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."
Are they subject to filtering soon too?
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
Smokey on my IP Log, Bandit.
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
Does muni WiFi still sound like a good idea?
Sounds like they're afraid of people using rest-stop connections for drive-by kiddie-porn downloads/uploads. That's the only real use for this filtering that I could see.
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.
but then again, they ARE offering FREE access, so it's hard to complain... it's not like the truckers and people are paying for it, so it's not like they're entitled to have access to adult content.... maybe..
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...
I like muppets.
for truck stop prostitutes!
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.
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/txconst/articles/cn 000100.html
Here are the main sections of the Texas state constitution.
I can't find anything about requiring access to the entire internet if you provide access to some of the internet.
Sec. 1 - FREEDOM AND SOVEREIGNTY OF STATE
Sec. 2 - INHERENT POLITICAL POWER; REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT
Sec. 3 - EQUAL RIGHTS
Sec. 3a - EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW
Sec. 4 - RELIGIOUS TESTS
Sec. 5 - WITNESSES NOT DISQUALIFIED BY RELIGIOUS BELIEFS; OATHS AND AFFIRMATIONS
Sec. 6 - FREEDOM OF WORSHIP
Sec. 7 - APPROPRIATIONS FOR SECTARIAN PURPOSES
Sec. 8 - FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND PRESS; LIBEL
Sec. 9 - SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
Sec. 10 - RIGHTS OF ACCUSED IN CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS
Sec. 11 - BAIL
Sec. 11a - MULTIPLE CONVICTIONS; DENIAL OF BAIL
Sec. 12 - HABEAS CORPUS
Sec. 13 - EXCESSIVE BAIL OR FINES; CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT; REMEDY BY DUE COURSE OF LAW
Sec. 14 - DOUBLE JEOPARDY
Sec. 15 - RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY
Sec. 15-a - COMMITMENT OF PERSONS OF UNSOUND MIND
Sec. 16 - BILLS OF ATTAINDER; EX POST FACTO OR RETROACTIVE LAWS; IMPAIRING OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS
Sec. 17 - TAKING, DAMAGING, OR DESTROYING PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC USE; SPECIAL PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES; CONTROL OF PRIVILEGES AND FRANCHISES
Sec. 18 - IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT
Sec. 19 - DEPRIVATION OF LIFE, LIBERTY, ETC.; DUE COURSE OF LAW
Sec. 20 - OUTLAWRY OR TRANSPORTATION FOR OFFENSE
Sec. 21 - CORRUPTION OF BLOOD; FORFEITURE; SUICIDES
Sec. 22 - TREASON
Sec. 23 - RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
Sec. 24 - MILITARY SUBORDINATE TO CIVIL AUTHORITY
Sec. 25 - QUARTERING SOLDIERS IN HOUSES
Sec. 26 - PERPETUITIES AND MONOPOLIES; PRIMOGENITURE OR ENTAILMENTS
Sec. 27 - RIGHT OF ASSEMBLY; PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES
Sec. 28 - SUSPENSION OF LAWS
Sec. 29 - PROVISIONS OF BILL OF RIGHTS EXCEPTED FROM POWERS OF GOVERNMENT; TO FOREVER REMAIN INVIOLATE
Sec. 30 - RIGHTS OF CRIME VICTIMS
Sec. 31 - COMPENSATION TO VICTIMS OF CRIME FUND; COMPENSATION TO VICTIMS OF CRIME AUXILIARY FUND; USE OF FUND MONEY
How long do you give it before someone finds their way around this and publishes their method? My school has a firewall, and the site blocking is slightly overzealous, and it took me all of about 10 seconds to get around the URL-based system.
There's an old saying that says pretty much whatever you want it to.
My legalese is not that great, but it looks like they will only prohibit access to porn, etc, at correctional facilities. They MAY prohibit access at others sites, and will have (it looks like one person) someone to help these other sites implement filters if they want them.
The article as posted certainly seems like flamebait to me. There is no requirement that the state of texas provide net access to anyone. If certain locallities want to implement porn filters, I don't see how that's a bad thing at all. If you want your net porn, go buy it.
Last I checked, my local library doesn't stock hustler - though they do have people mag. Is that also an attack on my 1st amendment rights?
... Caesar controls.
Of course, this seems to open the possibility that obscene materials could also be banned in email. Or am I misreading things?
I like this section;
(e) This section does not apply to a university system or
institution of higher education as defined by Section 61.003,
Education Code.
So at least college kids can still look at porn and med students won't have the breasts filtered out of their diagrams.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
Unconstitutional? How is this unconstitutional? Last time I checked the US Bill of Rights, I don't remember a guarantee of access to free porn.
If there is free access provided then I would suggest that they are perfectly within their rights to restrict it in some ways.
This bill protects truckers...adult content.
Don't make me laugh.
On a more serious note, how much protection does any adult need? Further, howbout making it so this protection is opt out? Yeah, I didn't think the Texas state legislature would have satisfactory answers to either question.
From the story submission:
"Sounds both wasteful and unconstitutional."
Yep, sounds like a big waste of money. They should make people pay for it (preferably by a non-government outfit), then the whole censorship thing would be a complete non-issue. They should have done that in the first place.
- opens the possibility that obscene materials could be banned in email if that email were read at a correctional facility or truck stop.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
In my opinion, government should have a light touch, only doing what they absolutely need to do. They shouldn't be going around making laws based on moral reasons.
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.
How about censoring anything to do with the Democratic party? Sure, that's no what they're doing. But if the politicians are told "yes, you can censor stuff" it opens the possibility to them censoring other stuff.
We see it with the FBI, CIA, etc. "Oh no, we can't release that information. National security and all that." They were told, yes you can censor stuff in the name of national security. Now they're censoring stuff that in all likelihood has nothing to do with national security.
Finally! Now I'll be protected from all that p0rn getting onto my hard drive. And I'm certain those lonely truckers will be extra grateful for the protection. This is a win-win, folks!
Do I smell an automated flame generator?
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
lets show 'em and and do it better ourselves!
Please do. Instead of the usual nasty battles over the political pie, just do it without the government. While you may dislike the Christian fundamentalists, they're one one group out of dozens lobbying the government to legislate morality at an ever increasing rate.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
While this is certainly a disturbing development the constitutionality of it is unclear and quite interesting.
On the one hand the first ammendment certainly does not require libraries to provide pornographic magazines or otherwise provide some unbiased representation of viewpoints. In general the first ammendment does not restrict the government from providing some content but not others (except when this infringes on the establishment clause).
However, while library filtering has been deemed constitional the supreme court has also ruled that libraries must allow adults to bypass the filters. In other words apparently the supreme court has recognized that internet filtering is significantly different than buying library books. The library has legitimate financial constraints in what books it provides but does not in internet filtering.
So the question becomes very unclear in the case of truck stops. Since these are entierly automated they can't very well demand a librarian turn the filtering off. Still, since one does need to be at least 16 to drive and because of the real possibility that by providing enough government internet access filtering could stifle free speech I imagine it would be declared unconstitutional but it is a tough call.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
It is important to protect truckers from adult content. You know how sensitive they can be! The last thing that I would want to see after a long drive, at the end of the day, would be a naked woman doing something sexual. Instead, it would be far better for me to read Slashdot, or something of that nature.
