Yet another unenforceable law.

1) How do you capture every protocol that might be used to pass images.
2) How do you recognize an image contained within the protocol.
3) How do you recognize an "illegal" image.

Assuming this passes the Senate and is signed by the President, what Federal agency will be responsible for enforcement? FBI? Seriously.

If they are trying to require local law enforcement (as with the Brady law), then they will need to provide ample funding or it will get shot down just like Brady was.

This law is not really intended to protect children by forcing everyone to lock down their networks. It is clearly designed to allow law enforcement officials to snoop around open wireless networks and prosecute for whatever they discover. When the network is open, anyone can connect without a search warrant. When they connect, they can easily discover stuff other than child porn.

Let me say it clearly: kiddie porn peddlers should be castrated and thrown into an alligator swamp. There is plenty of perfectly legal, good-quality adult porn out there for all those who want it.

This law, however, won't do anything to prevent it. It's just like trying to prevent children from smoking by prohibiting (adult) smoking while walking outdoors. It is borderline irrelevant.

I didn't realize a drawing *could* be illegal...

If this law passes, it will kill all WiFi in coffee shops, etc. How could they possibly control their traffic?

It will be a bit of a hassle, but if the law passes, all the coffee shops, airport terminals, public spaces (parks etc.) will have their WEP password prominently displayed. As long as your network is not open, the law won't apply. Meanwhile, the kids with iPhones will still be able to surf for porn...

Oh, that pesky First Amendment, does anybody really care about it anymore?

It would appear that in reality a method of authenticating users while still maintaining open access would be best. That way you could not have a child pornographer uploading without some way of tracking them down. Of coulse there are still ways to cover the IP address, but its a step in child abuse prevention.
There really is no goo porn as it all treats women as objects, but child porn goes farther and is abusive and harms children for life. Thus I am not adverse to it being a capital crime, the question I have though is why must it be humane.

Quote

Guest wrote:
There really is no goo porn...

Quote

Guest wrote:
There really is no goo porn as it all treats women as objects.

Quote

Guest wrote:

Gay porn doesn't treat women as objects.

Quote

Guest wrote:
There really is no goo porn as it all treats women as objects.

Quote

jbruni wrote:
Yet another unenforceable law.

1) How do you capture every protocol that might be used to pass images.

Quote

jbruni wrote:
2) How do you recognize an image contained within the protocol.
3) How do you recognize an "illegal" image.

...I just read the bill, and I don't think it's as bad as you make it sound here. All it says is that if a provider of some "electronic communication service or remote computing service" obtains knowledge indicating that illegal content passed through their network, then they are required to report it, but subsection (f) clarifies that this does not introduce any new requirements for such networks to actively surveil their users looking for violations. It only applies if a network operator somehow stumbles upon such knowledge and fails to report it.

Enough with the back-formations! The word is "survey", not "surveil". Please don't let the cops become the arbiter of grammar. If so, then all is lost.

The word "surveil" has been in use since the 1960s, according to OED. Doesn't definitively make it a word, for sure, but I think it does suggest it's reasonably well-established.

(Plus, there's nothing wrong with back-formations, and "surveying" in general has connotations different from "surveillance".)

A couple of hundred years ago, the tea would have been in the harbor by now.

Am I ever glad to be Canadian!

Quote

MacRider wrote:
A couple of hundred years ago, the tea would have been in the harbor by now.

Am I ever glad to be Canadian!

Keep politics out of the discussion, please.

Using "surveil" is just plain lazy. No wonder cops use it all the time.

Quote

ata wrote:
The word "surveil" has been in use since the 1960s, according to OED. Doesn't definitively make it a word, for sure, but I think it does suggest it's reasonably well-established.

(Plus, there's nothing wrong with back-formations, and "surveying" in general has connotations different from "surveillance".)

Quote

ata wrote:
...I just read the bill, and I don't think it's as bad as you make it sound here. All it says is that if a provider of some "electronic communication service or remote computing service" obtains knowledge indicating that illegal content passed through their network, then they are required to report it,

I know that all of the US legislature must justify its' existence but, this is verging on the ridicules. Maybe it's time we shut down all of the law making for let's just say, the next 6 years, this would save millions of tress and probably balance the budget in one fell swoop. I'm sure it won't happen but a man can dream...

Quote

Guest wrote:
Are there not laws in place that require a witness to a crime to report that crime? Seems that like that would cover the bases here.

I'm not going to post it here, but would a comic like the recent one depicting Assassin's Creed Producer Jade Raymond um...going to great lengths to get male gamers to buy her game be considered an illegal image? I ask because its one of those things that, like Don Imus, I consider repugnant rather than funny but believe it to be protected by free speech. I'm really curious how the standard gets applied.

