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.
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......
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 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!!
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
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
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
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)
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.
"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
Here's a link: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:2:./temp/~c110gRla7T::
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!
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.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
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?
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.
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.
Yeah... but with that rule in place someone will create filter software that detects certain stuff on the net, and then the government will push it as a "strongly suggested piece of software" before making it mandatory to run it on any open services. They'll probably also make it mandatory to keep logs of activity in open networks... ... perhaps I'm being to paranoid, but it seems to me that even with that wording, that's a law you don't want to have hanging over your head. It's a step (even a baby step) in a very bad direction.
As a Slashdot discussion grows longer, the probability of an analogy involving cars approaches one.
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
The shackles of tyranny are engraved with the phrase, "Do it for the children." (The other side reads, "Do it for your safety.")
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
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.
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
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)
If you don't monitor then you don't have any responsibility to report.
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 ----
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.
Oh come on, that's a pretty bad example.
Who would fit on the same side of the room as Michael Moore?
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.