House vote on illegal images sweeps in Wi-Fi, Web sites
[Update as of Thurs. 8:30pm: See this article for a response to criticisms from Rep. Nick Lampson, the bill's author.]
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.
That broad definition would cover individuals, coffee shops, libraries, hotels, and even some government agencies that provide Wi-Fi. It also sweeps in social-networking sites, domain name registrars, Internet service providers, and e-mail service providers such as Hotmail and Gmail, and it may require that the complete contents of the user's account be retained for subsequent police inspection.
Before the House vote, which was a lopsided 409 to 2, Rep. Nick Lampson (D-Texas) held a press conference on Capitol Hill with John Walsh, the host of America's Most Wanted and Ernie Allen, head of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
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."
The SAFE Act represents the latest in Congress' efforts--some of which have raised free speech and privacy concerns--to crack down on sex offenders and Internet predators. One bill introduced a year ago was even broader and would have forced Web sites and blogs to report illegal images. Another would require sex offenders to supply e-mail addresses and instant messaging user names.
Wednesday's vote caught Internet companies by surprise: the Democratic leadership rushed the SAFE Act to the floor under a procedure that's supposed to be reserved for noncontroversial legislation. It was introduced October 10, but has never received even one hearing or committee vote. In addition, the legislation approved this week has changed substantially since the earlier version and was not available for public review.
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.
This is what the SAFE Act requires: Anyone providing an "electronic communication service" or "remote computing service" to the public who learns about the transmission or storage of information about certain illegal activities or an illegal image must (a) register their name, mailing address, phone number, and fax number with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children's "CyberTipline" and (b) "make a report" to the CyberTipline that (c) must include any information about the person or Internet address behind the suspect activity and (d) the illegal images themselves. (By the way, "electronic communications service" and "remote computing service" providers already have some reporting requirements under existing law too.)
The definition of which images qualify as illegal is expansive. It includes obvious child pornography, meaning photographs and videos of children being molested. But it also includes photographs of fully clothed minors in overly "lascivious" poses, and certain obscene visual depictions including a "drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting." (Yes, that covers the subset of anime called hentai).
Someone providing a Wi-Fi connection probably won't have to worry about the SAFE Act's additional requirement of retaining all the suspect's personal files if the illegal images are "commingled or interspersed" with other data. But that retention requirement does concern Internet service providers, which would be in a position to comply. So would e-mail service providers, including both Web-based ones and companies that offer POP or IMAP services.
"USISPA has long supported harmonized reporting of child pornography incidents to the (NCMEC). ISPs report over 30,000 incidents a year, and we work closely with NCMEC and law enforcement on the investigation," Kate Dean, head of the U.S. Internet Service Provider Association, said on Wednesday. "We remain concerned, however, that industry would be required to retain images of child pornography after reporting them to NCMEC. It seems like the better approach would be to require the private sector to turn over illicit images and not retain copies."
Failure to comply with the SAFE Act would result in an initial fine of up to $150,000, and fines of up to $300,000 for subsequent offenses. That's the stick. There's a carrot as well: anyone who does comply is immune from civil lawsuits and criminal prosecutions.
There are two more points worth noting. First, the vote on the SAFE Act seems unusually rushed. It's not entirely clear that the House Democratic leadership really meant this legislation to slap new restrictions on hundreds of thousands of Americans and small businesses who offer public wireless connections. But they'll nevertheless have to abide by the new rules if senators go along with this idea (and it's been a popular one in the Senate).
The second point is that Internet providers already are required by another federal law to report child pornography sightings to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which is in turn charged with forwarding that report to the appropriate police agency. So there's hardly an emergency, which makes the Democrats' rush for a vote more inexplicable than usual.
Declan McCullagh, CNET News' chief political correspondent, chronicles the intersection of politics and technology. He has covered politics, technology, and Washington, D.C., for more than a decade, which has turned him into an iconoclast and a skeptic of anyone who says, "We oughta have a new federal law against this." E-mail Declan.
It is simply past time to realize that pedosexuality is a NORMAL sexuality and to allow it to be brought out into the open and legalized.
That way, we could still protect children from those who TRULY want to force them into sexual relationships against their will, just as we do with adults, and pedosexuals wouldn't be driven underground where sooner or later their desires mutate and they get into the thinking "I am ******* sick and tired of not being able to have sex with who I want to! **** the law, **** the children, and **** society.... I am just going to go out, find a child, and rape/maybe kill them!"
