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!

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.

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: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.