Slashdot Mirror
Senate Bill Would Make Clandestine Video Taping Illegal
happyclam writes "CNN says that Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) is announcing a new combination bill that would do two things: (a) outlaw filming someone via hidden camera without their permission except in public places, and (b) provide for an adult-only domain such as .prn where all non-child-safe sites (pr0n, hate speech, etc.) would be relegated--the sites would have to give up their .com/.org/.net domains they own today. The first part makes sense, but the second clearly treads on free speech to some extent and will have a hard time going through, I imagine." I wonder if having an actor at the press conference is a new requirement for a bill to be introduced in congress.
Looks like someone's been eating his Fasty-Os breakfast cereal. I mean, HOT DAMN!
_________________
EBAY SAFETY TIPZ!
other countries? Could still end up with exotic asian scat porn on .com or .org domains. The internet is not .USA.
.prn so sex.com becomes sex.com.prn would help. But still, this would be messy.
Perhaps automatically offerening free transfer
That means I can't set up video tape surveillence inside my house?
So now my house has less privledge than a public place.
I guess its not my "castle" anymore. Its just a nuisance to this numbskull.
So once all the porn and everything else that isn't wanted is relegated to the .prn domain, what then? Conveniently, DNS serves begin losing their registrations? And who decides what goes into the .prn category? Definitely a free speech issue..... and I won't even start on the video issue......
...we are from the government - we are here to help...
I think they're going to sink themselves because they're trying to do two things with this bill at the same time. If they'd focus on one issue at a time, they'd be able to get what they want eventually. You're never gonna get every porn site to move to a .prn domain without a fight. If they wanted to outlaw surveilance, they should have run it without this rediculous second part.
I make these: http://beatseqr.com
This reminds me of the recent story of libraries filtering adult content (or not, as the case may be). How does one really determine if something belongs as a .prn versus a .org?
.prn automagically? What if I run a site on breast cancer? Am I automatically .org?
If I show pictures of breasts, am I
While this applies for only "lewd or lascivious purposes", it might lead the way for more restrictive stuff...
looking at extremeties:
What if you're worried about your babysitter not treating your child right.... Does that mean you can't videotape their behavior because their in your own home?
What about all those "worlds worst employees" video tapes too...
You crazy man? You piss off supahfly!
watch it pass now, because of varying penalties for minors. No matter what other inanity is attached that one provision makes it "for the children."
would they have to ask for permission before taping them or after taping them offter to film over the tape?
Holy fucking shit! I'm on the telephone to my reps as soon as I get this profane fucking tirade hammered out.
.mil and .edu domains only to legitimate military and educational institutions? The nerve of these scatmongers.
teenpussy.prn! What's next: restricting
illegal to videotape people without their knowledge/consent. (unless it's in public, IE: at a festival, company picnic, etc)
For instance, if someone comes in for an interview for a job, and a camera is hidden for the purpose of taping the interview, I thought the interviewee had to be notified.
WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
The first part makes sense, but the second clearly treads on free speech
This does nothing to revoke the freedom priviledges of adults. It only serves to protect minors. What negative outcome could this possibly have other than domain name disputes (which are easily solved)?
Life is the leading cause of death in America.
This is one of the areas where addressing this at the federal level oversteps the constitutional authority of the federal government. This should be handled at the state level.
.prn domain, I have no problem if they want to legislate it into existence, but it is a MAJOR issue if they force sites to relocate into it.
As to forcing the
gnome sucks.
I think that is a bad tld. .adult would be better. This isnt DOS. If a good way to categorize this comes about, I'm for it. The problem is, even victoria's secret magazine is porn to a 14 year old boy from suburbia. But about videotaping... I should be allowed to tape my babysitter in my own house.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Free speech does not give you the right to trick someone or mis-represent yourself..
.prn part... but we need to Expand it.. FORCE businesses into .biz and .com schools into .edu and only groups and orginazations get .org while internet services providers are forced with .net
.com because it is a BUSINESS.
Granted hoteensluts.com is obvious whitehouse.com IS NOT and is there to only decieve and misrepresent in-order to trick people into their site.
I agree with the
Yes... slashdot will have to become a
it's about damn time someone suggested forcing TLD's to be used correctly.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Should have dumped my X10 stock yesterday ...
Karma? Karma? I don't need no stinkin' karma.
What about video taping babysitters to make sure they don't molest your children? Making it illegal for someone to video tape you in YOUR house who is NOT the owner, ok. Saying the owner can't do what he wants in his own house? I don't think so.
Who would be responsible for policing .com websites, to ensure that they remain adult-content free?
.prn?
.kids, .family or something domain name, that was guaranteed 'clean' from the start?
If someone posts a linke to goatse on a kiddie's chatboard, would that site be 'relegated' to
I wonder if they understand the scope of this problem; there are so many grey areas.
Would it be easier to set up a
Not surprised about this bill at all. You aren't allowed to audio tape someone without prior conscent, why would you be allowed to video tape someone...
.prn thing, I don't know why people are so against this. If it's porn send it there, it will make it easier for people to find the porn they need, and make it harder for kids to find it.
This does impact the nanny-cam issue. Far too many bad nannies will get away with beating kids because of this bill if it passes.
As far as the
Why is it that people always hear what I say, and not what I mean?
Legal to videotape, but only without sound.
But your Honor, we had a notice on display about the videotaping.
"But the plans were on display....."
"On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."
"That's the display department."
"With a torch."
"Ah well, the lights had probably gone."
"So had the stairs."
"But look, you found the notice didn't you?"
"Yes", said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked
filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying
'Beware of the Leopard'"!
- Douglas Adams
A long long time ago, in a internet far away..
TLD's were originally MEANT to separate entities on the internet. Then along came the big bad internic who decided what a great idea it would be to WHORE out TLD's to anyone willing to pay the price. Remember when.
.org was for non-profit
.com was for companies
.edu was for schools
.net was for network providers
It's not a free speech issue as much as it's a zoning issue. I don't mean DNS zones, i'm referring to the type of zoning cities do that dictate what kind of businesses go where. You have your industrial zones, your retail zones, your suburban zones, and yes, there are even zones for strip clubs. This kind of zoning doesn't infringe on anyone's right.
One more thing, the Internet is like our public roads, their use is a privilege, not a right. Anyone that abuses that right get's reported to their upstream provider and they disappear off the net faster than you can say "goatse.cx" I'm all for regulating these sites because Iâ(TM)m sick and tired of being tricked into a ZILLION popup ads from these fruity porn sites. Their methods have become more sinister over the years and they need to be put in check. Just because I accidentally or purposefully click a link, it's not a license to take over my computer with popup after popup.
I have to admit, I have absolutely NO problem what-so-ever about regulating porn to it's own domain. I mean, geez people. They can already track your sessions via proxy, so it's not like theres any additional security problems there. You could (heaven forbid) start blocking .porn sites at the firewall level to keep even more of those damnable pop-ups from flying all over the place when you're making a legitimate lookup! I'm sorry if I don't see a "Freedom of Speech" restriction here by ANY stretch of the imagination.
:) It's fun, yet creative! Put a small transiever on it, and join the meeting from the privacy of your cubicle. No more interrupted Tribes 2 matchs!
And are you REALLY believing that your ISP will choose simply not to resolve those type addresses? Sure they will. Same reason why stuff like alt.binaries.erotica.teen exists still.
I say let's do it. As for the video taping, that was bound to happen. Good thing, too! If it's not for security, it's mounted (wireless connected) to a remote-control car to run around the office and annoy people.
-What have you contributed lately?
So, I guess this means it will no longer be legal for Wal-Mart and Toys "R" Us to film you as you walk through the store.
Although, I wonder if "Proper notificiation" just means a small sign in 1/2" letters saying "Patrons may be videotaped at any time. By shopping here, you agree to this".
Sadly, it'll probably take less than that.
I don't forsee the porn half going through though.
Reeses
All of your dissenting opinions are being classified as Hate of the government.
.prn domain now, or face legal charges.
Please buy a
This
I'm curious. Exactly how does this tread on free speech? It still allows those who want to get there and it simplifies controlling access so little Johnny doesn't see what mom and dad don't want him to see.
Heroscape, it's like legos combined with anachronistic wargames.
Way to go, Congress. You take a good and decent idea for a law that needs to be created (hiding video cameras in Nancy Wilson's shower should have been illegal when it occurred and the fact that it still isn't is appalling), and you throw a rider onto it that is totally outside the scope of your power and a flagrant violation of the First Ammendment, virtually guaranteeing its demise. Spiffy.
So not only will the law not pass a judicial review for Constitutionality meaning the good aspects of the law go bye-bye, but you'll be completely ignored by the internet anyway, which is an international construct.
You're on a roll now, why not vote yourselves another raise?
This tagline is umop apisdn.
All speech is equal but some speech is more equal than others.
Haven't the courts already ruled that forcing somoene to label their speach is an infringement on free speach? (otherwise, it'd be much simpler to require and "adult" meta-tag.)
I think a TLD specifically for porn is a good idea, just like we have r- and x- rated movies. (Of course, those are run by industry groups, not mandated by congress.)
"material harmful to minors"
Well shucks. Slashdot has been linking to sites that offer ideas on how to disrupt a train. Also the various goatse.cx links that you see. And who knows what Cowboy neal will link to next on the front page.
-THIS SPACE FOR RENT!
The Senate has added that Britney Spears will be granted immunity to this law.
Under the bill, any person who uses a camera or similar recording device to record
If the bill has this wording I won't even be able to take single pictures in private without notifying someone.
love is just extroverted narcissism
I have always found the whole x10 thing quite disturbing, even benign uses such as "nanny watching" are downright rude! This law would require that Nanny to be informed that she is being watched, which means she'll behave better anyway. My question is - does this apply to security cameras watching employees at a store counter? is that a public place?
(b) provide for an adult-only domain such as .prn where all non-child-safe sites (pr0n, hate speech, etc.) would be relegated--the sites would have to give up their .com/.org/.net domains they own today.
Also a good thing. It would make filtering extremely easy (and believe it or not there ARE some good uses for filtering. A family computer that young children would use desperatly needs internet filtering). It doesn't violate freedom of speech - the porn sites would still be allowed, just relegated to .porn or wharever, it is no different then relgating porn to cable channels like HBO, or banning porn from bilboards in new york city. The internet is just as public as a busy street, and there should be decency standards, and this is a good way to make an online "red light" district that is easy to avoid but also easy to find if you are looking for it.
Does this new bill mean (if it were in the US) it would have to be xenu.prn?
As the Usenet thread points out, does this mean the Democratic Underground would have to move to democraticunderground.prn?
What's ICANN got to say about all this, since (I thought) they turned down .sex, .xxx, and .porn?
(Nevermind, scratch that last part.. I couldn't care less about what ICANN has to say about this.)
This seems to me to be one-upping the legislation that tries to redefine SMTP . Yikes.
I like the idea of moving "adult" sites to a new domain, but who decides what is "adult" and is not the Internet international? It is another case of stupid bill which assumes that the US government is in charge of the Internet. (It may only be stupid political grandstanding, but it is stupid.)
I would assume that Angie Harmon's appearance was due to her role in this.
If it ain't a Model M, it's a piece of crap.
I can't imagine anyone (excluding perverts) having a problem with the clandestine video taping part of the bill. Considering that unauthorized audio tape recordings are illegal in most states and that unauthorized airing of telephone conversations are illegal on the federal level, I'd say that video recordings have been a long time coming.
I have wished for many years that porn sites where forced to use .xxx domains. I dont see how it would effect their business at all. And it would make it very easy to firewall out all .xxx domains to places that didnt want their users to have access to porn. such as schools and offices. And dont complain that blocking .xxx would be unfair, office workers and schools are useing someone elses internet connection, and should have to live by it's rules
I really don't see how limiting adult oriented websites to specific domains hurts free speech. These sites would still be allowed to exist and operate, but they will be easily identifiable as adult oriented.
There are already many limitations on free speech which don't really hurt it and are considered "good" by practically everyone. Limiting porn (both selling and making) to 18 comes to mind.
Some of us are still waiting for Alec Baldwin to leave the country as he claimed he would if Bush became president...
I think the .prn thing is a good idea. What is the difference in requireing the disclaimers they have now and making their URL's clearly show that they are a porn site.
The question arises as always at the point where art and pornography meet. Some materials aren't as easily classified. As someone who looks at a lot of porn, I know I wouldn't want my kids having the access to it that I do and this would be a good way to keep them from it.
Here is a big problem with the way that the US policy is made. Things are combined together on one bill when they have no correlation. This forces people to vote for something they might not have sepratly. If I believe that taping someone without thier knowledge is wrong and vote against the bill, come election time, the ads will run. "Senator Baxley voted against a bill to segregate porn on the internet! He's so bad!" Let's have these two be seperate bills and vote on each as it's merit lends.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
UNITED STATES LAWS ONLY APPLY WITHIN THE UNITED STATES.
The second half of this bill would have NO impact on what the rest of the world could do on the Internet, and therefore be completely without edge. Everybody else would be free to use www.fuckfest.com, www.dick.net and www.teensluts.org. Of course, Americans would be able to access these sites, but not set them up. So what's the point? Nothing gained in terms of protection, something lost in terms of freedom.
Opt in.. Why try to move all "adult oriented sites" to a new TLD? Why not create a .kids TLD and offer free (or cheap) domains to any site that passes certain criteria.. This way the current net remains, but worried parents could limit childrens browsing to *.kids..
air and light and time and space
More examples:
You want to make sure a maid isn't stealing from you.
Set up a hidden camera and leave some small amount of money out.
See if they steal it. Then you can fire and prosecute them.
Make it so they could conceivably steal without you noticing. A dozen $1 bills would work. Maybe they'll take one or two from the pile, thinking you'll never notice. You could also leave out a larger amount - more risk - but you then you might be able to get them nabbed for a felony.
Hopefully that will still be legal after this bill passes, there should be a provision for something like that.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
provide for an adult-only domain such as .prn
.prn to limit their liability and/or bandwidth costs.
.prn domains. So either they would be subject to de facto censorship, or they would migrate back to .com and other domains to preserve their visibility.
This reminds me of the MPAA's infamous NC-17 rating. They wanted to create a rating for very-adult-but-not-explicity-pornographic films, but it never went anywhere, because theatre chains refused to screen NC-17 films. As a result, American consumers have no choice to view these films in a theatre, even if they want to.