You know what delicate flowers truckers can be!
Voting is now a branch of game theory, where one must attempt to find the best possible outcome, rather than a method of expressing opinion. Complaints like this are what is needed to make a difference. I doubt that an issue like this would make an issue to the majority at a vote, but to those who care about freedom on the internet (or porn) it is important. Also, a precedent set in Texas could affect other areas. Speaking with votes won't make a difference, but communication like this will.
I have freaks! I did something right...
This bill protects truckers at highway rest stops and campers in their RVs at campsites from adult content.
Who would you want to protect from adult content?
* Children
* Video game players
* Campers (not the video game type)
* Yourself
* Truckers
Yeah, that's right. I'd vote to save the truckers from adult content. Truckers are just so vulnerable and are easily influenced.
Then again, the article itself doesn't even have the word "protect" in it. As for blocking obscene material, I don't see any actual problem with that. Just because the state decides to provide a public service, doesn't mean they have to give you an open pipe. Is it considered socially acceptable to download porn at a public library? At work? At school? Probably not.
-------------
Please help save the truckers! Donate today!
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
Will somebody please think of the truckers?
Leave your access access points set to SSID "default".
Actually, no, you do that and I'll keep my network secure, thanks. I don't exactly feel like having everyone leech my bandwidth to get into all sorts of trouble that would be traced back to me.
This bill protects truckers at highway rest stops and campers in their RVs at campsites from adult content.
[sarcasm]
Oh yeah, truckers. I'm so sure that truckers at a rest stop in the middle of nowhere in the middle of the night need to be protected from seeing internet porn.
[/sarcasm]
If I were looking to start a business, I'd think about machines at rest stops offering internet access, lotion, and packs of tissues.
My other first post is car post.
For everyone upset at the state providing free internet access, remember that government at various levels provides free access to books. Although they don't usually spend rescources on porn, there is general resistence to the idea of someone else deciding what you and I can view via library provided Internet.
Classic example, is it ok to do research on breast cancer?
In the case of print material, libraries providing porn costs more.
In the case of Internet filtering, providing porn (not filtering) costs less.
I say spend less, and let the truckers have their porn.
i suspect you're being a little generalised here. christian fundamentalist majority? what stats do you base that on? when you talk about democratic networks aren't you implying that the majority determines what is appropriate to view? surely if you're listening democratically to the majority then you need to just allow the due process to let the 'christian fundamentalists' rule this decision. you aren't talking about democracy, you're talking about anarchy...your free access points also subvert parental control (which is the one concession most make to filtering for minors). your need for free porn is not shared by everyone...
Way to not trust your neighbors.
You realize this is why America sucks so much, right?
It all depends on the scale on which we're measuring. At some point, they're all sick bastards.
perhaps they should also make all open WiFi routers illegal. Data will always find some way to get through, and the best thing to do is find those who abuse children, rather than sweeping them under the proverbial rug. Of course, then people get angry.
I have freaks! I did something right...
Yes to PrOnfilters!
We also need a law that forbids truckers from spending too much time away from their wives.
...And give truckers free Kellog's corn flakes.
And let's keep those hands where we can see them.
The bill was not well thought out, and eventutally dropped.
This bill is just as well thought out. They don't define obscene, and it is impossible to filter out obscene materials. Though the issue OS compatibility does not apply the issue of what is obscene and how do keep up with the changes on the web still exist.
Fight Spammers!
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
Back in my day, truckers were just about the main demographic keeping the printed porn industry alive, at least as far as one could tell from a) the pin-ups in the backs of their cabs, b) the fact that truckstops seemed to stock a hell of a lot more of it than the average newsagent, and c) the number of stories from truckers published in the letters pages (allegedly).
If truckers want to not get internet porn at truckstops, they can take a very simple measure - don't look for it!. I think for many that could be like asking them to stop breathing. What's next, forcing them to eat salads instead of bacon, sausage and egg on fried bread?
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
If I were a jealous wireless service provider, I would sponser such bills. If I couldn't stop Texas form providing wireless, make if expensive for them to operate.
I know this is going to get modded down, but I have to say this. I don't quite understand why the Slashdot editors allow submissions with lines like "Sounds both unconstinutional and wasteful" on the site. It's just bad journalistic practice. Even if Slashdot "isn't trying to be a news outlet" and it's just "exposing the voice of the people", practices like this do nothing but give the so-called geek culture and image of childish, adolescent elitism. The thing that bothers me most however, is that Commander Slashdotter feels no remorse for tearing FOX News a new one for projecting Bush the winner (when, given the amount of votes left and the history of the unreported counties he was clearly going to win) because this shows some sort of "bias", you have no qualm with having your own news stories served to you on a silver platter of editorialism. Sure, if FOX News had said, "Thank God Bush is about to win, we beat the fag Kerry", I would be bothered if no outrage was raised, but when the same sort of thing is passed off as legitimate by an agency even trying to pass itself off as half-credible, I'm going to call them out on it. And just one more note: there's no way to fully understand the ramifications of complex political matters just by RTFA.
I don't remember a clause in the constitution limiting my right to speak only to votes.
I know. filter the content and then provide adult content for verified adults. They can verifiy with a credit card. I really don't see the issue here.
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.
Browsing porn sites or browsing /. Both take bandwidth.
The pipe doesn't care whether the bits are naughty or not. They all cost the same.
Why, exactly, are truckers, campers, etc getting free pr0n^H^H^H^H wifi access?
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
I once read a news story about a trucker who was caught with kiddie porn. His novel defense was that he had it to help stay awake. You see, it made him angry to see what terrible things people would do to kids.
The judge didn't buy it.
The problem isn't the neighbors, the problem is the same people who want filtering at truckstops. It's their fault that the concept of "illegal information" exists.
I'd love to offer free internet access to everyone, and I'd love it if everyone else did too. But there's too many un-American, anti-free-speech assholes* with too much power over the courts to make it feasable. Sorry.
*Ironically, these are the same people who flaunt their alleged "patriotism" while letting the "ter'rists" win by cowering behind Freedom-killing laws.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Straw Man.
Thank you, please drive through.
Come back when you can debate the actual points.
"We're an apex predator with the fecundity of a base level herbivore... We're a virus with shoes..." RazorJAK
Ok, lemme take it. If there is no guarantee of access to free porn, there is no ban also.
In other words, if porn is so bad, let government and all of us work together to remove all websites, magazines and everything else that comes close to porn. This is not going to happen. So restricting at one place and allowing at other place is DEFINITELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Not that I am supporter of free acces to porn, but I find this move laughable. The scale at which this all has grown up is beyond governance. The market forces are already in place. These patchworks will only make certain class of people (read drivers) being discriminated. SIMPLE...:-D
hilarious
The problem is that the government restriction is based on content of a web site, and that is what the First Amendment forbids, under current Supreme Court jurisprudence. Reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions are permissible, but government restrictions on speech are supposed to be content-neutral.
Fuck Cock Shit Balls Bitch. Now I've protected you from using the free trucker wifi to connect to slashdot. You're welcome. :)
Gravity Sucks
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.
