Slashdot Mirror
House Bill Won't Criminalize Free Wi-Fi Operators
Velcroman98 sends word of a bill that passed the US House of Representatives by a lopsided vote of 409 to 2. It would require everyone who runs an open Wi-Fi connection to report illegal images, including "obscene" cartoons and drawings, or be fined up to $300,000. The Securing Adolescents From Exploitation-Online (SAFE) Act was rushed through the House without any hearings or committee votes, and the version that passed on a voice vote reportedly differs substantially from the last publicly available version. CNET reports that sentiment in favor of such a bill is strong in the Senate as well. Update: 12/07 06:22 GMT by Z : As clarified in an Ars writeup, this summary is a bit off-base. The bill doesn't require WiFi owners to police anything, merely 'stiffening the penalties' for those who make no effort to report obvious child pornography.
Wow, the all-too-common convergence of a political media whore and a television media whore. Between the election year and the Writer's Guild strike, these two must be as happy as pigs in shit right now. I can almost hear them screaming "Won't someone please think of the children?!?!" from here.
Yet another fine example of the kind of far-reaching, ridiculously broad pieces of legislation that we get thanks to election year pandering. Normally, I wouldn't worry too much about this sort of legislation, as the courts usually strip it down pretty quickly. But with the courts so packed with hardcore conservatives right now, we can no longer count on that.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Wouldn't it be easier to mandate to the companies that make the wifi access points to mandate customer education on locking their routers down with WEP of WPA or something along the lines of tin foil around their house? However, $300,000 fine for an unknowing user having wireless and someone doing something criminal on it is just way too much. However, I can see Best buy taking advantage of it. New Geek Squad Commercial.... "Hire our Agents to encrypt your 802.11g, or lose your home!"
-- Josh
"Whoopie! Man, that may have been a small one for Neil, but that's a long one for me!" - Pete Conrad
It seems that this is the way congress works in general these days.
It seems stupid to me to hold them responsible for what goes over their networks. However Ron Paul voted no!
makes me wish I hadn't had children, so that common sense and basic liberty wouldn't be taken hostage in their names.
But then rationality returns to me and I wish that the parents of those tards in Congress hadn't had children.
Sorry, that was unnecessarily harsh and unfair to the mentally retarded, comparing them to Congress.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Where is George Carlin when you need him. On a more serious note inst it nice that laws governing I.T. are made by those with the least amount of understanding of how it works.
Attractive nuisance? If so, that is a remarkably draconian use of it, and not consistently applied, such as to library and school computers. But how many presidential candidates this time have not already promised to perjure themselves when they take their constitutional oaths, if elected?
America will *legislate* itself into the Stone Age.
It would require everyone who runs an open Wi-fi connection to report illegal images, including "obscene" cartoons and drawings, or be fined up to $300,000.
/b/tards suddently cried out in terror, then were suddenly silenced...
As if millions of
Regardless of the sheer idiocy of this bill, is it even remotely enforceable? Around here, probably 35% of wireless networks are open. (This is in Canada, but I can't imagine the US would be much different.) I'd guess from my wardriving excursions that more than half of households in my city have wireless access points. So if you're making a law that automatically criminalizes 20% of your population, isn't there something wrong?
I realize the answer to that question is "Yes," and that's how the US government works. Make laws to make most people criminals, then when we throw them in the slammer, we can show the sheep^W people how tough we are on crime in election years.
But really...are you going to have cops driving around residential areas stopping at every other house handing out tickets for $300,000 fines?
Seriously, your country is fscked up.
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
Yes, we all should secure our wi-fi connections. Sadly, I must keep mine open so that I can use it with my work computer (gotta love the IT policies at my employer!!). So if this law were passed, I'd be exposed to substantial liability when my neighbors use it to download porn. Great. Is the government going to subsidize the lead I'm going to have to install in my walls? Maybe I should just melt down my kids' toys and coat my walls and windows in the melted mess.
I'm convinced congress has zero insight into technology. I, frankly, think this is a great place for lobbyists to step in and give these guys a clue.
Because more than once, I've been somewhere - customer's house, friend who lives like the amish's house, etc. and had to get a windows update, or some silly file I left elsewhere - and someone (knowingly or not) having an open access point nearby made it possible.
4chan is finished.
And someone stole my car and used it in a crime I would be (under that logic) liable for that crime too?
Running an unsecured WiFi is not a smart idea but we can't punish people for being stupid otherwise many of my friends would spend there lives in jail.
In the not too distant future, next Sunday A.D.
It's got a cutsey acronym. How can this possibly be bad?
I wonder who were the 2 that voted against! :)
http://ebgp.net/ccc/
It's human nature to fear and try to destroy what you don't understand.
I think we all remember "It's a series of tubes" and these are the people deciding how the future generations will use it because they wanted to "protect" them? Protecting children is what parents are for. When we where kids we played in the streets with rusty metal and no one cared. Now child services would be called on our parents.
Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
the Democratic leadership rushed the SAFE Act to the floor under a procedure that's supposed to be reserved for noncontroversial legislation.
Is it any wonder that their approval rating is in the tank? All this talk of transparency in government, and they pull oddball stunts like this.
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
Reading the article, it doesn't look like it has much in the way of teeth with respect to Wi-Fi. There is no indication that you are required to monitor the wi-fi connection for such material, or, that in the absence of any such monitoring, that you would be responsible.
From TFA:
But it also includes photographs of fully clothed minors in overly "lascivious" poses, and certain obscene visual depictions including a "drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting." (Yes, that covers the subset of anime called hentai).
Since when did *hentai* ever harm children?
Oh, please think of the E-children, please!!
I have a Samba share visible on my network (although it doesn't broadcast, and you have to know to add //sambaslut/ to get to it). I enjoy using my ipod touch, which, unfortunately, doesn't support secure networks AFAIK. All kidding aside, my samba share contains mostly hentai and furry porn.
/my fault/ if someone connects to my network, adds my samba share, and downloads my porn? Isn't it kind of, you know, their fault for downloading it?
Why the hell is it
OK, I don't claim this is a good bill. However, it only refers to people who "learns about the transmission or storage of information about certain illegal activities or an illegal image". Therefore free Wi-Fi operators are fine. Never look at what people are doing on your Wi-Fi, and you are fine. This could almost be good in some ways, as ISPs who sniff traffic could end up with much more work, while those who leave well alone will be fine.
Combination - fun iPhone puzzling
Sorry, but I do not trust cnet news blurbs. Can someone post the text of the Bill itself?
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
The purpose of this law is to provide more legal means for government and corporations to monitor everyone's internet traffic.
Remember, whenever these people say "it's for the children", there is a more insidious motive behind it.
If they just said that they were going to require monitoring everyone's Internet traffic, there would be an uproar. But, if it is to find kiddie porn, well, then hell yeah, 409-2! Same effect. One really has to wonder what percentage of traffic will actually have these offending files. This will require serious scrutiny to find anything. Game, set, match.
So, let me get this straight. If a pedophile starts up an open Wi-Fi access point, then he connects to it with a laptop that can't be traced to him, he can monitor the traffic, and save all the images that go across the wire. Then he tosses the laptop, reports it, and then he has a perfectly legal excuse as to why he's holding kiddie porn on his computer.
I. Call. Bull. Shit.
~Sticky
/First, all the politicians.
//Then, the lawyers.
///Then, the pedophiles.
will be the stupidity of the "think of the children" motivation for any laws, and how fundamentally flawed that concept is. and i agree
however, the same slashdot crowd will kvetch about computer noobs running wifi without any security, not even weak wep. i can look for wifi near my apartment and list about 5 such open connections, as could a lot of slashdotters anywhere in the country, or the world. and i myself have used such open connections to suck down pirate media (and you know that the next logical extension of "think of the children" is "think of the starving music executive"), as have some slashdotters here i bet
so the security-minded slashdot crowd will say you need wpa at least and encrypt everything that goes over the air anyways (and limit access by mac addresses, and block unnecessary ports, etc.)
ok, fine. well an insane law like this is the only thing that will get us such a world. i'm sorry, but that's the truth
what i'm saying is, noobs can not be motivated to be careful, unless the penalties are severe. in fact, the penalties are fundamentally unjust and insane must be to force such motivation on noobs to stop being careless and lazy and uneducate don the issue. i bet a lot of them even know all about the issue, but are just too lazy to configure their set up
so take your pick slashdot:
1. insane law, sane security practices
2. sane legislators, insane security lapses
you can't have both in this world with today's wifi technology
i'm not saying this dichotomy is correct, i am just saying it is reality
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
We're just a few laws away from having a Police State controlling every aspect of our lives.
Signature applied for, Patent Pending
"Land of the free, home of the brave", was it?
WTF??? There is such a thing as an "illegal image"???? I must have missed the memo... next thing you know, there will be "illegal sounds" and "illegal ideas"! LOL! This planet is getting more and more fucked up by the day and nobody seems to notice...in fact watch the answers to this post, people will be quick to point out how this is perfectly normal...for example (drum rolling, music peaks) a child being molested is an "illegal image"!!! You see now, bozo?