The same thing would happen here. If all possibly-objectional content were segregated into its own top-level domain, nine out of ten ISPs would drop access to
Few people would actually have access to the
All in all, a lousy idea.
This bill could make it illegal for you to use a webcam to monitor your own house, or at least make it inadmissible in court. For that matter, anyone who wanders by your webcam could probably press charges.
While this isn't necessicarily a huge deal, it could turn out to be a royal pain. The technology department of my high school used to have a webcam you could move around (it was hooked up to 2 servos)(the network admins broke it, and wouldn't fix it for us). I personally consider the high school to be a public place, but there are those who might get upset over such a thing.
Monday is a horrible way to spend 1/7 of your life.
provide for an adult- only domain such as .prn where all non-child-safe sites (pr0n, hate speech, etc.) would be relegated
.sex, would they buy microsoft.sex? I think that would cause a great deal of negative publicity that any company would be quick to avoid
.prn domain requests, to "protect the children"?
Question #2: Microsoft owns microsoft.com, microsoft.net, and microsoft.org (amongst many, many others, I know). Would they want to snatch up microsoft.prn, to keep other people from using it? Probably. What I want to know is how far would they go? If the new domain was
Question #2: How long would it take before ISPs began blocking all
Question #3: How much impact would this actually have if it went through? The problem with hidden-camera videos is that once it is out on the internet, the only person that can be adequately identified is the subject, not the person who owns the camera. There isn't a science out yet of matching up videos to the camera they were taken with, unlike bullets.
The speed of time is one second per second.
Fine, a browser/dns server could easily be configured to block '.prn' names. But what about access by IP... are the porn sites going to have an block of IPs set aside just for them... So 'safe routers' could block those IPs? If not, there would be plenty of ways for people/kids to get a hold of the servers' IP addresses, even if the DNS is block.
Looking for any old 8-bit Heathkit/Zenith software/hardware - http://heathkit.garlanger.com
The same way companies are techincally not supposed to use .NET suffixes or .ORG suffixes. All this would do is change the way the net works and move adult oriented sites to .PRN. This wouldn't have anything to do with free speech in the slightest, nor is it a USA thing. It's an internet thing, and the domain providers would be the ones maintaining the approriet sites to the correct suffixes. It's a great idea IMO, and this should have been done when .COM .NET and .ORG were initially invented, but no one really knew porn would become 80% of the web back then. Why would it be "too late" to make a .PRN and move the sites to the correct suffix? Would you be complaining if they had done it since day one of the registars? Didn't think so.
And, this does nothing for other countries. And, this does nothing but group porn where it will be easier to find. For example, if I am wanting to go to the White House, but instead put in http://www.whitehouse.com, then I hit a porn site. Or, I can just put ".com" after phrases like "blowjob", "sexydancers", etc., and be fairly assured of porn sites. Now, just tack on ".prn" to any group of words in the english language? A kid won't be able to type in ".prn"?
Click here or here.
It seems to me that there's no way to fully regulate things to get all porn into a .prn TLD. Even aside from practical issues, there's the free speech implications that'll keep it in the courts forever. (And rightfully so, IMHO.)
.fam TLD. This would reduce the problem to enforcement of a contract, instead of a persistent challenge to the first amendment. It could be done in the private sector, even.
:)
On the other hand, it would be relatively straightforward to set aside a TLD for, say, ".fam" where all content is certified "family-safe", and a registrant of whatever.fam has to agree to the content standards of the
But that's probably WAY too practical to make it in the Real World, let alone in congress.
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
I wonder if then being an employee automatically consents to all the aspects of this proposed law.
If employers had to get employee's concent to tape them secretly and the employee had the right to say no, then what's the point?
Chicago2600.net more than a lifestyle, its a survival trait.
She was there because she played someone named Susan Wilson referenced in the article in a TV-lifetime movie about this ladies problems with video voyeurism.... most likely the reason they had her there instead is because the real Susan Wilson is probably not as good looking... and they are using Angie Harmon's good looks to assist in swaying the emotions of people into accepting this bill further. If they were to have had some ugly lady bitching about being watched on camera - it would not carry as much weight as if some hottie was doing the bitching. This just goes to show, that even still, politics is acting for ugly people - its the same BS emotional manipulation as the hollywood crap. Just makes me sick.
Forcing them to use a .prn extention is not limiting free speech, it is just giving better definition of what is what.
.prn or something to the like. While they are at it they should put in some serious penalties for spamming everyone with that porn trash. I'm really sick of getting pounded with porn spam all day long. I'm also sick of clicking on links that come up in search results only to find that it is really some slimmy porn site that opens three more windows every time I try to close one and resets my home page without prompting so that I get an unpleasent surprise when I open my browser again. Maybe if it is at least in its one domain like .prn all I need to do is look at the last part of the domain name before clicking on it. Even better yet I can just set my browser to just not open links to porn sites.
I'll be glad when they force on the porn onto
There should be one great TLD for them all. Having hate sites in with .prn seems silly. If it would be bad to break apart all these evil, nasty sites based on exactly what they are (porn, hate, terrorist, drugs, etc), let's just find a TLD that incompasses them all:
.sin (It's even three letters like half the world thinks is a requirement)
Granted, some people aren't going to like being in the "sin" area... but cigarrettes, alcohol, and others all get charged "sin taxes". Seems quite reasonable to me.
Long, cute, or funny Sigs are just another form of over compensation, used by geeks, nerdz, etc.
If this goes through, then there will be no more taping of encounters with police officers, public officials. No more behind-the-scenes videos about restaurant kitchens. No covering your ass when you meet someone trying to get you to do something illegal.
Or have I missed something?
This would rule out most nanny cams. The issue would be where the camera is located and if the intent is to get intimate video. Now, if your baby sitter has sex on the sofa, after the baby is sleeping.....
Fight Spammers!
An open letter to those under-regarded /. members: /. user foolishly clicks on a "funny" link. They're not really sure about goatse.cx, but you can be damn sure they won't click on goatse.prn. No more lulling n00bs into having a pleasant shock. I can say it in no stronger terms than this: If this law passes, /. trolls will lose a great deal of their "classic" material. You need to fight for rights!
This is a time of great chaos. But there is a threat even greater than terrorism and the CPDPTPDTA (sp). Yes, and that is goatse.prn
What about "goatse.prn"?
Well, think about the effectiveness as a new
Send a letter to your congresspeople and senators asking to vote against this bill! Remember, "People come for the goatse.cx, not the goatse.prn!"
For your convenience (probably to busy hitting "refresh", looking for first post, huh?), here is a sample letter.
Dear congressperson,
I am a pathetic loser who appreciates diluting valuable content with disgusting images. This gives me pleasure, and by passing this bill, you will be hurting my very livelihood. So when the time comes for you to vote, remeber:
Think of the trolls, not the children.
Thanks for your valuable time.
Surveilance cameras in homes for security purposes could qualify...
...not that I own anything worth watching...
Liora
so all this bill will do if passed is make all of the servers that are hosting the pr0n move to a diffenrt country so more jobs will be lost.
DRM? No thanks, I'll just get it somewhere else...
For a few reasons:
.prn sites. Pretty simple really...and prevents those million pop-up porn traps that plague all of our surfing experiences.
1. Gives the impression the the porn industry is not trying to attract kids. The industry will ALWAYS be under attack, but this will (even though it wasn't their idea) give them a little bit of room to argue that they have compromised in the past. This is better than forcing the sites to verify that it's visitors are old enough.
2. It will keep the onus on the parents. It will also make it possible for them to prevent access to these sites. I'm not fully sure of this, but couldn't an ISP (at the parents request) prevent the loading of these sites? I'm sure ingenious child could circumvent it...but if he really wants it there's always Kazaa.
3. It will help in your web-surfing experience. You could tell your browser to not visit sites that are
4. And yes, it will keep kids away from porn. Junior won't run into 'whitehouse.com' and wonder why the govenment consist of hot naked females. And this is, at least for kids, a good thing.
Travel the world and the seven seas...I am watching you from a camera!
Remember back in the old days when isp's ruled with an iron fist and you had to prove that you were a non-profit or network to get those tlds?
(a) outlaw filming someone via hidden camera without their permission except in public places, ... The first part makes sense
This is handled at State level just fine already. Even the congresscritter mentioned on the radio that something like 40+ States do not have the law she proposed.
Said another way, something less than 10 States find a need for a law like this, they were perfectly capable of passing these laws without any help from the busybody DC crowd. For example, in TN I can record (audio, video, both) any conversation that I am party to and do not have to inform the other parties, i.e., one party concent. In Maryland, all parties to the conversation need to be informed (unless there is a warrant) that a conversation is being recorded. This proposal is just a federal extension of the same theme.
Apparently, in some States, one person can legally train a camera through the open window of another person's home. In others you can not. Sounds fair enough to me. I close the shades when I do not want others to see what is in my apartment and do not need a law to alleviate me of my responsibility.
If someone enters my place and plants a camera, I believe that every State has a dozen or so laws that the perpetrator can be charged with (breaking and entry, illegal entry, etc), that is if the cops bother to stop writing speeding tickets long enough to catch the criminal. Don't forget all of the civil charges.
Now, since States can and do pass laws like this one, what "makes sense" about the feds passing it for the whole country?
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
By this I mean that this bill does NOT appear to infringe on the first ammendment. Restricting specific web content (with fair and agreed-upon guidelines) to specific domain suffixes is perfectly legitamate. People too often expand the first ammendment to include anything they want as long as they can somehow show that they were "expressing themselves."
.gov domain, right? And I shouldn't be.
Think about it: I'm not allowed to register a
Now, I don't think that making people give up domains is the way to go about this. That's a little bit insane; but to make a rule for the future (assuming it can be instituted and that it works) does not harm anyone's free speech. That's my only point.
The idea is pretty good, though: people who want porn can find it easier, and people who don't want it can avoid it easier.
It's all going according to
Why don't they just legislate .kids or .notpron, and simply permit no conent unsuitable for children on sites with that domain. Then, if one were to want to ensure that kids don't see anything unsuitable ban them from going to all other domains. Corporations catering to kids and the vulnerable would most certainly jump on board (as they do not have to rid themselves of their old domains) and I am sure google.kids would be easy to get online. Enforcement is dead easy. Why do the guys coming up with this stuff think in such convoluted ways?
Hey, wait.
If this bill goes through, the government's gonna need a lot of extra help winnowing all that porn from the chaff, right? I mean, jeez, it could take years...
Hmmm, where'd I put that copy of my resume...? =)
What we need to do is pass a law that permits only one law to be introduced per bill. What the heck does an adults-only domain have to do with videotaping others without their consent? (Besides the obvious, of course.) Might as well add on a tax increase while we're at it.
From the District Court CDA decision
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
...voyeur.prn seems to cover both issues, unconcentual filming and .prn
ofcourse the state would have to view the site to decide whether it was pr0n or not, thus breaking (partially) their own law
'think, martin, think'
Why must every bill in existence have the word family in it? What does this have to do with the family at all?
Oh, that's right. Right wing nuts (note: I'm not speaking about all republicans here) won't pass anything without the word family in it.
I propose we call it:
The "Take away your rights in your own home and for the love of God, won't someone please think of the children?" Act
One TLD to rule them all
One TLD to bind them
One TLD to store the images
And in the darkness blind them
In the shadows where the X-cam lies
There the dark lord Bill G ever spies
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
RTFA: "Under the bill, any person who uses a camera or similar recording device to record another individual either for a lewd or lascivious purpose without that person's consent is in violation of the law."
Keeping an eye on your babysitter is not lewd or lascivious (well, it could be, but you know what I mean). Security cameras are not for lewd or lascivious purpose.
Nice sensationalism there, authors.
Honestly, if done right, I think these could be some of the first decent laws dealing with technology and the net that have been proposed in a while. Obviously some provisions need to be made to accomodate things such as home survalance, which someone mentioned, but that what the system is for, to sort those things out. Obviously you want to protect the right of people do do things in their own home, but I've heard of several cases of people renting apartments or condos, finding out they've been spyed on the whole time by hidden cameras located in 'kay positions' throughout the house (think bathroom, bedroom). Then they couldn't do anything about it because there wasn't any kind of law protecting them from this kind of intrusion. This is a good law when applied to this type of situation. As for a dot pr0n domain, well, why the hell not? I think it would be a GREAT idea, as long as there is some kind of clear definition of what belongs and what doesn't. Granted your going to have some conservative congress-person try to say that some art site with a nude body must be pr0n and therefor go in the adult domain, but c'mon, most pr0n is obviously pr0n, and most art is obviously art. We could eliminate the rediculous content filters found in libraries and schools and simply block the .pr0n domain. It all sounds very reasonable.
Oh, wait a min. This is a law has to go through OUR Congres??? They're bound to screw it up. Nevermind.
"To lead the people, you must walk behind them"
if this is about child protection then isn't the nanny cam part of child protection?
Ummmm its not like America is the only country in the world. I can host my dot-com anywhere else and put the most explicit hate-speech-fetish-goat-sex(tm) i want on it, and not only can no-one do anything about it, but they can't censor it either. Those little kiddies with .prn filtered machines will still be able to see my evil BA HA HA HA HA HA HAAA.
Ok. heres a crazy idea - you want a domain where people can surf with-out porn and what-not. so why don't _YOU_ f*ck off and move _YOUR_ sites to a restricted domain instead of forcing others to.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Actually the idea of an adult TLD seems like a good idea. Pornography is a business, they want the people who desire their product to find them, buy it, and be pleased enough to come back for more. Give them a place to work from. They'll be happy and parents can filter it out for their kids if they want. Kids don't have credit cards, not like the porn industry will mind. It'll help separate legit adult businesses from child-porn and other "obscene" things (whatever that means to you), so its easier to target the things you feel must be suppressed without hitting everyone standing nearby.
Putting hate speach along with porn is just stupid. That turns the TLD into nothing but a dumping ground for anything censors don't like. Gay & Lesbian advocacy sites? Can't have children seeing those, file'em under porn, I mean they're talking about something sexual after all, must be porn...
Entropy gets everyone.
How about we just tack .prn on to the end of _all_ domain names? That way we don't have to worry about deciding what is porn and what isn't. Then, when people who are either overly sensitive or "children" try to access the Internet, their filters will block them leaving the Internet to those of us who are smart enough to decide for ourselves what we should and shouldn't see.
Call it .prn, .xxx, or whatever, it just won't work.
.com domain. Not fair? Oops.
