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.
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...
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."
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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
Well, for one thing, the United States Congress could decide that it is in the business of telling people what their domain names can be, unless they are in a county-specific domain. It's not much of a step from there to deciding who can and cannot have which names. This is not a power we want in the hands of one nation.
Also, isn't anyone else bothered that this would require any speech not acceptable to the political/legal decision makers (in particular, to the district attorneys) to be labelled as pornography? And, since pornography is not protected by the Constitution's free-speech provisions, how long would it be before any institution getting any kind of direct or indirect Federal funding would be required to block this entire TLD?
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
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.
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.
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.
DRM? No thanks, I'll just get it somewhere else...
(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
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)
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"
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.
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".
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!
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
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!
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.
The problem is that you have no business deciding what level of protection minors need. You really have no business deciding they need ANY protection. That's up to their parents. Not you.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
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.
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
Mostly it's because it's difficult to have an objective standard of what's porn and what's not. While the "community standards" approach that's currently used for defining obscenity may work for some things (e.g. restricting the sale of a magazine -- within the community that dislikes it), domain names are global. Some communities, notably certain religious sects, have rather prudish views on women's appearances.
And if the response is "Well, you always have to ask a lawyer", that gets pretty expensive.
The second provision -- at least, the one that's claimed in a CNN article and in Landrieu's press release; as far as I can tell, there's no "Family Privacy and Protection Act" yet listed on thomas.loc.gov so I have no full text of the actual bill -- may be more troubling. The press release merely states "material harmful to minors", which is pretty damn vague. I could claim that trashy pop culture is harmful to minors by getting teenyboppers to spend ridiculous amounts of money on drivel, but I don't think that's what they had in mind, so the bill should be a bit more specific than the press release.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
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
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
Basically, you take some content and label it a certain way. Hate speech, adult, violent, disriminatory, anti-semetic, communist, etc. You make everyone who says those things stand in a certain place and wear a badge with that label. Furthermore, you take away their right to say those things in any place other than the one you've set aside for them.
That is trampling all over freedom of speech.
The alternative, which would also achieve all the stated objectives, would be to have a positive labeling rather than a negative labeling: Provide a label for all those sites that ARE kid-friendly. Instead of filtering out the "bad" we should promote the "good."
It is pretty easy to provide a set of requirements for a Web site to meet in order to get the positive labeling (i.e. certification).
He looked at me and said, "Kid, we don't like your kind, and we're gonna send your fingerprints off to Washington."
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
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.
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.
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
<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)
The Whitehouse justs wants it's website back... That's all.
hmm... for fun I enjoy launching DDoS attacks against 127.87.42.5
Pornography can be covered by free-speech provisions. At least that is what I've gathered from the recent Supreme court decision regarding virtual child pornography, as well as the Miller vs. Someone case the referred to (which they used as a baseline for pornographic materials which are not covered).
/. w/in the last 24 hours, from which I found a several links to the decision. The page I viewed had links to other relevant porn decisions.
The virtual child pornography case was covered on
-Paul Komarek
Sorry for the repeat. Someone beat me to the Submit button.
I wonder if part b might just be there to distract the public long enough to get through part a.
I stole this Sig
However, protection is not provided by parents alone. That's why we have an executive branch of government. Furthermore, no society could modify it's executive powers based on the individual whims of each citizen (or pairs of parents, in this case; and the pair might not agree anyway). Instead, the executive branch acts on the whims of society. If we're lucky, those societal whims are averaged out over time, and nothing changes to fast.
-Paul Komarek
it is a situation where a child is the voyeur?
~.Evanrude
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?
(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
Am I the only one who would rather type www.collegecoeds.pron?
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.
I agree totally; it's the 'virtual' equivalent of putting the dirty magazines on the top shelf, or having the videos in a separate room so the kids don't see them.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
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
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 ?
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
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.
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.
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.
It should have been:
Fight Spammers!
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
-
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..."
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
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
Some HOAs forbid signage on homes, except notices "for rent" or "for sale".
You could've hired me.
How does it become any easier? Wow. Block *.prn blocks porn. You've still got tasteless pictures, humor, etc to block. Make .kids and block ALL but that if they want.
