Slashdot Mirror
Texas Bill to Filter Highway Rest Stop Internet
girlchik writes "HB 3314, up for hearing in the Texas House State Affairs committee on Monday, would require the state to filter wireless internet access at highway rest stops. This bill mandates filtering at any state-provided wireless network on public property.
Since last May, the Texas Department of Transportation has offered wifi access at state rest stops. There is also wifi access at some Texas state parks provided in partnership with Tengo Internet.
This bill protects truckers at highway rest stops and campers in their RVs at campsites from adult content.
Sounds both wasteful and unconstitutional."
I guess truckers need to learn how to use web proxies now?
It would be cool if it didn't suck.
Wasteful, definately. I don't know about unconstitutional though. The state's constitution definately allows it to provide public services like this. I would think that filtering would just be providing less of a service (eg not full internet access).
The biggest problem is that this filtering stuff is pretty much totally ineffective. It blocks a lot of decent stuff that I actually need (sysadmin tools for example), and the pr0ns people still find ways to get the waving wangs through the filters.
funny munging
It's these fellows who have been lobbying so hardcore for filtering on reststops. Think about it, no free internet PORN = a garunteed purchase by male truckdriver/camper/12 year old of a 10 dollar titty mag.
ARG. worst. cockblock. evar.
Check journal for info on Anti-TextBook, an idea by me.
Those willful men can crack ANY internet cyber-code system, and bring Texas lawmen to their knees.
I suggest you read Slashdot
I was just thinking about why America is an empire on its downfall, but now I believe it is rather obvious: expensive political micromanagement on a scale that is unfathomable and hardly in line with what the founding fathers ever had in mind for this new, great nation.
Have you ever seen a magazine rack at a truck stop?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Sounds both wasteful and unconstitutional.
Since when do we have the right to a free internet connection? Not only that, but the right to do whatever the heck we want on a connection that is by no means ours. Come on, that's taking it a bit far. I'm all for individual's rights, and not letting the man go too far, but it seems like people are quick to cry unconstitutional sometimes, which is a shame, becuase it dilutes the impact of similar, legitimate claims.
In fact, I said:
Now, who told you so?
Get your Unix fortune now!
To date, no filtering software can successfully filter out pornographic or obscene materials. We simply haven't developed the AI that can distinguish between benign (or even educational) content and unacceptable content.
When the government starts putting stock in these filtering packages, it opens them up to two types of problems.
1. Lawsuits from organizations that produce otherwise perfectly acceptable content that are mistakenly labeled as obscene and blocked by the filters. We haven't seen this happen en masse yet, but I suspect liable suits will eventually become quite common.
2. Lawsuits from individuals who are exposed to obscene content, and claim that the government was being remiss in its implied promise that the content would be safe "I only let my kids surf the web at the rest-stop because the state told me naughty websites wouldn't be allowed to get through. The government failed to do this, and now my kids have been exposed to naked women pooping on puppies".
I am not a lawyer, so I may be missing something, but I'm really surprised the above two things haven't been happening more often with libraries and schools using filtering.
Meanwhile, I'm just pissed off that when I'm away from home, so many of the websites I frequent are blocked. And not all of those websites are porno.
The Internet is generally stupid
Well, look at it this way: If I were to hypothetically offer you $100, but you told me you were going to buy heroin with it, I might withhold that money from you.
The same goes for anything funded by taxpayers. If most of the folks paying taxes don't like what you're going to do with it, you're not entitled to spend their money. If a municipality decides to block anything because a large contingent of its taxpayers think it should be that way, then so be it. You're not entitled to spend other people's money on something that the majority objects. You'll always have the option of a privately funded service (ie, out of your own pocket, like paying for your own ISP without tax subsidy).
personally, i dont care if anyone's using the public network to look at porn for any moral reason. it probably will, however, reduce bandwidth costs.
Frankly, filesharing would seem to be the only practical reason to do this kind of filtering. As far as porn and other adult content goes though, I don't see much of a reason for it. At some point, I hope they figure out that people like porn. People will get it one way or another. Restricting access hasn't stopped people from using drugs, it's not gunna stop them from gratifying built-in instincts.
"Operating systems suck: you're better off using only the BIOS" --trainsaw.com
Anyways, as to the constitutionality of pornography: Last I'd known, the Supreme Court's ruling on pornograhy was that it was not covered under "Freedom of Speech." This is why laws controlling pornographic sales are constitutionally legal.