.prn domain, or punish you in however the law would say. Some organizations that want their massage to be heard won't categorize themselves that way, if just because that means they are limiting their audience.
.prn where little Johnny will never find it.
.prn domain. It is a quick attempt to segregate all the "bad" of the Internet into one neat package. It would be like saying, "Let's have a 'no-crack' zone on the Internet" where hackers/crackers don't go, and where we can have our family-fun websites and dance with posies.
You have a site that has pictures that you think people would give you money for. The more viewers, the more money for you. Would you move your website to a domain that can be easily globally blocked from websurfers?
Let's say that you do. Now, some of your competition with the exact same pictures is now racking in money with a
Should a pictoral of a breast exam go under breastexam.prn? Should a gynocological exam or a sexual guide for intimacy go under sexuality.prn? At one swipe, all material that seems too racy would be mandated to be under a new url, which can then be easily banned.
While some things can easily be branded as porn, some others may not. Who do you want making those decisions, the web-filter software designers? Congress? White middle-aged Christians from the South?
Imagine that you have a viewpoint on society. You use the internet to tell as many people about a "secret conspiracy" that you think is valid. Now, the law can be used by those that you think are conspiring against you to place you in a
Think that might not happen?
Imagine that the "secret conspiracy" is that Pat Robertson is using church-related "tax-exempt" monies to fund political action committees. You publish it on a web-site, and now some people consider you "hate-speech" against Christians.
Perhaps the "secret conspiracy" is Scientology. You all ought to know what I mean by that. Now xenu.net can be hate speech, and placed in a
Now, what if that the "secret conspiracy" is the Jews trying to take over the world (I don't believe that, but follow me). Would you set up your message to be banned by the very powers that "control" the Internet? Not hardly. You'd place it anywhere else, and move it around until the law is repealed.
There is too much room for governmental, private, and public-action committees to arbitraily censor material under a
Probably not going to happen.
I have been thinking that we should have a .prn for awhile. Would be cool if the gov could have a service where you put your credit card for verification also. Although it has the potentinal of being misused.
.com for business .org for no profit(etc etc) this is how is was supposed to be and if someone does not try to get it back to that soon it will never happen. .'s for poor legiate people who have had theres grabed up. .mov(movies) .tv(television shows) .fam(family sites) .per(falls under family but for personal(i know there is a .ws)) .hs(high school) .sch(for any other schools like grammer)
I really think some one needs to regulate TLD.
Here is a couple of good
any others you guys can think of? inforcing the TLD would make web surfing so much easier and safer.
moving adult content to .prn wouldn't run afoul of the first amendment, it's simply a "time, place, and manner" restriction, not a total prohibition.
.com names have value.
however, there might be a takings issue, if the
The first part of this bothers me too. Granted, filming someone without their knowledge can be abused to the n-th degree, however, there are legitimate uses for this. I know this is a bit extreme, but we have all seen video of the babysitter caught abusing a child. If it is my own home, get off of my back.
FORCE businesses into .biz and .com schools into .edu and only groups and orginazations get .org while internet services providers are forced with .net ... slashdot will have to become a .com because it is a BUSINESS.
.prn .biz or .com? How about a community ISP -- .org or .net? Where would my personal webpage go? I can't have a .com address anymore I guess. And what's the difference between .biz and .com anyway? You already seem confused whether it should be slashdot.com or slashdot.biz!
So what about porn sites that do business? Are they
All this categorizing and nitpicking sounds ridiculous, but the point is that this is what we would have to deal with if we started forcing TLDs based on website content. It just IS NOT PRACTICAL.
And don't even get me started on how we would go about deciding what constitutes "material harmful to minors".
That is why they want this bill: as cameras get smaller and smaller, those with the power, like Congressmen and their monied puppetmasters have much to lose to the prying eyes of the camera....
I'm sure he'd be in favor of this bill.
BC
I think they've got it back-asswards. If anything, people should be able to videotape the public without their permission on public property, and at the same time privately videotaping someone in your own home without their concent should be lawful, since they're *IN YOUR HOME*!
.com TLD domain owner to switch to .prn is ridiculous. Firstly, .prn is stupid, it should be .adt if anything at all (hate speech, etc is not porn). Secondly, why segregate "hateful speech" and pornography from everything else? It's not going to make the information inaccessable to minors (which shouldn't be happening in the first place).
Also, I think forcing a
Sheesh!
I can't believe I'm the only one to see the irony of this bill being proposed by somebody named Landrieu! And you call yourself geeks!
Reading the text of this bill, it would also render illegal those nice ABC hidden camera stings, since the person being filmed would be on private property (A business, no matter what people think, is private property; who gets sued for liabaility, definately not the state). I seriously doubt that the cute as a button senator ever thought about that.
In this country it makes you look like a pervert, but
EVERY SINGLE SCOTTISH PERSON DOES IT!
They'll get my .net when they pry it from my cold, dead DNS record.
.com, and a .org. Once I get an .edu, a .gov and a .mil,
C-X C-S
I also have a
I'll have collected the whole set!
Then they will all combine to form Voltron, and I'll rule the world!!
I suppose a sign stating that the property is under surveillance would be reasonable (but see below), but one then runs into the defense of "I didn't see the sign."
It's bad enough that I can't stop trespassing because my HOA does not permit signage (other than for sale or rent) on the property -- in Texas, one is not trespassing if no warning (like a "no trespassing" sign) isn't given).
You could've hired me.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
But if it does go through, then I would put any non-pornographic content there that I had access to. When enough valuable non-porn was available under the .prn TLD, simply blocking the .prn TLD would be as ineffective as blocking all pages that contained the word 'sex'
If the law REQUIRED that material under .prn be offensive, and imposed both sanctions for being too offensive for non .prn and for being not offensive enough for .prn, then any 'slightly offensive stuff would have no home on the net.
This is a dumb idea.
Eat at Joe's.
Slashdot would need the .prn extension as well, unless it started censoring sexually explicit posts and posts characterized as "hate speech".
The goatse guy for president. Win one for the gaper!
Video:
Right now, you can't audio record anybody without their permission: (see any tech support/ customer service phone system). This bill is perfectly legal... or at least its common, anyway.
*.prn:
Not a free speech issue. No body is denying access to pr0n--its still available. But the idea is that filtering, which is legal, becomes much easier. This is good for any concerned parents out there.
been reading the BOFH too long!
It will basicly make any adult discussions (and i mean adult not in the pronographic sence but in the mature sence) equivalent to porn.
Something similar already happened with the movie industry in the US. The rating for 18+ (i forget it) is considered pronography so nobody is willing to make movies that will get rated that way even if they are serious movies. If some one does make a movie that is rated adult it will be treated as porn and not shown in most theatres even if it is not porn but a serious adult movie.
Thus the US in the embarrassing position where most if its movies, and thus a big part of its culture is made for adolescents.
Protecting children is fine, but it is really sad if the whole cultural discource is reduced to adolescent level in order to protect children. Then it is the adults that suffer - they do not have a chance to grow up mentally and spiritually.
If you think that an adult can lead a full life while only participating in culture that is suitable for children conside that even the bible is not really suitable for children.
And if you think that this law will prevent a child that really wants porn, you are mistaken, there is always a way to go around circumvension measures - all you need is a friend on the outside that can access the adult site and send it to you encrypted, so no one sees what it is.
Now here this! .prn sites make more money! Turn your .com/.net into a .prn now! Surveys show that sites end with .prn see 50 times more hits than any other type of web site. Run a .prn NOW before your name is taken!
Goddam it, I don't even know how many times i've used
I've just started doing {2,4} because of that stupid
XJS*C4JDBQADN1.NSBN3*2IDNEN*GTUBE-STANDARD-ANTI-U
if you do so at the behest of the police/government.
Besides, leaving money on your dresser isn't enticing someone to break the law. Asking someone if you can buy some crack, and then busting them when the produce some, is enticing someone to break the law.
Simple. Place a small sign next to the front door stating "The interior of this house is being videotaped and recorded. By entering this house, you agree that being recorded while on these premises is acceptable to you."
Slashdot is a good example. It started off as a hobby and .org was probably a fine choice of TLD. There were no ads. At some point ads came along, probably just because the bandwidth costs were getting out of hand. Then they got bought out by a company. Most recently they started selling subscriptions.
.org for a .com? When money changed hands? When they became part of a corporation? When they started selling a service to individuals rather than eyeballs to advertisers?
So under your system when would they forced to give up the
Ooh, sorry, someone else already owns slashdot.com, a company which sells razors to sadist cartoonists, guess Taco & Co. can kiss their branding goodbye. Oh well, if people are really interested in them, they can find them through Google.
Yes, I must know this also. What is your secret.
Do they require lobotomies for Congress now, or are they just naturally morons?
.prn?
.kids. People and organizations getting .kids domains could be required to agree to acceptable content, and concerned parents could block everything except .kids if they cared about this.
Adults often discuss non-pornographic things which are not suitable for children. E.g., let's discuss the medical experiments done in the Nazi death camps (or Japanese biological experiments in China), complete with pictures. Nobody will be sexually aroused by those pix, but nobody would want a child (12 or under) to see them either. Are they to be forced into
It's much better to create a TLD specifically targeted for kids. E.g.,
Meanwhile the rest of us wouldn't be forced to go to cnn.prn to get stories that might upset the kiddies.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
This is just another example of poorly thought out bill with a barrel of pork tacked on for good measure. At points it's too narrow to actually suceed in what it attempts, and at others it's too ambiguous or far reaching.
.prn part is a piggyback bill. It's clearly tacked on to this because the videotape business is (on the surface) quite sensible. In principle, I don't have a problem with having a separate TLD for adult sites (it's far from censorship, and having TLDs mean something in general is a Good Thing), but it has all kinds of problems with praticality. For example, who determines if a site is pornography/hate speech? Lots of "ratings" systems have been tried and are not sucessful, why would TLDs be different? Why .prn? Hate sites are not pornography. Why not .adult? They also don't seem to recognize that the Internet is international. What good does it do to apply this to US sites when sites in the rest of the world can do whatever they want? That doesn't protect anyone. It's clear that noone who had input on the bill had any real technical knowledge of how the Internet works.
In principle, both ideas have merit. It is already illegal to secretly record audio without a warrant (i.e. bugging or wiretapping). It makes sense for the same rules that apply to audio apply to images and video as well. But, in this bill, it is only illegal if it is for a "lewd or lascivious purpose." What about videotapes that violate your privacy in non-lewd ways? Shouldn't those be illegal too? And it doesn't apply in public places! What about public restrooms? What about "upskirts"? Those are two things they specifically want to stop, and it's not clear at all if those are covered.
Fortunately, this law would not prevent, for example, taping of your babysitter to be sure s/he's not beating your kids (it's not a lewd purpose).
The
This is clearly NOT a privacy bill at all, but simply a porn/speech regulation bill. OK ideas drafted into lousy legislation.
... "Give me a woman who loves beer and I will conquer the w
Everyone go naked, at first it will be a big shlong (Freudian Slip) process. But after a while everyone will realize that nudity isn't a big deal and it will solve a bunch of problems with society, not to mention put the clothing buisnesses out of buisness.
Why can't I put hidden cameras in my house? Granted, placing cameras in the bathrooms/bedrooms has some illnatured consequenses, but a hidden camera in my living room to watch the babysitter or to record burglars shouldn't be illegal. It is after all MY house.
Of course, I have cameras all over the place anyways, and they're all clearly visible. Its not like anyone entering my house has the illusion of things being private. If I added a few hidden cameras amongst all the visible ones, I doubt anyone could claim ignorance.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
Others have probably already responded this way, but I've been saying for years that it would make things easier all around if there was a .xxx domain or something similar that would encompass ALL porno sites, requiring them to use that TLD on pain of fine or other legal penalty. Imagine how simple it would be for companies to provide URL filters that would absolutely stop kids from seeing those sites. Imagine how easy it would be for libraries to filter porno this way. This isn't a free speech issue at all...it's just an organizational determination. I hope that one passes.
If I see a site named www.poon.prn, I won't know what it is until I load it.
.cum domain...
On the other hand, if you use a
I sent the following to her via her website: I have recently heard about the "Family Privacy and Protection Act" in a news story on CNN. I am generally in favor of solving the problem that the bill is trying to solve. However, I would like to be sure that the bill doesn't prevent certain legitimate uses of hidden cameras in our homes. "Nanny-Cams" Many people have made use of hidden cameras to verify that a babysitter is taking proper care of their children. I think it is important that the bill not criminalize this practice. Security cameras Many people have installed security cameras in their homes. I would hope that a burgaler would not be able to use this law to claim that he or she was improperly filmed in a private home during a burgalary, thus turning the victim into a criminal. Public Security or Traffic Cameras I am concerned that any camera installed in a public place could be in jeopardy by this law. For example, a camera used to monitor traffic congestion might have an apartment window in the background of a wide shot. Would this not be in violation of your proposed law? New top level domain for adult content With regards to forcing certain content into a .prn top level domain, I think the diversity of community standards throughout the country would cause a lot of confusion about what content should be in this new domain and what should be in .com or other traditional top level domains. This is especially true with something as difficult to define as "hate speech". Most news talk-back forums would probably have to move to the .prn domain since you can never tell when someone might type an expletive into a talk back forum, or might express an opinion that could be defined by someone as "hateful". I would think that most people who can't afford high priced lawyers would be either be exposing themselves to legal risk or would have to move all of their content to .prn, even if it was not content intended to be pornographic.
Maybe a better top level domain for this would be ".free" meaning that information in that domain would be free from the threat of prosecution.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
After they enact this law, the first thing that all the federal elected officials and bureaucrats should do is PUT THEMSELVES UNDER ARREST. If I want to put security cameras around the perimeter of my property, it's no one's business but mine. If someone is trying to blackmail me, I should have the right to catch them in the act. But I'm sick of traffic cams, searches, email surveillance, roving wiretaps, and I'm sick and tired of the govertment trying to protect me from myself, especially when they do such s****y job.
Is everyone just itching to destroy the first amendment? Seriously, Google and the German Court, Google and church of Scientology, Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act...
Damn...
Anyhoo, why don't they just make a HTML tag and ask them to place it in all porn pages and fix browsers with an option to use it. No court or congress time wasted, and kids won't have to deal with porn pop-ups.
Why yes I am paranoid! Thanks for asking!
I like the idea of .xxx
.prn
:-)
I feel that there would be a lot less confusion than
I would also like to see it so that anyone who links an adult popup window have to use a simular extension. I would feel better surfing the interweb at work.
