Insanity: House votes to criminalize the Internet, 409 to 2, Kucinich voted 'yea'

[literatim]

http://politics.reddit.com/info/62bka/comments/

[fcofer]

This is absolutely crazy. This must just be a poorly-worded bill -- surely 409 members of the House didn't intend to accomplish what this bill proposes...? Seriously frightening stuff.

I hope it's ignorance instead of malice on their part. Seriously, on technical issues, Congress reminds me of a bunch of old geezers sitting around making snap decisions about issues that they haven't begun to understand.


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.

Man, this really reminds me of why I got involved in all this to begin with. I love Ron Paul!

Does anyone know if this has hit Slashdot yet? This is Slashdot-worthy news (I haven't read there much since joining the rEVOlution, no time) and might net us some of the 10% of Slashdot that doesn't already support us. :)

[Give me liberty]

you gotta love ron paul :)

so Kucinich voted for it? dam it.

[rfbz]

The U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday overwhelmingly approved a bill saying that anyone offering an open Wi-Fi connection to the public must report illegal images including "obscene" cartoons and drawings--or face fines of up to $300,000.

This whole notion of forcing for-profit companies to do the work of the police at the threat of getting fined if they don't comply is ridiculous.

Obscene cartoons and drawings? get the f**k out of here!


Allen said the legislation--called the Securing Adolescents From Exploitation-Online Act, or SAFE Act--will "ensure better reporting, investigation, and prosecution of those who use the Internet to distribute images of illegal child pornography."

Oh wait a minute guys, they're doing this for the kids. In that case, I wholeheartedly support this bill.

It's interesting that this was pushed by the Democrats, I would have guessed this type of thing to be a Republican bill.

Dennis Kucinish backing this is confusing, although apparently there's more to his positions on the issues than we really know.

I think Ron Paul talk about this more in his speeches. It doesn't matter where you are on the political spectrum, most people are completely against internet regulation.

[tsetsefly]

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhh ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, *runs around like a crazy man* fuck I knew it, we lost the first battle, shit this is how they want to control the internet...

such a vague definition of what is obscene, I have pictures when I wals like 4 running around naked, I imagine people still share those pictures with family members, I guess now they can go to jail...

Come one anyone who supports this bill is blind, this is just a very clever cover up to start regulating the internet more and more, and lets not even talk about the practicality of this this bill, it is nearly impossible to apply...

"obscene visual depictions including a "drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting." (Yes, that covers the subset of anime called hentai)." lol does this mean the producers of south park can go to jail for showing cartman naked?

[Andrew-Austin]

Thread title is a bit alarmist don't you think? Yes this is stupid and messed up, but the net in its entirety has not been criminalized. X_x

Anyways, I found this one guy's analysis of the bill to be interesting. (LinK (http://www.news.com/5208-13578_3-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=33466&messageID=340358&start=-1))


I suspect that there is someone in big media (and maybe the ISP's) asking for this bill, because it will stiffle free communication and expansion of the Internet, by discouraging public WiFi networks.

It gets rushed through on the guise of protecting children, but it provides no protection, its technically imposible to implement, and impossible to enforce, WiFi routers do not store or log traffic, they route it. Its like asking the telephone wire itself to remember the last call dialed, the devices simply don't work like that!
I have 2 WiFi routers, one from my ISP, one I bought myself. There is no way for me to log any activity of any other user connected to my router (secured or not), at most I could get the temp IP Address (which will get reassigned upon the next disconnect) and maybe the MAC Address, which is no longer globally unique (major security breach, allowed spoofing to be born), and can be changed randomly on lots of devices now, especially routers. I can only get these if I log into the routers built-in interface, while that suspect is connected, once they disconnect, the router has no memory of them.

Having read the bill vs. the story, it is very misleading. Because I saw no wording in the bill about secured vs. unsecured if its offered to the public (protected with password or key, or not) the bill looks to apply to all public WiFi access. It does not require monitoring, just reporting of incidental observations. As I stated before though, what can you report, if there is no logging capability? If the suspect disconnects before I can log into the router, I can not report most of their required info, because I simply don't have it.
If I put in a bridge server, between the router and the ISP to log data, well all the traffic shows up as if its just the router doing all the communication, because the ISP only assigns a single address to the router not the end connected users, its the router that figures out who requested what from where, and routes it, hence the name 'ROUTER'. Once data is routed its gone from the router. You try asking your postal mailbox, what the last letter sent or recieved was, where it went, who it went to, when it got there, and who opened it. Now, pass a law requiring you to report all this info, under penalty of law, should an explicit image happen to pass through.