Go ahead and explain now the difference between an "act" and the "image of an act"... oh dear time for a coffee break...
Yam, yam, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade
If I'm reading this correctly, this law only becomes an issue if you know about traffic in illegal images on your Wi Fi network. The practical upshot of this is that if you want to run an open Wi Fi point, you need to be sure you don't look at the traffic. Don't run a packet sniffer or a NIDS.
But I somehow doubt they'll be the ones paying the $300,000 fines.
What a nation of paranoid nannies we're becoming.
When all else fails, run.
Two Republicans were the two "No" votes. Ron Paul was one (which warms my little black heart; how cute! A politician that doesn't pander with 'teh children'. He's doomed, but hopefully not before I can cast a ballot for him in my state's primary) and someone I'd never heard of--Paul Broun (R)- GA.
When this gets to the Senate, hilarity will undoubtedly ensue as the candidates trip over each other to save the children from the pixels that everyone knows make the Baby Jesus cry. I can hope that maybe one or two will rise above (Obama, I'm looking at you), but I'm not holding my breath.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
So, does this mean no more browsing naughty sites on my wireless connection for my Wii?
Slashdot is too nerdy for me.
Nobody like chilkd pornography, but child pornograpy and "terrorism" are used to limit free speech. Nobody likes censorship.
The really bad guys will hide in encryption and other privacy protection technology. In 2 years this law will be abused to use this law against common criminals like downloading music( sarcasm?). It is the letter of the law that counts.
But they did think correct about including forbidding computer generated images. There were reports that very lifelike stuff was created, where the boundaries between real and animated where approached.
please see that he gets my name.
_somewhere_ there has to be a society for responsible, sane people.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
Think of the Adolescents!
-Grey
Silver Clipboard: Time Management Tips
Ferinstance: Somone sends a Windows DRMed video over my Linux AP and I don't have a CODEC for it so I cannot view it since it is just a jumble of bits. Is that stream of bits a picture?
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
"Those least fit to carry on the race are increasing most rapidly ... Funds that should be used to raise the standard of our civilization are diverted to maintenance of those who should never have been born."
Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood
In the US, the overwhelming majority of "those least fit to carry on the race" seem to be poor minorities, yet the term "abortion" is always couched in terms of personal freedom instead of in terms of controlling the population of minorities. Funny - if a congressman came out and said that x number of poor black women should be forced to abort their babies he would be crucified by the Justice Brothers Sharpton and Jackson (and he should be). But instead we just encourage these women to make that choice on their own and call it a "right."
So, the net effect of this will be to put small businesses out of business. How can the coffee shop down the street comply with this? The time and storage capacity needed for this is ridiculous.
Just had a horrible thought: Once you store it (in a harddrive so big it doesnt exist yet), aren't you now in possession of it? This is the catch22 of the exercise, you have to somehow sift through thousands of files LOOKING for "illegal" stuff and report it, or YOU can be charged. This will NEVER fly with the supreme court. Once this hits the mainstream news people are going to freak out and get pissed.
I hope.
Clearly I forgot to equip my +5 Codpiece of Karma.
Sounds like it's time to celebrate Obscene Images Over Open Wireless Networks Day!
A link to goatse and the best wardriving software on the web... stat!
-Rob
Biblical fiscal responsibility
it's sure to pass!
How could you vote against something called the "SAFE Act"?
That would be like voting against something called the "USA PATRIOT Act"!
"The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
I wonder if this applies to home networks that are wide open. How would a home user be expected to monitor traffic at that level? Another point (perhaps more valid) is this. Will companies with open wireless networks now simply lock them down so that they're no longer open, to avoid having to deal with this?
someone is using the same "wipe them out. all of them." approach to free wifi as those who appose illegal use of P2P technologies. maybe free wifi providers should have some kind of filtering or whatever, but i dont think federal government is the one to push such law. especially not at the risk of destroying the provider. i mean, what reason will i have to _stay_ at my coffee shop if i cant get a few minutes of peaceful surfing with a nice cup of joe.
Power to the Penguin!
While it's a completely stupid idea and will leave liable every non-technical dolt who sets up an open router, perhaps those of us with technical capability could do our part by reporting these images. Since the definition of obscenity varies by community standards, and I would hate to miss something that just has to be reported, the safest thing might just to be to report all images as they pass through your system to a wifi connected computer. Dedicate an old system to capturing all images as they pass to the wifi point, and e-mail every one of them individually to the people we are supposed to report them to. And I would CC a copy of each e-mail to those 409 congressmen who are so concerned about them also. We have to do this, or the terrorists have won.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
If my phone gets stolen or lost that I am responsible for all the bomb threats made from it and other. Someone hacks into my wireless and has Cartman fucking his underage girlfriend emailed from it and I go to jail.
This will be a pile of shit here. Will not work.
...hence the lopsided vote. EFF has the insights no the rest of this bill. This is a "poison pill" amendment to the Ron Paul's of the world, but it's a small price to pay for passing the rest of this legislation.
blarg.
Did you know that the average age of the representatives is 55? I often wonder if age's impact on someone's familiarity with technology plays a role in some of these voting sessions.
Right now, if someone else uses your Internet connection (home wifi or if you're an ISP) to download child porn, the law can't really do anything to you. They can only punish the actual downloader.
Under the new law, if someone else uses your public Internet service to download child porn, and you demonstrably know about it, but you don't report it, then they can
That's a far cry from sending you to jail for a very long time where you are systematically raped and tortured and have to register as a sex offender for the rest of your life.
No this goes way beyond though crime. Having real child porn in your possession is a crime. Even if you did not hurt a single child by making an extra copy. Having virtual child porn is not much different there.
In your logic even copyright infringement is thought crime. Nobody is hurt with an extra (private?) copy, but it is still illegal to exchange those ideas.
Just as it is illegal to create sic hate speech (in europe, not USA), it is illegal to create virtual child porn in this law.
They will paint the defendant as someone who by running a computer should know everything about what goes on as that computer, and the ignorant people will agree and your claim that you 'did not have knowledge' will be dismissed and you will be found guilty.
Now, if you had been a government employee or appointee, you could get away scott-free with that excuse...
Blar.
report everything... let the gov't sort 'em out.
Oh wait, they'd be overwhelmed...
Use your head, can't you, use your head,
You're on earth, there's no cure for that - S. Beckett
I mean Rudy, jeez, why do I always think "9/11" when I think Rudy Guiliani? He's done so much for 9/11. I mean New York. If he's elected president, I know he'll 9/11 the whole 9/11 into a brand new bright and shiny 9/11.
9/11!
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Oh won't somebody think of the stupid people??? It's not their fault they can't secure a wireless connection
Hooray for democracy! Truly, representative government always gives the people what they want.
What we have here is yet another diabolical attempt to further criminalize common activities, the purpose of which is to have more and more reasons to punish pretty much anyone the authorities feel they'd like to punish.
:(
They'll have something on everyone, eventually, and if you step out of line politically you'll be off to prison for some law you didn't even know it would be possible for you to be in violation of.
What a fun world that will be.
This sig, aah-ah, is comin' like a ghost-sig...
I may be missing something, but I read the Fine Article, and then I read the Fine Bill, and the two don't jibe.
From TFA:
From H.R.3791 SAFE Act of 2007 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House) (Source: http://thomas.loc.gov): and:The way I read it, if someone go to Joe Blow's coffee shop and Joe sees him looking at kiddie p*rn, Joe is obliged to report it, but he doesn't have to look over his patrons' shoulders. And AT&T is not obliged to set up some special wiretapping room or keep logfiles so they can rat people out.
IMHO, if you come across someone committing a serious crime, you have a moral duty to report it, and I think child pornography falls into that kind of crime. The vote (409-2) indicates that most people would agree.
I'm curious about the two congressmen/women who voted against it -- and Declan McCullagh.
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
i'm not talking about what we SHOULD do, i'm making an observation about people's irrational expectations
i'm not saying you have to secure wifi
you misrepresented what i said as saying we HAVE to compel people to secure their wifi
we don't have to make any laws, no one has to secure their wifi
i'm just saying that if you kvetch about people with unsecure wifi, stop kvetching about this retarded law. or, if you kvetch about this retarded law, stop kvetching about people with unsecure wifi. because it is not logically consistent to be able to do both at the same time, under current technology, and with an understanding of essential human laziness
i'm saying that noobs will not make the extra effort to secure their wireless unless the laws are insane and severe
and i'm not saying this is a good thing, i'm just making a sad observation about reality
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Do I need to report it every time someone draws a picture of a penis on pictochat? Good thing I don't do that any more.
8===D
More music, fewer hits
The shackles of tyranny are engraved with the phrase, "Do it for the children." (The other side reads, "Do it for your safety.")
I haven't read TFA, but I do wonder... what is the criteria used to decide whether a hot-spot is "open"? Certainly, my encrypted home network is not. Certainly a free-to-all, no click-through connection in a public place is. Where does the bill draw the line?