I am not really for regulating this sort of thing usually, but the interweb is in essence a public space and there are certain rules almost anywhere you are that need to be abided by.
I like pr0n, but I only like looking at it intentionally.
(/local/home/curiosity)-#who -u|grep thecat|cut -c 44-49|xargs kill -9
Here's an idea: instead of griping about it and feeling hopeless about our civil rights being stampeded, go here and write your congressperson:
f m
http://www.senate.gov/senators/senator_by_state.c
Urge your representative to NOT pass the bill as long as that idotic, unmanageable rider is attached!
A vacuum is a hell of a lot better than some of the stuff that nature replaces it with. - Tennessee Williams
I'm not sure about Texas, but usually an enclosed area adjacent to the house is also considered an implicit 'no trespassing' area. There's a legal name for it, but I can't remember it at the moment.
But one problem with this is that you can't limit access to your front door. Because of the layout of our units, my neighbors can enclose their patio without blocking the front door - then nobody can legally enter the patio without their permission. But my front door opens onto my patio (since I have a unit against all other walls) and I can't keep people out.... but I can insist that they don't linger.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Why are there top level domains (TLD) anyway? Couldn't we just get rid of them altogether and require the site owner to use a name that accurately describes the site? Aren't TLD just for ease of administration?"
"I always knew there was something fundamentally wrong with the universe." -- Arthur Dent
As someone previously stated, this is just like zoning laws in cities and towns. You know, a residential area, commerce area, etc. This is the same thing. It's long overdue. All individuals should be put in their own domain, all companies under .com, all educational sites on .edu, etc. Makes total sense.
.prn domain would only be required in the United States obviously. There is no way the United States could impose this domain on sites in other countries, unless there is some kind of international treaty.
.gov equivalent?) and makes the internet better in the long run.
The
This isn't regulating free speech. There is no manditory banning of the porn sites by the United States. This is just organizing these web sites in an domain that parents/schools/libraries/companies CAN ban if they so choose. It's almost like putting all of the adult magazines on a separate shelf behind the store counter so teenagers can't buy them. Same difference if you ask me. It eliminates confusion (ever go to www.whitehouse.com instead of its
The videotaping part is long overdue. It would only apply if someone wasn't notified that they were being videotaped or didn't give their consent.
You can bet that a blanket ban on covert filming is going to be actually aimed at threatening the reporters and activists who use hidden cameras to expose the lies and hidden secrets of abusive and corrupt organizations. Remember, these sort of abusive and corrupt organizations will agressively use any sort of official secrecy to keep information from the public. (Remember how Tobacco companies even managed to use Attorney-Client privelege to hide scientific research? Or how the chemical industry has tried to use "national security" concerns to remove public records of toxic sites?)
The "public space" exemption is too narrow as a lot of the current space used generally by the public is actually held in private hands. Furthermore, the public has a right to know a lot about what happens in supposedly "private" places that actually produce products for public consumption.
We should not be naive here. Angie Harmon and concern about voyeurism is not what laws like this are really about. If we want to ban just voyeuristic films of private citizens in various states of undress, then a law should be written that narrowly targets that.
It would be great if they made all the adult sites .prn because I could easily filter out all the annoying kid-safe content when I'm browsing for pr0n!
... "Give me a woman who loves beer and I will conquer the w
It seems to me that this is a case of an extremely unpopular censorious measure (requiring sites to have certain extensions) trying to coast into law on the shirttails of a more worthy measure.
This is why US lawmaking just stinks. Can you say "patriot" act? The first hurdle a bill should be required to face is that it is representing itself truthfully in its own title. Deceptive bills like this deserve be tossed out no matter how worthy parts of it may be.
:D :p :)
He is the author who wrote The Postman.
He basically thinks that a future world made transparent by omnipresent cameras would be a good place: No more bullies, no more lying, reduced crime. What anyone knows, everyone knows...I say, bring it on!
This post is protected under the DMTA (Digital Millemium Trolling Act). It is illegal to moderate it as a troll.
You know what? To hell with this one-sided "free speech." I don't particularly care where porn goes, but hate propaganda sites need to be branded as the trash they are. There is no gray area here.
Hear fucking hear. The whole "think about the children!" plea is bullshit. Parents should do just that - not rely on government, school, and church to do it for them.
After all, aren't I already restricted in business as far as naming my company is concerned? I can't call myself binaryDigit, Inc. if I am not offically incorporated (or LLC, Corp, etc). There's already a precident set for control of business names (and after all, isn't inc, corp, llc very similar to tld's in the "real" world").
Not saying I agree or disagree with the legislation (though I think they'll never be able to reasonably enforce this). Just seems like domain names are similar to dba's.
Speaking completely out of my ass without bothering to read the bill, I suspect the ban on video taping would cut both ways. While it will (might?) protect our privacy in public (if that's possible), it would likely also make a tape like the Rodney King beating illegal. Not that it did Rodney King much good or the LAPD any bad, but it seems that being able to video tape the cops and other miscreants is important for gathering evidence.
Wil
wiki
There are a lot of legitimate adult topics that are not for children. I have a problem with all adult material getting lumped with pr0n.
/., guestbooks, web forums, wiki, etc.) Because someone CAN post something that might not be child safe, will they be slapped with a .prn?
.prn because someone else's home page has adult material?
.prn if posters put in offtopic adult material, say an inoppropriate quote in a .sig?
If they want to just make this "objectionable" content, who decides? This is the one that drives me crazy.
Also what about sites that may have some minor % of things that aren't child safe. If I have a collection of poetry published on the web, and one of the poems references a non-child-safe topic, does my whole site get banned?
How about web pages that can include user content (like
How does this deal with home pages, and with people who don't own the domain. Is the domain containing my home page moved to
Will web archives of mailing lists and usenet groups become
LITTLE GIRL: But which cookie will you eat FIRST? C. MONSTER: Me think you have misconception of cookie-eating process.
The "Official Site for the United States Marine Corps" is usmc.mil
Marines.com is a recruitment site. (and yes, I can see it says "Official" too), but look at the content and tell me which is which.
Tis better to be silent and thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt --Abraham Lincoln
no more "hidden camera investigations" by legitimate journalists.
no "nanny cam" to catch the nanny abusing your child or stealing your stuff.
the only people allowed to use hidden cameras will be law enforcement/entrapment agencies.
who decides what is adult? (not her I hope).
the democratic party should be ashamed to have a legislator who would sponsor this kind of crap in their ranks.
The difference between Theory and Practice is greater in Practice than in Theory.
The hidden camera thing is pretty obvious. It also seems like it fills a loophole in the laws. Well at least according to my knowledge of the law via "The Practice" and "Law and Order".
.prn makes a lot of sense and I would guess is likely to be upheld as legal. They're still allowed to speak, but are given a specific domain name ending. It also allows Congress to put through filtering laws without infringing on free speech. It also stops filtering companies from being able to stop access to legitimate traffic to "questionable" content. Mind you this might not work at all given that US law typically does not apply well outside the US. Who knows maybe all the porn operators will simply move overseas.
The limiting of Porn sites to
The law is American vintage. They think they are the center of the world and because it the whole internet must be changed...
I say: if you don't want to get taped, just close the curtains. If you keep your windows open, don't complain if other people look in or even tape it. Current privacy laws already protect you from other broadcasting their recordings. Sorry, we don't need a new law for this, and criminalizing video cameras is a very bad idea.
<I>the second clearly treads on free speech</I>
.adult) that ALL of the sites with pornography or other adult materials must move to.
<P>How do you figure? The adult entertainment sites will keep their same name, but have a different TLD. It will also be MUCH easier to filter out adult sites based on domain names rather than actual content.
<P>I wrote to my representatives about a plan similar to this one (almost 3 years ago!). I don't see any downside to the plan.
<P>1. Creates a new domain (.prn or
<P>2. Creation of a new domain makes filtering web sites easier for parents.
<P>So where is free speech hurt in this process? Creating a special domain for porn is the same as any City making a law that says an adult entertainment business cannot operate next door to a school.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
If lawmakers actually investigated the things they were attempting to restrict, they'd know that the people viewing this on the web are getting a lot more than they bargained for
"Holy Katz!!!! You could smuggle a small child out of Mexico in that fat roll!"
-pause-
"What the hell am I doing?"
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
Forcing a website to move is simply not a good thing. For one thing, they often have already staked out their territory and the users that use them know the address (sure you could have it redirect from old to new, but then , what is the point?).
.prn as an option, and then the voluntary movement of adult related websites. Then give incentives to do it, Legally. For example, I feel that a lot of the content that is available on sites even before age verification is pretty explicit. So much so that I wouldn't want my 10 year old son looking at it. There are already laws (a believe) on requiring age verification, so legally go after these sites (if they are in the USA) more aggressively. However don't go after sites that have the .PRN aggressively because they already take measures to help ensure children aren't looking at their stuff (so long as a parent or guardian has set up the computer so that it wont go to .prn sites).
.PRN group. That is not adult content. A group like the KKK's content is just, in my opinion, as bad for 30 year olds as they are for 10 year olds. If Parents want to make sure their kids aren't going to those sites, then they just have to make sure they raise their kids to be open minded and intelligent. The average 14 year old boy wants to go to www.playboy.com, Not the KKK's web site. The ones that do want to go to the KKK's site most likely have parents that don't mind and will let them in.
What should be done is the creation of
This of course wont full-proof the internet.. Nothing will. But it will allow government administrators to say they did something to protect our children, parents group another tool that they can feel good about, and responsible adult content providers the ability to cover their ass yet another time.
As far as the Hate groups, they shouldn't be in the
The Whitehouse justs wants it's website back... That's all.
hmm... for fun I enjoy launching DDoS attacks against 127.87.42.5
Sorry for the repeat. Someone beat me to the Submit button.
Is dragonriders_of.prn taken yet?
I wonder if part b might just be there to distract the public long enough to get through part a.
I stole this Sig
It is clearly mentioned that this bill has to do with others then the owner who is installing a videocamera. In certain states it is, according to the article, allowed to install a camera in the bathroom and sleeping room of your neighboors house.
it is a situation where a child is the voyeur?
~.Evanrude
how do you judge that?
The problem is that there are many bigots that would judge ANY speech as 'hate speech' that simply presents a different view than their rhetoric will allow.
Requiring sites to declare their objectionable material up front is good. I agree though, meta tags are definitely the more effective way to go.
.whatever in the first place. Enforcing it is too hard, and it's not enforced now anyway. It's irrelevant and only serves to sell more domain names than people actually need (hmm... conspiracy). We should be typing in "http://slashdot" and that's it, with objectionable content declared in the response (both in page or page elements, namely pictures), with the option to not display certain types of easily and specifically defined content (NUDITY, PORNOGRAPHY, JONKATZ).
Hell, if I were to go back in time and reinvent the net, I wouldn't have included the
Hell, it would be worth it just to block the wak-a-mole game of porn ads redirecting you.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
I think it would be best to make it illegal to have actual pornographic content on a .com/.net/.org site. However, text would still be allowed. Thus porn operators could keep their current addresses, but all images and videos would have to be on a .prn server. Filtering software could then block anything from .prn, and all porn content would be gone. In the worst case, a child would get an empty page with absolutely no graphics, just some text.
.. just use meta tag in header ther indicate
the content(as it supose to be). then bowser can disallow display what is set to "PORN", etc.
most p0rn site allready use adult check, so i guess
ther be participing and add an well know tag.
..Or maby it just to get more credit card num.
I would say that alot of stuff on news and governments can consitute hate speach. I wouldn't want my kids to read much of that crap. What about Slashdot? There can be alot of hate and profanity here too.. ha ha.. slashdot.prn! Great idea!
Make unwanted SPAM illegal.
(b) provide for an adult-only domain such as .prn where all non-child-safe sites (pr0n, hate speech, etc.) would be relegated--the sites would have to give up their .com/.org/.net domains they own today.
.prn corresponding to theior site on .com/.net/.org, and charged rates no higher than those they had previously been paying. Perhaps lower payments for the sites whose names had to be switched than for new sites who register under .prn. In this case, however, they might need 3 .prn-style extensions to get around the overlaps between .com/.net/.org.
This might work if the owners/operators of these sites were given, for free, the site on
I personally wouldn't mind, it would be a much easier way to avoid that kind of thing.
Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
I would rather it was
It would behove the legitmat Adult film industry to push for there own domain as well. It makes them look good, it does not prevent people over 18 from viewing them, it gives parents an easier way to prevent there under age child from seeing something there parents don't want them to.
To put an adulkt mgazine behind the counter, but still let people know where they are, doesn't impact free speech. The publishers to publish and there readers can still buy there mag.
For propriety sake, I would also like to say that I like adult sexual entertainment, Believe it should be allowed. It has problems, but so does the non-sex entertainment industry.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I've been saying porn should actually have to be on a certain extension. Although I always thought .xxx kind of makes sense. If you have a child, you can block all .xxx sites from being viewed....thus solving children seeing what they shouldn't. Otherwise, I don't agree with it. there is freedom of speech, but we do have to consider the next generation of americans and what they see at an early age.
From the CNN article: "Landrieu said she wrote the bill after hearing from Wilson, a Monroe, Louisiana, homemaker who found hidden video cameras above her bed and in her shower nearly four years ago.
Wilson found she could not pursue criminal charges against the voyeur because secret video taping, unlike audio surveillance, is llegal in only a handful of states."
Point one, just because the cops/prosecutor could not find a chargable offense after someone planted cameras all over the woman's house, we now need a federal law saying it is illegal to plant video equipment in someone else's house? In Louisiana tresspassing is not illegal? After passage, will strolling in and lounging around someone else's house still be legal as long as it is not videotaped? Some federal law will all of a sudden grant compentancy to the police and the DA?
Next point, if the real reason was because there was nobody caught for planting the cameras, how does this law change anything? If nobody is found responsible will they prosecute thin air?
So, if I understand this,
It is illegal to spy on someone to get your jollies off.
It is legal to spy on someone to put them in jail.
If some lonely shut-in spies on you, you might get embarassed.
If Big Brother spies on you, it might cost you your job, your children, your home, or your freedom.
Her bill purports to be about preserving basic human dignity, but it misses the world's largest abuser of the right to privacy: the govt itself.
If she really cared about privacy, she would go after Ashcroft's USA Patriot act. Instead she obcesses about the sanctity of the lady's washroom.
Can't we have an IQ test for govt officials?