Under those same tenates, doesn't a community (be it a small town, or a state-wide effort) have the right to determine what should be provided over publicly accessible mediums? As long as pornography is not covered under the 1st Amendment, then why shouldn't a community have the right to ensure that little Billy doesn't stumble on to some kinky German fetish site while he's playing around on his laptop while his parents are using the bathrooms at a rest stop?
As much as people talk about the seperation of Church and State these days, it seems that many forget that our founding fathers were big fans of State vs Federal seperation. If Texas wants block pornography from public WiFi spots, fine. And, if San Francisco wants to dedicate their homepage to Gay and Lesbianism, that is their right, as well. And, it's your right to bitch about if you don't like it. That's what makes this country great.
/dev/random
Let's all leave our front doors unlocked, too. And our keys in our cars.
This is in no way unconstitutional. They are providing a service, and are obviously allowed to limit said service in any way they please. Also, I'm sure that they make you agree to some sort of EULA/TOS/AUP before getting online. They don't want to be responsible for allowing flow of illegal content. Grow up, people.
If you like what I've said here, and want to read more, go to http://www.krillrblog.com
But, virtually every law has its origins in morality. The two cannot be separated.
Maybe to prevent walking by a car and seeing some pervert jacking off? I know I don't want to walk by a car and notice some girl being screwed by a horse while some weird looking guy smiles politely and acts like he's not doing anything...
There are already laws in place that regulate that. Spanking your plank in public, whether via wifi or a magazine is equally punishable.
Quite whose business it is, however, what a guy does in the back compartment of a big rig, with no windows below 8-feet off the ground and curtains drawn, is beyond me.
The bigger issue is what happens when a trucker checks the highway patrol warnings page and can't view it because "Woman flashing her breasts on overpass." causes the entire page to be censored. Or, to use your analogy, "Animals escaped from farmyard. One horse, one cock and a couple of bitches in right lane."
What other keywords would get blocked? Would every driver with a consignment of porn that he was carrying be unable to access his email because key words in his shipment caused every email about it to be filtered?
Even if they just filter specific websites, all it takes is for Larry Flynt to sue for access to be re-enabled to his website as he runs an extranet for his delivery drivers from it and the filtering now penalises legitimate business.
In short, it's a dumb idea that can't be implemented without causing all kinds of problems to perfectly legal business and the only justification for it - stopping weirdos from jacking off - already has perfectly good laws addressing it.
This is a state deciding to block access on a service they provide. Normally I'm against this sort of censorship but it seems limited to the state-run wifi networks, so.. they can really do whatever they want. If you don't like it, they're not forcing you to use their service. I would hope porn would be blocked in city parks, etc. as there are many people (and children) around and honestly, if you need porn, the park/rest stop is probably not the best place anyway. They're just dictating the terms of use of their service though, and the state is free to legislate this sort of thing. In fact, it's their job.
"Maybe to prevent walking by a car and seeing some pervert jacking off?"
Preventing the service will not prevent this from happening. If he's got a laptop, he's got plenty of capability to bring it with him.
Besides, the dude doesn't want you seeing him any more than you want to see him.
"Derp de derp."
When in comes to filtering at rest stops, it has little to do with whether people like porn or not. It comes down to the fact that many people don't want to pay for someone else to download porn or commit copyright infringement.
Anyone is free to do whatever they want on their own dime. Another group is trying to pass a law that says the state of Texas won't pay for it. If you think the state of Texas should pay for it, and you live in Texas, then I suggest you lobby your legislators.
Maybe you're un-American, but I'm patriotic enough to put up with having unpleasant content available, if the alternative is government censorship and abuse (and if they could get away with it, there would be abuse).
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I can certainly see the use in giving them access to websites for maps, directions, information about local tourist attractions, road safety, forest safety, camping tips, local shops, travel information, etc.
I'd imagine that if you're going to do that, it's a lot easier to just allow general internet access than try to create and maintain some sort of portal (especially as you have no idea how far afield people will want to look - eg I might want info about a state on the other side of the States, as I'm headed that way in a few days)
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Does blocking adult content at a truck stop provide any benefit whatsoever to anyone?
Didn't think so.
Federal, state and local governments have censors on what can and cannot be transmitted over public air-waves (ie. radio and tv).