With all this crap lately, I'm about ready to jump ship. I'd threaten to move to Canada, but Airsoft (One of the few activities I can legally enjoy in this godforsaken country) is already basically illegal up there, like we're working on here. Ban free wifi, no funding for manned Mars missions, sit up straight, chew your food, don't talk with your mouth full.
I think we need to come up with a new term to describe this level of government overreaching. I'm a clever guy, but for the life of me I can't think of anything better than to call the bulk of the idiotic bills that are trying to be passed and BEING passed, than to call it definitively retarded.
Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
The further along this Bill gets the more likely the large coffee shops start talking to their lawyers about this Act. Lawyers will tell them it's no longer worth providing free Wi-Fi. Once the big coffee shops cut free Wi-Fi so falls all other retail Wi-Fi, Hotels, etc.
Will Hotmail and GMail start monitoring all of our email for obsene or illegal content?
Time to call my represenatives...
Kevin
Irrational Diversions
What the fuck is it with politicians and acronyms? SAFE? Give me a fucking break! And this business of 'fast tracking' bills need to be stopped now. Seems our politicians, judges and lawyers are too big of pussy's to stand up for our constitutional rights. They're more concerned about getting re-elected by not giving the impression that they're soft on drunk drivers, pedophiles etc.
If the people who go on shooting sprees could do us any favor, it is to shoot the politicians, lawyers and judges who violate your constitutional rights instead of innocent people.
"I bow to no man" - Riddick
This could be happily avoided by turning all images on the public side of your wifi connection into unicorns or lolcats with some upside-down-ternet action as promoted via http://xkcd.org/341/
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
I smoke pot, play cards with my friends, and hire hookers. I seed P2P networks with music that sometimes has the same name as the dreck the RIAA shovels out. I'm already a criminal.
And you can bet your ass I'm not voting Republicrat.
This bullhit pisses me off. It would be nice if someone ever got elected who represented MY interests. I have no representation in "my" government. As long as they keep writing these laws that my Constitution clearly says are illegal (like pot, gambling, & hooker laws) I'll keep ignoring them.
You want me to respect the law? Write respectable laws.
-mcgrew
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
You are already required to report cases of child abuse in most states.
The article mentions this existing law...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00013032----000-.html
No monitoring requirements, no evidence preservation, weak, etc.
So, you already have to report known cases.
This bill, or is it this one.. is a lot more specific.
The only new monitoring requirement is that a court may require convicted child abusers to use a monitored internet connection and the provider will get an extra $50 a month.
Here's another useful tidbit..
`(f) Protection of Privacy- Nothing in this section shall be construed to require an electronic communication service provider or a remote computing service provider to--
`(1) monitor any user, subscriber, or customer of that provider;
`(2) monitor the content of any communication of any person described in paragraph (1); or
`(3) affirmatively seek facts or circumstances described in subsection (a)(2).
I'm confused by the different versions too, but what is all the fuss over? I don't see where this will have any real impact on commercial WiFi providers, or individuals.
I should explain why I choose to eliminate those variables. People both rich and poor; black and white; and of various religions have all practiced abortion. More to the point, we can identify overlapping concerns among these groups that weaken any correlation these factors have with groups utilizing abortion. And to shake up arguments of economic causality, there is an incentive in the United States for the poor to have children for additional welfare income.
Why bother.
meh...im not too worried, its not like my free wifi provider is gonna shutdown upon hearing this ne
That is some damn funny stuff man! Keep it coming.
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
The bill commented upon by the EFF is/was S1709, a Senate bill. The bill in question is HR3791, a House bill. Only the acronym is the same.
I'm not saying this is a good law by any means, but who cares? Seriously, the simple solution to this is run an encrypted network, which takes all of 30 seconds for most people (even non-tech people) to configure and these days most routers are comping pre-configured for WEP at least.
This will last until some grandma or similar gets fined a ridiculous amount of money because he/she didn't know any better. Then public outrage will get something changed so the law isn't so stupid in its implementation.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
Another reason to vote for Ron Paul.
Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to conviction
This is exactly the stupidest (almost) bill I have ever read. It's ONLY purpose is to make people who would otherwise share their wifi, think hard about locking it down. The only people who benefit, are the telcos. In my mother's apartment building there are 10 wifi nodes within sight of her laptop's antenna. The telcos loves it when all 10 are encrypted so that everyone has to pay to have their own dsl or cable connection. I have five open wifi nodes under my control. Whoever drives by can use them all. Now, is it my JOB to watch and log the traffic over my wifi network? I am not there monitoring any bit of it. How am I going to know what pics are passed through it? But, I immediately thought of encrypting everything, so that I wouldn't be subject to the law. The telcos wrote this bill. They would love to chill projects such as personaltelco.org and the like. The fewer people who feel safe in sharing their internet with the surrounding people, the more DSL connections that will be necessary, and the more money into the telco's pockets.
You misspelled "Republicrat"
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
After reading it, I still think it's a bad bill but it's not nearly as bad as TFS made it seem. You have to know that someone is downloading CP using your WiFi connection and not report it.
There is one piece of the legislation that doesn't make sense. It's early in the morning and I might be reading it wrong but as I read it they are indemnifying anyone in the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children from intentional misconduct while making it sound like these are reasons that they can be brought to court under civil or criminal statutes: (b) Intentional, Reckless, or Other Misconduct- Subsection (a) shall not apply to a claim or charge if the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, or a director, officer, employee, or agent of such center--
(1) engaged in intentional misconduct; or
(2) acted, or failed to act--
(A) with actual malice;
(B) with reckless disregard to a substantial risk of causing injury without legal justification; or
(C) for a purpose unrelated to the performance of any responsibility or function under this section, section 2258A or 2258C of this title, or section 404 of the Missing Children's Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5773). Lastly, we don't need a law like this. I've seen no evidence that what they are railing against in this legislation is even a minor problem. It seems to be just another "think of the children law" for an election year.
We have four boxes with which to defend our freedom: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.
So if anybody has ever been in front of a judge whose only job it is to uphold the will of the people and the state, you'll realize that the only way of doing anything about this is to speak up and contact your senator before this becomes law! Democracy. Use it.
One of the biggest problems I have with abortion is that the time for birth control should have happened long before an abortion is part of any plan. And without objections, how long until someone decides that you can perform an abortion outside the human body? Lets say you can kill the kid until his 5th birthday.
I know that seems extreme but it isn't far off from the current abortion as birth control argument. When you distinguish between life and fetus, one of the biggest issues is the ability to live outside the body. So if it cannot live without the host, it is a fetus. Now, imagine a newborn placed in a room with all the doors open and widows opened. It cannot defend against any threats, it cannot feed itself, it will dies unless someone takes care of it. So it has basically went from a parasite inside the body to one outside the body. At some age, it will be able to find another host so you would have to stop considering it something other then a human being that is a parasite.
I'm personally against abortions. religion doesn't factor into this position either. But I know it isn't my choice so I don't care who has one. But I do care about the point in time when life begins because it is pivotal in all other discussions about it. We have found newborn babies in dumpsters and their parents only received 2 years sentences or almost nothing when if the kid was older, they would have received a lot more punishment. There is a trend to punish mothers who kill their kids for whatever reason less depending on the age of the child. I think that s wrong too. It is much easier to say if you don't want kids, use birth control or give them up for adoption then it is to figure out when a human life begins and when it is valuable enough to receive the fullest protects of the law including the fullest punishment possible when someone kills it.
So there is my answer to your second question. It isn't just about abortions perse.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3791 ) to modernize and expand the reporting requirements relating to child pornography, to expand cooperation in combating child pornography, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 3791
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Securing Adolescents From Exploitation-Online Act of 2007'' or the ``SAFE Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION SERVICE PROVIDERS AND REMOTE COMPUTING SERVICE PROVIDERS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 110 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 2258 the following:
``SEC. 2258A. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION SERVICE PROVIDERS AND REMOTE COMPUTING SERVICE PROVIDERS.
``(a) Duty To Report.--
``(1) IN GENERAL.--Whoever, while engaged in providing an electronic communication service or a remote computing service to the public through a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, obtains actual knowledge of any facts or circumstances described in paragraph (2) shall, as soon as reasonably possible--
``(A) complete and maintain with current information a registration with the CyberTipline of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, or any successor to the CyberTipline operated by such center, by providing the mailing address, telephone number, facsimile number, electronic mail address of, and individual point of contact for, such electronic communication service provider or remote computing service provider; and
``(B) make a report of such facts or circumstances to the CyberTipline, or any successor to the CyberTipline operated by such center.
``(2) FACTS OR CIRCUMSTANCES.--The facts or circumstances described in this paragraph are any facts or circumstances that appear to indicate a violation of--
``(A) section 2251, 2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2252B, or 2260 that involves child pornography; or
``(B) section 1466A.