=brian
I agree with the second part of the Bill. It's not like the purveyors or hard-core pornography care, giving them their own domain would make it easier for people to find their sites. What I don't agree with is hiding porn sites in the rest of the otherwise safe Internet and even hiding themselves so that people stumble onto them unsuspectedly. I don't want children to do that.
As an adult, I have the right to look at porn, Larry Flynn made sure of that (at least the movie says he did); This Bill doesn't inhibit that right. It does protect children from having prOn sites appearing as something other that prOn when searching for something else on Google.
And I don't think it will label all adult-related material as prOn. After all, Slashdot is adult-oriented and I can access it from my corporate network which is closely watched and filtered by Websense software. I cannot access www.whitehouse.com though, good thing.
"You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake."...Tyler Durden
Am I the only one who would rather type www.collegecoeds.pron?
The parent poster obviously read the article, you obviously did not. Retard
However, who is going to determine whose hate speech will be required to use the ".prn" domain? Hate is not absolute, it is very subjective to the observer and comes and goes with societal fashion. Personally, I think "Hate Speech" deserves the most protection possible and should not be regulated by Government. Its every American's right not to like people for irrational reasons and be able to shout it at the top of their lungs. I like it when I hear hate speech because it makes it easier to determine the folks I want to avoid.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Based on this "press release", on the surface it sounds benign (with the exception of moving adult sites to thier own domain - others have made better objections on this).
/. banner for "The StarDot Netcam @ Thinkgeek"...
OT - heh, what's funny is as I write this I am getting a
Anyhow, the fact that this bill has the word "Family" in it causes bells to go off in my head, making me want to see the actual bill language - I am almost certain that it actually blocks way more than what the press release purports it will.
I question why such things aren't included under "anti-stalking" laws and such? I also tend to wonder how this would effect small home-based businesses (not having seen the actual wording of the bill, it may not have any effect).
As it stands, based on the press release, the bill (aside from the adult site stuff) seems like a good deal, but if someone could enlighten me further with a link to the actual text of the bill, or something - it would be appreciated...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
The horrible grammar on Slashdot never ceases to amaze me. First, the second instance of "their" is obviously incorrect. The word you were searching for is "they're."
Now to the real reason for this post. Quoth TimeTrip, "Does that mean you can't videotape their behavior..." Who are "they"? Is the babysitter "they"? How many people is the babysitter; one or more than one? The word you were searching for is "his."
You ignorant fucks, I swear. Learn your language before it is taken over by PC morons out to "de-gender" it (and don't get me started on the word "gender").
California is a single party consent state. Meaning only one party of a conversation, either private or public needs to know about a recording.
I use the x10 camera at the front door all the time. Caught the neighbors' 'lil darling' heisting my mail. Sad part was all I could think was glad they did not have this shit when I was a kid or I'd prolly be in prison now.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
They should have filtered out .gov from their dumb peep-at-home ad campaign!!!
is competition good, or is duplication of effort bad?
Unluckly, the toys have changed. Now to get a complete set, you need the .museum, .pro, .aero, and the other new ones. And of course, you'll need the nessisary .prn to complete your set if this whole thing happens ;-)
Davis Ray Sickmon, Jr - looking for something to read? Check out my three free novels at MidnightRyder.org
"i.e." means "that is." "e.g." means "for example." You meant "e.g."
Parent poster is a troll, so this comment is born at -1. But it's a good comment, and I think it should get modded up.
Moderators, do what you like.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
I'd vote for 2 TLDs: ".sex" for porn, and ".erotica" for "erotic art". More details for how I'd go about working this can be found here.
Convert RSS to HTML - integrate webfeeds into your website
She's obviously just trying to get rid of those annoying X10 ads!
If they must legislate something, why not require every site with potentially evil material to use one of the content rating systems, like the ICRA, which at least MSIE and Netscape support.
why is pr0n lumped in with hate speech? this makes no sense to me.
So this means I can't install one of those nanny-cams in my VCR that records what the baby sitter is doing when she's taking care of my infant son for $10/hr. I can't see if she's doing well, ignoring him, abusing him, or what.
Great.
Remove the caps and hold to a mirror.
Why do almost all of the proposed TLDs come out to be TLAs? I would suggest ".porn".
mbbac
How long does it take a politician to stumble over the very obvious? To damn long it seems.
The segregation of sites into different domains is NOT censorship. Its rational.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
No, no, no. Force everyone into a two-letter ccTLD (except for .int of course). Let your own country set the rules, rather than one entity running roughshod over everybody. Trademark issues would be more clearly handled, and the namespace problem would tend to go away then too. I've made this argument many times before, so I won't detail the whole thing again.
Constitutionally Correct
If people are so concerned about protecting their children from porn, etc. on the internet, let them and the companies with whom they do business shoulder the burden of protecting the children. I don't have kids, don't want any, and don't feel like I should have to cope with extra expenses and regulation to make sure that other people can have the internet safe for their children. I choose not to have kids because I don't want the added expense/hassle of having them. People who've chosen to have kids should be required to have the complete responsibility of having them, including going out of their way to ensure that, in using an informational medium, their children only use bits they approve of.
RE:(a) outlaw filming someone via hidden camera without their permission except in public places, and
.prn where all non-child-safe sites (pr0n, hate speech, etc.) would be relegated--the sites would have to give up their .com/.org/.net domains they own today.
 
So much for taping traffic stops, military/police checkpoint stops, raids, home "visits" and other "contact" with the police for protection/to cover ones *ss.
(and personally I think this is the main reason they're pushing it, regardless of what they claim.)
 
RE:b) provide for an adult-only domain such as
 
"non-child safe" defined as anything not in line with current "goodthink".
I love how they tie political speech ("hate!" eeewww) in with porn. yeah, real subtle. I'm buying it.
This would leave business sites, which haven't registered in the .kids domain not open to children, and if they did get a position there, it would make them look dumb. Porn is not good for our society, and there's a lot of illegal stuff going on. I'd much rather make it inconvinent for all the porn folks than EVERYBODY else.
.kids domain would not include enough good content, and it would be a waste. Most kids that are interested in junk would be over the age to be interested in "kid" stuff, and still younger than 18 (teenagers).
I have a feeling a
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
In the first shot that pops up in the slideshow, does her t-shirt say "Vagina" on the front? I'm having trouble and don't have graphics tools handy to make sure. Someone, please check.
Would pr0n and hate speach be given the same domain? If so, that would not only be saying that pr0n was bad but that it is as bad as hate speach!
You dare to hit ME! JOHNNY PASCAULLY!!
When the Communications Decency Act of 1996 was struck down, Justice O'Connor wrote a concurrance that suggested that if the law had been approached as a zoning ordinance, it could have been written to pass muster. In writing the opinion, she relied, in part, on a 1996 article by Larry Lessig.
The idea of using a PRN domain was probably motivated by that concurrance. Whether it would survive Supreme Court review is another matter. Justice O'Connor was only joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist.
Read the article again, or maybe for the first time:
"Lewd or lascivious purpose" sounds to be narrowly targeted enough.
It should have been:
Fight Spammers!
Of course it's very clear to YOU what belongs in .prn -- it's very clear to about 95 percent of people I've met. And not a damn one of them agrees with another. Everybody's interested in "rights" as long as that means protecting and bolstering their personal values. Very few people have any interest in protecting the rights of those with whom they disagree. Conservatives do want you having abortions, liberals don't want you having a gun. Both groups espouse "rights" when they really only want to advance their agenda. Can I blame them? No. Do I agree with their ideas? Sometimes. Do we need limits to our liberties for freedom to work? Absolutely -- but we must be VERY CAREFULL when we start deciding what's right and what's wrong for everybody. These issues are rarely as simple enough to be decided by a three-line post in an online forum.
"In Germany, the Nazis first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then the came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics, but I didn't speak up because I was a protestant.
Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak for me."
--Reverend Martin Niemoeller
When life gives you lemons, make lemonade. But when life gives you crap, please don't make a beverage out of it.
As for the argument about getting other countries to comply, i belive most would welcome the effort on an international level, but domain holders would have to be compensated. Offering a free transfer of their existing domain to the
Hey, does this mean we could take those X10 folks to court for their ads?!?!
Stock for Fox broadcasting's parent company, NewsCorp, is down 20% on speculation it won't be able to use "World's Stupidest Car Chases" to fill in for the next witty, original show that they cancel due to poor marketting.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
free speech is guranteed so long as your excercise of that right does not interfere or infringe on the rights of others. You have the right to sell Playboy but we ask that you cover any images that might be visible to a child standing in a book store. and that you move the magazines out of a minor's reach.
.prn? can't you just say that .prn is the brown band around the magazine cover? A simple mouse click would ban .prn sites from your computer without a password and essentially you never have to worry again that your child is seeing inappropriate material. And those things that might seem inappropriate but aren't could remain unblocked. (beaver college? remember?)
.prn is a great idea that pretty neatly solves alot of problems that legislators have. We don't allow pornographers to sell their wares on mainstreet. why would we allow it on the mainstreet (.com) of the net? and as far as other nations go just ask them if they would mind. would it be that big a burden? there comes a point where a person's rights contradict common sense and neighborliness.
Isn't this the same as asking porn operators to move to
I think
-
Stop voting the damn lefties into office!
1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21 -- Mathematics is the Language of Nature.
(a) outlaw filming someone via hidden camera without their permission except in public places
Your home is not a public place. This means you need to get permission from theves to tape them robbing you.
Desperation is a stinky cologne
Am I the ONLY one who has NO problem with the SECOND rule but has a SERIOUS problem with that FIRST one?
.sex .xxx or .prn TLD is a GREAT idea, and I still cannot figure out as to why ICANN did not pass that resolution LOOONG ago. Obviously having just a single nations legistlator pass it would do jack shit good, but it is still some sort of first step.
Uh in 'none-public' places?
Seems to me that we should have EXPLICT warnings as to WHEN EVER we are being video taped ANYWHERES.
Hell putting all the pr0n sites on a
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
I hope I'm one of the first to have found this.
If surreptitious videotaping in the home is illegal, then evidence obtained by it is inadmissable in court.
This leads to interesting potential solutions to problems in burglary: if you know the target's got a camera going, strip down to your thong and running shoes. At your trial, all that clear video of you filling bags with cash and heirlooms just goes away...
This would seem to be the case, but I'm not a lawyer, anyone with a legal background have an opinion on this?
On the second part of the bill: yeah, we're still seeing laws made by people who understand neither the technology, nor the global nature of the it.
To mail me, remove the 'mailno' from my email addy.
"Yeah. It smells, too..."
Why don't these people do their homework before introducing something so completely stupid, which so obviously violates the first amendment, with no real chance of passing? Yeah, like ICANN is gonna create .prn just because some idiot doesn't want to take the time to monitor what their kids are doing on the internet.
Is it like a PR thing? "I tried to introduce a bill to protect kids, so that means I'm all about family values, so please donate to my campaign, and/or vote for me, all the while ignoring my obvious stupidity."
As for the other part, you should be able to videotape whatever you damn well want in your own home. Hey, if some chick comes over my house and wants to take a shower, she'll just have to take the chance that it might show up on myprivateshowervideo.prn.
If it's illegal to video tape someone without their consent, how are we going to catch these politicians "red handed" taking bribes?
How about making a .kid TLD for kids-safe sites?
I suspect there are more non-kids-safe sites than kids-safe ones, so that would be an easier move.
I can imagine the pilot of the .prn lion in the animated series, of course chanting as they transform:
"Form... feet and legs!
Form... hands and arms!
Form... head and body!
And i'll form... the groin!"
The enemies of Democracy are
Wait...this is good! No longer would we have to put up with X10 ads telling us to video tape the girl next door!
--
J Boylan
It will make it illegal to film someone without their consent for a lewd or lavicious purpose.
.prn idea.
Nanny cans et al should still be fine since the intent is to protect your kids.
Hidden cameras in hotel rooms or bathrooms are not on.
Quite simply and still quite unrelated to the dumb
I suppose now the fascists will have no excuse to censor these sites and maybe we wont have to hear about how you can "protect" your children with AOL.
You dare to hit ME! JOHNNY PASCAULLY!!
Reading the comments it seems many are reading a different press release than the official one. Several people have raised the question about this preventing the hidden camera recording of nannies, babysitters, and other caregivers to ferret out possibly abuse. Others have raised the question of whether this will affect $retail-store survelliance cameras intended for the prevention of theft. The bill specifically mentions hidden camera taping of "lewd or lacivious acts" as those which would be targetted.
.prn issue to it. That is a real violation of speech and its presence dilutes the video voyourism aspects. Sadly, the bill should be divided or tossed out (on the basis of violation of free speech, if naught else) because of it. That portion is entirely unenforcable. The true tragedy is that supporters of the first half will be vilified if they do not support the second part and their voice of support on the first part will be silenced.
Would this affect $retail-location hidden cameras in open places (not dressing rooms or bathrooms)? No. There is no intent to capture lewd or lacivious acts and someone screwing in the aisles of the store doesn't count. It would, however, make it illegal to put up a camera in a dressing room or bath room to capture someonein an undressed state when they are not intending to be seen in an expectation of privacy. It would also prevent cameras on the floor pointed up to catch a peek under women's skirts (or men's kilts) as they walked over the camera (or similarly would prevent someone from walking around with a camera in a low slung bag for the same purpose), whether or not something like that is used now.
Would this affect a hidden camera placed in one's own home for the purpose of capturing the potentially abusive activities of a nanny, babysitter, or other care-giver? No. As with the store surveliance, those video feeds are not lewd or lacivious or intended to give a sexual thrill. There is no intent to capture the individual in a candid -undressed- or sexually compromising position. However, if you put a hidden camera in the bathroom, in the bedroom of your roommate (without his/her permission), or secretly in the bedroom window of your neighbor, that wouldn't be allowed.
Would a retail store have to have a notice about the possibility you might be taped by their survellience camera? I think in California they do have to have some notice about it, I seem to remember seeing such notices. Heck, the notice alone can be enough to deter a lot of casual theft whether the cameras exist or not (I knew a retailer who set up a dummy camera prominantly in her shop and had a corosponding drop in theft... same too for someone posting a sign about hidden cameras though there were none).
In my opinion, perhaps caregivers, too, should be given notice they -may- be video taped for quality control (kinda like the recordings when you call for customer service, "this call may be recorded..."). Couldn't that make $care-giver a bit more cautious in his/her job? Saying you -may- tape someone doesn't mean you -will- or will all the time.
