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.
Why not use this version of the headline? It means exactly the same thing as the original, after all.
Sadly, we know it's fcuked up too. If I could get Canadian citizenship, I would in a heartbeat. Know any ladies looking for an ex-patriot husband? I don't like being a citizen of the current "USA".
nothin' sounds quite like an 808
Rugged individualist libertarian types hate being told what to do, even if it's the right thing. If you told them they are required to breath oxygen, they'd pass out in minutes.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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
Obama doesn't represent you any more than he represents my hazel-eyed hairy Illinois ass. He represents the bankers and corporations. He has been bought and is OWNED by the bankers. Ironic that he would be the bankers' chattel when none of his black anscestors were slaves. The bankers bankrolled his election to the Senate, and he voted for bankrupcy "reform", the bill that makes you homeless if you declare bankrupcy. That's doing a lot of good for most black people, isn't it?
I think it's stupidly racist and disgusting as hell that black people vote for that damned Obama and every other black candidate based on nothing but the color of his skin. WTF is wrong with people?
-mcgrew
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
If "right to choose" means rolling back legislation on abortion and marriage to take away those choices, then yes. I can just see your presidential race and policies getting bogged down in those issues as Paul tries to take you back to an idealized 1950s where America was insular and everyone was "happy."
Here is an image you will be interested in ....
Goatse
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
The Republican policy is "Screw the poor, gays should be hung, we don't need fiscal responsibility, let's invade Iran."
Hillary Clinton is moderate in her rebuke, but she's against the Republicans on every issue I listed. Care to name one issue -- just one -- where Hillary is closer to the Republicans than to her base of moderate Democrats?