Further, if you have a wireless network that isn't running a password scheme but is running a MAC filter (so anybody can connect but only authorized MAC addresses get dealt IPs by the Router), is that considered open? I presume a situation could arise where law enforcement had the MAC address (perhaps a warrant for the sales receipt and then records from the PC manufacturer as to what MAC the computer's network card(s) have) and so connected to such a network without the knowledge of the owner. Again, child pornographers get what they deserve, but just like with "Megan's Law" there are constitutional/legal precedents to consider in how these investigations are run and laws such as these. As such I would be inclined to oppose such legislation.

Incredible, I I draw a war scene with many killed and wounded, or a College shotting with several student murdered I will not be prosecuted under the law, but a "obscene" drawing could get anyone to jail.

Who will be qualified to declare something as "obscene"?

Remember that Disney Tarzan animation was banned in Israel fro showing a male naked torso, and "Heidi" animation in Turkey is being show wearing her a burka otherwise she is being "obscene".

I each one will ban what don't want I would ban the war, the tobacco and the alcohol, that kills many more children than a "obscene" cartoon. If we chose to start accepting things being baned because someone feels is not appropriate where we will finish? brain scanners because someone will find objectable some kind of thoughts!

No offense, but the topic is political in nature. This law is about making private citizens become the tools of big brother.

Quote

Intruder wrote:
Keep politics out of the discussion, please.

I more referring to party-bashing (in either direction). This bill is actually bi-partisan (read the sponsors). Who people voted for is not relevant to the discussion and should not be brought up. Discussing the proposed law is fine, but we don't want this to degenerate into an anti-republican/anti-democrat debate. Stick to the merits (or lack thereof, if that is how you feel) of the bill.

Fortunately, it has not degenerated since my post.

I think they're already looking in on computers that log into particular websites. I was online, and I had my head phones on, right? I just happened to go to this porn site, and I don't even have porn on my computer or collect pornography. The girls looked rather young, and we all know how easy it is to get to a porn site even if you don't get into porn yourself. Anyway, I had my head phones on, and then (well, I'm a man, right, and it's sort of hard to not to look a little longer at a beautiful young woman when she pops up on your screen, especially if she's doing the nasty right in your face) I heard this tone in my head phones, and these people talking and spouting off Police radio codes. It was radio codes and sounded exactly like police or FBI surveillance. I noticed the girls looked a little too young, so I logged out immediately upon hearing it and cleaned all the history out. I heard them say, "170 men," too! Now, is it just in my head, or are the FEDS setting up websites with child porn pictures and trying to catch people logging in or downloading the material? Sounds like it! By the way, I am not crazy, and I do not hear voices. I heard it clearly! Clear as day! I also have a Macbook Pro, and I'm not susceptible to many of the viruses or garbage Windows/Internet Explorer falls victim to, right? Well, the FBI uses Macintosh, and how much you want to bet I had tuned in somehow to their frequency on that site? But, I've never heard of something like this happening before. If anyone can explain this and how this can possibly happen, please message me on Yahoo Messenger under the name POWERSHAKER. I can tell you one thing. I'm done with even looking at a girl! I'm just done. They're total trouble, and all this porn on the net? They should just get rid of all of it! I've seen those NBC Dateline shows. Some of those dudes got hit hard with the time, men. It just DOES NOT pay to go to porn sites even when you accidentally go to them. If you have a Windows PC, I totally suggest NEVER going to porn sites! There's no telling who's watching or what kind of viruses, malware or adware you will get! FBI! CIA! You never can tell! Everybody be careful out there. Cops on the prowl, man! I heard the tones in my head phones! BEWARE! OH! ALSO! BUY MACINTOSH AND USE MOZILLA FIREFOX AS YOUR WEB BROWSER! Don't SAVE HISTORY IN PRIVACY SECTION OF PREFERENCES in Firefox! DON'T HAVE AUTOMATED COMPLETION OF FORMS AND SEARCHES IN GOOGLE, ETC... IT COULD COME BACK TO HAUNT YOU! WHAT IF SOMEONE LOOKS AT WHAT YOU'VE BEEN LOOKING UP? Do you know how much that says about a person? MAN, KEEP IT ALL CLEANED OUT! Trust me! It's much safer that way.

And, in other news, the stock price of Alcoa just went through the roof.

Quote

Intruder wrote:
And, in other news, the stock price of Alcoa just went through the roof.

This law is not ridiculous and it has nothing to do with pornography. It is a rational step in the government's program to make all internet access traceable. Open your network today if you love freedom.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
... I heard this tone in my head phones, and these people talking and spouting off Police radio codes. It was radio codes and sounded exactly like police or FBI surveillance. I noticed the girls looked a little too young, so I logged out immediately upon hearing it and cleaned all the history out. I heard them say, "170 men," too! Now, is it just in my head, or are the FEDS setting up websites with child porn pictures and trying to catch people logging in or downloading the material? Sounds like it! By the way, I am not crazy, and I do not hear voices. I heard it clearly! Clear as day!