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.
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.
America will *legislate* itself into the Stone Age.
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.
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
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.
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.
That's why there should be a "loser names" rule for all legislation -- a bill is passed by the majority and given its official name by the minority who voted against it. I'm pretty sure that Rep. Paul could come up with a better acronym.
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.
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
"least amount of understanding of how it works."
Pot. Kettle. Black.
50 comments based on one writer's spin on a Bill. I'd like to see the actual Bill text to see what the law really says. My guess is when we see what is really in the Bill it will have very little to do with the article summary.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Except you misunderstand the law passed in extreme. IF YOU SPY ON YOUR USERS you are liable, otherwise no. So if you open up your wireless this bill in effect criminalizes spying on the traffic.
Which, to me, seems very reasonable, and perhaps even positive.
You already *are* guilty if you neglect to report crimes you know about (no not copyright infringement, which is exempt from this).
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
It has become quite obvious that he is the only presidential candidate that is interested in our individual rights. It was disgusting to watch the CNN/YouTube debate which just turned into a pissing contest between the "top" 4 candidates, while the other candidates just stood by and watched. If you don't know about Paul, watch this interview at Google. Its a little long, but you'll get an idea of who the man really is. http://youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg
Please get it through your head. There is a *HUGE* difference between wanting people to secure their WiFi and wanting THE GOVERNMENT to pass A LAW requiring it. It boggles the mind how people are unable to grasp such a vital distinction.
I think men should not be allowed to wear spandex. Let's make a law about it!
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.
I appreciate your willingness to vote for Ron Paul, I support him too. It doesn't help though when you say "He's Doomed." He's not. There is a chance for him to get on the Ballot. Naysaying doesn't help.
The shackles of tyranny are engraved with the phrase, "Do it for the children." (The other side reads, "Do it for your safety.")
Pffft... I don't know what a CoDec or a Linux is, but it plays on my Internet just fine. You're guilty, if only because computer technology is a huge, ominous, confusing black box for 98% of society.
Next, there are some very valid reasons for there to be open WiFi access points. All coffee joints and hip restaurants in any given town have them, and they should. It is "a good thing"(tm). Unfounded fear of pron should not take away one of the best sociological innovations of our era, and you should not be advocating that it does.
"We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
re: Borderline Libertarian...that's a good way of putting it; I share a similar sentiment.
re: "The side of the room", I think that Ron Paul is attracting the fringes because the fringes are those who are hurt the most consistently by government being powerful. His message attracts those who feel persecuted by government action, which has to include right-wing wackos and organized hate groups; if a politician says "I will defend freedom of association" and means it (as R. Paul seems to) associations of people that most would find distasteful will naturally gravitate towards that person. If you want to know what a politician stands for, and where you should be judging you allegiance, it is better to look at what ideas and what people the candidate responds to. People decide their vote for all sorts of reasons, and it is a fallacy to say "I voted for Candidate A and David Duke voted for Candidate A, therefore Candidate A must agree with David Duke (and/or) I am in allegiance ideologically with David Duke". I'm absolutely sure that some righteously vile asshats voted the same way I did last election, but I don't as a consequence feel like I'm somehow standing shoulder-to-shoulder with them (whoever they may be).
For what it's worth, the campaign's response to this ilk's support was literally (paraphrasing, but not by much) "hey, if they want to donate money and votes to us because you think we are your people, that's unfortunate for you because we aren't but that's your problem, not ours." And I think that's exactly the right approach; politicians should make clear what they stand for, and if others mistakenly think that they stand for something else, too bad for them but we'll still take their money. If they have a reputation for good character, then the money can't in good faith be interpreted as an allegiance.
Your point at the end, re: Michael Moore, is exactly why the side of the room shouldn't be an issue; all politicians attract fringes that nobody likes. The question is whether the politician him or herself stands for something meaningful to you, and on that question it is not generally useful to give a damn if Al Sharpton or David Duke are listening from the back corner as they undoubtedly care about other things and are there for other reasons.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
How do you know if an image is illegal or not?
Cool! Amazing Toys.
1. insane law, sane security practices
2. sane legislators, insane security lapses I can't believe that you are a proponent of laws to fix technical issues, but that does appear what you're going for with this post. 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 It is my belief that as soon as laws catch up with technology this will be true, uh, wait! the law will never catch up with technology! So you end up with a bunch of insane laws and insane security lapses. Wonderful.