``(b) Contents of Report.--To the extent available to an electronic communication service provider or a remote computing service provider, each report under subsection (a)(1) shall include the following information:
``(1) INFORMATION ABOUT THE INVOLVED INDIVIDUAL.--Information relating to the Internet identity of any individual who appears to have violated a Federal law in the manner described in subsection (a)(2), which shall, to the extent reasonably practicable, include the electronic mail address, website address, uniform resource locator, or any other identifying information, including self-reported identifying information.
``(2) HISTORICAL REFERENCE.--Information relating to when any apparent child pornography was uploaded, transmitted, reported to, or discovered by the electronic communication service provider or remote computing service provider, as the case may be, including a date and time stamp and time zone.
``(3) GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION INFORMATION.--Information relating to the geographic location of the involved individual, hosting website, or uniform resource locator, which shall include the Internet Protocol Address or verified billing address, or, if not reasonably available, at least one form of geographic identifying information, including area code or zip code. The in
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
A preemptive attack against any "insurgents" building community wireless clouds to bypass the service providers. Very similar to the vilification of P2P. Eh, whatever. It's not like it will cost the incumbents their chance of re-election.
What?
Your post contained mention of an illegal act which itself is a violation of the illegal ideas act of 2007. Please sit over here on the group W bench while we process you prior to incarceration.
I call this the "side of the room" problem. You can be listening to someone and thinking "you know, he makes a bit of sense," and then you notice that David Duke or other wackos are standing on the same side of the room with him. I'm not going to stand on the same side of the room with the Aryan Nation, ostensible libertarianism notwithstanding. This isn't just a fear of guilt by association--I have to start wondering what there is about his movement that is so attractive to people whose views I find repugnant.
The "side of the room" problem works both ways, alas. Many people would be open to the ideas talked about by Michael Moore if giving them a fair hearing didn't involve standing on the same side of the room as, say, Michael Moore.
Sometimes I think they spend more time coming up with catchy acronyms than anything else. Think of the CAN-SPAM Act. These guys are worth every penny!
This is yet another reason to devolve the Federal government's powers to the States. Idiots like this don't understand the reason common carriers are not liable for transporting illegal goods. Fine. They're idiots playing with knives. Take away their toys before someone gets hurt. At least at the State level there is more of a chance that someone with their feet on the ground will be heard.
Seastead this.
This would be a lot more effective if it targetted workstations and servers. Then whenever a system gets botted the physical owner would bear some responsibility. I can almost hear those security holes slamming shut now...
Tell me, what does "obtains actual knowledge of any facts or circumstances described in paragraph" mean in a court of law? Is it "obtains" as in "reads them"? As in"stored them on a computer"? As in "stored in memory"? I don't profess to be a lawyer, so I don't really know the answer to this. However, I've seen enough legal decisions in the past where a perfectly common sense sentence targeted on hardcore criminals was twisted to include consensual sex, basic computer operations and daily life. I don't trust lawyers, judges or juries to always come to the right decision, and I suspect there'll be plenty of cases where this law will be abused. If you can't imagine the scenarios.... I hope they'll never happen to you.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
``SEC. 2258B. LIMITED LIABILITY FOR ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION SERVICE PROVIDERS, REMOTE COMPUTING SERVICE PROVIDERS, OR DOMAIN NAME REGISTRAR.
``(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), a civil claim or criminal charge against an electronic communication service provider, a remote computing service provider, or domain name registrar, including any director, officer, employee, or agent of such electronic communication service provider, remote computing service provider, or domain name registrar arising from the performance of the reporting responsibilities of such electronic communication service provider, remote computing service provider, or domain name registrar under this section, section 2258A, or section 2258C may not be brought in any Federal or State court.
``(b) Intentional, Reckless, or Other Misconduct.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to a claim if the electronic communication service provider, remote computing service provider, or domain name registrar, or a director, officer, employee, or agent of that electronic communication service provider, remote computing service provider, or domain name registrar--
``(1) engaged in intentional misconduct; or
``(2) acted, or failed to act--
``(A) with actual malice;
``(B) with reckless disregard to a substantial risk of causing injury without legal justification; or
``(C) for a purpose unrelated to the performance of any responsibility or function under this section, section 2258A, or section 2258C.
``(c) Ordinary Business Activities.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to an act or omission relating to an ordinary business activity of an electronic communication service provider, a remote computing service provider, or domain name registrar, including general administration or operations, the use of motor vehicles, or personnel management.
``(d) Minimizing Access.--An electronic communication service provider, a remote computing service provider, and domain name registrar shall--
``(1) minimize the number of employees that are provided access to any image provided under section 2258A or 2258C; and
``(2) ensure that any such image is permanently destroyed, upon notification from a law enforcement agency.
I think this lets free Wi-Fi providers that have no idea what their users are looking at off the hook.
I am going to romp into speculation here, as your comments have courted some less developed thoughts I have on the matter. Bear with me.
It goes without saying that birth control is not perfect. I read some article some time ago (which I cannot find) about a woman and her husband who practice birth control because they already had three children and had no desire to increase their family. That method failed and she tried to gain access to Plan B. Unfortunately for her, she was denied repeatedly by some over-zealous pharmacists and was eventually forced to visit her local abortion clinic. That is tangental, but exemplifies a situation where reasonable precautions from responsible individuals failed. This begs the question: should those people be punished by having the option removed because there are irresponsible actors out there? (I think not.)
Let me go on the record that I am opposed to abortion after brain activity is measurable, unless the mother is in danger.
I think the argument hinges on the notion that the fetus is part of the body until it becomes detached and functionally self-sustainable. Also, I would be careful not to use the term parasite too loosely.
I think whether or not society wants to admit it, I believe all humans tend towards valuing others based on their material contribution to the survival of the group. For example, have you ever found yourself dismissive towards coworkers who seem not to pull their weight on the job? If you advocate the removal of “dead wood”, you are advocating for adverse effects on their very survival (income honestly translates to food and shelter). You may find this reasoning underpins why the age of the child influences the sentencing. There are mitigating circumstances as well. The parents of an unwanted newborn are more likely to be panicked and irrational than those that have been raising their child for five years. I am not speaking to the justifications, but the influence of perceived value, I believe, is unmistakable.
Why bother.
More taxpayer dollars on utter nonsense. So the legislature wants to give ISPs immunity to help them spy domestically, and wants to screw coffee shops if they don't police their network. Ridiculous!
Well, we get what we vote for!
Senator Russ Feingold will be raising many serious questions about this bill when it comes up in the Senate (or so said the guy on the phone in his DC office).
Senator Herb Kohl is going to look into the bill and get back to me on it (or so said the guy on the phone in his DC office).
Call your senators. Ask some questions. Let them know what you think.
Here is an image you will be interested in ....
Goatse
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
It's the internet. You're allowed to say "fucked up" if you choose.
And you're not a diligent student of history or even current events if you think the political situation in early 21st America is significantly more or less "fucked up" than in other places and/or times in history. Without contextual clues, some of the writings of American politicians from 200 years ago look as if they describe specific present-day situations. The musings of politicians and scholars from Classical times are the same, if the translator can refrain from flowering translation.
You're right that things are bad in the USA, but your insinuation that this is unique to it, or even noteworthy among countries, and that Canada is some sort of sociological utopia is either blind or malicious. Politics is a selfish, authoritarian, and unjust practice the world over. Stupidity and bullshit reign around every election.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Obviously, this little detail has been bypassed. Federal Govt has been ignoring this amendment and doing wuddeverdahell it wants for more than a century.
Pavlov wouldn't be so famous if he'd used a can opener instead of a bell.
I'm with MattW on this one.
if this is only if you notice that KP is being transferred (otherwise, it IS a draconian law), then all you have to do is NOT LOOK.
Which, unfortunately, means that if there is any KP going on, it will remain available for a lot longer.
Where is the data showing that open WiFi connections are a source of obscene images for children? I'm pretty sure kids are just downloading it from their parent's internet connection. Using the many well known holes in internet filtering software.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Another issue:
If I scan that wi-fi point and it shows up in the logs, even if I never saw anything or moved any actual data through that wi-fi point I can be held accountable because how would anyone(government) know otherwise without invading my privacy first.(mass computer confiscations around the wi-fi point). It's not like this country doesn't have a history of using laws for more than what they were intended for. Redefine child porn as anything anti-government or just insert child porn into the evidence and you have the perfect law for harassing anyone. Not like we don't have plenty of those already.
While I agree with your conclusion, your argument is less cogent or sensical than most of of the pro-life arguments.
Opinions, beliefs, and moral inclinations are not hereditary. They, along with social class/ social standing are more often similar to the parents than not, because of nurture, not nature.
Evolution only deals with genetics. As the pro-choice gene has not been demonstrated to exist, I'm going to go ahead and conclude that evolution and abortion don't belong in the same argument. Grouping them together leads down a dangerous road.
If you don't monitor then you don't have any responsibility to report.
Just read a good deal of your website; very amusing.