Usually only in _broadcast_ mediums...radio, TV, etc. WiFi is more of a point-to-point medium, such as a cellphone or cordless phone. While the transmissions could very much be monitored or intercepted by a third party, they are very much not intended to be (unlike CB, for instance, where everybody is expected to be able to hear your conversation). So yes, you can still swear on your cellphone, and you can still look at porn over WiFi. Transmission vs. broadcast.
As long as pornography is not covered under the 1st Amendment, then why shouldn't a community have the right to ensure that little Billy doesn't stumble on to some kinky German fetish site while he's playing around on his laptop while his parents are using the bathrooms at a rest stop?
Something I (and strangely enough, my conservative wife) feel strongly about is parents responsibility to protect their children from such things, and the governments lack of responsibliy to do it for them. You are perfectly free to protect little Billy as zealously as you want to: in your home. If little Billy just needs to use the WiFi at the truck stop (just sounds like a bad idea, no?), you STILL have options. You could install software on little Billy's computer itself to do some filtering. Or you could...you know, be a parent and monitor what the hell your child does. The world is not a sandbox, and not everything in the world is appropriate for children. You want to protect him from it, pay attention.
Hell, in the world we live in nowadays, why the hell is any child young enough to be called "little Billy" being left alone at a truck stop anyway, especially with an expensive piece of electronics equipment? Which are you shooting for: your child getting kidnapped and raped, or just robbed?
I remember at time when parents were expected to do parenting, not the community.
All that said, constitutionally the state probably has the right to do this, but I definitely have the right to bitch about it. And as much as you might say this is just a reason not to move to Texas, it's getting harder and harder to find a place in this country outside the conservatives' reach...
It's actionable when government makes laws abridging the freedom of speech. Filtering a "public service" in such a way as to restrict free speech (and its complement, the freedom to hear said speech if you so choose) is an abridgment, by law. Calling it a "public service" or "public utility" and claiming a constitutional exemption just won't cut it. (the US Constitution trumps the TX one in this regard)
The US Constitution does NOT hamper the ability of a content provider to censor the content they provide. Under your argument the FCC itself would be unconstitutional. So would filters in libraries.
Regulating the content which people choose to access on a taxpayer funded information highway is an altogether different thing - an unconstitutional, draconian, totalitarian one.
Where in this story did it say they're regulating the internet? They're NOT - they're regulating access at THEIR WAPs.
The 1st provides for Freedom of Press - it does NOT require that all government presses be free. Similarly, 1st amendment doesn't require that all WAPs be free, just that you have the right to BUY YOUR OWN. What, do you think all government printing presses are free too? Can I go into a government press with a pamphlet and make them print it for me? No.
If they are providing such a service on the taxpayer's dime, it must be usable by every taxpayer in whatever manner they so choose.
That's factually incorrect. Speed limits on highways, to go with your example, prove you wrong. Not to mention that would be freaking stupid.
If you're a troll, that was well crafted, hats off. If not, actually read what the laws say and mean before spouting off about things "Draconian" there Chicken Little.
If you provide a service, you should be allowed to define acceptable use of it.
Basically it will also prevent bandwidth waste and save money.
In your particular situation, the Constitution would prevent the government from blocking just Christian sites because of the Establishment Clause of the Frist Amendment. However, if you diskliked sometihng else, you just need to get enough people to agree with you that the government shouldn't provide it. You can persuade the legislature to pass a law to filter it.
Your final claim is that we can't logically censor anything. Which is a true statement. But the law in question does not censor anything. It does not ban anything.
It's not banning pornography. Pornography is still readily available. The requires the state of Texas to take steps to prevent the state government from distributing pornography.
There is a huge different between censoring something and refusing to distribute it.
Forwards or backwards, you're looking at it wrong.
First, if the public doesn't approve of pornography, then how are they ever going to be exposed to it? By accidentally typing www.youngsluts.com in their browser?! By accidentally searching for "young sluts" in google?!
Second, I agree that anti-pornography laws are passed all the time by righteous legislatures more concerned with getting the elderly vote than protecting our right. But you should also be aware that these laws are struck down time and time again. In the real world, the only porn that is illegal involve children or snuff films.
And here's the law on a government's ability to censor. If Texas did NOT provide any WiFi access, it would not be censoring anything. It has no duty to provide internet access. However, once it starts providing such access, it cannot censor other than to protect children.
That's why you see filtering software in libraries, to protect children. But adults can bypass those filters for their own research.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
The last bastion of a scoundrel used to be patriotism. Now it's become screaming censorship at the drop of a hat.