The real said part about this bill is the fact they tried to tie the
So let me get this straight. The Senator thinks that me installing a security camera inside my house should be illegal. This is a good thing? How? What about businesses? 7-11 may be publicly accessible, but it certainly is private property. I can just see the conversation now...
"Excuse me sir. I need your permission to videotape you."
"No. Now give me all your money."
Will the stupid laws never end?
Nothing to see here. Move along.
In today's world, you can never trust anyone completly, especially if you have kids and hire a in-house nanny/babysitter. (I dont have kids, but I'm just sayin). One day you notice suspicous things like marks on your kids, but it's illegal to setup survaillance at your house to watch if the person you hired is doing something wrong? Geez. I'm sure when I go to a Best Buy or CompUSA I'm being watched and videotaped -they dont trust me.
$cat
This bill is intended to curtail LUDE use of the camera. You can still video tape your babysitter as long as you don't film her in the shower and then post it to the net. This bill won't be far reaching and it will be only called upon when it IS ACTUALLY NEEDED. The courts will then have to define lude use. It might reach towards magazines like the Enquirer. This is a good thing. As for the .prn. I think that will be shot down. As someone mentioned, the US is not the internet. We can't regulate a world wide medium.
As an adult I prefer to not have smut affiliated my status. In my opinion, part of being an adult is maturity, and I see very little maturity in someone who panders after their banal instincts. Therefore, I think porn is a good word for it.
-- Solaris Central - http://w
heh. i use the name 'acheron' on most places, just happens that i didn't use it on /. here. i also find myself explaining that charon was on acheron, not styx. :)
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
Creating a domain for pornographic material makes sense. Not allowing any porn anywhere else does not. However, a law where only porn that is labelled in a standardized and filterable is allowed in normal domains would make sense. Under this type of system, we could allow porn makers to upload to the usual domains, with the requirement that they include a standardized tag of some sort -- prehaps a meta tag in the section of the html. Or perhaps a minimum of any one of a number of standardized tagging schemes to create as many avenues of accomodation as reasonably possible for the industry This would allow browsers and/or operating systems to be set by the user to filter out anything that is tagged as porn (or of, course, coming from the .prn domain)
The tricky part: defining porn. It would be necessary to have a rule defining what type of material requires a standard tag which would not apply to the .prn domain.
This would be a compromise. Arguably, some capacity for free speech is lost. But accomodating the industry with it's own domain and plenty of ways to publish in other domains that are safe for families goes a long way toward ameliorating the intrusion on speech rights.
This is a classic case where one right -- free speech -- conflicts with another -- to reasonably control the education and development of one's children. One could argue that all you have to do is either not have the internet in your home, or only allow children to use it in your presence; but I think that these are unreasonable expectations for parents. The Internet is becoming more and more indispensible for education, and children need to have the ability to explore on their own without encountering the worst of the big bad world.
The policy prescription I've outlined is, I believe a reasonable imposition on the porn industry. We don't allow them to place their images in the physical public space -- and that's considered reasonable; I think it's also reasonable to place limits on their expression in the digital public space.
Snake Horse.
Sure, a .xxx (which may be actually a better one than .prn in my opinion) would not cover international sites, but would in an ideal situation, would it hinder free speech? The .edu name or the .gov name never hinders free speech, only specific limits on the domain name holders are enforced.
It is true that a big brother type arrangement could be set up as a result, but IDEALLY, a separate tld for porn sites would not only aid in preventing access by those who don't desire their children to access such sites, but it would also aid in those who WANT to find such websites (as they would always end in .xxx or .prn or whatever you want the tld to be.)
The only logistical problems I figured out with such a setup (I had a plan very similar in my own head for a while) would possibly be tied with extra fees that people would have to pay to ensure that all American adult-only sites are within the correct domain.
In *MY* opinion, I'm all in support of an unrestricted domain name that is specifically for porn sites (provided that such an law is not abused or extended so conservatively to any site that says a curse word). But I'm not so fond of having to pay extra fees to the government in order for them to make sure that my site is not pornographic. (And the red tape if for any reason they decide that one phrase on my site IS).
So in summary, the .prn domain is both a godsend and another influence of big brother. As long as no law could be passed to mandate anything that APPEARED on it. (Forcing sites to be on it is one thing, using it to curtail free speech by subsequently shutting down or limiting such sites is another).
It's like socialism. It looks good on paper, but there's no chance of it working out well in real life. In a world without corruption, sure. But it's simply not a feasible idea without having the POTENTIAL of abusing it.
ICANN higher-ups have specifically said that there will be no content-specific TLDs. That is, a TLD whose domain is a form of content (e.g. .mus for music), as the policing of that content should be outside the ICANN domain. TLDs can, however, define content by regulating who can register domains -- .edu or .gov is a good example. The US can legislate all it want; ICANN won't go for it.
But then how does virtual domain hosting work?
It uses the host header:
Will I retire or break 10K?
Why not create a FEDERAL AGENCY that can oversee this whole change from .com to .prn to .biz to .org? We can give them TAX MONEY!!!!!
...wHO'S WITH ME??
Yes, the porno thing is bad, and there's no way it could possibly pass - the Internet, like it or not, is private domain now, just like the cable and rail network, and for better or for worse, that's how it should be. This bill would be in essence either nationalize/monopolize Verisign and the other .com operators, or would force them to change their practices for purposes of limiting free speech, instead of saving lives. (which is what most regulations are for)
And since when did the US Federal Government have the ability to create new TLDs?
But what about the first part of this? No videotaping someone without their consent except on public property? First, we have to deal with the thorny issue of public property. Is someone standing on a rooftop in public? Or in a private, but open-access, park? What if you film someone entering a building, going from public to private space?
Second of all, don't we have these inconvenient little judicial and political divisions called STATES that typically handle this? And handle it they do, or should; there are many states that ban audiotape without permission, and I must assume that there are at least some that ban videotape without permission, or are pondering the idea. This is no realm for the Federal government to get involved; it's not an interstate crime to simply tape someone.
Third of all, as others have so astutely pointed out, this bill could be - and would be - used to ban hidden camera expose`s. Food Lion? Fraudulent auto repairmen? Abusive nursing home employees?
And fourth of all... what if the private property the taping is taking place on is your OWN? Would it be legal to invite someone into your house and tape them without their knowledge? If not, this would singlehandedly kill the entire babysitter videotaping movement.
Much like most laws, this one is worthless and shouldn't be given a second glance.
That said, should it be legal or illegal to film someone from your home, through their window, into their home? That should be up to the states to decide, but in my personal opinion, that's why God invented curtains and blinds. Privacy is a right, but it cannot be an assumed right. You can't go out into a low-fenced backyard naked and assume you have a right not to be stared at or taped. Like all rights it requires vigilance. Put up curtains and a taller fence. And if the guy goes through more extraordinary measures to tape you, sue him for *stalking*.
Same goes for if someone plants a camera in your home. First, sue for trespass. If a landlord, sue for breach of contract and trespass. And then sue for stalking.
The unfortunate thing is, almost all state laws that prohibit audiotaping without permission don't count for videotape. Plant a hidden camera in a woman's bedroom and, as long as it doesn't have a microphone, you have done virtually nothing illegal. (except the possible breaking and entering and trespass; hence why I mentioned the landlord) Such a practice would also be violating my comment on privacy; your property is your castle, and much as most state self defense laws don't require you to retreat if on your own property, nor should you have to be vigilant about privacy from within your own property.
I find it interesting explicit exceptions are made for security cameras, such as those in a department store dressing room. I guess it's OK if the person recording without permission is a corporation. But, then again, perhaps this applies to my above argument as to whether or not it would be legal to secretly videotape babysitters - maybe the exception applies to that as well.
That's enough rambling for now.
Disclaimer: A good portion of this post is based on the Slashdot synopsis of the story; I see no mention of 'public property' anywhere in the senator's press release.
"In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, 'Make us your slaves, but feed us.'" -Dostoevsky
Hidden camera voyeuristic pr0n while on qualudes...!
Oh, wait... you mean lewd...
Damn...!
Mary Landrieu is a family friend of mine, and its quite odd seeing her get /.ed . I think I am going to talk to her about this issue on behalf of all my geek minded friends and /.ers, but still trying to think of what to say. Any Suggestions?
Wouldn't this make security cameras mostly illegal? Would evidence obtained via 'illegal' video cameras be inadmissable in court?
Prosecutor: "Here is a videotape clearly showing the defendant shooting 3 people."
Defendant: "That was videotaped in a non-public area without my consent."
Judge: "The tape is inadmissable."
Not a very well thought-out law, I'd say.
I've built up so much character I have an alter-ego
maybe it's just me...but domain names and TLD, etc. are just a form of shorthand for us mere humans (imo).
.org/.net/.whatever that will redirect you to their new .prn sites.
.prn sites.)
Systems shouldn't care what a domain name is.
Thus...getting back to our famed IPv4, changing TLD and forcing people to use them...while more organized is putting organization on top of a pile of slush. It's meaningless. The next step of slammers is going to create
(But we're good, honest people! See...we MOVED to the
. . . Conservatives DON'T want you having abortions . . .
When life gives you lemons, make lemonade. But when life gives you crap, please don't make a beverage out of it.
XXX doesn't nec. mean only porn where as .prn does. If it supposed to cover hate sites and other adult topics it really shouldn't be implied as only porn.
good luck trying to send someone to goatse.prn!
Carpe meam simiam!
Surely it must already be illegal.. like the law where you can't video tape someone without their consent.
I assert that, since Congress has not the right to criminalize looking and remembering (in general), it therefore logically follows that it has not the right to criminalize videotaping (in general).
And in any case, Congress certainly has no power to criminalize anything that the Constitution does not explicitly authorize it to criminalize:
Cthulhu for President! Why settle for the lesser evil?
Um, they allow access to a whole lot of "sample images" before you ever have to prove that you're 18.
- In Capitalist America, law violates YOU!
A '.porn' label is probably perjorative ipso facto, and certainly so in any cases where the act's definition is any wider than strictly conventional (ie commercial) pornography.
the manpower needed to keep the right sites in the right tld is impossible. It would have to be some committee that had a tremendous amount of power. It will never fly. (no computer system is capable of making the call, it would have to be human witch hunters)
and videotaping is a key ingredient in crime prevention in private homes. so what, now I can't videotape a burglar? gimme a break.
The author of the CNN article must not have read the bill yet.
It also includes a requirement that the National Institute for Standards & Technology (NIST) develop a "mark" that would be somehow affixed to the subject line of all sexually explicit advertising e-mail. Failure to use this mark would result in a prison term -- a longer one if the recipient of the e-mail was a minor.
No one seems to have the bill up online yet. Are they all out at CFP? Eventually the text of the bill should be available on Thomas. The bill number will be S. 2137, I'm told.
As always always always, my opinions are my own.
Liza
These opinions are my own. My employer is not aware of them, does not endorse them, and is not responsible for them.
I'd love to know why it is illegal to tape a police officier harrass you on a random traffic stop, yet they can tape you without your permission. Oh, I forgot police are above the law again, sorry.
.arpa has been a valid TLD for a long time, bugmeister.
I, personally, would rather simply limit my kid to .edu sites. I think .com is just about as dangerous, nasty, and evil as .prn. Do we really want to let Disney, Sony, AOLTW, and Microsoft warp our childrens' minds from an early age (as ours were warped by GE, GM, BoA, etc. in the '70's)?
.edu (or .org) then we can block 99% of the porn out there from young impressionable eyes.
If we could set strict standards for who can call themselves a
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
The problem isn't with forcing all the porn sites to .prn or .xxx or .hotnakedsluts, it's with the non-porn sites that show dirty pictures anyway. For example: Go to google and do an image search for "lesbian". Even with the adult filter on, you get a fair amount of smut - but all the thumbnails are cached at google.com and I'd be the vast majority of pictures are not from the porn sites, which google blocks out pretty well.
.prn. It'd be impossible to find everything to shovel, much less do the shovelling.
/.; anyone up for starting a campaign to get our representatives to read /., so they at least have an idea of what the tech. sector really thinks of all this legislation that keeps getting flushed down our way?
What's more - think about celebrity fan sites. What if I run a Shannon Elizabeth fandom site, and as part of that, I have a section of those nudie images I did. Those are dirty, but the rest of the site is regular old content. Where does it go?
It's absolutely rediculous to think it'd be possible to protect kids just by shovelling everything off to
I hope they get some decent technical advising before the pass this rediculous bill. When will those idiots in Congress learn? Perhaps we should just get them to read
Oh well. My $0.02.
Jake
Dating: while( 1 ){ call_girl(); get_rejected(); drink_40(); } return 0;
One of the things I have never liked about some of these multi-part, or Omnibus bills that politicos come out with is the idea that, if a really good bill has a part to it that is really distasteful, you get the bad with the good. Even if most of the bill is something that makes sense, is good for society, and is perfect in every way, the one part of it that is completely repugnant is either accepted along with it, even if it causes much damage, or the baby is thrown out with the bathwater. The Harris Tories in Ontario have been doing this since 1995, the province has been pretty much fucked up since, and they haven't saved the province one cent!
.prn thing as just another way to restrict Internet use. These two items aren't particularly related, so why are they in the same bill in the first place?
I have often thought that this sort of thing is done on purpose, so that the government can make it look like they're trying to do good work, but the bills keep getting defeated, or they use this as a way to pass unsavoury laws by hiding them in otherwise sound legislation.
In this case, I really do like the idea of banning anything to do with clandestine videotaping of somebody else's activities, while I see the
Perhaps it's Omnibus bills that should be banned.
The first part of this bill I agree with 100%. As it stands right now you could hide a camera in your neighbors house and it's completely legal as long as you don't record sound or plug it into the wall (power theft). Also when you are at home/private property there is an expectation of privacy.
.prn or .porn addresses. It would make for a very effective way to filter porn from kids etc... I just don't see HOW they can do this. I don't think it's a free speech issue since you aren't blocking these sites out but obviously not all of these sites are run from within the US. US law could apply if they were selling access to their site to people here in the US. The problem is even if the company said "ok we'll keep our .com and only sell to people outside the US" that's really not possible to do. The US government is never going to get away with putting in a filter like China has. And there are a lot of technical and legal ways around this. As far as the hate speech side that is completely the wrong thing to do. Who's going to decide what is hate speech and what's not? Are we going to make "hate" speech sites use .riaa? If that's the case I'm going to request that www.dnc.org be filtered out because it offends me...