In the snail-mail analogy, this would outlaw public post office drop boxes, or require 24 Hour video survellance of the drop box, which still would not provide the information they would need to actually act upon.

The law is Bogus. The powers that be, are just going to have to accept the fact that pandora's box has been opened (the Internet) and everyone realized they were actually locked inside of it before. Try as they might to close it, once the people have gotten a taste of truly free communication they won't give it up. You will have to steal it from us with laws like these.

Lets get serious folks, its just electrons, moving on the wire, information thats all. Crimes are committed by people and have real victims, not animated ones.



Oh wait a minute guys, they're doing this for the kids. In that case, I wholeheartedly support this bill.

No its to slowly start regulating the internet and removing free speech/expression.

They are trying to address a mythical non-problem.

[Give me liberty]

Wow rfbz your for this bill? 0.0
'' Oh wait a minute guys, they're doing this for the kids. In that case, I wholeheartedly support this bill. ''

[sharedvoice]

Well, I would have to agree the Title of this thread is a bit misleading. However, I would also like to say that I don't believe it is the Federal Government's responsibility to regulate the internet. Stop giving kids WI-FI blackberries cause they are cool like a pager...

[rfbz]

Wow rfbz your for this bill? 0.0
'' Oh wait a minute guys, they're doing this for the kids. In that case, I wholeheartedly support this bill. ''


you're joking right? I was being sarcastic.

[Malakai0]

Dangerous legislation indeed. We knew this was coming, and we have a congress who won't stop it.

Viva la Ron Paul!

[1000-points-of-fright]

I don't understand the problem with drawings and cartoons.. . other than it being creepy. If I wrote child porn literature, could I go to jail? Since no real children are exploited in cartoons, paintings or writing, is there really a crime?

[Dequeant]

Regulation is regulation..........and this bill is the worst kind. The government saying it has the authority to regulate what you can see. I would expect this in China, not the U.S.

[MooCowzRock]

This issue isnt aboutregulating the internet, and its very likely not why Ron Paul voted against it. Judging from the powers is allows the federal government to have in terms of laws and the enforcement of the laws, it is a Constitutional issue. It takes away the State's ability to enforce their own laws, and giving the federal government the uncontitutional power to make and enforce criminal laws. Thats why Ron Paul probably voted against it.

I know we all hate the concept of regulation of the internet, but considering the Constitutional aspects of this bill, I dont think regulation of the internet had anything to do with Paul's decision to vote against this law.

[fcofer]

I know we all hate the concept of regulation of the internet, but considering the Constitutional aspects of this bill, I dont think regulation of the internet had anything to do with Paul's decision to vote against this law.

I agree that the bill is unconstitutional. However, I also think that RP would have voted it down regardless. :) Just because it's constitutional doesn't make it a good idea.

[cindy25]

who cast the 2nd no vote?

[fcofer]

Broun, R-Ga.

[MooCowzRock]

I agree that the bill is unconstitutional. However, I also think that RP would have voted it down regardless. :) Just because it's constitutional doesn't make it a good idea.

Thats a good point, and its pretty much supported by his desire to repeal the 14th and 16th Amendments.

[cindy25]

thought so but congress web site said Brown (GA)

[american.swan]

http://www.webslingerz.com/jhoffman/congress-email.html

Email your senators!!!


I even emailed my Rep asking why he voted for this trash.

[Danny Molina]

I think most of congress vote yea or nay solely on the title of the bill proposed.

[Lexx78]

it seems so indeed :confused:

[aravoth]

http://politics.reddit.com/info/62bka/comments/

Kucinich supporting bullshit like this does not suprise me in the least. He'd have the government regulate when you could wipe your ass if he could. Don't get me wrong I respect the man, But seriously, what kind of an idiot thinks they can enforece a policy that attempts to make people better?

[evandi]

I think the most important thing about this is that the distributers can distribute child porn as much as they want as long as they turn the users in.

Its ridiculous that they would go after the users but not the distributers.

The only explaination for this is that they want people to view child porn.

Being able to send young men to prison sounds like a tolerable alternative to them when war enthusiasm drops.

Thats what I think this is about.