---"Sounds both wasteful and unconstitutional."
I fail to understand how it WOULDNT be unconstitutional. If what they block prevents people from saying what is covered under their 1'st amendment rights (are not blogs and such media?) how would it not prevent speech?
From what I understand, Government cannot prevent speech (and have been slapped down when they try) but can ONLY penalise bad speech (such as threats, lies that threaten public saftey, and telling of national secrets).
---Well, I'd tend to agree with the wasteful bit... but, unconstitutional? Federal, state and local governments have censors on what can and cannot be transmitted over public air-waves (ie. radio and tv). While some might scoff at these laws, the fact is that most people don't mind them. Many, in fact, are glad for them, so that their children are not flooded with pornographic advertisements during cartoon time. (we'll skip over the lack of violence censors, as it's a little beyond my scope.)
When it coes to the censors and the FCC directly, not even the FCC can define "distasteful". We can see kids with timebomb belts but HOW DARE WE SEE A NIPPLE!
And then how would you determine distasteful and artistic? Yeah, Ill play those cards for a moment.. Look at ancient Greece statues: what do that have showing? Everything. Yet are they regarded as "pornographic" or "evil"? Nope. Theyre artistic. Be aware Im not comparing "Mr. Ed to Nancy's evul deeds in teh farm". Instead, I blur exactly what is "obscene" and "required for artistic purposes". Even those gifted in writing cannot comprehend that the word "Nigger" can be used very constructively.
Look at 'The Adventures of Tom Sawyer' for why racial slurs can be helpful. Throught the book, Tom eventually questions the very basis of racial slurs. I have no other way in which I'd describe to a racist why not to discriminate against by color other than this book. It breaks down the failure of ideas behind racism.
---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.
Yeah, "Protect the Kids" or some pap. But you also have to acknologe that the basis of this decision is because most is commercial "speech" and can be regulated.
---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?
It comes down to personal responsibility. Why should the state do anything when it's the parents responsibility? If the state provides access, the access should NOT be filtered in the least.
Oh, thats right, the Government is our mommy who has to "help our moral conscience". Bah.
---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.
Go read about in history from 1861-1865. And a lil hint, it wasnt about "Blacks" and slaves.
If a state does offer WIFI then would they allow a 3d party to offer private (pay) access?
A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
Why is this a surprise to anyone?
With all the recent activity with municipalities scrambling to provide wifi in their cities here, and here amongst others.
This is just the tip of the iceberg, imho. As more and more cities jump on the "municipal wifi" bandwagon, censorship will closely follow once the authorities have control of your Internet.
"Unconstitutional? How is this unconstitutional? Last time I checked the US Bill of Rights, I don't remember a guarantee of access to free porn."
More importantly, it's never guaranteed that the gov't has to provide you with access to porn.
I'm not ready to sharpen my pitchfork over this topic because:
a.) The gov't is not blocking porn, it's talking about not providing the service to access it. That may sound like the same, but really it isn't. You can go get porn, you just can't use the service they're providing that wasn't intended for it. Okay, I'm not writing this clearly enough. Consider this scenario: Imagine if the gov't gave everybody a free cell phone, but prohibited making long-distance calls with it. Freedom of speech? No.
b.) This, in no way, is preventing a business from setting up a porn-friendly service.
c.) Taxpayers are footing the bill. If the tax payers are saying "No porn, sorry", then their voices should be heard. (Note: I haven't RTFA so I don't know if that's the case or not. Gimme a break, at least I'm honest.)
If the gov't told an ISP "No porn!!" I'd be ready to fight, but this is just isn't bunching up my panties right now.
"Derp de derp."
Since the state has no obligation to provide the service in the first place, it's entirely legal for them to do it in any half-assed way they choose.
What we should be asking, is whether this is a reasonable thing to do with tax money at all.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
So, as I see recent events, a major cellular player thinks community WiFi is bad and Texas wants to block WiFi in certain areas. When's the all-out ban coming? Am I missing something? WTF?
Kevin
Irrational Diversions
All his posts on slashdot are, word for word, all over internet boards everywhere... are these isolated incidents, or is this some sophisticated plot to pollute the internet beyond any usefullness; weakening it, so that he, in that moment of weakness, may take over!
I think the search results speak for themselves.
Dont be fooled! This is really a complex scheme to take over the internet!
Sounds like they're afraid of people using rest-stop connections for drive-by kiddie-porn downloads/uploads. That's the only real use for this filtering that I could see. ... because no one wants to see porn involving only adults to be outlawed.
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
Here's a suggestion: it's FREE. The government is in no way restricting anyone's rights - if you want porn access, you can freakin' well pay for it.
This is a very fundamental distinction between positive and negative rights. Your right to porn is negative (noone may take it away), NOT positive (the government must give it to you). The difference is quite important.
You can take your "but think of the children!" bullshit and SHOVE IT UP YOUR ASS.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
the pr0ns people still find ways to get the waving wangs through the filters.
Oh great, thanks a lot! Now I won't ever be able to look at filtered cofee the same again!
You can't take the sky from me...
Set up an HTTPS site outside Texas providing access to pr0n for a small subscription fee. Merely forward the content from existing pr0n sites, charge 9.95 a month.
First of all, it's important to read the bill and the background - it began as "The bill prohibits wireless access to obscene materials at a correctional facility." - preventing prisoners in state prisons from viewing porn.
/ committees/cmtembrs.d2w/report?LEG=79&SESS=R&CMTEC ODE=C450&CHAMBER=H&CTYPE=House
It looks like if part (b) was struck from the bill, it would apply only to prisons, but somewhere in the process someone complained about prisoners being singled out, I bet, so they reworked the bill to include this provision.
The hearing of the House State Affairs Committee is scheduled for 8AM in room E2.010 of the Texas State Capitol. This is a public hearing, so I'd urge anyone who's in the Austin area to attend.
The committee's website is available at http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/db2www/tlo
This site also links to a page with each representative's contact information. That second page links to their "personal" page on the Texas House of Representatives which has an "email me" form at the bottom, so you can easily email each representative on the committee about this bill.
i appreciate you thinking of my sexual comfort, but i decline with sincere regret. that's naive. parents aren't lazy if their kids are smarter on the computers than they are. computer literate children can and will subvert their parents, so don't give me 'it's the parents responsibility.' there's only so much they can do. but you're missing the point entirely. i'm not saying 'think of the children' i'm saying that there is a double standard here. read before you write...
Yeah, let's take the first link:
The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question.
Arguing that something shouldn't be done because of the possibility it may lead down an undesirable path is not a fallacy. It's especially faulty to call it a fallacy when the argument is backed by an example that most would agree with.
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
Hence why we need to get rid of the lobbyists. Here's how, I think...
You need a 30,000 per legislator ratio, or something in that regard. Anything bigger prevents grassroots campaigning. When you have a huge ratio of people per legislator, I think that results in candidates resorting to lobbyists for campaign finances, which they'll have to bend to their wishes if they want any future "donations".
Let me put it another way. Laws that are based on morality rather than safety infringes on people's liberties. This includes censorship of all types, such as banning people from wearing t-shirts in public that contain obscene words or pictures. This includes censoring the Internet in libraries. This includes banning women from divorcing while pregnant. This includes banning people from calling women bad names, but it's okay to call men bad names.