And while I agree that getting rid of pedophiles is a good thing, pushing the burden on to owners of wifi hotspots--many of which aren't that technically advanced--will simply take up company resources and put an undue strain on what otherwise may be a free wifi hotspot. This would be a disaster for free wifi movement. I could imagine many owners of those hotspots simply getting rid of their hotspot, or charging for it so they can hire an IT man to look over the computer log and look at every picture.
That's not even to being about the loss of privacy.
The intent of going after child predators is good. Getting this filth of the net would be ideal.
Problems happen when ideals meet the reality of human nature. Feel good often has uninteded consequences. This sets up a survailence apparatus which can easily be abused by the powers at be in 10,000 creative and diffenerent ways.
And Pedo's will still get their filth reguardless . Mean while this law will be on the books providing a basis and precident for additional and very real infringements on your rights.
v/r
Whats YOUR CHOICE?
What's the old saying?
Those that trade freedom for security will not receive or deserve either.
When Representative Mark Foley flirted with a teenage boy, that was probably the least dangerous thing he ever did to children.
Picture this: In one corner we have insurance companies denying kids needed care. In another we have businesses sucking profit out of the economy and restricting services for children. In another we have US Armed Forces killing Iraqi kids. And lastly we have an eccentric older chap sipping mai-tai's with a strapping young lad who is well aware of his own appeal, and working it.
So please sir, could you also list companies that won't cover medical claims to kids?
How about citing companies that move their operations overseas leaving poverty in their wake? Maybe cite MTV and Madison Avenue for marketing sexuality. How about listing Disney for farming pretty girls and turning them into Lyndsy Lohans and the such.
But to list a soldier who's mind is rattled from combat and the atrocities that he was forced to commit because he saw a picture? A picture! Stop it.
I wouldn't want my 16yo daughter having sex with a 30yo; but I even more wouldn't want her machine-gunned by one.
Please, lets get some perspective. Cops aren't, and shouldn't be, Priests with guns. Don't want people looking at nude pics of your daughter? Don't take any.
There are crimes, and then there are pictures of crimes. The two ought not be confused.
Best regards- AK4$
It's just another unnecessary headache by grandstand politicians trying to look tough on crimes against children. It's seems protecting children and terrorism have become the thin wedges for getting bad laws passed.
Also, if one is a witness to the commission of a felony (I believe child porn and obscenity are felony offenses), the person is compelled by law to report them. The trouble with obscenity is you have to goto court to find out if something is obscene, and it very much depends on where you are since the test relies on community standards.
...the House vote, which was a lopsided 409 to 2...
Maybe it is just me, but when a law has 99.5% approval, that seems to constitute a pretty noncontroversial piece of legislation. Sure some c|net type people may find it controversial, but by that standard, no legislation would ever pass muster as being noncontroversial.
"but when a law has 99.5% approval"
In a pure democratic system, you would be correct. However, we are a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. Go look that up. A democracy infers that 99.5% can rule .5%. A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC establishes protection of (it does not grant them, God does) rights that 99.5% of the population CANNOT repeal without amending the actual CONSTITUTION. Furthermore, even if the BoR doesn't specifically state a particular safe-guarded right, the 9th Amendment does:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
This means that just because the CONSTITUTION does not spell out a particular safe-guarded right, does not mean the people do not have it.
Educate yourself so you can make comments more solidly grounded in reality rather than opinion. If you don't like it, seek out a pure democracy that supports your views. Leave my REPUBLIC alone.
This is why these kind of laws should not be rushed through without public discussion and debate regardless of the unconstitutionality of it, politicians are stupid when it comes to technology. Otherwise they would have learned long ago that the communication and media industries actually have them over a barrel, perpetuating the corrupt gov we have today. You have to pay big bucks to them, to get elected, and then if you want to continue in politics you have to protect their monopoly on all commincation (and thus information), by passing bogus legislation like this one.
This law will have basically one affect, no one will have unsecured routers, because free communication (and thus potentially the truth) is a threat to them.
When the USSR's President brought bills to the Supreme Soviet they passed with 99% margins.
Bills that pass with 99% margins without having had prior public review and debate are historically bad.
So again- Lack of health care promotes abuse. Pretty girls with rich parents don't pose nude for dental care.
Our society has made 'prettiness' merely another commodity. If you are fourteen and 'hot', you quickly learn how to get what you need using the currency at your disposal.