Or stop filtering at all! Google is blocked at my school. So is about everything else except Yahooligans, and this is a senior HS.
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
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.
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
Actually, I always thought he was on Styx too. But when I made this account last year, I researched it a little, just to be accurate. And imagine my surprise when I learned the truth.
/. use obscure mythical refernces for their login name.
The harder part is telling people my email address, which is charon. I know the 'ch' has the 'k' sound, but if I say it that way, everyone thinks I say 'karen'. Oh, the downfall of the classical education in America.
Good to hear from you.
PS. Just checked out 'syrinx' with Google, and the bottom link was to a page on pantheon.org. Cool background. I wonder how many others here on
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!
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, 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;
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.
yes it does say that - that is why I chose that pic as i thought it was ironic that she is attached to the bill pushing for .prn etc..
(the shirt says "vagina monolouges" (sp) as it appears she was in this play at some point?")
The .com and other sites don't need to give up their principle business sites to be able to have a kids site. This even gives them an opportunity to tailor the site especially for kids. Then we could have sites like www.nasa.gov.kids to tell kids about the space program at the kids level. We could have www.whitehouse.gov.kids just for children. We can have www.slashdot.org.kids just for future Anonymouse Cowards and trolls. We can have www.riaa.org.kids to promote the "don't trade that mp3" site. We can have www.bsa.org.kids to teach children of the evils of having more computers with Windows installed that there are licenses. We can have www.ebay.com.kids to let kids buy and sell the toys they no longer want, or their parents won't get them. We can have www.cnn.com.kids to give the kids the latest news especially tailored for children, like how the kids in the Middle East to dealing with the violence. We can have goatse.cx.kids ... uh ... no, wait, not that.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
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)
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
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.
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?
In general, a camera should be allowed in ones home or place of business if it is they who are doing it. This needs to be sure that applies the resident, not the property owner, to be sure a landlord cannot escape the law when spying on tenants in the privacy of their own home ... though the landlord should have certain rights to have security cameras in the outside of multiplex property. In a business, the cameras should be allowed in almost all places, but restrooms, or at least the obviously intimate parts, would have to be protected. There might be other exceptions, too.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
"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"
Well, I wouldn't say so. I'd be interested in seeing whatever version of the Constitution you're reading, however - it obviously has a number of freedoms that mine does not. The one I've read is based on a conception of *negative* rights - freedom from having my speech restricted, freedom from being prevented to assemble, freedom from having a religion imposed upon me, and so on. In fact, I would even move to argue that there is *no moral basis* for parents to restrict what their children see. It's out there, and they will see it eventually; surely discussing questionable material is better than pretending it's not there?
Regardless of whether you accept my opinion, however, you must defend an assertion that gives parents a positive right to "let their kids" do something - which still seems like an impossibility, as rights are personal things. Until you do that, you haven't defended yourself against someone who calls you on your desire to brand everything that makes you uncomfortable and shove it into a conceptual closet.
Rant, indeed.
We who were living are now dying
With a little patience
(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.
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?
I mean come on...you know what they're really advertising you'll be able to do :)
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
I would revise the bill's wording to simply dissolve and disband X10. Adjourn the chamber and call it a session.
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'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.
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...
"Lewd or lascivious purpose" sounds to be narrowly targeted enough.
A little off topic, but... I think the bill is still too broadly targeted.
What, somebody was secretly videotaped during an intimate moment in Louisianna and Louisianna had no law against it? Well, shame on Louisianna! Why does the FEDERAL government need to get in on this action? Was the video shot by someone in neighboring texas? Was she living on a military base? An indian reservation? Seems to me this sort of policing belongs squarely in the hands of the state. As much as I hate the "Let's form a militia and oppose the gub'mint" types, I think they should use this one as an indication of the government trying to nudge its way into more people's lives. No doubt the federal lawmakers will try and spin this as some sort of "civil rights" extension BS.
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
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
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.
What if they're being molested?
"If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
That would kind of defeat the purpose of amendmands, no?
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
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
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"
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."
