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.

Comments

Stupid

[DeeQ]

It seems stupid to me to hold them responsible for what goes over their networks. However Ron Paul voted no!

Re:Stupid

[kilgortrout]

Please RTFA:

Anyone providing an "electronic communication service" or "remote computing service" to the public who learns about the transmission or storage of information about certain illegal activities or an illegal image, must (a) register their name, mailing address, phone number, and fax number with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children's "CyberTipline" and (b) "make a report" to the CyberTipline that (c) must include any information about the person or Internet address behind the suspect activity and (d) the illegal images themselves I don't see any monitoring requirements imposed by the bill as summarized in the article. As such, the bill imposes an obligation to report these activities only if you somehow learn about them, i.e. you can't knowingly allow these activities on your network without reporting them. That's a lot different than holding network operators responsible for what goes over the network, whether they know or not.

Oblig. Ron Paul

[JeepFanatic]

Not one Democrat opposed the SAFE Act. Two Republicans did: Rep. Ron Paul, the libertarian-leaning presidential candidate from Texas, and Rep. Paul Broun from Georgia.

I knew when I saw the two votes against that one would be Ron Paul.

Read The Bill..

[Chris_Jefferson]

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.

Re:Read The Bill..

[ToasterMonkey]

Is there a real need to offer contact info on your open access point? I'm talking YOURS, not Starbucks's. If you're afraid of what you might see, lock it down or don't look.
If you DO find out someone was using your personal WAP to spread kiddy porn, do your best to report them. There are already reporting requirements for child abuse in most states.
This will affect anyone providing internet access by any means, not just WiFi.
Also, it says IF you find something worth reporting to the NCMEC, report it. Not, "turn off open WiFi access" or "log everything that goes through that tiny WAP of yours"

Are you all getting a little worked up over nothing (or the bad summary)?

Anyone providing an "electronic communication service" or "remote computing service" to the public who learns about the transmission or storage of information about certain illegal activities or an illegal image must (a) register their name, mailing address, phone number, and fax number with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children's "CyberTipline" and (b) "make a report" to the CyberTipline that (c) must include any information about the person or Internet address behind the suspect activity and (d) the illegal images themselves.

Re:The 2

[Pode]

Ron Paul, and one other Republican. Yet again, Ron shows that he's one of the only people in government that doesn't deserve to be spat upon.

Re:The Actual Bill

[Dublius]

Here's a link: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:2:./temp/~c110gRla7T::

Re:The Actual Bill

[MyLongNickName]

Thanks. The first thing I notice:

"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--"

This indicates to me that 1) You are intending to provide a service, and that you obtain knowledge. You are not required to monitor your users' behavior.

So, sounds like a really ineffective law. Hardly Orwellian.

Re:It's unconstitional

[Tony Hoyle]

Wifi operators are not common carriers. They are legally responsible for what travels across their network.

If someone uses your connection to view kiddie porn, the police will go after you. No change there... the defense of 'someone else was using my computer' has been used too often and they don't believe it any more.

If you are insane enough to open your wifi then for gods sake setup a decent firewall and a proxy so you can log who's been viewing what, otherwise you could find yourself at the wrong end of the law. There is no change there, either.. this law changes nothing.

Re:Wouldn't be easier...

[MyLongNickName]

And if you RTFB, you will see:

(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--

So, it does not require any actual monitoring. If monitoring does occur and you find a user d/ling child porn, you must report. If you think that we should shut down the internet for a day to protest this, you are nuts.

Re:Stupid, moronic, fearmongering, etc.

[MyLongNickName]

Nope. The actual Bill simply states that if you run an oipen access service and realize that a user is using it for child porn that you MUST report it. In fact, the Bill goes as far as to say:
" `(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)."

So, if you don't monitor, you are not in trouble. I realize the article made incorrect statements about the Bill, but the Bill itself is, at worst, ineffective, not Orwellian.

Re:Stupid, moronic, fearmongering, etc.

[Velcroman98]

Isn't "your" country pushing for a law advocating the total abolishment of fair use, including - parody, time shifting, device shifting, and backups?

We both live in "Nanny States"

** Seriously, your country is fscked up.

Re:Sad, but predictable

[MyLongNickName]

Ummmm. No. Only if you open it and discover it is. Otherwise, you are not responsible for reporting. The Bill even explicitly states that there is NO requirement to monitor. Only that if you do monitor or otherwise become aware of the activity that you must report.

Re:Sad, but predictable

[belarm314]

Reportedly, the bill you link to bears little resemblance to what was voted on.

Re:Sad, but predictable

[marcop]

Completely agree, but I still can't stand her (I am a republican too). She has brought lots of defense jobs to upstate (engineering) and I praise her for that. I too can't think of any other NY senator that has brought jobs back to NYS compared to her.

Re:Sad, but predictable

[MyLongNickName]

The difference is that the wi-fi operator is enabling the illegal activity. It is common for scrap metal or pawn shops to have to report suspect items. There is plenty of precedence for this.

And if you think kiddie porn should be legal, you are a nut.

What sheer idiocy?

[ToasterMonkey]

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.

Re:Wouldn't be easier...

[MartinB]

What would be easier would be if nobody had to forcibly monitor anything, but if they did happen to see someone downloading child porn, then report it.

Funny that - it's pretty much what the Bill appears to say. But don't let that get in the way of the hysteria.

Link? We don't need no steenking link!

[sm62704]

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

Phone Calls

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Home wireless networks?

[Dragonslicer]

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? They aren't, and this bill doesn't require them to.

Overreaction

[Quila]

If you don't monitor then you don't have any responsibility to report.

Re:Sad, but predictable

[Stamen]

Seriously, why does it matter if you "can stand her". Who cares if you like her personally. I fear we'll never get good qualified politicians, we'll always get the person who people "feel" is a wonderful person, or "down to earth" or just like me. I don't want a wonderful person as my President, I don't even want someone who doesn't lie or someone who hugs their kids real tight every night after praying to my God. I could care less. I want someone who can do the job, and do it well, and be effective. Jimmy Carter probably was the most decent person who's ever sat in the White House; who cares, he wasn't very good at the job.

Next time you have brain surgery, please pick your doctor on wether or not you like them as a person, rather than their skill as a brain surgeon.