How and why this would be grouped in with a law on domain names I have no idea. To me they are two completely different things. But that's one of the great mysteries of Congress. I don't completely disagree with the idea of requiring
Congress is just law happy. I don't think 99% of them understand the technology the are trying to legislate. (Hence the DMCA)
I would not make it mandatory but make it voluntary for sites to switch to this domain.
I believe that all responsible operators of these explicit sites will make the switch if it will ensure that their target audience (adults) will be the only ones to see their content.
But on the other hand, I can see the ISPs and other organizations blocking out these domains and removing the rights of the adults to see what they want to see.
Well never mind, I don't think this makes any sense!
Well, thank goodness for some common sense.
I've long believed that 'dodgy' websites should be relegated to '.xxx' or '.pr0n'.
Let's face it, the web is here to stay; and if people (in particular, kids) are to make the most of it in a safe environment, then pr0n needs keeping in its place.
And with a '.xxx' TLD (or whatever) it will be so easy to keep pr0n sites inaccessable to minors. If the pr0n peddlars are working in a mature responsible industry, then they too should welcome these moves.
Huzzah!
(And to those who'll inevitably rant on about freedom and free-speech, don't all the parents of the world deserve the freedom to let their kids roam the 'net without having to explain why tons of dodgy Japanese pr0n is appearing on the kids' screens?)
The more advanced the technology, the more open it is to primitive attack
The crap about the .prn domain is a perfect example of what is so fucked up about this country. Porn domains are a good idea. But Law isn't for forcing good ideas upon people.
This kind of crap is totally outside the scope of why we gave power to government.
Also, any laws about specific domain names just legitimizes a defacto standard. Domains do not really exist; they are merely agreements with a root authority. Laws like this, indicate ignorance of the fact that there is no real root authority; there just happens to be one that 98% of people happen to use today. If I make a porn website at goatsex.parody, have I broken the law? Ultimately, when you really get down to it, domains are in the eye of the beholder.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Kent Brockman: With our utter annihilation imminent, our federal government has snapped into action. We go live now via satellite to the floor of the United States congress.
Speaker: Then it is unanimous, we are going to approve the bill to evacuate the town of Springfield in the great state of --
Congressman: Wait a minute, I want to tack on a rider to that bill: $30 million of taxpayer money to support the perverted arts.
Speaker: All in favor of the amended Springfield-slash-pervert bill? [everyone boos]
Speaker: Bill defeated. [bangs gavel]
Kent: I've said it before and I'll say it again: democracy simply doesn't work.
One of the scariest parts about the bill is that it would force sites that contain porn or "other material deemed harmful to minors" to move to new domains...
Who decides what's harmful to minors? Nudity/pornography is a little easier to define, but I don't like the idea of Congress or whoever deciding what speech is "hateful" and what isn't.
Macintosh humor! MacComedy.com
Clearly, the way to get laws passed to protect privacy rights is to get a drippy movie about it on Lifetime.
"Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped." --Elbert Hubbard (1856-1915)
I'm an adult and I LOATHE the popup-happy, gaudy blinking sleazy porn sites. I like my pr0n as much as the next geek, but I have never NEVER found the quality, quantity and price you pay from web-based sites any competetion to good old usenet. If congress is going to legislate something, legislate away BAD TASTE and DECEPTIVE porn ads. Nothing pisses me off more than when someone attemts to trick me into heading off to a porn site. If I want porn, I know exactly where to find GIGS of high quality, FREE porn every single day, thank you very much!
For spam sites...
Like if you send more than 100 unsolicited emails a month or something, you are required to move to that domain?
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
We've been wanting more tlds for years, and .xxx seems to be one of the most popular.
.xxx (or .prn or whatever), just like commercial sites should stick to .com, etc. That's what TLDs are for.
And porn sites should be required to stay in
Maybe there's something I'm not understanding, but is it really true that anyone who considers themselves wholesome is forbidden from grabbing their corresponding .prn site to keep others from using it? What joy!
.prn domain, it's kind of sad they didn't opt for a more general domain that excludes rightful owners from using it. Like .not ... anyone for Microsoft.not ? Slashdot.not ? No, nevermind, that would get too confusing if someone tried Slashdot.not.not. Forget I suggested it.
drlaura.prn will be useful for everyone but Dr. Laura? disney.prn for everyone but Disney? congress.gov.prn for everyone but the US government?
Or will this be a whole new kind of trademark problem where people are forced to vacate a domain even though no one else plans to use it?
I can hardly wait to see them implement this, just for the fun of watching all the mess it causes when parody sites spring up everywhere. Watching them try to back out of it could be almost worth the pain of having this stupidity in place.
Rather than a
Kent M Pitman
Philosopher, Technologist, Writer
It's much more complicated than that.
Let's remember this is an ELECTION YEAR. This bill is just one drop of water in a friggin tidal wave of crapola that will be introduced over the next few months, all of it aimed at making it look like our elected officials are actually doing something useful. In this case, the congresscritter can put together a nifty piece of campaign literature that says "I'm working hard to protect our kids from Internet porn." It's pure propaganda, and certainly not worth all the attention it's getting here. If and when it gets a committee hearing, moves to the House floor and stands for a vote, THEN you MIGHT have something to be concerned about. Even then it still would have to go to the Senate, get a committee referral, get a hearing, get voted to the floor, debated and voted upon. Methinks all this ranting is just a little bit premature.
Fried ice cream is a reality. - George Clinton
(b) provide for an adult-only domain such as .prn where all non-child-safe sites (pr0n, hate speech, etc.) would be relegated--the sites would have to give up their .com/.org/.net domains they own today. The first part makes sense, but the second clearly treads on free speech to some extent
Exactly *how* does this tread on free speech? They are not outlawing such "speech" they are saying that such speech would have to reside in it's own tld. Just like in the real world such "speech" is limited to property in certain zones and kept off of broadcast TV., or how some people want spam to have "ADV" in the subject line or want it to be illegal to anonymously criticise your congressman for a number of days prior to an election (which considering the intent of the first ammendment seems a rather more obvious violation of its principles).
I suppose the fear is that this opens up the possibility that corporate and home filtering software would actually work. But the person paying the bills in each of those cases is the one doing the "censoring" If you want to look at Pr0n do it at home, buy your own internet access, or move out of your parents house.
it's just sick
and now they just expect it to change just like that. Ridiculous.
More to the point:
I have a security system that has a camera in each room of my house.
Some robber breaks in and rapes my wife. If I go to court with the tape as evidence, I get thown in the slammer, and maybe the tape gets thrown out as illegal evidence.
Now if the robber also rapes my kid, I have broken this law as well.
In either case, I'm a sex criminal and will have to register as such assuming I survive incarceration.
I'm strongly in favor of the rights to have that content available, but anyone who thinks filtering web content for elementary school children is a bad idea just doesn't have kids.
I also agree that filtering software sucks, so having a .prn root domain makes it easier to filter AND has the added benefit that filtering software vendors would have less excuses for why they block legitimate content sites like 'The Register' and polital sites.
Think About it...
Keep passing the open windows...
what about the acronyms? Will this also make it illegal for them to spy on people? what about closed circuit TV for stores and parking lots to discourage thieves?
.cum
So, what if I have a .com site as the gateway to a bunch of stuff on .prn. Is that legal?
.com addresses as front pages that then take you to the mostly-hidden .prn domains.
.prn address?
.prn? Is Slashdot then required to police all of its content for abuses to the law? There's a great big can of worms.
If so, then most porn sites will keep their
But what if it's ruled that a site that's a gateway to a porn site also has to have a
Then what if I put a link to porn in my Slashdot sig? Is Slashdot then required to become a
Nasty nasty stuff.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
... most kids got their pr0n from the www... the truth is more likely that they get it by going on IRC or by getting on public ftp sites running on peoples' computers holding repositories of pr0n, warez, etc...
You're probably asking at this point... wait a sec... how do *you* know all this... well... um... hey! get that videocamera out of my window! you can't videotape me downloading anything from www.ftpcrawler.net! it's illegal!
hehehe...
-jag
http://starboard.flowtheory.net/
Here's yet another politician who has nothing better to do but to think up ways to protect us from ourselves. Realize this folks: this won't end the act of making hidden video shots, it'll just add an additional layer of legality to it. Meanwhile, it'll become harder to guard against employee theft, provide evidence of abusive or negligent babysitters, or cheating spouses.
.prn domain just because it's not G-Rated? It takes parents to raise a child, not a busy-body congresswoman.
And moving 95% of the Internet to the
So you think perhaps you're child has been physically abused by the babysitter - and you check your hidden nannycam to find out that yes, she has been slapping poor little billy around.
Have her arrested, gets to trial - OH I"M SOOOOO SORRY you can't use that tape it was illegally recorded.
I think there should be provisions that specify someone's right to privacy. A babysitter in YOUR house should not have any expectation of privacy whatsoever - but I think this bill is going to overshadow that thought to cover other less legitimate uses of tiny video cams...
Does this mean a possible end to those X-10 popups?
heheh
max inglis
It's not trix cereal, parents can tell their children what cereal to eat and what ever else they agree to. Repeat after me(ten_times), the government will not be my bad mother...
I mean come on...you know what they're really advertising you'll be able to do :)
It's no wonder people think LA is full of idiots. I can't wait to vote against this woman in November. She embarasses the hell out of me.
Even if this somehow managed to become law, it's not going to stop me from wiring my house. Who are they trying to kid?
Relegating all porno/hate-speech sites to go to a domain indicative of that doesn't bother me. They would still exist, but just would end in a different domain -- .prn for porno sites, .qst for sites with hate-speech, etc.
What does bother me, however, is banning videotaping people without their consent. So that means I can't have a camera/recorder in my car so I can tape a cop if he pulls me over so I have proof if he abused his power?
I can't have a videocam/recorder in my house to ensure that anyone who breaks in an steals stuff or assaults me would be caught and held accountable?
Sorry, that's bullshit.
What the law should do is ban these things for certain purposes. If I record something for personal protection, that's fine. If I record it for blackmail or to publicize comments by somebody who wants their comments private, that's not as fine. But in these cases, its the subsequent action -- violating the persons privacy, or using it to blackmail them -- thats wrong, not the recording/videotaping. Sometimes videotaping/recording certain things is wrong in and of itself. There was some sick fuck of a priest who videotaped women changing in his house, women who trusted him. He further violated their privacy by placing videocams in their houses.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
The second part (in my *own* opinion) is satisfactory. I despise pornography on the internet. It was cool when it was in much smaller volume and of much higher quality, but these days it's practically FORCED upon you through ICQ, email, google searches, what-have-you.
Having a .prn address would simplify matters when it comes to filtering it out... a concept I always considered a waste of time until I became a father. Before, my opinion was "supervise your kids," but now I see that's an easy statement to make (in *this* context) until you have kids of your own. As integrated as the internet is in our lives, it'll be easier to supervise / restrict my daughter's television viewing habits than the internet. I can lock out channels with an access code on the TV... as it is, I'll have to lock out the INTERNET itself and allow individual sites to be accessed by her.
My opinion on this changes almost daily.... I've always been against censorship of any kind, but pornography is dangerous for children. Anyone who's ever been curious enough to see what really lies await in some of the UseNet's alt.binaries.erotica groups knows I'm not talking about Playmate scans.
Please mod me down if what I'm writing is irrelevant or off-topic, but if you disagree mod me up so others will read it and form their own opinions. We can bitch and gripe about topics like this everyday, but they're serious. Free speech is an important part of our culture in the United States, but pornography has the potential to do real damage to our children on top of being a waste of bandwidth.
.prn might just be the answer to both of these issues: it should be simple for most firewalls like ZoneAlarm to restrict *.prn domains and it'll create some order on the internet for those who don't bother with the restriction process. Afterall, aren't Top Level Domains merely a method of organizing the internet like a filing cabinet? If I want a project reports file in the office, I don't open the accounts receivable drawer.
I'd like to search Google by checking which TLDs to include / not include. I'd also like to search with the ability to include / exclude date ranges or maybe sort by most recent, but that would be getting off-topic.
I know that topics like this often solicit / beg for flamin', but if I'm wrong, don't just flame... convince me. I'm not that close minded.
cfeagans
I would revise the bill's wording to simply dissolve and disband X10. Adjourn the chamber and call it a session.
Since when has Gov. had all that much concern that a law should pass judicial review for Constitutionality?
Well, other than when it came to champain finance reform. They were pretty uppity about that Constitutionality thing then. But, I mean, for all those "normal" laws where they see themselves as doing onto others, rather than themselves.
The bill would make anything deemed harmful to minors be in a new .prn tld. This isn't just about porn. This includes just about any and all sites that aren't explicity "kid friendly." I'd hate to see the law passed, but it could not be enforced.
All other rights can be derived from freedom of speech.
Where I work, wev'e been looking for an easy, cheap way to filter out pr0n (we're using e-smith / squidguard), and there are always sites that don't show up on the blacklist. It would be a whole-hell-of-a-lot-easier to just block *.prn domains. Thus school is safer.
Life isn't fun until you explain to a parent how his 8 year old daughter just happened onto www.whitehouse.com while doing a report on Clinton.
Flogger
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"First things first -- but not necessarily in that order"
-- The Doctor, "Doctor
Everyone is so conditioned into believing kids shouldn't know about, or look at, sexual acts. Why?
The creation of a new adult-oriented TLD seems analogous to zoning laws which perscribe where these enterprises can exist. Lots of US cities regulate adult book stores, theatres, strip clubs, and the like through zoning laws. They also regulate access to such places -- by age usually. The Supreme Court has upheld these zoning laws, but not laws that outright ban adult films, publications, or performances. Deciding what kind of enterprises come under these zoning laws hasn't been an insurmountable problem. Usually, the required discrimination isn't even challenging. Because of the above, I see no constitutional barrier to such a law. However, enforcement of the law upon non-US registered, and non-US hosted domains in the com, net, or org category is problematic, possibly unworkable.
Let's step back and ask why a new top level domain is desireable? Is the material any less accessible to minors in such a domain than in other TLDs? I suppose an ISP, company, or parent at home could filter connections by domain. However, this could also be done by a law requiring certain meta-tags on adult-oriented pages, and it would be less disruptive to the net. This has the advantage of finer filtering - allowing some pages from a domain but not others.