Good on the whole hooker thing, too. World's oldest profession, and one that's still completely legal as long as you convert the payment to goods and services, e.g., dinner and a movie. I never had any issues with hookers, but I have to say, I haven't much use for pimps.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Some hacker needs to write a virus that downloads kiddie porn on to politicians computers and has it flash up at random times. :-P
Captain V. Cautious 12/06/07 While I do not post frequently the issue of the S.A.F.E. Act seems to have taken a weird turn here. First for you entrenched RTFA folks, I did RTFA. In fact I read it several times in several different locations and NONE of them show anything but the revisions to the USA P.A.T.R.I.O.T Act from 2003. I followed several posted links here on /. and found that most were either broken or, like the library of congress, I received the "Image not Available" error and the links to the Thomas ( ie Jefferson) site. Unfortunately, that is becoming more common w/ the LOC.
So having said that, the title of this article, obviously does not refer to the PATRIOT act since the Patriot act does not directly deal with child Porn in the context of this article. Maybe the links can not point to the correct article...
How...ever... The parents of this country seem to have abrogated the collective duty to "Parent"; ie: to care for and guide their children into paths that seem most ethical to them, not to the government, not to the ISP's, and certainly not to the tech nation that the US was and is now slowly dying. Each religious paradigm has a codicil of ethical behavior that seems to have fallen by the wayside. We expect the (secular) schools to teach proper behavior. Like these grossly overworked and underpaid teachers have noting better to do?
So what does this have to do with child porn? Quite a lot, IMHO. The Internet is a tool. Just like a hammer, and like the hammer can create either destruction or creative construction. It may hold great knowledge as well as 'relative evil' . The technology is there to filter our child porn, but it is so inclusive that it is essentially worthless in that it also blocks sites that the software's nominally Christian manufacturers don't like. As fast as one site is blocked the money is there to create another one that has not been added to filters yet, and so on... Our children are in many ways much more sophisticated than we are technologically. If they want to find ANY kind of sexually explicit material, they WILL find a way. One of the dangers of this kind of draconianism relates directly to education, medical anatomy-surgery, sex education, contraceptive education ALL of which are useful and necessary sites. I'm certain those with more than 2 synapses working will understand what I mean.
Society is NOT responsible for teaching ethics. The religious and parental sectors have always had that, & often abrogated that responsibility. The fly in the ointment is the social/societal ethos which, in consensus, determines how we are supposed to act in a responsible manner as we go about our interactions in society. This is partially based in law. Sadly though that ethos is progressively shifting towards the destruction of privacy, security of the individual, mediocrity of education, restriction of information and movement and most importantly IMO the concept that money can buy you anything, including justice. As well as the control the people idea, " Why do you want privacy if you have nothing to hide?" I won't go into that diatribe here but it is one of the single most important questions of the privacy issue. Please do some serious thinking here folks.
We know that unless you are living under the handicap of a Axis IV DSM diagnosis involving a deep psychosis child porn is repulsive. Not because it is porn qua se, IMO but rather that, like rape, it depicts an unwilling violence against the victim. In this case an underage individual who can neither truly understand nor consent to what is being done to them. IN SHORT the /. article reads like 1st. Class FUD. ( gratuitous flamebait, thank you) When considering child porn I suggest that you consider what you might feel like if you were the victim.
Now making a jump of possibly permissible logic If this kind of law was indeed passed (perhaps a different name?) It is both the right & the duty of the people to change it through actions relative to their elected representatives and sena
Now when will they start fining the ISP for delivering it to the access point and not reporting about the request for the 'bad' data? Cant have that pesky information passing thru unmolested can we?
Today kiddy porn, tomorrow 'dissident' knowledge.
Be afraid.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
If we can make everyone a criminal ( and forgive the prison sentence, as we cant pay taxes in jail ), we can strip them of their rights and are much easier to control.
You have stumbled onto a much larger plan that isnt supposed to be known by the unwashed masses.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
And what of rape, where the child was unwanted by the mother, and where carrying the spawn to term propagates the genes of what I would argue is a line of eminently disposable humans?
Will you oppose abortion of rape-spawn?
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
And so 4chan gets blacklisted on EVERY free wifi spot....
SQL programmer goes to a bar. Walks up to two tables and says 'Excuse me, may I join you?'.
Simple explanation (there's more to it): SCOTUS doesn't give advisory opinions because we have an adversarial judicial system. In other words, we like to think that interested parties argue before the court. For that to work, they must be _interested_ parties that have are adversely affected directly. There is a belief that if we didn't require that, someone might say "I'll challenge that!" and then do a poor job and lose. Then, because of stare decisis, there would be a strong presumption that the loss was valid, and those who REALLY are hurt later on would have a harder time winning. There's a lot more to it, but that's a simple explanation. George Washington asked for advice on something early in his administration and SCOTUS had to basically say "Sorry. We think you're great and we'd like to help, but we can't. We assume you'll do a good job, but would have to wait and see if what you do is constitutional after it is actually done." Oh, separation of powers is a big part of this, too.
Lose essential liberties to get temporary safety = get only hassles and security theater.
I've seen a lot of interesting comments here on the nature of this..
I can't help but thinking that regardless of intent, this bill would allow the telco's to 'legally' monitor and record all information passed through their ISP services. After all, they were only complying with the law when they began keeping records of everything you access. Once they find a single shred of 'obscene' material, they have all the authorization they need to spy on your internet and pass it on to the government. They're not performing 'illegal wiretaps' at that point, just protecting themselves and 'thinking of the children'.
And with as loosely worded as it is, would any connection -really- be free of 'obscene' material, since even a mildly raunchy political cartoon could be counted?
Perhaps I'm being paranoid, but it wouldn't be the first time that a law would be turned to a use completely apart from its apparent intent.
If I see someone shoplifting, it used to be a no-brainer to
contact management. These days, I would weigh the hassle of
spending an hour or more talking to management AND the police
about what I saw and when I saw it since now I am a witness.
Not to mention filling out forms giving everyone involved
my name, address, phone..... Can I change "hour" to "hours" ?
To sum it up, even if it is the right thing to do, I would
probably NOT report someone shoplifting.
I can't help but wonder how much invisible behind-the-scenes support for this law is coming from the big telcos, who want to quash all free WiFi out of existence using any means they can conjure up.
This law will be quite effective for them.
I did not read the article, but I did read the bill. And the summary is completely made up. Nowhere near true. I don't see where they're getting those ideas from at all. To quote the bill:
"`(f) Protection of Privacy- Nothing in this section shall be construed to require an electronic communication service provider or a remote computing service provider to--
`(1) monitor any user, subscriber, or customer of that provider;
`(2) monitor the content of any communication of any person described in paragraph (1); or
`(3) affirmatively seek facts or circumstances described in subsection (a)(2)."
And the legal requirement to report part:
"`(a) Duty To Report-
`(1) IN GENERAL- Whoever, while engaged in providing an electronic communication service or a remote computing service to the public through a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, obtains actual knowledge of any facts or circumstances described in paragraph (2) shall, as soon as reasonably possible, make a report of such facts or circumstances to the CyberTipline of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, or any successor to the CyberTipline operated by such center."
So, IANAL, but it seems to me to be saying that you must report it if you know about it, but it seems to specifically state that you are in no way required to actually seek out that information.
The problem with slippery slope arguments is their inherent sensationalism, and I'm sorry to say that yours was very blatantly bad.
Pro-lifers tend to forget about the situations where people do not want or need their lives ruined because of something that was forced on them (eg, attempting to remove their choice to terminate a pregnancy that was not their choice in the first place).
There are a lot of rape victims who find themselves pregnant. There are a lot of incest victims who find themselves in the same situation. There are a lot of young couples who are not ready in their housing, educational, career or financial situation to have children but surprise surprise they still want to have sex. There are also people who choose not to have children for personal reasons including people who have a certain number of children but who do not want more.
Complicating the situation you have doctors who will steadfastly refuse to perform tubligations or vasectomies based solely on a woman's age rather than medical or personal necessity or choice. A friend of mine had a child with his wife after the doctor made them choose whether they would rather the mother or the child survive the birth. After the birth when both survived they were told in no uncertain terms that another pregnancy carried with it a 100% certainty that she would die. She probably wouldn't even make it halfway to term and she would be dead. Even in the face of this knowledge he was providing them the doctor refused to perform a tubiligation because they were too young and she should be given the chance to have more children.
Moreover, for people who want to manage their pregnancy status birth control is hardly infallible (and some slippery slope types liken birth control to abortion anyways which really muddys the waters).
But I do care about the point in time when life begins because it is pivotal in all other discussions about it. We have found newborn babies in dumpsters and their parents only received 2 years sentences or almost nothing when if the kid was older, they would have received a lot more punishment.Sentience is the real key here. If a fetus hasn't got a developed brain and no brain activity exists there can be no sentience; no understanding of one's own existence and therefore no understanding of the end of same.
A similar rationalization comes into play when we consider what foods we eat and what repulses us. We eat cows. Cows are stupid. We do not eat dogs. Dogs are intelligent.
BD Phone Home!
Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.
"To sum it up, even if it is the right thing to do, I would probably NOT report someone shoplifting.
As long as it was from Wal-Mart....
