Slashdot Mirror


Congress May Require ISPs To Block Certain Fraud Sites

FutureDomain writes "A bill which just passed the House Financial Services Committee would require Internet Service Providers to block access to sites hosting financial scams that pose as members of the government-backed Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC). The bill, called the Investor Protection Act and sponsored by Paul Kanjorski (D-PA), is broad enough to block not only websites, but email and any other 'electronic material.' 'Internet providers are also worried that Kanjorski's requirement — and the accompanying civil penalties and injunctions — would apply even if the blocking is not technically feasible.'"

8 of 180 comments (clear)

  1. Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    'Internet providers are also worried that Kanjorski's requirement — and the accompanying civil penalties and injunctions — would apply even if the blocking is not technically feasible.'"

    They shouldn't be worried. The government almost never passes laws which cannot be enforced. They've got a pretty good grasp on technology.

    Oh, by the way, I'm selling some ocean-front property in Arizona. It's quite a steal, feel free to reply if you are interested.

  2. Re:And so it begins... by Mythrix · · Score: 5, Funny

    Why don't they just arrest the scammers? Are they in Nigeria and Nigeria won't turn them over?

    Nigeria would turn them over, but is demanding advance fees for the process and paperwork involved.

  3. Durr.... by Sporkinum · · Score: 2, Funny

    Sounds like Kanjorski is going full retard.

    --
    "He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
  4. Exemptions? by rbarreira · · Score: 5, Funny

    Will the bailed out banks get an exemption?

    --

    The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
  5. Re:Technical solutions are already out there by natehoy · · Score: 4, Funny

    If they're trying to protect us from criminals and scammers, wouldn't BLOCKING .gov be a better solution? (snare drum)

    --
    "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
  6. Re:good or bad? by FlyingBishop · · Score: 2, Funny

    TFA has an addendum that basically says the congressman that introduced the provision didn't understand the implications of what he wrote, and is planning on revising it based on input from the industry.

    By the industry, I'm fairly sure he means us, not the RIAA.

  7. Re:good or bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    "pack of bureaucrats"

    I don't think the collective noun is "pack". Let me be the first to suggest a SLIME of bureaucrats.

  8. Re:One thing to say by amplt1337 · · Score: 3, Funny

    The DMCA started with the best of intentions.

    Sorry, you lost me there.

    --
    Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.