In which case the obvious solution is a simple ammendment of the form "delete the adjective 'audio' from statutes making such surveillance illegal". i.e. the law was badly written in the first place due to being too specific. But this would appear to be completly out of the jurisdiction of the US federal government in the first place.
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?
Actually this appears to go further and disallow someone installing such equiptment in their own house.
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.
.prn is not analogy for this. You'd be looking at something more like .prn.city.state.us
But
I think that YOU are missing the point.
.xxx, .p0rn, .prn, .bad ideas have is WHO gets to decide what web pages should be regulated to an adult TLD and which do not. Don't kid yourself in thinking that people would WANT to move into the internet equivalent of the Warsaw Getto.
.xxx? If that's the case then I guess that's where most of the museums will end up?
.xxx.
.xxx TLD IS government regulation. Did the fact that a US Senator is proposing legislation somehow slip past?
.kid TLD. Only allow web sites that are "kid-safe" (whatever that means) to have domains in the .kid TLD. Monitor it, and if they have pages that violate the rules governing the .kid TLD drop them. The difference being that if you WANT to advertise a "kid-safe" web site, you can (i.e. disney.kid, nickalodian.kid, pbs.kid) The rest of the planet doesn't have to deal with it. Otherwise you end up with the untenable position of CNN having to put some of it's pages in CNN.com and some in CNN.xxx depending on what story they are running.
.xxx TLD, a self appointed group of people get to decide what ideas are wholesome and which are naughty. They get to force people whose ideas they don't agree with into an easily segregated area of the net, and can readily identify and stigmatize members of the adult population that choose to be exposed to unwholesome ideas.
.kid TLD, individual web site owners get to decide if they want to abide by a set or rules that enable them to obtain a .kid TLD. Concerned parents can use the .kid TLD to more easily filter their children's (or their own) access to the web and limit it to the equivalent of the "children's room" in the library. The rest of the adult population doesn't have to DO anything, and there is no stigma attached to visiting the .kid domain.
The problem that ALL
Do pages that feature nudity belong in
What about sites that talk about sex? Ok, then so your family planning and medical sites are now located under
Hate, drugs, non-Protestant religions? How about feminists? Commies? Bonsai-kitty?
What if my site is non-xxx material today, I put up a picture on the front page of two people having sex tomorrow, and take it down the next day? Does my site go from my-site.com to my-site.xxx to my-site.com? If so who does it?
While the idea of legislating a "red-light district" sounds all well and good in practice, it doesn't work. The only thing it does is make it easier to marginalize certain ideas. Just because you don't like looking at pictures of naked people doesn't make it evil. Just because I don't worship your Judeo-Christian God doesn't make me evil. Just because you think that the King James version of the Bible is the literal word of God doesn't make you good.
You said;
"... Otherwise your 3rd & 4th choices are self regulation(yeah what bullshit) and flat out having the government do all of the classification(suck ass)..."
What you are forgetting is that mandating a
The only truly effective way is to (gasp) take responsibility for what you view and what you allow your children to view. I don't let my children watch XXX rated movies, or even R or PG-13 movies if I haven't watched them first. I don't let them surf the web in the privacy of their bedrooms, or at all when they are very young, and I pay attention to what they are watching on TV or read.
If you must have a "kid-safe" portion of the web, a more sensible approach would be to establish a
Of course if you do that you loose the power to decide which ideas are "good" and which are "bad". There is a much larger stigmatism attached to establishing an "adult" "naughty" area of the net than there is in establishing a "children's" area.
With a
With a
So... I guess it all boils down to the question of, Do you REALLY want to carve out a kid-friendly place on the internet (.kid), or exile any web pages/ideas that you find unwholesome to an internet getto? (.xxx)
Someone once said that it is much easier to wear shoes, than to try and make the entire world safe to walk barefoot.
Just my $0.02 (Canadian, before taxes)
Question, did you actually READ my response?
.kid TLD? Not many, and those that do would get sued. ..."
..."
.kid TLD and forcing web sites into a "red-light" .xxx TLD. Perhaps you should reread my initial response.
.kid TLD.
.xxx TLD and hoping that their children don't come across a "pirate" (in the radio sense) web site.