As for library Internet censorship, there's a better way. Have a sign on top of the computer that says, "For educational purposes only, not entertainment. Students have priority. Librarians have discretion on this matter."
... exactly how many truckers need WiFi access to get information about the local tourist attractions? And wouldn't most people have a guidebook or a map - or even a GPS device? Why do they need Internet access?!?
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
you can freakin' well pay for it.
You mean on top of paying for the Truck Stop/Municipal WiFi?
Here's a hint, the government doesn't pay for SHIT. The Tx state legislators aren't dipping into their personal kickback funds to pay for this. It's coming out of TAXES.
Tom DeLay pushes to have Democratic National Committee websites marked as "Adult Content"...
Who is this guy anyway?
The dumbass christian fundementalists majority is just too powerful a voting block.
Actually the dumbass christian fundamentalists are a small minority. It's just that they are smart enough to actually get out and vote and vote the same way.
If the dumbass freedom-loving liberals would get off their collective asses and make it to the ballot box, most polls show the majority of people who could vote favor liberal social policies.
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
It's not a matter of kids "being smarter on the computers" than their parents. Its a matter of parenting. If your kid outwits you regularly and accesses things he knows he shouldn't, you ground the little shit and ban him from the computer. Don't want him going to a truck stop to download porn? Don't buy him a laptop!
FFS, were you one of the people behind Cookie Monster's sudden dietary change too?
Thinking about government this way (as if it were some sort of contractual resource-sharing arrangement among citizens) is just absurd. Whoever is in power takes everybody's money and does what they want with it. On any issue, x% of the people are trying to spend the money of the other (100-x)%, and vice-versa, but this is very rarely a useful way to look at the situation.
This is not an allocational issue.
I would really hope that a majority of people don't have a problem with truckers looking at porn..Why would people even worry about that .I mean i had never thought about it before today (Its more worrying people are thinking about this as a cause for concern). i think i would have no problem with it .
,people are going to be paying exactly the same for the truckers to look at other things .
Honestly they are on the roads for hours alone they cant drink so what else is left , smoking and porn.
Anyway if they filter out the porn
the whole argument is illogical as truckers pay taxes too.
Prudish attitudes are immature and what this boils down too is some moralist politican trying to force his belifes(of things that will get him votes) on others.
Truckers are one of the backbone of the western world , so lets cut them some slack here and allow them to look at some porn when they are on a break
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
If a parent fails -- for any reason -- to imbue some concept of morality into its offspring, it should be held *extremely* liable for such *illegal* acts as such child should commit. This concept should be above most law.
However, the problem is: who decides what is moral?
Here in the USA, we (almost sorta try to) separate religion from law. It does not work now (in particular because of "W"'s religious beliefs), but *has* worked when those in power actually understood the difference between morals and law.
I don't expect it to work ever in my lifetime, and I don't expect to live in the USA for much longer: Non-Christian/Judaic people are not acceptable to the USA government (and even Judaic folks have a *special* sort of tolerance).
If you *think* I am not 100% correct, please comment here (as a non-AC) as to *any* governmental act that shows tolerance to such people.
I expect that as a result of this post, I will become "missing", as should all respondants. Nonetheless, do post (as a non-AC), as our absense will *eventually* be noticed -- even here on Slashdot.
There is no freedom *from* religion here in the USA: all of our government requires belief in *a* supreme being, one by the name of "God" (you should pay particular attention to the words inscribed on the paper currency you use daily).
I heartily plea: get your religion out of my government!
RHCE; are you certified? Karma: ambiguous.
How could it possibly do that?
The most it could do is make them wait until they got home or to the nearest Starbucks or whatever.
The state not providing a service to help you get your speech out a little earlier is not censorship.
_O_
.|< The named which can be named is not the true named
In other words, it's not just about money.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
If you think supervising your kids in this way is unreasonable, may I suggest getting yourself spayed/neutered?* Think of the children!
*yes, I'm using the "animal" terms on purpose.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
what exactly are you reacting to? what parent do you know is going to look over the shoulder of their kid (let alone kids) all the time? besides what kind of parenting is that? that was also very clever how you implied i'm an animal : your powers of observation and your wit leave me trembling in awe. now if there were dialogue here (which clearly there isn't because i'm an asshole and an animal--and i'm sure you wouldn't want to be conversing with either of those and yet strangely you are) if you had read my original response, you would notice that my issue is that difference between democracy and anarchy is blurry. can you make comment on that? or are you actually unable to talk about anything other than your knee jerk reactions?
They don't want truckers to use state provided bandwidth to download porn. What's wrong with that? Some people might consider the use of state funds to provide pornographic content somewhat . . . wasteful.
Do you realize that this is only at REST STOPS? You will be able to access whatever you want to access from home still. The websites will still be there on the internet waiting for you. If it ever comes to the point where they are blocking this stuff from your home connection, then it will become a Constitutional issue.
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
You mean on top of paying for the Truck Stop/Municipal WiFi?
Yes. Until a larger section of voters decide that they would like access to porn at the cost of the all of the voters.
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
Someone who gets it!!!!
I'd mod the parent up, but alas, I've posted and cannot use my last mod point.
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
There're already laws against that. So that cannot be a justification.
You are falling for this argument: (a) might lead to (b) which is illegal, therefore (a) should be illegal. It is already used to justify the criminalisation of mild drugs, as they may lead to less mild drugs. By that stupid argument, being born leads to sex crime, so we'd better mandate abortion for the good of the children.
Justin.
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
A lone trucker stops at a rest-stop for a few hours. He pulls out his laptop (an unlikely thing it seems for a trucker to have) and logs onto Texas Wifi. He tries to check some titty, but the damn filters block it. Frustrated, he checks his email. He notices an email about login information for some website called Slashdot. Must be his son's. Out of boredom due to lack of porn, he click the link to Slashdot just for kicks. It isn't blocked. Suddenly his screen is full of grey and dark green with a white background. He sees new, strange words...Linux, Oracle, IT, BSD...iPod?... His mind is blown by the influx of information. He is no longer the ignorant truck driving hick that he was. He is reborn. He quickly becomes a Slashdotter...addicted. He finds himself compelled to check the site every 13 seconds in attempts to get the elusive first post. He finds himself making jokes about Soviet Russia, overlords, and beowulf clusters. He developes an interest in computers and the internet. He goes to college and gets a degree in computer science. He quits his trucking job and becomes a system admin. He goes from $25k per year to $65k. He buys a new car. He takes the wife on a vacation. He loses weight. The kids can go to college.
And all because Texas blocked porn and not Slashdot.
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
I think the original poster was confused about the difference between "democracy" and... "federalism" (for lack of a better term). When he was talking about the christian fundamentalist voting bloc, he was talking about democracy (i.e., mob rule). When he was talking about wifi collectives and co-ops and said "democratic", he actually meant taking the issue into your own hands, and working out something for the local community instead of waiting for the larger government to handle it. He should have called it a "republican" (in the Res Publica sense, not the political party) thing to do, not "democratic."