If taping is only allowable in public places without the knowledge of those being taped what happens to security cameras for private residences? Would these then fall into illegal surveillance? And what about the nanny watchers? Surely there must be concessions to these concerns, and if not there certainly should be.
outlaw filming someone via hidden camera without their permission except in public places
Maybe this will mean the death of X10 and those damn ads. :)
Mozilla's a nice operating system, but it needs a better browser.
I would like to volunteer to supervise that those nasty pornsites are really transferred to .prn realm.
Which would make harder for bin Laden to transfer those religious orders through pOrn.. (anything to fight terrorism)
All I had to see to know I was against it was "Senator Mary Landrieu". I don't rememmber the details, but basicly for those that don't follow Louisiana politics she was elected by dead people etc., the recount confirmed that her oppononent really won the election, however due to political pressure at the time she was allowed to claim the office.
I go searching all over the 'net for +"nancy wilson" +shower etc. and find zip.
Later I find out that you're referring to someone named Susan Wilson.
And there I thought I was gonna see Heart nekid.
-- I have monkeys in my pants.
the Internet is like our public roads, their use is a privilege, not a right. Anyone that abuses that right get's reported to their upstream provider
Nice to see the old "$foo is a privilege, not a right" BS mangled in such a humorous fashion.
How will I bust my nanny for abusing my kids in my own house if I'm not allowed to spy on her with a hidden camera stuck in the teddie bear on the mantle?
if I own the property i'm allowed as many hidden cams as I want. Or does a place of employment count as a public place. Surely Target and Fry's and Sears and Wal-mart aren't going to remove their hidden cameras because of this law.
I doubt my employer is either.
Same with the next WTC, I'm sure.
So what about my house when the gardner is in the back yard snorting coke? Or the poolboy is f-ing my wife on the diving board?
huh? what about my own property.
and my car cam? what about it?
I'm looking forward to the future of cheap, tiny and pervasive video recording devices. This bill is raising "privacy" expectations where there are none. It's already illegal to publish someone's image without their consent. Making it illegal to create such images in your own home is the thin wedge of outlawing such devices in public places, except for "official" or "impartial" and "privacy protecting" government devices. Fight this now.
Get it straight people, if you don't want to be embarrased of your behavior DONT DO EMBARASSING THINGS! People have memories, video devices are simply memory enhancers. Right now, I can tell anyone I want about the expressions you make on your face and other sensations no video device will ever capture. Telling others makes me a cad, remembering might make me happy, forgetting is impossible.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
This proposed law is pure evil, raising expectations of "privacy" where there are none and smearing legitimate technology with violations of trust. Think of the future where tiny cheap recording devices are pervasive. This is a good future, one where witnesses have much much more credibility than they do now and liars will have to be carefull. Truth is good. Video recordings by impartial third parties will settle many misunderstandings and deliberate cheats. This bill seeks to prevent such a future by associating video devices with sneering cads who kiss and tell. Once recording is thought of as a "public" or governmental function and all private persons who record the world around them are treated with scorn, only the government will know and be able to present the truth. Repulsive, Mary, or very short sighted.
No, I don't record myself or others in bed, but I'm not going to tell someone else not to either. There are already perfectly good laws against distributing someone's image without their consent. What someone does with their little screw flicks is none of my business. Those who feel violated by the recording should consider that before they crawl into bed with a stranger.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
This is true. Nearly all (random statistic) self-regulation attempts by industry are in response to a government threat of regulation. Often the gov't tells the industry to regulate itself or it will be regulated by the government. But the internet is different. Unless the government wants to behave like countries such as China where sites which are objected to can be blocked, this part of the bill should not be passed. Though in general I feel people should not participate in the things which the gov't is trying to regulate, the larger issue of free speech is more important. If we start regulating one thing, who knows but that something i do feel strongly about might someday in the future be censored. We don't want to give a precedence...
why?
Your missing the point, this allows for easy classification of porn sights(something not done easily done with software). What's the other way? NetNanny and other crap packages that don't work. So setup an arbitration panel to classify sights that are in the gray area(art or otherwise). Sure there are a lot of gray areas but that's how 'we as a society' should act, with public discussion.
.art, .school, .med, .comics ...etc and then it wouldn't be a free speech issue because sites could more naturally fall into the appropriate tlds. Instead we're dealing with a bunch of money grubbing registrars, screwing us all over one way or another because more .tlds makes their services less valuable. Artificial scarcity is NO reason to hold up the tld process.
Otherwise your 3rd & 4th choices are self regulation(yeah what bullshit) and flat out having the government do all of the classification(suck ass)
Oh and what do you do to companies that push porn in the US and don't honor our laws? Let them come into the country, give a speech, and arrest them. 8( JUST KIDDING.
If the TLD people would just get their heads out of their behinds, we'd have
What about clandestine video taping ... done by the government?
Perhaps you could sue them one day. No, I'm not funny, Mrs. Landrieu is. *gig*
I'm so glad you're not my parent, you Pagan nutbag.
ATSS
If she goes to a "high class" party (Puritan, of course) and when she comes in, she is left alone in a clean and safe room. What would she think about those people?
Does she smoke?
Rwe obliged 2 save our future by choosing:O3 hole-greenhouse effect instead of accepting everydays gossip-nonsense chat?
Country codes are like those M.U.S.C.L.E things...
l sand.co.ck.. . suckthe.co.ck...playwithmy.co.ck...
I mean, it's nice to have the whole set, and some people collect them obsessively, but it's not like they join together to form a giant flesh-colored robot or anything.
Although I would like to have a Cook Islands TLD just because it's so damn versatile:
bigblack.co.ck...enormous.co.ck...bal
C-X C-S
squi.ck...di.ck...
"(b) provide for an adult-only domain such as .prn where all non-child-safe sites (pr0n, hate speech, etc.) would be relegated--the sites would have to give up their .com/.org/.net domains they own today."
.prn domain for those sites. It'd sure as heck free up a lot of names that should be used for legitiment sites and businesses. But speech? ooohh... Murky waters, that.
Acually, I kinda like the idea. I know I just love it when I accidentally misspell a URL by one letter and get dumped into pop-up porn trap. Or the fact you think you're going to visit a legit site only to find out it's been taken by a porn site. Heh, whitehouse.com anyone?
What I'm not so sure of is dumping everything (hate-speech porn, etc.) into one domain. First, who's going to determine which sites go and what's the criteria? Porn? That's easy. After that, anyone who expresses an opinion is subject to possibly being dumped into that domain. If my site has an anti-Palatinian editorial to the tune of something like: "The Palastinian's are being dumbasses with the whole suicide bombing thing and most of the Arab nations are ass-deep in terrorism" Is that a hate speech? After porn you start going into some really sticky territory. It'd be like dividing the net up into movie ratings. Given the number of sites, that'd be damn near impossible.
Porn is a pretty clear cut catagory. I could handle a
You need a FREE iPod Nano
This is the kind of comments I like to see.
... or is American politics just getting in my face?
Generally though, pointing fingers exclusively at the Republicans is not fair though. Since we can all thank Al "I Am Troy McLure's Long Lost Twin" Gore's wife for the great 'Tipper Sticker'. Yes, the 'Explicit Lyrics' sticker, to help parent's protect their kids from "questionable content" on a musical recording. When you have the Christian-Right leading both major political parties, you'll generally get very similiar ideas. Hence why the term Republicrats is of better representation in my opinion.
Then again, I'm just a lowly Canadian sticking my nose in American politics
--
afxgrin-at-fuckmicrosoft.com
Most subscription sites do offer "tantilizating" sample pages, plus there are plenty of free porn sites with twenty pics and some banner ads. However, serious porn players do mark their pages with "porn tags" (formerly from the RSAC, but they switched acronyms about a year ago...PICS or something now?) to allow filters to note that there's porn on the page. Not everyone does it, but those who don't generally don't know what they're doing...if someone is using a computer that filters porn-tagged content, it's a pretty good sign that you're wasting your bandwidth (i.e. money) giving them any free porn.
I don't see how a .prn domain is different than the "adult" section in a video store. This isn't violating any free speech whatsoever, the sites can stay, but it's a better way to keep children from pornography.
If you're going to think this is any violation of free speech, is disallowing child pornography violating my right to free speech? How about murder? Can I not demonstrate the fact that I dislike a person to the point where I would rather not have them in my life?
Stop throwing around the idea of "violating free speech" so easily and actually use it for something that deserves it. This is merely categorizing.
To make a pun demonstrates the highest understanding of a language
Okay, I understand not making pr0n flicks of someone without their knowledge and consent. And not making flicks of kids involved in sexual behavior (aren't there already laws for that?).
But trying to force everyone off of .com is just ridiculous. I don't think Landrieu groks this Internet thing.
That would kind of defeat the purpose of amendmands, no?
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Making them use a .prn TLD does not do anything to hurt free speech. They still have every right to put anything they want out on the web. This does not stop them at all.
This just gives people an easy way to know if something is porn or not. Saying that this limits their freedom of speach is like saying that articles posted on slashdot under the topic of "games" are being oppressed.
This isn't censorship. Censorship would be saying you can't go to this site. This is saying you don't have to go to this site if you don't want to.
fox
Does this mean Candid Camera is out of business?
Here Here!
.com. This wouldn't be a problem though once it is enforced, everyone looking for that information will know which domain to type in ;)
This would have to be the most intelligent idea created by the government for years! Put the adult content in it's own domain and all our problems are solved.
Why does this solve the problem? A simple option in your webbrowser will stop your children from gaining access to this content. Good for me, good for you.
It isn't a matter of free speech, the information is there. The only detriment to the publisher is that their website doesn't have the sought after
An aspect bought up by some posters is that it would be easy to circumvent.. I don't think it would be a problem at all. I imagine the companies that produce this content would be willing and eager to register for a adult domain. It would avoid any confusion as to how to find their website, and it would look great for publicity.. "we're doing our bit for the children!".
I can't see how this possibly couldn't work!
I noticed two things about this:
1) "except in public areas" - basically so our police state can do what we aren't allowed to. Yet Another case of "Do What We Say, Not What We Do!"
2) Do something in violation of the first ammendment and say it's to "Protect the Children"
Next thing you know, they'll be telling me we can't own guns because we have to protect the children. And we can't save a woman who's unborn child will cause her death, because we have to Protect the Children. And, if, while in high school, you play a practical joke on someone by "pants-ing" them (sneaking up behind them and yanking their pants down by the belt-loops) you get labeled a "sex offender" and now - for the rest of your life, you have no right to privacy and must introduce yourself to your neighbors like so: "Hi, my name's joe - and I'm a sex offender. Just had to say that so the Gestapo doesn't come out and shoot me in the face..." -- All to Protect the GODDAMN children!
(Damn - that last link really freakin hurts - I look at the mindless soccer moms I see when I go to a school function with my 11 y/o son, and I wonder - "How good would she be at psychological profiling?" - damn! shivers!)
Maybe there is something we REALLY should protect the children from?.....Uhmmm..... Yeah - probably
test ignore test ingore sig test.
If linking to explicit content makes a site explicit, just about any discussion site would immediately have to be in the .prn TLD.
;)
Connect this to the story about Deutsche Bahn
suing Google and you get google.prn
either that or no sense of privacy whatsoever.
by which I mean you may behave with your wife, in PRIVATE, in ways which may seem embarassing out-of-context.
"DONT DO EMBARASSING THINGS" indeed.
Working for necessity's mother.
Not only porn, but Kiddie porn by US standards.
Actually, The Sun is such a hate-filled, bilious publication, It probably deserves to go under the new domain purely for the racist, sexist and homophobic veiws contained on its pages almost every day. The porn is just a side issue and in their own words "is only a bit of a laugh, anyway"
I wonder what the implications would be if I owned, say, whitewatershafting.com and was forced to move that to whitewatershafting.prn; but I then bought sweetnessandlight.com and provided an instant redirect the the .prn site? The site "lives" in the .prn TLD.....
___FutureShoks___
At first I was cynically amused that none of the women on the front page of that site were topless -- obviously a case of American standards prevailing. But then I realized: of course... they're on page three.
If clandestine video-taping is allowed in public places, does that alter any existing laws that prohibit audio-taping in public places ? Many states don't allow it. (If I'm stopped by a cop, is that a public place? Can I tape it ? I think I've heard that cops would refuse to allow that. Can the cop audio tape it? Many police cars do have video cameras - not sure whether the audio is usually there.)
Specifically - in NH, I think it's illegal to audio tape someone without consent. There was a brouhaha about an attempt to get a local candidate to comment and tape his remarks (god forbid that a politician go on the record... well, give the guy a break, the tapers were probably trying to get him to say something they could use out of context).
In our communities strip clubs, bars, restaurants, and generally any kind of business either normal or partaking in the sleeze has to get a zoning permit. Those businesses have to go before people in the community who decide if they are going to allow that particular establishment to reside there.
All the 2nd part of the law does is say well we don't really want you in this part of town but you'll be free to setup shop over in this other part of town. I just don't see a free speech issue here. These people will still be allowed to continue on with their message or business.
I think too many people don't understand what free speech really is. I find it surprising that those running /. don't really understand it.
just topless
Funny that this should come up. I met Senator Landrieu yesterday with my AP Government class (her husband and my teacher coach baseball together). She was a very nice woman, and a brilliant public speaker. She also kept her political perspectives separate from her personal ones. I'm usually very suspicious of politicians but I think she's one people can count on.
.prn. Too easy to abuse.
I do happen to disagree with relegating EVERYTHING bad to
Landrieu is one of the good guys (or girls). My guess is she may secure the nomination for democratic vice president in the next election.
has been posted here
He looked at me and said, "Kid, we don't like your kind, and we're gonna send your fingerprints off to Washington."
There you go again, smearing legitimate technology with stupid uses. Sure, a cam at the bottom of a toilet is stupid, but it should not be illegal. It's one of those compulsion things that Thomas Jefferson was talking about when he compared people with too many laws (the French) to those with too few (American Indians). He prefered the state of the latter.
To answer your question directly, however, No I'm not embarassed by going to the bathroom.
twitter wipps dick out and urinates on ndogg's feet.
You don't want to ask me about masturbation.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Accordingly, she's to be stripped of her existing campaign site, and to be moved into the .prn domain.
The .prn qualifications being entirely subjective, it's safe to say that all other domain banishments will be similarly arbitrary.
but you're forgetting about kids who know what they are doing. I've been better with the web than the average computer-using adult since I was 10. We don't need a stupid white-list, we need a blacklist that's enforced. People have tried whitelists, and you end up with a safe service that doesn't provide anything. NOT w00t.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14