The only good thing about a law like this is that it gives the government one more thing to put the hammer down on a large subset of the population and provide politicians (and I certainly include DA's in this category) the ability to show they are "doing something" about "XYZ". Oh wait, that doesn't sound so good for the average person. Hmm. i'm not saying this dichotomy is correct, i am just saying it is reality I'm saying that you're trying to tell us that a law based solution to technical issues will actually solve it when it is widely understood that it cannot, and that's reality.
Unless, of course, we go quite a bit farther into a controlled society, such as licenses to have a (government approved) computer chock full of "Trusted Computing". I believe that laws mandating this could provide the platform for a solution to our computer security woes but I'm pretty sure many people here would be against that.
So does the physical adage survive translation to a digital adage? If you give up your freedom for security...
I can tell you exactly what it is.
The constitution was designed to make things difficult for the government with regard to things done in privacy, which is a system of social boundaries well understood both then, and now. It safeguarded your communications, personal records, your home, basically set things up so that in order for the government to come after you, they had to have either someone who would swear a verbal oath or write an affirmation, publicly and personally taking the responsibility for the accusation, a warrant, a description of exactly what they were looking for, and exactly where they were going to look. This is the essence of the 4th amendment.
Today, without the required amendment to change these constitutional requirements, the government has assumed the power to violate the citizen's privacy without warrants, oath or affirmation. Further, as communications matured beyond the papers mentioned in the 4th, and speech as mentioned in the 1st, the government has further violated the obvious implications of the 4th (although we see some activity to protect, such as the telecommunications privacy laws, now cast aside in actuality if not by law.)
The combination of the 1st and the 4th, if obeyed by the government, creates an environment where your privacy and your opinions, presumably as a citizen not actually committing violence against, or otherwise directly harming other citizens, is very well protected. This is a worthy accomplishment, and one you may well be grateful for, especially when you are having discussions about why you despise the current political leadership or the actions of the government. And this is, in fact, why these provisions were deemed so important to the authors of the constitution. The 1st gives you public immunity for anything you say (although there exist many misguided exceptions that have trimmed the 1st back, sad to say.)
Those people you don't like - the white supremacists, people who worship in ways not palatable to you, they want the 1st obeyed, so they can state their positions in public and not have to worry that the government will come after them - "hate speech", that sort of thing. They want the 4th obeyed so they can pursue their private lives in private (and frankly, I'd just as soon they did, most of them) and without feeling like the door is going to be broken down. They also want to be sure they'll get a quick hearing, and a trial, and representation - you know, those things the government is now in the process of eroding.
In an environment where the government actually has to abide by the constitution, the things that benefit you will also benefit those who you don't get along with. Liberty for all, until they directly step on your toes, pretty much. That's why those people are gathering up to support Paul. And if you let them discourage you, you're going to end up with the same situation you have now, where everyone's privacy is at risk of being unconstitutionally sundered at the whim of any law enforcement officer, bounty hunter, or various other arms of government.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
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 ----
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.
Ah, yes, that "arcane" document called the Constitution of the United States of America. Article III courts have jurisdiction to hear "cases" and "controversies" - they do not have power to legislate. The original question was whether the SCOTUS could review laws before they become law. It cannot. Our Constitution says that laws are created through passage by both houses of Congress and presentation to the President (becomes law if signed, ignored, or if a veto is overridden by 2/3 of each house). Notice that the Constitution doesn't say that the judiciary has any part in this. If the courts advised Congress during this process, there would be a conflict if someone later brought a case alleging the law was unconstitutional. Do you think that laws NEVER have unanticipated consequences? Bad idea to have a court pre-approve something, then have every member of SCOTUS have to recuse themselves from hearing a case about a law they had been part of creating. Chief Justice Roberts had to recuse himself from a case early in his tenure because he had heard it in a lower court. If you're unwilling to do the research on this yourself to see why this is not allowed by our Constitution, for good reason, then you'll have to trust me. I don't have time to write a long article on this - I've got plenty of other work to do. IANAL - yet. :-) I have learned something over the past year and a half, though.
Lose essential liberties to get temporary safety = get only hassles and security theater.