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I made this post warning against censhorship by municipal wi-fi, and the post was ridiculed moderated into oblivion. I used pornography as the most obvious exaple. This article proves I'm right.
/.) doesn't have to be pro-governmnet. It the case of government provided internet access -- the cure is worse than the disease.
An anti-corporate culture (like here on
Software Wars
Or until an enterprising citizen gets it struck down (Supreme Court has already determined that filtering is only constitutional if it can be disabled at adult request)
I wonder why the state is providing internet access anyway - the payphones were put in place bu the phone companies, CB radio makes sence for public safety reasons, but public internet? Whewn the schools have to decide weather to cut music or sports, why are we making municiple broadband wireless a priority?
If you didn't link to some crappy-christian-merchandise.com site, your post might have been funny. Thing is, I bet you're being half-serious in the whack belief that blocking access to "sinful" porn pays blessed dividends. But do correct me if I read you wrong, Thumper.
Power to the Peaceful
Protects truckers from adult content??? The largest personal collections of porn I have ever seen have all been in the cabs of cross-country truckers!
But Officer, I DID read the f**king article!
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...
Last time I was anywhere near a wifi point, masses of porn material literally bombarded me, and I wasn't even carrying a wifi device, so I think wifi should be banned and even people should have to pay SCO licenses!
In Soviet Russia WiFi Filters You!
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
As *the undisputed* expert in explaining Baptist Logic to the unwashed mass, I must comment on the parent post.
The issue with government provided services is that a person must pay taxes whether or not they want to, or not. Since ones money goes to various governmental projects one then has the right to opine to one's various state officials as to what that money is spent on, or what that money should not be spent on.
If one chooses to partake of porn in one's own home etc. with the porn payed for out of one's on pocket that's one thing, however requiring another to provide, and pay for porn is a separate issue.
What we have here[1] is a failure to differentiate between the private arena, and the public arena.
[1] here meaning the previous post, and those like it.
"Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian
Along that same argument, I want all religious sites blocked as well. Why should anyone pay to assist the indoctrination of children. Plus if the state is running the link, it should be blocked as a violation of church and state.
ofcourse to counter that argument , i could easilly say truckers have to pay taxes aswell. ,not censured by some small moralist core to be restrictive to the viewing habits they deem acceptable .
.
.
if the people are providing the service then the service should be free to all people
I find many Christian belifes offensive and web sites that puport them as fact , should we then ban these sites as me and many others find their disinformation offensive. The awnser simply is no so why should we ban pornography
For and by the people means all the people , not just some small sector
thus we cant really censor anything logicaly , well except those things that clearly violate the law
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
But for a given location, such as a rest stop, it's my understanding that there can be only one WiFi provider -- the dreaded "natural monopoly" of the wired era. As I've long said, WiFi is like the 56k modem of 1997. People didn't even know what DSL was back then, except for the select few who had the service available to them. Everyone was going hog-wild over 56k modems. Just like today, everyone is going wild over WiFi instead of EVDO, which is based on cell phone technology and thus allows competition.
Could someone please post the text from the U.S. Constitution that guarantees citizens access to unfiltered Internet on public properties?
I agree completely that filtering Internet access is a Bad Thing, but it's not unconstitutional. I'm assuming that the submitter implied that filtering Internet access on public properties would be infringing the Constitution's protection of free speech. Would the government's refusal to provide ANY Internet access constitute a violation of the Free Speech Clause? Of course not. So why would the government providing partial access to the Internet pose a question of Constitutionality?
Why is Texas providing free internet at taxpayers expense anyway? The truckers can pay for their own porn. They need to concentrate on providing a CLEAN reststop instead. Texas must have some of the worst reststops in the country.
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.
Perhaps it's high time that "many people" decide they don't want to pay for someone else to download religious indoctrination material.
Stop. Think. That's right. Pr0n is legal. So is pro-Christianity material. A trucker has every bit as much right to access erotic stories online as any religious citizen has to download scripture.
There is NO difference. Information is information, in the sense that this information is legal to distribute, posess, and use. While there are restrictions to distribution regarding age, it has already been argued successfully in this thread that most truckers are legally of age to have pr0n.
If the religious prudes are going to decide that it's time to prevent access to materials they find objectionable, perhaps it's time for the unwashed masses who obviously like pr0n and sin and other fun stuff to decide it's time to prevent access to religious content that leads to censorship.
"Oh no... he found the
Everyone on slashdot loves the idea of the government providing "free" WiFi (free, provided you pay 80% of your income in tax), but things like this show what a bad idea it is.
There is nothing that any type of government does, that isn't politicized. So anything run by the government is going to be censored, controled, and manipulated by politics.
Now, this WiFi access is only accessable by people at rest-stops (i.e. people driving on freeways, most likely across state lines). By its very nature, it is only going to be accessable by adults, or children driving with their legal guardians in plain view. If the government doesn't trust grown adults to access uncensored internet in a public place where people are the least likely to be viewing pornography, political websites, etc., then do you really thing that wonderful municipal or state run WiFi network accessable in schools and homes are going to be uncensored?
But I guess we need to have the government provide WiFi, because otherwise how are poor people going to access the Internet on their Powerbooks when they are out having a capiccino?
It's not about whether or not the truck drivers should be able to watch porno - it's about whether or not the government should PROVIDE the porno for them.
fatigue is a factor in 1.5 percent of all crashes, anything we can do to get people to pull off the road and take a break is going to make our highways safer.
Now if we could just deal with the 98.5% of crashes that are beer induced....
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.
I do not want Texas to be paying for porn delivery. The purpose of the rest stops access is information, email and etc.
Get a free ipod.
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.
I actually find your post quite offensive. I sure hope that the "trucker filter" filters stuff like this out. It is much more offensive than seeing a boob!
I suppose the truckers can just turn to other alternatives, like checkers, scrabble, hookers, etc..........
Wait.. Wait... Wait....
Where am i supposed to learn all my profanity now?
possibly your right in the case of the first amendment i am not sure , however they are refusing to allow the people who want to see it and who im willing to bet pay taxes .
.
my counter argument on the first side would be..
My whole argument from a fiscal stance, rests on the fact that truck drivers or anyone else who wants the pornography also pays taxes , and to restrict that because one sector say "Its wrong" is null and void, what about the rights of the tax payers who want the pornography
on the Distribution side..
They are not distributing pornography anymore than any other ISP , If that were to be the case then every ISP in the world could be charged with "Copyright infringment" not to mention distibution of paedophilic materials and a whole host of other things that people choose to view.
There is no real difrence between censorship and refusal to distribute if the refusal makes said thing unavaliable from a specific source , you are censoring your network. And as i said previously (in my opinion) it is not distribution.
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
"Pornography" is legally meaningless. It covers a great deal of material that does have first amendment protection. It's usually used as a rhetorical device to imply that the material in question has no social value, and that anyone who defends it must be depraved.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
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."
That's exactly what the unwashed masses should do. That's why we have elections.
In your particular situation, they'll run into problems with the Establishment Clause. They will not be able to filter religious sites based soley on religion. But if people don't like this law, they should go to the poll, and vote for people who will vote against this law.
The Munis should not be in the business of providing me access.