"But this one goes to 11!"
He inherited a surplus and quickly turned it into the largest deficit in history. Here is a graph of the deficit for the last 50 years. Notice the steep red line starting in 2000...
You mean the one caused by the dotbomb implosion as tax revenues were decimated as companies collapsed left and right?
Yeah, great inheritance. Bush Derangement Syndrome strikes again, there's nothing that can't be blamed on Bush!
I agree by the way that Republicans got spend-happy, that's why they were rightfully kicked out of power the last cycle. But Democrats replacing them in power have been even worse on pork, with epic levels of earmarks now (some of which are still coming from Republicans as well, of course).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
another job for Suck-My-Dick-Man!
The whole point of laws like this: It is a common tactic to make some perfectly normal thing that everyone does illegal -- say drinking water or moving to accept a new job or naming a teddy bear -- and then to use this law to selectively prosecute and harass those that are out of favor with the political elite. A likely result is to get rid of wi-fi access points...
Even if it were completely LEGAL to know about and not report some instance of child abuse (in any medium), you couldn't get away scot- free. I'm no lawyer, but I was under the impression that by knowingly helping, aiding, abetting, assisting, etc. the committing of a crime, you are highly likely to be charged with something. In the context of this bill, you could be providing the service that one would be using to commit the crime. Not to mention you might take a little flak from your friendly neighbors.
Enforcing this doesn't require a cop on every computer. You need to prove someone knew about, and didn't report a given instance of child abuse. It's probably a bit more complicated than that, but you get my drift. We're talking about ABUSE... "think of the children" might be good advice this time.
No amount of wealth or fame could buy the goodwill of a judge or jury that discovered you'd known about child abuse without telling anyone. Sorry, I'm just having a hard time seeing how this might be selectively enforced. The "think of the children" types would eat someone alive if they found out. I'm not saying there aren't gray areas, or plausible reasons for knowing & not reporting, just uhh.. you'd better have a good defense I guess. Selective enforcement to me, means an unjust decision to enforce a law or not.
Maybe we have different ideas of what "selective enforcement" means.
Once again the US is discredited as a home of freedom. In short, this boils down to
a law against sharing resources and anonymity. Nobody supports kiddie porn, but this is just
an infantile and asinine way to stop it. It's an excuse to stop and anonymous information exchange of any kind.
I fully expect to see a ban on paper, pencils and mailboxes next.
It's not a matter of *damaging* the US reputation as a bastion of freedom, it a matter of
seeing just HOW FAR towards complete totaliarian control this regime will go. The US
rep is so soiled now, it's probably best to start over with a completely new
constitution and not try fooling anybody! Maybe a new name too.
If you are going to screw your creditors, why shouldn't you have to liquidate your large assets? Why should someone getting away from their liabilities be able to keep their assets? Because often, forcing the sale of your home and car will not improve your financial situation, pay your creditors any more money, or get you back on your feet (the societal reason for bankruptcy protections). Bankruptcy protections allow you to (with the courts help) settle as much debt as you can with what you can while righting the downward spiral and getting you back to being a productive member of society again. Personal bankruptcy happens for a lot of reasons, often being more bad luck than anything.
If you are forced to sell your home, where do you live? Oh, that's right, you have more outgo than income and the worst credit possible: no lease for you! Now you also have to sell everything else you own in 60 days at a fire sale instead of actually getting good buyers (because you no longer have anywhere to store your possessions). Wanna buy a couch? Forced to sell your car, how do you work? Where do you live now that you don't have a back seat? There goes what income you had, the health insurance that was paying some of your emergency medical bills, your ability to find an alternative place to live, or to work out a lot of your other problems involving paperwork and bureaucracy.
Society has found that putting somebody already on a downward spiral into a tailspin and then lighting them on fire is not a good way to get money for the creditors -or_ to get someone put back together. Instead, people end up in cardboard boxes on the street when that happens and cannot get work because they do not have proper attire, hygiene, an address, etc., to get that $60,000 per year job they are actually qualified for. Yes, the system can be abused, but by and large it works and is there for a reason. If (as most people do), you want to ever have credit again, you will attempt to pay down what you can and sell protected assets voluntarily where it makes sense, but being able to freeze the process for a bit while things work out is *exactly the point* of bankruptcy. P.S. -- Why should the fact that he's a veteran or 86-years old affect purely financial dealings? And why should his choice to get a reverse mortgage not affect him the way it would affect anyone else? This is a good question. I think the 86-year-old veteran bit was to point out that he was not a teenager with 20 bajillion credit cards going nuts. The reverse mortgage thing is a big problem. A lot of people do not understand bankruptcy and are threatened by immoral creditors: "I'll take your house! I'll sell your organs! Your children will be used for medical experimentation! Pay up! Pay up!" none of which they have any legal right to do. If your house is not encumbered, they cannot (or could not?) touch it. But people panic and take out a 2nd mortgage to pay their medical bills and then get their house taken when they cannot pay the mortgage. If they had just sat tight and ridden it out, they would have done better and had somewhere to negotiate from.
This is another point about bankruptcy protections: by giving the debtor some negotiating power, they make it in the creditor's interest to find a way to settle.
While this may look like a bill voted on by morons fearing association with child pornography, the bill itself could have far more sinister applications coming from any number of lobbiests or "nanny" state supporters. Just a few theories I've seen so far include:
1. This is a move by the government intended to coerce home wireless network owners out of using wireless means of accessing the internet, by threatening financial and legal devistation for non-compliance. At the same time, those who would like to remain compliant and continue using their wireless networks will somehow need to pay for the additional hardware, software and storage media to maintain logs and archive copies of data transferred through their connections. (Only a few upper class individuals could realistically afford to do this.) Once everyone that refuses to or is unable to comply has been relieved of their wireless networks, the government can simply harass the few remaining wireless network users and track them via wardriving tactics.
2. The RIAA/MPAA cartel may have lobbied this bill as a means of killing off random wifi connectivity to file sharing services, as a wired connection is a bit easier to track down for legal action. It's also speculated that this may also serve to prevent wireless network operators from hiding behind ignorance defenses if their network is easily accessible/compromisable.
3 - Telecom and cellular network owners may have lobbied this bill as a means of killing off VoIP over wireless networks before we start seeing a rash of dedicated VoIP over WiFi devices eating into cellular network profits.
Aside from all this, it almost seems like one must literally admit to being in possession of child pornography just to file a report on the actual criminals the content was obtained from.
One other scary possibility is that such a bill could pave the way for the government to require installation of a LAN-side "black box" device to monitor your network traffic/data and phone home select bits of information (as well as provide an easy back-door into any household network on demand), just to even be allowed to have a wireless network.
I'm afraid this is just barely scratching the surface though...
8==8 Bones 8==8
I believe Richard Dawkins (among others) would disagree, having produced some work on evolutionary factors that suggests evolution is not merely genetic. Cultural byproducts such as desires beyond basic survival can influence behaviors that affect the likelihood of reproduction. Contemplating what forces in our society may deter child bearing is an exercise I leave for the reader.
There is no need to demonstrate it and it likely does not exist. However, there is no need for such a specific gene as simple constructs often give rise to greater sophistication, especially in biological systems. I propose that a thought experiment—even in the absence of empirical data—may be revealing. Suppose we have some number of couples. One third choose always to bear children from pregnancy, the next third does so conditionally (suppose 50%), and the last third always avoids or terminates pregnancy. What conclusions do you think we can make about following generations? My prediction is the genetic and memetic factors that promote reproduction over competing interests will become dominant, marginalizing those that are permissive of abortion.
I am assuming self-selection (or deselection as the case may be). If people personally choose or make choices that prohibit the propagation of their genes (and memes) then we do not have Social Darwinism, just the regular variety. (And we sometimes laugh at these types.)
Why bother.
If we could restrict the necessity of abortions to cases of rape or a danger to the mother life, we would eliminate a good majority of them. Probably more then 99%. There were more abortions in the US laster year then soldier dieing in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. I saw some numbers a while ago and something like less then 1% of the abortions performed were a medical necessity or because of rape.
And to answer your question more directly, I wouldn't stop anyone from having an abortion. It isn't my choice. However, Being that I am against it, If I knew the person, I would attempt to talk them out of it and support them either way in their decision. I would probably offer more support if they chose not to abort, support like money or whatever. I wouldn't give them money to have an abortion- for any reasons.
From experience, we know that making abortion illegal - just as with making drugs illegal - drives the disenfranchised to black market sources. Defrocked medical personal on the one end... all the way to coat hangers on the other. My feeling is the choice is best left to the mother and the government should stay out of it. We can't fix everything.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Lets be clear here, I'm not a pro-lifer. I am a pro-choicer who choses life. But more importantly, the choice was always there, there are different methods of birth control, abstaining from intercourse and so on. Choosing to ignore them doesn't mean something was forced on you, it means you didn't think about your actions. Now, has those options failed, then we are talking about a different story. But I think I made it clear that I was against abortion as a form of birth control. I also said that I wouldn't stop anyone from getting one, it isn't my decision.