.kid TLD where youngsters could play would be a nice addition, like having a children's room in the library, or a children's museum, but it isn't necessary.
I didn't suggest doing nothing instead of instituting a "red-light" district. I suggested making an explicit "child-safe" TLD. As you have stated;
"...How many adult site operators do you know would actually try for the
That is a much better approach than trying to force every web page creator on the planet to submit to some illusive binding arbitration.
Just stop and think about what you are saying. Anyone on the planet (or at least in the US) who wants to create a web site has to first create it, then submit a copy of it to the classification committee, depending on the board's ruling apply for a domain name, hope one's available, post their web site, propose a change to a page of the web site, resubmit that change to the committee, if the change requires a new classification, either apply for a new TLD for that page, or perhaps for the whole site (can't link from one TLD to another). Make another change, rinse lather repeat... Watch the whole creative/dynamic/democratic entity that is the internet cease to exist. These aren't novels or motion pictures we're talking about, but web sites.
You said;
"... We already have legislation that makes it illegal to provide pornography to minors. Apply the same legal standard...."
Talk to congress, the Supreme Court (in the USA) has already stated several times (CDA, COPA, soon CIPA) that you CANNOT apply the current legal standard of what is or isn't pornography, nor what is or isn't harmful to minors to internet content. The classic Miller test is wholly unsuited to the internet because there are NO local community standards that can be applied to the whole internet. What is harmful to minors in Tennessee might be considered down right tame in New York City. What is pornographic in Iran might not even raise an eyebrow in Las Vegas, let alone Denmark. There is NO existing standard, that the all of the US, never mind the planet can agree on. Any attempt to forcibly categorize content based on subjective opinion involves censorship. As the saying goes, "I don't know art, but I know what I like."
You said, "...Do you really think anything less than 90% of internet sites wouldn't fall in rank and file(assuming advertising and customerbase follows)?
Yep, it has already been proposed that web sites rate themselves, remember RSACi? That was the attempt to have sites rate themselves based on content. Adult, violence, nudity, etc. How many sites follow it? According to your logic that number should be 90% plus. I think you'll find that the actual number is far far less. In fact most news organizations (CNN, TIME, NBC, New York Times, etc.) at one point publicly stated that they WOULD NOT under any circumstance rate their web sites. Why? Because it opens the door to arbitrary censorship. If most web sites won't even put a simple RSACi rating tag on their site, what makes you think that all of the sudden they want to play musical TLDs?
I think you have missed the difference between providing a "child-safe"
The former involves only those sites that want to be considered "child-safe". The rest of the planet doesn't have to do anything different than it does today. No musical TLDs, no arbitrary committee regulating every web page on the planet, no censorship. Parents can easily restrict their children to the
The latter involves randomly changing TLDs, the www portion of the internet reduced to a static set of sanitized pages, rampant arbitrary censorship based on some committee's idea of what is wholesome. People actively working to subvert the process (creating a page without committee review). Parents blocking the
I am a parent and this issue isn't frustrating at all. I find SPAM much more problematic. Reprogram the major browsers to prevent mouse-trapping, auto-pop up/under windows, and server side UI changes would solve most of the current problems with surfing. Add simple blocking and most importantly supervision and your just about there. A
Like the Supreme Court said to the government at the end of the CDA trial (and I'm paraphrasing, badly) "In your attempt to make the Internet safe for children, you cannot reduce the discourse to that suitable for the sandbox." or to say it another way
"You can't prevent everyone on the planet from swearing, but you can keep them from swearing in YOUR house."
Just my $0.02 (Canadian, before taxes)
has been posted here
He looked at me and said, "Kid, we don't like your kind, and we're gonna send your fingerprints off to Washington."
There you go again, smearing legitimate technology with stupid uses. Sure, a cam at the bottom of a toilet is stupid, but it should not be illegal. It's one of those compulsion things that Thomas Jefferson was talking about when he compared people with too many laws (the French) to those with too few (American Indians). He prefered the state of the latter.
To answer your question directly, however, No I'm not embarassed by going to the bathroom.
twitter wipps dick out and urinates on ndogg's feet.
You don't want to ask me about masturbation.
Friends don't help friends install M$ 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.