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
I know this is slashdot and filtering is evil etc. But filtering software a la websense or surfcontrol marginally protects web surfers from spyware and malicious web code, and it also stops http worms from spreading. It doesn't sound like that's the goal here, but some level of filtering on public internet connections is not necessarily a bad thing.
Yes, my only tool is a hammer. And you're starting to look like a nail.
If one chooses to partake of porn in one's own home etc. with the porn payed for out of one's on pocket that's one thing, however requiring another to provide, and pay for porn is a separate issue.
I've seen no evidence that is the motivation. I have seen lots of evidence that the American Taliban wants to have their religious police in everyones living rooom, bedroom, and hospital room to guarentee that their beliefs are forced on to everyone.
You're concerned about the American Taliban, whereas I'm concerned about Secular Fundamentalism.
"Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian
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).
That's exactly what the unwashed masses should do. That's why we have elections.
This line of thinking is both fascist and circular; you can't pass an insidious law and argue that it must be acceptable because it hasn't been rejected.
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 ----
Basically nothing. But if there's a legit reason - and I'm not saying there is - then it's that they probably don't want a bunch of truckers looking at porn at rest stops frequented by other people, which might include women traveling alone. Probably wouldn't be the safest thing. I know I don't want my wife having to stop for a piss at a rest stop filled with a bunch of truckers who are by that point...frustrated.
So I don't buy the moral angle, and I don't buy the money angle, but I might buy the safety one. But bottom line, it ain't unconstitutional in any case. So some people around here need to get a grip.
...are scrambling to write to their legislators in support of the bill.
-paul
Yeah, the pimps got upset about Truckers having wireless pr0n, it was taking away from their prostitue sales. They lobbied the texas lawmakers to make sure that they'll stay in buisness for years to come under the "save the children at rest stops" campainge.
There is a difference between censoring privately controlled communications and media (unconsitutional) and public communications and media (constitutional).
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
let's get over a few of these preconceptions. When I was in school some time back I didn't have internet where I lived, okay, I didn't even have electricity. Anyways, I spent a ton of time at the local truckstop since it offered reasonable dialup (25 cents unlimited) and strong coffee (65 cents unlimited). I'd bring my laptop and work on code, surf the net, etc.
Everyone there knew me and I got to know a good deal of truckers. Many had laptops even back then. I am sure these days with laptops being as cheap as a dvd player it's standard equipment.
Now mind you, you probably think I am an ignorant hick, but I found the people at the truck stop to be generally quite intelligent. I even got to know a driver whose brother was one of the top engineers at Nortel. And some actually read Slashdot.
I would even go so far as to posit that most truckers have more of a hacker mind than most deskjockies. Further, this is why the internet bubble crashed -- there was not enough of a hacker community to create an anthem as compelling as Convoy . I would even go so far to say that Texas doesn't want an internet version of Convoy so they are trying to put the kaibosh on all of that with the excuse of porn when they realized truckers used the net more than tourists in caravans.
And yes, most experienced truck drivers would be taking a pay cut to become Network Admins and where did you get the idea that becoming an admin would help you loose weight...face it, physically, driving a computer is about the same thing as driving a truck.. nonstop sitting and snacking
The constitution does not guarantee a person the right to internet access. When an organization, public or private, provides public access to the internet, it is provided as a service. We have no rights as to exactly how that service must be provided, it is at the whim of the provider. If we don't like how they provide it, we can petition for change or vote differently in the next election to get in guys who will set things up the way we want it. But to call it a constitutional violation when public internet is filtered? That is ridiculous.
I love my sig.
I doubt implementing the filtering would save any money, actually. It would probably cost money.
No, no, no; you don't understand. Sure, it might appear that it will cost taxpayers money, but that's not true. It will only cost Texas taxpayers money. Besides, the fact that Texans will pay money for this service will be offset by the fact that the makers of internet filtering software will receive money.
So you see? This is a valuable "service", provided to the public for "free".
Truckers could build their own network. Each truck serves as hub, very much like HAM radio. Ham meat in the back, ham radio in the cab. Add a few access points spread over the country, like phone, satellite, fixed AP's. That should keep our truckers happy on their way to the Texas reps with a truck load of adult material. Is there software that can do it? How about installations from home-to-home?
adult content. They are paying for it.
Furthermore, there is a solid argument that the public square should have community standards applied to it. The 1st amendment is primarily concerned with content of speech, esp. political speech.
Adult content doesn't really fit into that.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Neither Municipal or Private business will be immune from calls for restrictions. The real answer is to change the publics attitude about free speech, and freedom of information.
Thanks for putting on the feedbag. Thanks for going all out. Thanks for showing me your Swiss Army knife.
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
A quick trip down the I-75 I made last summer proved that there is much more to be done. After places entitled 'We Bear All' every 20 miles or so, it really had us wondering... Of course, I'm sure the truckers only use those for the FREE SHOWERS and 24-hour buffet.
-M
when you see the word 'Linux', drink!
Now, there's some parts of Texas I do love...but this ain't one of 'em. Consider that this is the state that so "terrified" of HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVITY IN BATHROOMS (horrors!) that they don't have doors on the stalls in the men's bathrooms on Interstate rest stops.
No sh*t.
mark, naturalized Texan
The point wasn't about porn, it was about Slashdot.
And thanks for the tip about the URL. Kinda was wondering why my posts were getting modded down for no reason...seems to be heavy anti-religious bias on Slashdot I should have taken into account.
And yes, I am a christian, but I don't particularly care what anyone else does. I have my opinions about the way things should be, just as anyone else...but I'm not going to force myself on anyone.
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
I guess the trucker had better not have a last name of Sexton or similar, or they will never be e-mailing their wife/husband while on the road.
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
For travelers on vacation it makes no sense either. Even if I'm traveling alone why would I want to stop at a rest stop and surf some porn when I have a destination to get to that's probably a lot more fun?
The whole thing's been blown out of proportion, it's basically a small group of moralists trying to tell others what to do, even if they're not doing anything they disapprove of yet. Gotta make sure they don't get any chance to do anything morally wrong after all!
yeah, great bill. :rolleyes:
>> If little Billy just needs to use the WiFi at the truck stop (just sounds like a bad idea, no?), you STILL have options.
Heck, I wouldn't let little Billy use the restroom at the truck stop. He's just as likely to see profanity or obscene drawings scrawled on the walls in there, and I won't even mention what else might happen a few stalls down...
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
Last I'd known, the Supreme Court's ruling on pornograhy was that it was not covered under "Freedom of Speech."
As long as pornography is not covered under the 1st Amendment
Wrong. Pornography *IS* covered by the first amendment.
Adults can buy Playboy and Hustler, and any law to prohibit it is unconstitutional. You can go into any city or any town anywhere in the country and it is leagal to buy and sell pornography.
If the government offers internet access at a library it is be unconstitutional to deny me non-filtered access. In fact the fscking jackasses in congress passed the same bloody uncontititional law THREE TIMES in a row attempting to do exactly that, and it was struck down as unconstitutional all three times. Congress passing an unconstitutional law can be a reasonable mistake. Knowingly voting through the same damn unconstitutional thing THREE TIMES is a deliberate attack on the constitution and a violation of their oath to uphold the constitution and they should be fscking BANNED from holding public office for it.
