what liabilities schools may have for who's using their equipment. But PLEASE - let's get the motives right here - this isn't PROTECTING children at all - it's preventing them from anonymizing their actitivies.
creation science book
You /. libertarian freaks don't see what's happening to our nation's children. Slowly, little by little, we are seeing moral decay in this society. And it can be stopped so easily. The solution is right in front of us.
You see, communist web sites have been created, and are ensnaring our nation's children, in order to subvert and impurify their precious bodily fluids. Through the use of aggressive web filtering like the one proposed by this red-blooded congressman, we can keep this evil communist plot at bay and reclaim our nation's children.
I fully support any laws, or militia-led infiltrations, that will protect our children's precious bodily fluids.
Thank you for your time.
Well. I mean, did it take them that long to figure it out? This has been an open secret since the primary ...
And, actually, what he's doing is putting in his downpayment for his relection campaign in 2004, which will start collecting money by year-end. So, it's not like he sold out 5 billion in subsidies for 50 million, he's looking for at least 250 million, as those dividend checks come in to the shareholders.
However, luckily for us, all his attempts to sell out our privacy rights are for nought, cause the Europeans are successfully taking on US multinationals one by one and forcing them to adopt their data privacy rights.
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
Actually, you don't need to look to something as radical as logic to see the source of Dr. Laura's allegedly moral objections to porn.
It turns out that her attacks on the American Library Association and pornography in libraries began, by a strange coincidence, shortly after some amateur porn photos she'd done during an extramarital affair in the 70s leaked onto the net (search on "Dr. Laura Naked" to find the uncensored version). She sued over the photos, but the suit was dropped. Interestingly, the porn company that bought the photos also brought a lawsuit against the amateur sites which posted them. There was a great interview with the guy who took the photos which I'm afraid I can't find. He talked about her "sleeping her way to the top" of the radio industry.
Whenever somebody takes the moral high ground in attacking others, I immediately suspect them of doing the same. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," as I'm sure Dr. Laura herself would quote.
See also the Stop Dr. Laura site for further amusements.
Grucci decided not to call it the "Hands Off Our Kids, E-Revolutionaries" (HOOKER) initiative, due to lobbying by several groups including "White House Organization for the Reform of Education" (WHORE) and the "Science, Learning, Understanding and Teaching Society" (SLUTS). Members of WHORE and SLUTS were worried that they might become associated with the HOOKER initiative, which both groups do not support.
--
"Fuck your mama."