Best regard- AK4$
powers to any ISP and individual to search every piece of
exchange data.
Where was EFF when this paranoia idea pop? We better off
sending all the US Internet traffic thru China and let the Chinese
government do the process for us.
I am not oppose to the total elimination of child pornography,
but to the unintended consequences that some actions like this
will have. This bill, along with CALEA will kill not only small ISPs,
but also community sponsored wireless networks, which offer
low costs services to low income communities.
What does that leave? Large monopolistic telecoms
that are willing to go along with this (warrant?
who needs a stinking warrant?). So they get the
profits to fund further laws written to prevent
open competition; the politicians get the donations,
and can say they're "saving the children".
violates free speech. And they now requires people to monitor and
report on images that go through their system?
This violates free speech and unreasonable searches and seizures!
First, this law will never go into effect. Every major element has, already, been halted, blocked, or thrown-out, altogether, as "Un-Constitutional" (by both Federal courts, and the "Supreme Court").
Second, half of the, so-called, "illegal materials" in this law have already been ruled to be "Protected Free Speech" (by the Supreme Court of the United States).
Third... this is nothing more than "COPA" II... a "law" which never even went into effect because it was so unconstitutional (but the Government DID spend millions of dollars, and years, trying vainly to defend it).
And, finally, in a time when our economy is on the verge of collapse (due to, uncountable, corporate-abuses)... thousands of Americans are dying (in an illegal-war)... criminals are, clearly, running the government, for their own gains (with near-absolute impunity)... the fundamental-liberties of all Americans are under the worst threat in living-memory... And, when, the very people, specifically, put in office to put a stop to this ongoing-obscenity, have flatly refused to do their jobs, or obey The American People...
...I find it simply horrendous that this type of totalitarian police-state BS, is being railroaded-through... on the shoulders of short-term political-ambitions.
GOD, what happened to America..?
I'm all for locking up pedophiles who abuse kids but if someone wants to draw cartoons of kids having sex or write stories about it that doesn't hurt anyone.
Politicians can say they are against child porn.
They can call out Ron Paul for his principled vote.
Oh, and I'm not sure how any of this could be technically accomplished anyway. It may just result in small businesses having to shut down their Wi-Fi hotspots.
WEAK and TRANSPARENT
Notice 2258A(f), which specifically bars ISPs from monitoring users and content and from even affirmatively seeking knowledge of users' actions or accounts' content.
It also, in 1g, limits the outlets to which law enforcement agencies can report any information received from an ISP or other host. Notice how restrictive the list is: US attorneys, other agents investigating this particular crime, state attorneys where specifically applicable, and the defendant/defendant's attorney. In other words, government personnel involved in the case and the defendant. Which is fair and prevents the FBI from, say, leaking these reports to the press or to the defendants' families.
I was enraged when I read this article, too, because the reporting was inaccurate and inflammatory. This bill enables ISPs to report federal offenses without fear of recrimination but without really requiring any action. Yes, it requires REaction, but no more than is reasonable: we've already seen reports of university tech support called in to fix computers so suffused with illegal pornography that they ceased to function. There was no problem as long as the images weren't presented to a representative of the school, but were grounds for dismissal as soon as they were. The same goes for this bill.
I am, of course, hesitant to applaud or even condone impositions of fines for any inaction; the government shouldn't be allowed to force me to do anything. Were I a member of Congress, I probably wouldn't have voted for this, particularly with the random $25 million added to the AG's coffers grant-ceiling. But to suggest that this is actively circumventing the Bill of Rights is simply false. If you read title 18, chapter 110, section 2256, you'll see that child pornography constitutes a subset of nude images of children including intercourse &c and "lascivious exhibition of the genitals." So unless your friend sends you a picture of her newborn son or daughter having sex with something or making come-hither eyes whilst touching him- or herself in an overtly sexual manner, this bill wouldn't apply to you or to the ISP. If, on the other hand, you're regularly and publicly downloading and viewing images of children actively participating in unmistakably sexual activities... Well, I know stupidity isn't illegal, but that's a whole different level of dumb.
Remember: ISPs are still not allowed, and are certainly not being required, to monitor your usage. At least, not with this bill.
Starbucks, airports, etc.
Just because we are afraid of terrorists or pedophiles does not mean we should pass laws that will punish future generations by limiting the freedoms (speech, expression, liberty) this country was founded on.