If the government provides me with internet access at truck stops then it would bs the exact same situtation and it would be unconstitutional for the government to attempt to impose content based filtering on my access. The government cannot do content based filtering on my private communications simply because it dislikes the content.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
P.S.
I wasn't yelling at the previous poster, the angry tone was directed at congress for the reason I described.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Have you ever seen a lot lizard?
Not everything is the man trying to hold you down. I think the proper way to look at this is the public service model. The city/county/state might provide you a public bathroom. Rest stops along the highway are a great example. They provide you a place to go to the bathroom. Sorry though, they don't usually provide showers, bathrobes, your favorite magazine or even those comfortable cushioned toilet seats. Should they have to? No. The city/county/state wants to provide you some internet connection in a public place. You'll want to be able to check your email and zip over to the news. Do they need to give you a chance to view porn or do something that many taxpayers would find objectionable? (ie against community standards) Heck no. When I'm going down the freeway and I see that Rest Stop coming up I say thank goodness there's a bathroom coming up. I don't say curses- no cushioned toilet seats - *&%# the man! If they have WiFi I'm going to say woo hoo- check the email and check the weather conditions - not *%#$ the man! He's not letting me go to truckerhostanks.com!
Enjoy your Karma, after all you earned it. Feel your Karma Joe, feel it burn.
Christian websites and pornography are BOTH protected by the first amendment.
You can persuade the legislature to pass a law to filter it.
Go ahead, lobby to get all the laws you like passed, it won't do you one whit of good because the Supreme Court will just use those bills for toilet paper. Don't believe me? Try reading up on the the CDA (Communications decency act) and COPA (Child Online rotection Act) and ChIPA (Children's Internet Protection Act).
The Supreme Coprt has explicitly stated that it is unconstitutional for the government to attempt to impose content based censorship on my library internet access simply because you dislike the content. Truck stop access is no different.
Lobby and vote all you like, you cannot get yourself a law to content-filter my access and violate the first amendment simply because you dislike the content. You can't vote through a filter against insulting Bush, you cannot vote through a filter against supporting Bush, you can't vote through a filter against religion, and you can't vote through a filter against pornography.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
> 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.
You are arguing something that wasn't asked. I don't think it SHOULD be offered at rest stops, but that is not the question. The question is, since it is already there, should it be censored based on the religious beliefs of a governmental body. NO. Either offer it or do not offer it, but don't censor it. If you don't like what is on the Internet, don't log on.
You'd have to be a complete tool to be able to get on the Internet without knowing there is stuff on there you won't like.
> Do you think pro-life people should pay for people surfing on pro-choice web pages?
The fact that you have to ask that is very scary. If it is on a government-provided, publicly available connection, (and the content is legal, of course) then yes, they have to!
Anything else is imposing your beliefs on the public and is (theoretically) against the law.
Of alamist posts about proposed legislation. At least wait until a committee has approved it. Right now, it doesn't even have a name. Even if it passed, the ACLU would tie it up for years.
That's gotta fit into your schema somewhere
Since when did it become necessary to protect truckers against pornography????? If anything, we should be handing it to 'em on a silver platter... gotta have some way to keep 'em away on the road!
It comes down to the fact that many people don't want to pay for someone else to download porn or commit copyright infringement.
That's a simplistic statement that is not useful beyond getting a politician elected. What it comes down to is, "what is porn"?
The moralisitc crowd will lump any discussion of birth control or sexuality into the porn category. Is a news report about a gay pride parade porn? Many fundamentalists will tell you that it is. So who gets to decide what is porn? You? George W. Bush? Rush Limbaugh? You want to use tax dollars to pay someone to decide what is and what is not porn? There's a good use of my money.
It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
Secular Fundamentalists never burnt people at the stake;never forcibly converted beliefs under threat of torture; never raped, pillaged, and murdered in the name of God; never murdered doctors; never bombed medical clinics and nightclubs. However, the history of Christianity is replete with such vile and barbarous acts. Your concerns are misplaced.
There is no reset button in life; however, there are bonus levels.
I think we're all pretending that porn is a neutral medium- that it doesn't affect us, either as individuals or as a society. That's just wrong. Sexual imagry has temendous power. Contolling power. If it were not so then why is sex all over advertising?
Let not pretend that porn is no different than the evening news.
>> No constitutional right for government to give you adult content. They are paying for it.
And who is paying for the government?
I have not RTFA yet so if it comes down to limiting the amount of bandwith they have, I can understand that.
I think that all content filtering should be done at the individual level. If you don't want to look at porn, then don't go to porn sites. If you don't want to hear Howard Stern saying something that you find objectionable, then don't listen to his show. If you don't want your kids to be watching all the "dirty" videos on MTV, then cancel your cable. I really don't think there will be a whole lot of minors going to truck stops in order to d/l porn onto their laptops.
You either provide a service or you don't. When you start filtering the service, then you are saying that some people's values are worth more than other people's but you will take their money all the same.
Gee, I wish I had a place where my kids could breathe public air without mercury or sulfuric acid pollutants. Why doesn't anyone ever think of the kids?
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
In theory, perhaps, but in practice, there's a very small difference.
Tell that to the victims Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.
Nuff' Said...
"Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian
...is that the worse it gets, the more good Texans leave, so the worse it gets. I suspect it would occur with the U.S. and Canada except that plenty of us like warm weather. Whereas for Texas, there are plenty of other places with comparable climate.
As I said in my original post the issue is not about privacy. The bill in question does not in any way regulate what you do in private. I mearly requires for state provided access to be limited in its scope.
"Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian
Your mistake is believing that atheists are not religious. They are. They just don't believe that God, or gods exist. That is the core of their religious faith. The truly non-religious are agnostic.
"Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian
Public Rest Areas are the most common area that sexual abductions occur. Most sexual predators are addicted to pornography. It doesn't take a genius or evil Christian to figure out that you don't want rapists lurking in rest areas looking at porn and waiting for victims to assault or kidnap.
If you think that atheists are religious, you are a complete fool. Agnostics are the ones that don't know, they are the fence sitters between religious & not religious. Do you say shit like that because you believe it, or are you just trolling like it seems?
Atheism is the lack of belief in any God. Religion is a belief in the a supernatural being or process/order. Therefore, you are completetly clueless (or, again a troll).
You are trying to apply terms that do not fit in an attempt to justify your own choices, biases, or agenda. Do you always use words without knowing what they mean?
Sounds both wasteful and unconstitutional."
What amendment says that the states have to provide free and open access? Oh, must be the same one that you think lets you browse kiddie porn.
Whatever - the state is being responsible, and providing a service at no cost to the user. In the end, they should have every right to say what people can and can't do with it - after all, they aren't MAKING you use their connection. There's other options if you wanna browse your own stuff.
Woo hoo!
First of all my posts are neither trolls, nor are they flame-bait.
You insist that the word religion is a belief in a supernatural power. While that may be one defination it is not the only one.