Texas doesn't have to offer free wifi at rest stops or correctional facilities (did you read the bill?!) in the first place, much less unfiltered access. Instead of railing against restrictions, explain to us why taxpayers should have to subsidize it at all. Or if that's too difficult, just tell us what public good is attained by subsidizing public access to pornography.
I also want to know where you people get off suggesting that motivations are illegal or immature for filtering public access when individuals are free to pay for their own unrestricted internet service? It's neither immature (as you allege) nor unconstitutional (as the original poster says) for someone offering free access to place restrictions. You're a bunch of whining and sniveling wankers -- you demand free porn and you further demand taxpayers completely subsidize your access to it.
As to the part of the bill that would affect rest areas, the measure seems quite reasonable on public safety grounds given the number of sexual assaults and other violent crimes that occur at rest areas. Given the potential cost to taxpayers of the bandwidth necessary to stream "adult content" for free, it also makes sense on fiscal grounds. And that doesn't even touch the pathetic issue of pederasts who tend to congregate in public restrooms and rest areas. This is a very reasonable measure to reasonable people.
Finally, it looks like some of you didn't read the bill. It doesn't only affect rest areas, but prisons as well. Now I suppose some of you kneejerks will try to defend the rights of felons and their jailors to unfettered internet access. So far, you've only argued AGAINST restrictions on public internet access. That's NOT a defense of the practice. I want to hear your argument FOR unrestricted public access to "obscene materials" by those people, and why taxpayers should foot the bill for private "habits."
You can still get cellphone internet, hook that up to your laptop/pda/just use the cellphone, and browse all the porn you want.
The only thing that's being limited is the government's service of providing wifi at trucker rest spots. If the trucker wants to surf porn, he can buy a cellphone.
Now that that's out of the way, this is a dumb idea because the implimentation will never work; truckers will surf porn with proxies so that they can get some late nigh-wanking in before they go to sleep, and children in RVs won't be able to do research projects on the breeding patterns of the praying mantis; it's how these filters allwase end up working. So, it's a useless waste of money put together to attempt to garner votes from soccer moms with needless 'were thinking of the children' responces.
-Millions of Monkeys, Millions of typewriters, 6 hours of sorting through faeces encrusted pages to find: This post
This sounds to me like a sneaky dodge to force the state to add expensive and trouble-prone filtering that simultaneously drive up the cost to the state and reduce the value of the service to travelers.
What do you want to bet that the people really behind this measure are not the bluenoses, but rather telecom services that would like to undermine public WiFi so that they can offer a similar product for a fee (with no filtering, naturally).
Im concerned about freedom. Im concerned about privacy. People in general, and the goverment in particular, have no business interfereing in other peoples private lives. What members of the Taliban do amongst themselves in their churches or bedrooms is no concern of mine, except for when they want to impose their belifes on others.
Remember pornography is NOT covered under free speech rights, according to the supreme court.
While *citizens* may think its unconstitutional, their opinion doesn't really matter.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I'll say it for a THIRD time. Texas is under no obligation to provide internet access. However, once a state does provide it, it cannot censor it. That's the law. It's just that simple.
"On a last note, I find it funny how porn always seems to fall under free speech while God or Christ falls under separation of church and state."
I don't see anything funny about this. The first amendment to the US constitution says that the government cannot establish a religion. You may be a Christian, but what you fail to realize is that everyone else is not. Thus, the founding fathers wanted the state to take a neutral position on religion. I wouldn't want to live in your ideal Christian state anymore than you'd want to live in a Muslim state.
The first amendment also says that the government cannot abridge freedom of speech. That means what it says, that the government cannot censor what we watch, hear, etc.
If you love the Constitution so much, I strongly suggest you actually take the time to read it!
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
At the point where you use filtering to promote or discourage certain values and opinions. Let me answer with two examples of my own this time:
1) Imagine the access points block every second site at random. This would be rather stupid but not censorship, because there is no bias in the blocking.
2) Imagine the access points "generously" allow access to pro-abortion web sites but not to anti-abortion websites (opposite of what I would really expect from conservative texans).
This would be censorship because internet users get to see the arguments of one group but not the arguments of the other. Or maybe you would prefer to call it "state sponsored propaganda", if you insist on the point that access is added instead of taken away.
Either way, it does not mix with the idea that a democratic country should not try to tell its citizens what to read and view.
C - the footgun of programming languages