I thought it was odd when I was looking at baby to 5 yr old photos of nude children..but my gf from there said it was common cuz they are poor and the kids don't get clothes.
They would not be able to figure out how to set up a password on their WIFI router... let alone know how to log images that are obscene?
I wouldn't even know how to log stuff on my wifi router if I left it unprotected.
And who will spend all the time looking at the logs?
Why do I have to be subject to viewing some sickos porno?
Most Consumer WiFi Routers are not capable of logging any traffic that goes across them, the device simply does not have that kind of memory capacity. For example: if I have a hardline broadband Internet service, and I connect a WiFi Router to it unsecured, sure I could log my own activity with my computer, but I can't log someone elses activity, the router does not store or even cache what it transfers, it goes straight through, to the end device that requested the data.
So basically all they are doing is making sure no one ever has an 'unsecured' open WiFi, because it is impossible with most consumer equipment to actually comply with this law!
This is just another facist attempt to impose a virtual dictatorship over the American people, making sure that all communication is under their control. As long as they control the comminucation they can control public opinion and perceptions (Just look at 9-11, and how politicians get elected, etc.)
The FCC is going to auction the 700MHz band off to the highest bidder, when it should be returned to the public as an open, unlicensed band, to begin establishing a service fee free wireless interactive communication infrastructure that could be dynamically managed, and fault tolerant, in the event of major natural (or unnatural) disasters. But they would rather line their pockets with money and feed the already rich comminication companies with even more undeserved cash, gouged from the public's pocket.
This is all heading toward the worst. Expect matial law to be imposed before the next presidential elections, because I don't think they are going to stop, they have really gone too far, and they are pushing to hard these outragous laws. Being the current administration (and in control of communications and the media) is the only thing keeping them from being charged with treason.
Soon, the only porn legally transmitted will be pictures of 30+ women with big ****. And preferrably wrinkles.
Child abuse is facilitated and disregarded. When I taught public school 7 years and a day ago there were several instances of known abuse being disregarded. You know, the chubby quite girl with bruises that wears her winter coat in May...
Lack of health care and housing promotes child abuse.
Mayors of cities where children are homeless should be imprisoned.
Refugees from Iraq are in camps in Saudi Arabia, and these camps are already a destination for sex tourism.
As for pictures, if I email a picture of the Little Mermaid, can I go to jail?
What about pics of kids we've murdered in Iraq? Can I still look at their mangled little bodies?
Well, back to my cubicle at the insurance company where I work to deny your claims...AK4$
For starters, read the version that actually passed. The article's links made it perfectly clear that it was HR 3791 that passed the House. The last action on 876 was a committee referral in March.
When McCullagh wrote the article, and perhaps overnight when you wrote your post, Thomas.loc.gov still hadn't updated to reflect the final bill's text or the fact that it had passed. But it's there now. See:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.03791:
Now that we're all talking about the right bill, let's all re-read section (f):
"(f) Protection of Privacy- Nothing in this section shall be construed to require an electronic communication service provider or a remote computing service provider to--
(1) monitor any user, subscriber, or customer of that provider;
(2) monitor the content of any communication of any person described in paragraph (1); or
(3) affirmatively seek facts or circumstances described in subsection (a)(2)."
This bill does not forbid snooping on electronic communication; it just doesn't require it. The original bill text, as well as H.R. 876, both set up the same "not required" standard.
I agree this final bill is not as bad as the article implied (and yet still not necessarily a good idea), but here's why I'll give McCullagh a pass: the bill WASN'T PUBLICLY AVAILABLE until this morning. (I'm shouting because this is a terrible excuse for democracy: no hearings, not even a #$%^& committee vote, and they call this a government of, by, and for the people?)
I looked at Thomas last night at 11 pm EST, and the bill text was still unavailable; that happened in the last 12 hours. In other words, McCullagh was reporting based on a press conference. I doubt he simply made up the specifics of the bill.
This calls for an update from CNet, but it does not justify a calling-out of the author.
I guess I should "read the button" from now on. :-)
I noted that in the article and linked to the old version on Thomas, saying it was the old version.
That said, while I'm all for inflammatory prose, I maintain that the article is misleading. The language used in the sections to which the new bill refers detail pretty clearly what constitutes child pornography. So nude pictures of children are fine unless the children are engaged in overtly sexual acts. That photo you received of the giggling Argentine toddler without trousers is not pornography unless he's either engaged in a sexual act or being used to solicit sex with him. And of course it's virtually impossible for a barista to discern intention from a glance at a computer screen; that report would therefore constitute a bad tip, and the law enforcement agent responsible for looking into that instance, should there even be one, would rather easily determine it not to be pornographic.