Rape and incest alone only account for 1% or so of the abortions performed in a year. As for not being ready, well like I said before, there are options before abortions become a form of birth control.
But you have to ask, We stop kids from driving cars until they reach a certain age because they aren't mature or responsible enough to drive without the risk of killing someone. And then when we do let the drive, we send them though some pretty decent training first. But for sex, well, we don't train them well enough in the forms and options of birth control and we are talking right now about killing someone.
Maybe the answer is to have a 6 week sex ed course that goes more into detail about what can go wrong.
It sounds to me like it is time to find a new doctor. At least for that procedure. As I mentioned above, I'm more against abortions as a form of birth control then I am abortions in of itself. But I sort of think about it as liver and onions. I don't like it but will eat it every once in a while. Again, this isn't by choice, but because of other circumstances. And even while I am against abortions, I know that it isn't my choice so I wouldn't stop anyone from doing it.
I think your off on this. For a long time, we took cues of what we could eat and what we couldn't eat from the bible and other religions. It actually says something about split hoofed animals being clean to eat and so on. Some cultures raise dogs for food and still eat them to this day. I might argue in jest that the dogs were more intelligent
I don't know about staying out of it. I would like to see people being responsible enough that they don't need abortions. I think education is a key there. They big problem is how to teach it without appearing to be pushing sex in the process.
Lets be clear here, I'm not a pro-lifer. I am a pro-choicer who choses life. But more importantly, the choice was always there, there are different methods of birth control, abstaining from intercourse and so on.
Abstinence isn't a form of birth control, it's a form of self deprivation. It's also completely ridiculous on its face. If I don't drive I won't be involved in a collision, if I don't eat I won't get fat, if I don't participate in sports I won't hurt myself, ...
Choosing to ignore them doesn't mean something was forced on you, it means you didn't think about your actions. Now, has those options failed, then we are talking about a different story.
Condoms break, birth control pills, injections et al. are not 100% certain, the "pull out early" method is a sick joke, IUDs are not fool-proof and aren't the most comfortable (or hygienic) option so what then? What of a couple who's taken all these actions yet still pregnancy occurs?
More realistically a couple will use one or two methods concurrently, not all at once - after all sex is supposed to be romantic not systematic.
Rape and incest alone only account for 1% or so of the abortions performed in a year.
I won't even bother asking for a cite for such a ridiculous statistic.
As for not being ready, well like I said before, there are options before abortions become a form of birth control.
Regardless of how pious you want to sound about not stopping people, you're still moralizing. Just because you wouldn't perform an abortion based on certain criteria has no bearing on what other people do with their own lives, bodies and futures. You want to set an arbitrary limit on where people are allowed to prevent a pregnancy. Well the limits you prescribe are unreasonably restrictive to some and way over the top to others.
Your original slippery slope argument is almost the same argument people heard decades ago when condoms and pills became widely available. Why, that'll lead to in-term abortions! Live birth abortions! Abandoned or aborted infants! Oh, the humanity! Let's just stick with pulling out early and praying!
But you have to ask, We stop kids from driving cars until they reach a certain age because they aren't mature or responsible enough to drive without the risk of killing someone. And then when we do let the drive, we send them though some pretty decent training first. But for sex, well, we don't train them well enough in the forms and options of birth control and we are talking right now about killing someone.
Send them to decent training? Where is that mandated? Here in Ontario we have a pretty arduous drivers licensing program yet you can still get a full 'G' class automotive license without so much as a minute's training. Read a book, pass a multiple-guess written exam, fool a couple driving instructors and you're all set to go.
If we're going to stick to the car analogy (I was beginning to forget where I was!) consider this; I've taken defensive drivers training. I've driven successfully well over a quarter million kilometers in my life without an incident yet my car was written off about a year ago when I was t-boned.
Now, which necessary precaution did I miss?
Maybe the answer is to have a 6 week sex ed course that goes more into detail about what can go wrong.
Drugs are bad, premature sex can cause pregnancy, smoking kills, driving fast is dangerous, drinking and driving don't mix, ice skating on a frozen lake/pond/river is dangerous, etc. etc.
How many more things are we going to drill into kids' heads that are "BAD, DANGEROUS, BAD!" and expect them to listen to us? Moreover have you considered the fact that teenage pregnancy is socially acceptable and in some circles considered a sign of cool? It makes kids more like adults and that's a good thing! So how, exactly do you plan on tel
BD Phone Home!
Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.
What exactly is the problem with "pushing sex"? As opposed to what?
BD Phone Home!
Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.
USNET and spam of the Porn format show the stupidity of this law.
Tell me what that photo 9z16.jpg in the alt.binaries.photography fine art group is before viewing it?
Is it pron spam?
is it a real photo?
does my Pan usenet reader know the difference.
Same for IRC
WHat about pre-caching turned on in your browser for pre-visited links
What about youtube? Google Images?
Idiots the lot of them in Washington.
Umm, yes, it is a form of birth control by definition. And your straw man argument on driving and eating is a little off. You see, there isn't a necessity to have sex where there is to eat. The same can be said for driving a car too depending on where you live and work. But unless you are a prostitute, then nothing it forcing you to have sex. So you see, they just don't jive.
And besides, abstinence doesn't mean you can't get your jollies off, it just isn't intercourse.
Well, what about it? I mean I thought I was pretty clear that my main gripe is with using abortion as birth control not when birth control fails. I even saif choosing to ignore birth control options wasn't forcing anything on you. Then I said if they failed, it was another story. So you put 2 and 2 together.
Sex is also the way to have a baby. So what it your point, if you want one without the other, then you have to make concessions. Otherwise we wouldn't be talking about abortions. With chemical birth control, I think there is the least amount of interference with the act, but not everyone is able to take them. Some implants last for years at a time.
I know you won't bother. Because doing a simple google search for the words "percentage of abortions attributed to rape" give you all the information you need to know.
Well, if you would have read a little further, you would have seen that I don't advocate stopping people from doing it. It doesn't matter that I have moralized it. There are downsides to it. The fact that you are upset over moralizing it means that it make you feel guilty or some way that you wouldn't want to feel for supporting it. That is a sign that you actually do believe something is wrong with them.
But anyways, I don't advocate stopping people from having abortions. I advocate stopping the conditions that make abortions necessary. If people who didn't want to be pregnant took reliable steps and those steps worked before and during sex, then there would be little need for an abortion ever. That would be the ideal scenario.
You mean the stuff that goes on today? Partial birth abortions are the live abortions and are legal in some states. Babies are abandoned and killed regular enough that some cities have laws that give the mother the ability to leave the bab
The problem with pushing sex is that they are teens who are not fully capable of making informed decisions. The part of the brain that handles that isn't fully developed until you reach about the age of 21. So their conceptual understanding of the consequences will be off at the time the instructions are presented.
But more importantly, most people that are apposed to teaching birth control is so because of the appearance of pushing sex onto these children. If they are going to do it of their own free will, then let the be prepared. But there is no need to talk them into doing it and there is no need to alienate the people who would fight something like a more comprehensive sex ed class. There are way of teaching these things without encouraging the behavior and they should be explored.
I don't think you quite understand what constitutes a straw man. For the record, BTW, not having sex was your argument not mine so if it is a straw man it's you who put it up in the first place. You're also rationalizing driving a car. Hmm. You also don't seem to understand that humans have a biological, physiological and emotional need for companionship in the form of intercourse.
I know you won't bother. Because doing a simple google search for the words "percentage of abortions attributed to rape" give you all the information you need to know.The reason I didn't ask for a cite was because the "statistic" is absurd, but I wouldn't expect you to understand.
Well, if you would have read a little further, you would have seen that I don't advocate stopping people from doing it. It doesn't matter that I have moralized it. There are downsides to it. The fact that you are upset over moralizing it means that it make you feel guilty or some way that you wouldn't want to feel for supporting it. That is a sign that you actually do believe something is wrong with them.Wow, that's a twisty maze of tiny little passages you've created there. I don't believe anybody has the right to foist their own morality on others. But if you believe somehow that my opposition to your moralizing is support for your position then you're even more twisted than I'd thought. See, this is why this is such a piss poor topic to have in any venue. I've yet to speak to somebody opposed to abortions that has a lick of sense about them and you've just proven it yet again.
and what's with the slippery slope talk. Is that some code for wackjob or something? I mean there isn't really any slippery slope at all, just some things about making sure people know what causes babies and what to do to not have one before abortion is even a consideration.If you're going to use terms about logical fallacies you should learn what the hell they mean. This discussion started because of your nonsensical slippery slope argument (come on - killing 5 year old children?!?).
Get a clue and meanwhile please, for the love of humanity, stop spreading your ridiculous world views when they're so short sighted, jaded and ill understood.
Oh, and do yourself and humanity a favour - go get laid and relax.
BD Phone Home!
Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.
