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.
Things like SPF, and Domain Keys, and signed DNS would all prevent this. They would all help ensure that emails are coming from who they say they are coming from.
Instead of "blocking" things, why not force all government agencies to setup SPF and Domain keys, and maybe start signing the .GOV domain?
What are we going to do tonight Brain?
Nigeria would turn them over, but is demanding advance fees for the process and paperwork involved.
When they came for the fraud sites, I did not speak up because I was not a fraud site....
Will the bailed out banks get an exemption?
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
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!
I don't think you have a proper understanding of what a bureaucrat is. A congressman is not a bureaucrat. A bureaucrat is a member of the treasury department (and the treasury wisely included no such provision as this in their bill.)
A bureaucrat is also a member of ICANN or the FCC, the former of which has regulated the Internet so well that most people aren't even aware of its regulatory authority. The latter has demonstrated such a thoughtful and intelligent understanding of the issues at play that the ISPs have tried to smash the FCC down before it manages to rein in the ISPs' flagrant abuses of power.
Bureaucrats who have no idea what they're talking about are terrible things. However, if you look around you'll find most bureaucrats know exactly what they're talking about. It's the politicians you need to watch out for.