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.
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.
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!
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?
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.)
Hmmm, I thought it was too, at least as far as bathrooms are concerned. There was a special on 60 minutes or something, about upskirting. Some woman was talking about how some guy behind her was filming up her skirt with a camera, and how she called the authorities. Of course it it legal to do that in a public place, as long as he wasn't moving her clothing aside or anything. Just because the visible angle is straight up, doesn't make it suddenly illegal. But that's beside the point. What they didn't seem to address is the practice of filming people in public restrooms, that would seem to me to be on another level. Yes it is a public place, but ostensibly a place provided for privacy in public. I'd be pretty shocked to hear that it's legal to video someone, without sound or no in a public restroom, dressing room ect. As far as taping an interview goes, I can't see how that's a problem though.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
From the District Court CDA decision
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
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"
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".
Why force people to move to another domain, when the people who want to create child-safe websites could willingly put their sites into a .child-safe domain and you could allow you childeren access to this domain only.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
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.
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.
it is a situation where a child is the voyeur?
~.Evanrude
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
What if a kid in seventh grade was trying to do some research for school, say on World War I. He would go to google.kids, because that's the only site from which he is allowed to search, and he would type "world war i" in the box. What would come up? Only sites on the .kids domain? What if there are no companies actively supporting a .kids version of their site that contains WWI material? Is this kid then not allowed to complete his research project?
What you propose is a step in the wrong direction. And please don't assume that people think in "such convuluted ways" just because they've been elected.
Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
What about a non-profit site that sells stuff? What if it sells adult stuff?
.edu is reserved for 4-year colleges now ... would you want DQU there? (http://www.ericsparling.freeservers.com/catalog.h tml -- grep for university). What about the site currently at www.theschool.com (a scientology school -- one student I knew there had only the following classes in 9th grade: Ethics, Drugs, Math.
.prn part. Where's Mapplethorpe?
.prn was also supposed to cover hate speech. ML wrote "On The Jews And Their Lies," (hate speech if I ever saw it) but back then, that was perfectly acceptable. He also wrote the 95 theses and founded Protestantism.
What if a non-profit become for-profit? What about the other way around? (Yes, both happen). And
Anyway, your whole plan is stupid, because drawing these lines is extremely difficult. Especially the
What about Martin Luther? Remember that
Yeah, categorizing is too hard.
(BTW, what makes you expect a government site at whitehouse.com?)
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
He'd just need to get his parent's to turn off NetNanny (or whatever) while he researched. It's not a bad idea. Probably less bad than the *.prn domains.
But it doesn't need an act of congress to set it up. All it needs is for the DNS servers to agree. Or even just some of them. AOL could probably do this all on it's own, certainly if it collaborated with Earthlink and a couple of others big names.
Getting congress involved at all is proof that something else is up.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
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?
In Louisiana tresspassing is not illegal?
The house was being rented. The owner was the videotaping sleezebag.
This is an important law to pass, but it's one that should be passed by the states. The federal government has very little authority to govern what I do in my own house.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
By whose definition? The tyope of material I would not want my child to see is:
Somehow I very much doubt that this is the type of material that congress considers harmful to minors.
What this really comes down to is that the Republicans are affraid that their children might ask them awkward questions they don't want to answer. To which I say tough titties, how do they think we all feel when we have to explain GWB to our kids?
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
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.