While the law requires an operator to report obscene materials, it doesn't seem to mention any requirement that they search or filter for such materials. How many public hot spots monitor and/or filter their clientèle's internet traffic?
the fact of the matter is that there already are laws governing over child pornography, maybe if we would enforce laws that target people exploiting children and stop expanding laws to make people look for other people that might be exploiting children we would actually get people who are doing bad things and not infringing on people that are doing nothing wrong.
making everyone a policeman makes everyone think everyone else is a criminal.
I am sick of living in a country that is paranoid of terrorism, child porn, disease, abduction, spree killings and everything else that you can think of. If people would just look at things realistically- if someone is sitting in your cafe' looking at kiddie porn on your wi-fi and you know about it- should you report them? of course you should- should the government say- "we think that you saw someone look at kiddie porn on your wi-fi while you were working your minimum wage job so come to court and prove you didn't or we will fine you hundreds of thousands of dollars"?- no offense but that is pretty fucking ridiculous.
No, it does not say "WiFi". It says "electronic communication service". Which means:
any service which
provides to users thereof the ability to send or receive wire or
electronic communications;
What are Wire or Electronic Communications?
any transfer of signs,
signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any
nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio,
electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photooptical system,
OR
means any aural transfer made in whole
or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of
communications by the aid of wire, cable, or other like
connection between the point of origin and the point of reception
(including the use of such connection in a switching station)
furnished or operated by any person engaged in providing or
operating such facilities
There, in part two (wire communications) you get the WiFi access point. BUT, the 'Electronic Communications' means any method of transmitting any kind of encoded signal. ALL ISP's, email providers, website providers, web forum providers, AND Ham Radio repeater operators, would be required to report this, and maintain full binary logs of the entire transmission.
If you don't log your systems, then you are immune.
$
But what ISP doesn't log their systems? By running normal syslog and weblogs, they open themselves up to $300,000 USD fines per occurrence. Thus, they have to keep full binary logs of everything transmitted across the wire, wireless, etc. Everyone. Absolutely every single access point to the Internet. Because if you don't log it, and don't report it, then you are liable. $300,000 per image. Per frame. Per incident. Not even Google can afford that risk.
Or stop offering "Electronic Communication".
And then again, I could be wrong on what your objection represents. But not usually.Lol.. I understood your reasoning when I made the 5 year olds argument. But I haven't seen "the slippery slope" as a tittle of a logical fallacy before. Apparently, this is a new development in the last few years. Maybe because it may or may not be a fallacy, or at least according to the Wikki page that is just a little over a year old.
But, the examples you showed have come true so does that make it a fallacy at all? It doesn't matter though, the 5 years old is some arbitrary number I pulled out of the air to suggest a limit one when it would be acceptable and when it wouldn't. It loosely related to some third world cultures (mainly from africa) who would wait until after the child's 5th birthday before giving them a name because of how likely it would be for them to die of some childhood disease that has been long forgotten in more developed areas before their 5th year.
I bring this up because your comment appeared as if you thought that killing the kid "at 5 was ridiculous", not killing a kid at all. So what if we lowered the age to 5 months, a year? two years? how about 5 weeks old. Would any of those, in your mind be an acceptable age for an "abortion"? At less then a year old they certainly aren't sentient by any verifiable means(there might be a way of testing for their sense of self but we have to interpret the results.) They won't live on their own. You know, outside of being outside the body, they are basically in the same boat as when in the body for at least the first few months.
Excuse me, but that's complete and utter bullshit. We have no idea how the brain works. None. Not even the tiniest inkling. We have a hundred years of psychobbabling (and massively conflicting) faddery, but no data. We barely understand what a single neuron does, we're just catching on to the idea that glial cells aren't "just structural", and we have not got a single clue about what parts of an intact, healthy brain are handling complex concepts like the consequences of sex.
I have known teens who were far more responsible than the adults around them; and I have known adults who should have had their reproductive facilities arbitrarily removed for rampant spawning of children they could not possibly take proper care of. You can't just wave you hand and indict teenagers as a group. Good grief. That's just moral heavy-handedness coupled with wishful thinking.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
You can then go from there. We actually have quite a bit of data on how the brain matures and we have quite a bit of data on how adults process information differently then children and teens. And I am talking about the development of the areas containing the process, not of the process in itself. But it is interesting that one the development is mature the process takes a different form distinguishable enough to show up differently on MRI scans.It isn't a reasonable argument to claim that because you know one dumass adult and some smart kids that kids are smarter then adults. It is reasonable to claim intelligent kids can be smarter then dumbass adults.
But when looking at each individually, at age 5 the parts of the brain are developed to different stages then at 15 and even 21 as the link I made earlier shows. So what you can say is that the dumbass adults that somehow don't meet your high standards of breedability were even dumber as a teen when their brain was still developing. You see, everyone is individually unique and the development of one person doesn't necessarily reflect the development of another outside a common average of all the differences.
Now you can refute this all you want. I will take the word of medical professionals and university studies over yours. However, if you can show that the UCLA study is incorrect the that the general consensus of other studies I have seen in the past are too, then I am willing to change my opinion.
What part of "obtains actual knowledge of any facts or circumstances" do you not understand? There is no requirement to monitor. There is only a requirement that, should you find out information, please report it.
... which makes the bill pretty useless. But there's no reason to misrepresent it.
I've seen some ignorant judges and juries lap up utterly absurd claims about technology before.
Blar.
That page specifically says that they have no idea what these changes mean. Which of course is pretty obvious, since they don't know what the brain does, it'd be impossible to observe a change and characterize it in any sense even remotely similar to the assertion that the ability of teenagers to make informed decisions.
Before any weight at all can be given to the kind of blue-sky speculation we are constantly bombarded with as if it were fact, we're going to need a lot more actual knowledge. Maybe in fifty years or a hundred years, a statement like yours can be made based on objective fact instead of twisting what amounts to wild hand waving into pseudo-scientific tools primarily used to inflict one person's sexual mores upon another.
In the meantime, by all means, educate like crazy. Knowledge is power. Just watch out for psychobabble. The weakest sciences we have in terms of producing objective data are those dealing with brain function, other than the chemical and mechanical areas of research.
I didn't make any such argument. I used the plural, and I meant the plural. I'm 50. I've known a lot of dumbass adults. Many of them are/were dumb because they were inculcated with propaganda (fairy tales of god, religion-derived morals, pinheaded presumptions like everyone is created equal), not because they have no innate intelligence. I know a lot of smart kids - I'm an instructor, I've seen them in huge bunches. Today's kids in my area (NE Montana) know more about sex than most adults do, they're quite active, and they're doing fine. I suspect the majority of this is because they're well beyond the myth and social retardation that passed for sexual "larnin" among their parents, but in the end, it doesn't matter why, the simple fact is that it is. We have these pompous, superstitious, canned-moral spouting adults on the one hand, and we have young people just ignoring them on the other. It just pisses me off when someone starts impugning them as a group; they don't deserve it generally speaking, and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find that for the exceptions who do, again, they've not been educated, they've probably been singing hymns or hearing ridiculous lectures on "saving themselves" for marriage and avoiding the subject as best they can so they don't get swamped by their own hormones.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Well, actually, my comment was a copy of someone else's who was in a position to know (on a science show during a news report). The site I linked to was the one that I could find that showed the development still happening.
But I agree with you on the merit that we don't know exactly what it means. And simply because I cannot find a link to the show or the person who said it which I would presume had more information to back it up, I will still say that I don't think it is a good idea to encourage behavior in teens that might not have th mental capacity to understand there actions have specific consequences in the same ways you and I would.
Sure, But you also have to understand that research is attempting to strengthen that weakness. I really wish I could give you the same information that was presented to me and in the same context.
Well, throw the context into a plural position and what I said it still true. It doesn't really matter what made them stupid, or held their inteligence back, what matters is that you have smart people and you have not as smart people with all sorts of varying degrees. I would posit that you are smarter today then you were at age 15. I would also suggest that I would be correct in assuming that you did more reckless things at age 15 that with your older wisdom, wouldn't even consider doing as age 20 or 25. I think we all have and I think we would be hard pressed to find someone who could honestly say they aren't in that position. And to note, When I say reckless, I'm not just talking about physical danger, I'm talking about everything from emotional interactions (exposing yourself to heartbreak) to maybe ethical situations (cheating on a test, lieing about the where abouts of a friend to protect them) and so on.
There is a reason people are assumed to be wiser with age. I'm just not sure if it all has to do with experiences.
Maybe you didn't understand my comment on not encouraging them. It doesn't matter that they know about it or that they participate in it. I'm not one to want to limit that. I just don't think we should in effect be cheering them on. I think it would be bad, for the reasons I already gave, to be attempting to say use birth control and condoms and have it interpreted by the kids as "now go out there and get you some". If we can find a way of saying, when you decide sex is right, make sure you look out for this and wear a condom or ask her what her nam
What I find particularly disturbing about this series of laws is 1466A part C:
(c) Nonrequired Element of Offense.-- It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exist.
Does this mean we will start rounding up midgets, under developed people, Chinese/Japanese Americans, etc. and start sending them to concentration/extermination camps?