"In its broadest sense some have defined it as the sum total of answers given to explain humankind's relationship with the universe." --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
"Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and 'swept along by every wind of teaching,' looks like the only attitude acceptable to today's standards," he continued. "We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one's own ego and one's own desires." -- Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
"Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian
You are quoting one of the top ten most important people of the Catholic Church and Wikipedia. The first is not exactly a good representative of atheists and the second of reality. Wikipedia is not always written by people with a good grasp of reality, and sometimes has people adding information because of their own agenda, especially on hotly-debated topics like that. But anyway...
> In its broadest sense some have defined it as the sum total of answers given to explain humankind's relationship with the universe.
And how, exactly, does atheism have ANYTHING to do with my "relationship with the universe" except that it means I don't believe it was created by a supernatural force. An atheist can believe that the universe appeared exclusively for him a day earlier. It would probably be the dumbest person I ever met, but it doesn't necessarily follow that he is religious.
No, atheism does not provide any "answers given to explain humankind's relationship with the universe," it does the exact opposite. It removes a particular choice (invisible being[s]) from that explanation because that explanation is self-contained (I guess you could say you have to believe the source to believe the explanation). Or, in the opinion of some, that explanation is as silly as believing in the tooth fairy.
Two atheists can have staggeringly different views on how we "came to be," yet agree 100% that there are no gods.
So even though they might not be paying state income taxes, they're paying taxes which may indirectly fund the wireless access.
I wonder how many truckers actually carry around a laptop with the expectation of accessing the internet.
Eh.
:-/
I don't really know if I care for the stereotype that truckers are all hicks. It seems as though life has a way of taking us all down various roads.
I had a summer job running amusement park rides, now I'm a CS grad student.
As for Slashdot fostering ones academic interests... I think that that used to be true, but not so much anymore. Also, many posters know quite little about which they speak.
Also, on the topic of becoming a sysadmin. Most admin jobs don't really seem to require a degree in computer science anymore. I would say a couple of quick certs and you could run an NT network. A couple Linux certs and you could run a Linux network. As for other machines... I took care of a number of Solaris and HP-UX machines, as well as a few more exotic OS such as VxWorks. That was all strictly in the territory of the programmers.
If you get a degree in CS, unless you research, or do something outside the field, you'll probably program.
Also, $65K starting is a bit high. The mean salary of students who have completed their Masters of Engineering degree (starting that is) is in the neighborhood of $70k. I've known seniors software engineers who made only a bit more. When I was looking for jobs, the reported salary for a software engineer (starting) was around $45
First of all I used the quotes express my views, and was giving proper attribution to them. My purpose was not an appeal to authority.
Second, not all christians agree on every little ol' thing.
Get back on point, the fundamental question of religion is: Does God/gods exist?
The moment that you answer that question either in the affirmative or the negative you've engaged in a religious act. If your responce to the question is 'don't know' the position you've taken is that of agnosticism.
One more point; fundmentalism is not an issue of theology, but of epistemology.
"Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian
Honestly they are on the roads for hours alone they cant drink so what else is left , smoking and porn.
They could also do several other constructive things like:
Learn a foreign language via audio.
Listen to an audiobook.
Listen to their favorite music for hours on end via mp3 based audio CD-Rs and players.
Listen to commercial-free satellite radio.
Or, they can listen to standard, ad-clogged commercial radio or (relatively ad free) public radio.
Then I supposed they could watch TV if somebody perfects a suitable 'Heads-Up display' for it....
No wireless porn at rest stops?
Looks like men at rest stops'll hafta get their jollies the old fashioned way -- sucking each other's dicks when nobody is around.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
I think this is a bad thing, not because of the questionable free speech situations, but because it means my state will be spending my taxes on a useless service.
Even if I wanted these wifi spots to be filtered, I couldn't get it. Companies like Secure Computing claim that their products do things that are absolutely impossible. For example, they claim that the URL list for Smartfilter is "Built by our team of multi-lingual Web Analysts who look at thousands of Websites everyday to ensure accurate categorization and comprehensive global coverage." Who among the tech-savvy on Slashdot can read that and not call bullshit?
As far as I'm concerned, these products are scamware designed to take advantage of people who don't know computers well enough to know how intractable real internet filtering is. Why should we legislate money to them?
A strain of paranoid prevention can be worse than the disease, whate'er the intention.
> the fundamental question of religion is: Does God/gods exist?
WRONG. The fundamental question is "which god do I believe in?" If the answer is none, you are atheist.
Why do you insist on applying words that are incorrect simply because you want to justify your own ignorance? GET OVER YOURSELF, I HAVE NO RELIGION, no matter how many times you lie to yourself. Get a fucking clue.
Do you make it a point to incite everyone you meet that isn't a part of your religion? Wait, you're christian, of course you do, that's the point!
Get it? Fuck off, I'm sick of you trying to fill peoples' heads with lies for the sole purpose of making them cows to be milked by your religious leader, George Bush.
Get the point now? I had no trouble with you until you started acting like a bitch, now evidently, swearing and screaming is the only way to get through your thick fucking skull.
No matter how many times you lie to yourself, atheism is still the lack of any religion at all, QED. You are no longer wanted.
The taxpayers who through their duly elected representatives set the groundrules for what they pay for.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
I fully agree that this is not an issue worth legislating. If Texas is going to grant free wi-fi to truckers at rest stops, then let them do with it as they please. If they're that concerned about it, then ditch the free access, make truckers pay to connect, and take the taxpayer out of the equation.
...call his wife! ...watch TV! ...listen to the ball game!
But I did need to ask the parent: when did drinking, smoking, and porn become the only pastimes a trucker could possibly engage in while on the road? Does everything entertaining have to be a vice? That's a pretty limited view you got there.
There are a million other things to do just on the internet alone. A trucker could also (*gasp!*) read a book!
Again, I'm not suggesting we legislate morality -- because that's nearly always a disaster -- but if we truly considered the damage we've done to ourselves via alcohol and pornography alone, we'd be shocked, and would never touch either one again.
Oh wait...yes we would. Because we're slimy, sinful human beings.
"GET OVER YOURSELF, I HAVE NO RELIGION"
I've gotten over myself a long time ago.
If you as you claim state that there is no god then you have committed a act of religion, like it or not. Only agnostic have a legitimate claim to have no religion.
"Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian
> If you as you claim state that there is no god then you have committed a act of religion, like it or not.
It's called a dictionary, you should buy one, or at least use dictionary.com and look up what the word religion means:
Def 1:
A. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
B. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
Def 2: The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
Def 3: A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
1) I have no reverence for anything supernatural, nor do I go to any institution of worship
2) I am in no religious order
3) I have no spiritual leader
Therefore there is absolutely no definition of religion that includes atheism, and it seems that you are too stubborn to admit that you were wrong about one tiny thing. That's one type of trolling, ergo, you are a troll. Again, QED... like it or not.
This discussion is done. It should have been done about 6 posts ago when I realized there was no hope of you seeing reality, but I had hoped you weren't that stupid. No more replies from me unless you say something useful, and the important part, not a friggin lie.
One minor problem Spock... the above listed three did not commit their crimes against humanity in the name of "radical secularism". This should be contrasted to the history of the worlds major religons who have committed crimes against humanity in the name of their religon. Politics and insanity may have driven the three to do what they did, but they did not do it in order to force "radical secularism" down anyone's throat.
There is no reset button in life; however, there are bonus levels.