As I see it, this bill requires people or institutions-- I'll call them connection providers, CPs-- to tell the feds that the child pornography downloaded using their connection was someone else's. So if I go home and find my flatmate's boyfriend sprawled on the couch and hastily closing his screenful of child porn, then I have to log onto the tipline and say that this guy was using my connection and looking at some websites whose URLs I don't know, but his name is Dwight Something-or-other and he shan't be using my network again. Oh, and "it would impose an undue hardship to provide [any] commingled digital files as part of the report, because of the volume of the digital files or for other reasons." To wit, he closed the browser and it's set not to store history. If I don't visit the tipline, then I might be subject to a fine, which makes sense (though the maximum size is alarming), but more seriously, should Dwight's surfing be tracked by any federal agency, that agency would have no reason not to prosecute me, the CP, under the assumption that I was abetting federal offenses. So in effect, isn't this bill an out to let CPs that find themselves immersed in child pornography throw up a hand and call foul?
Further, since snooping in guests' accounts might be considered "intentional misconduct" or acting with "with actual malice," then CPs are encouraged not to pry into what their guests are doing, but then to report a federal offense should they stumble upon one. All of which seems reasonable. And the bill as passed even removes the random $25 million, while keeping intact that the government's sole response to a tip seems to be to forward it to the appropriate enforcement agency, just as they would do if someone called in a tip about any crime. It doesn't circumvent the fourth amendment because the tip itself doesn't appear to be grounds for a lawsuit, and I presume the reason the tip-maker is requested to keep the files for 180-plus days is, in part, so the appropriate enforcement agency can get a warrant to acquire the images. The tips would appear to be used to help build a case.
If it looked like I was calling out the writer of the article, I apologize to Mr. McCullagh: such was not my intention. I do believe it was deliberately inflammatory and misleading, but I don't really have a problem with those traits as long as they serve a purpose other than EVERYBODY PANIC. The bit where "Someone providing a Wi-Fi connection probably won't have to worry about the SAFE Act's additional requirement of retaining all the suspect's personal files if the illegal images are "commingled or interspersed" with other data" comes as an understated afterthought, given that several comments on the subject suggest that readers missed that part. I feel a touch curmudgeonly saying this, but I object more to the notion that this article represents a culture where speed trumps accuracy in reporting and responding to what has been reported. The SAFE act of 2007 was proposed quite early, referred to the House Judiciary Committee in February, and then nothing happened with it until this mollified redraft with a new sponsor was overwhelmingly passed last night. Given the vote, this was an uncontroversial bill, at least in its present form, and Congress has of late been criticised for not getting anything done. Why wait to vote, when a clear and overwhelming majority supports it?
Not to mention that the Democratic leadership, that claims to hold high ground on warrantless searches, rushed this to the floor! No debate, no dessent.
Unacceptable, regardless of party lines! Something has to be done so this 'law' is immediately found unconstitutional!
- Stupid Law
-
by Snidely_Whiplash
December 6, 2007 8:17 AM PST
- As an ISP let me say that this is a stupid law. ISP's and email providers seldom if ever see a customers mail or what they are doing online. Face it folks we don't have time to monitor what people do. If kiddie porn falls into our lap we are already required to report it but we don't monitor customers usually unless the feds have forced us to. My mail systems are totally automated and millions of messages pass thru them everyday and we seldom see any of them unless they are addressed to one of us.
-
Reply to this comment
-
-
- You make ULTIMATE sense. Thank you
-
by tatepc
December 6, 2007 12:27 PM PST
- thank you for a refreshing course in common sense. which congress does not currently seem to possess.
-
-
Showing 1 of 3 pages (130 Comments)I have a number of customers that offer free WI-FI at their business and they never see what the customer is doing either unless they are watching the users computer screen. I can't think of any of those places that offers enough privacy that anyone with good sense would browse adult porn let alone kiddie porn in one of them.
Let me tell you what this law is good for: When some sicko does get busted they will be coming after the ISP or WI-FI owner that the person uses wanting to know why they didn't report them. It will probably be up to that person or company to prove that they didn't know what was happening. Depending on the wording of the law that may be hard to do. It's just another tool for the government's war on small business.