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:Sad, but predictable

[Cpt_Kirks]

Fucking Republicans! ...oh, wait. Never mind...

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:Sad, but predictable

[neimon]

Hillary is a right-wing "Democrat."

Nevertheless, this isn't about party. It's about ignorance. You can't enforce this. You can't even define what's illegal content. It can only be used to harass people some district attorney doesn't like. Period.

Ironically...

[Elemenope]

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.

Age

[Emperor Tiberius]

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.

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.

Let's Elect 9/11!

[spun]

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!

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:It's unconstitional

[ktappe]

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.

I'm not sure I can disagree more. First of all, the moment you install a logging proxy, you suddenly become legally responsible for constantly monitoring those logs. Authorities are sure as shootin' gonna ask why you didn't if this law is brought to bear. "Your honor, the logs were right there. He invoked them himself. All he had to do was LOOK to save teh children!" and you're totally screwed.

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.