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.'"
You realize of course we'd also have to stop people from using dangerous third party dns services for their own protection..
You can't take the sky from me.
Well, all the requirements are there ... let's vote. Any opposed? [gavel] Excellent.
/sarcasm
I am all for stopping fraud, but scammers are far more nimble and inventive than our government, particularly Congress. This ain't gonna stop them.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
Won't be long before "fraud sites" = "copyright infringement" sites. Who is behind this?
When they came for the fraud sites, I did not speak up because I was not a fraud site....
This, which is clearly a waste of time if it is technically possible, at all,
is legislative masturbation,
it isnt that the Congress has nothing to, re-enact Glass-Steagall, stop naked shorts and credit default swaps
properly regulate the Fed, SEC and the exchanges;
Deal with those Too-Big-To-Fail
I was just thinking it won't be long before the interpretation of the term fraud site is twisted into something else. We all know how the government handles the interpretation of laws. Just look at the tax code.
Are you high? The DMCA started with the best of intentions. Now it is used to stifle people criticism and control content. i can only assume you are some kind of troll, because you surely realize that as soon as you start blanketing one corner of the internet with "fraud protection", you move to "counterfeit assurance" and then "piracy control" until you finally get to "free speech countermeasures". if this is the internet you want, please, setup your own intranet and leave the rest of us out of it. i'll take the scammers any day over oppression.
they say it is often more relevant then the comment above, all we know is its called the Sig!
Looking at the wording of the law, I think the idea was to make the scammer's own ISP liable, not every ISP in the country. But that's not what it says; the law ends up covering every ISP from the scammer to the customer, including transit providers. Hopefully this thing will get killed.
I've heard of not RTFA before posting, but wow, you didn't even read the headline?
Not even the very first word?
How many times did you vote Tuesday?
In insulting the parent poster, you just proved his point correct and your own flame as false.
Yes, read TFA, and the summary, and the very first word, all as you point out.
Now, with that, prove to us that this won't be used to block anything congress critters don't like. Just try.
I can prove they will. It's called history, and 100% of the laws that could be abused in this way, HAVE BEEN. 0% of them have not been abused.
With that type of track record, you are insane if you think this won't be used to block Joe Random blogger who is critical of something the government is doing.
Won't be long before "fraud sites" = "copyright infringement" sites. Who is behind this?
You know, an easy and proper way to handle this would be to have a governmental entity maintain a blocklist which ordinary citizens can optionally install/use/turn on/turn off (with some easy to use software). See it like a seatbelt (I know the seatbelt is required by law in some countries but in this case it doesn't kill you to not use it) which you can switch on and off. This would be an excellent example of the government aiding the public instead of dictating the public. Those of us who know what we're getting ourselves into when we turn it off of never install it can choose freely, and those who don't bother to learn can fallback on this solution -- free to anytime educate themselves and turn it off.
This way the government offers a safe choice (with whatever blocked content, be it copyright infringement or not) yet is liberal enough to let you decide in the end. If you get "hurt", then you're to blame for deliberately turning it off while being uninformed. And the rest of us get to keep the net undictated. At the end of the day the friction is between people who know what they're doing and want to be free to do what they consider to be the best way to utilize the net, and those who don't know what they're doing that are in need of this type of protection.
I am the lawn!