Wi-Fi 'illegal images' politician defends legislation
The Democratic sponsor of a bill forcing anyone with an open Wi-Fi connection to report illegal images--or pay fines of up to $300,000--says a recent Internet outcry over the legislation misses the point.
Rep. Nick Lampson, D-Texas
(Credit: U.S. House of Representatives)Rep. Nick Lampson of Texas, who drafted the bill that the House of Representatives approved this week, said through a spokesman on Thursday that he didn't actually mean to target Americans who happen to have Wi-Fi access points at home. The legislation also covers social-networking sites, domain name registrars, Internet service providers, and e-mail service providers such as Hotmail and Gmail.
Lampson's spokesman, Trevor Kincaid, sent me this e-mail about the Securing Adolescents From Exploitation-Online Act, or SAFE Act:
It is NOT the intent of the SAFE Act to target Wi-Fi providers but rather the entities that provide the internet to those conduits.
With that said--child pornography is illegal, grotesque, and has become a global epidemic. The Internet serves as virtual hunting preserve for pedophiles and predators to prey upon innocent children. So, while this bill is not intended to impact the groups you reference, those groups, all of us, have a civic and moral obligation to report these criminal acts that exploit and traumatize children.
He responded to privacy concerns with this:
Since child pornography is illegal it is material that is NOT protected by the first amendment. Therefore, the SAFE Act is not infringing upon a person's civil liberties.
I wrote back:
You say that the "intent" was not to force Americans with open Wi-Fi connections in their homes, but a court will typically not consider congressional intent--it'll look at what the law says. Why does the bill not exempt Wi-Fi and private individuals from its relatively strict requirements?
Will you try to work with the Senate to tweak the language so it doesn't cover WiFi connections and private individuals? Because you said that he did not mean to target WiFi networks, can I take your response to mean that inclusion of such language was a mistake that will be fixed? I mean, it wouldn't seem to be a major change--just the addition of one sentence or so.
Kincaid replied:
I never said Rep. Lampson "didn't mean to target WiFi." Rep. Lampson added teeth to pre-existing law in hopes of cracking down on a $5 billion a year child pornography business.
We are constantly discussing the bill as it moves through the Senate, but I cannot speculate whether or not any changes will be made to the House version. Mr. Lampson's goal is to stop the trafficking of child pornography on the internet without dissolving civil rights; this bill will take big strides to accomplish that goal.
So what exactly does the SAFE Act do? It doesn't mandate ongoing network surveillance. What it does require is that anyone providing Internet access who learns about the transmission or storage of information about 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. (Note that some reporting requirements already apply to Internet access providers under current law.)
The definition of which images qualify as illegal is expansive. It includes obvious child pornography, meaning photographs and videos of children being molested. It also includes photographs of fully clothed minors in unlawfully "lascivious" poses, and certain obscene visual depictions including a "drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting."
Most reasonable adults, including home Wi-Fi providers or the Web sites affected by this legislation, can figure out what actual child pornography is. But when it comes to photographs of fully clothed minors in "lascivious" poses, and overly risque cartoon anime that might be "obscene" in one area of the country and permissible in another, it becomes trickier--especially when, legally, only a jury can determine whether an image violates local community standards.
The real problem, I think, is that Lampson probably drafted this legislation a little too hastily. It didn't go through the normal committee process and was rushed to the floor without the final text being posted until the day after the vote. That may be why its requirements apply to anyone providing an "electronic communication service" or "remote computing service"--terms that were clear back when the only Internet service providers were AOL or Netcom.
But now that anyone with a Wi-Fi connection (or any school, or library, or coffee shop) can be an ISP, it's not sufficient to borrow definitions written in the 1980s. That's one reason why the usual back-and-forth process of public hearings, disclosure, and debate can actually be helpful on occasion.
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. 
So let me get this straight... they didn't even know the final text of *** it was that they were [i]voting[/i] on?
Cripes - I think it's high time that we fire all but two Congresscritters right about now...
/P
I've spent a decent amount of time on the internet downloading a lot of random stuff (P2P networks) and I've never come across this kiddie porn that they claim is so popular and common. Besides, aren't our politicians and priests the ones who are breaking these laws anyways?
Do we see a trend here or what?
as an ISP (or ANY open WiFi network) if you detect kiddie porn being sent across your connection you are to report it to the Cybertipline with the generated IP, the person who's using that IP (Like I can see THAT happening) AND THE IMAGES.
ok, So to possess kiddie porn in a class B federal Felony and transmission of Kiddie Porn is a Class B Federal Felony. So you are supposed to break BOTH Laws or get slapped with a $300,000 Fine. WHAT THE HELL???
report the violation...but as you say, retaining the data and
providing it to the Cybertipline are illegal.
This bill gives explicit immunity to those retaining and
transmitting for the purpose of retaining.
I'm not sure what I see is so controversial about this bill. If you
know about child pornography you must report it (which is
already the case) and if you do the steps necessary to report it
you won't be breaking the law (which isn't already the case).
Oh, and the Supreme Court has struck down the laws of either
manipulated or non-photographic child pornography as being
treated as child pornography. So the "obscene cartoon" is just
scare tactics.
This is just another half-baked attempt. It reeks of Ted "Tubes" Stevens.
Mr. Perv goes to coffee shop A and surfs to notquitelegal.com. Coffee shop A does not care what he is looking at. They to not packet sniff. They are not breaking the law.
Mr. Perv goes to coffee shop B and serfs to notquitelegal.com. Coffee shop B is running a packet sniffer so they can get everyones credit cards and buy a bunch of 70 inch HDTVs. They see what Mr. Perv is surfing and turn him in. They are legal.
If coffee shop C is also stealing credit cards, but does not turn Mr. Perv in. They are breaking the law.
happens on your connection. It only comes into effect if you are
aware of child pornography, either because you're watching the
uploads that come through your system, or because it was reported
to you (or whatever). This was already the case, though it's been
made more explicit and the fine stiffened.
All laws have unintended consequences. Some are so obvious that the law should have never been proposed. This is one of them.
The wording seems a bit over reaching to me.
turning all of us into little "Big Brothers" to spy on everyone else
and report it, smacks of what they told us as children, occured
with those nasty commies in the USSR.
Citizens were encouraged to rat on others by the 'Commies' to
control those who were deviants (then, any who disagreed with
their system). Now, that is exactly what is mandated in the USA!
Our irresponsible representatives apparantly voted a law into
being without even having the final text. That is scary! We need
to take a deep look at what we are defending and how we are
defending it. All these good intentions may someday turn US
into the USSR we so much feared.
How about we start levying 300 grand fines on politicians who submit, and vote on, poorly written legislation? That's far more dangerous to Americans than a mere 5 billion in child porno.
I want no more laws abridging my freedom in any way, shape or form. In my 80 hours a week on the Net, I have never inadvertently run across any kiddie porn, but then I'm not wasting my time looking for it either. Unlike our senators and congressmen, I work for my living.
If we the People make the job of senator and congressman part-time, we might balance the budget by not having to pay all those perks and lifetime pensions and such. Besides, we might just attract some employees interested in America for a change. Wouldn't that be a first--at least in my lifetime, it would.
Mari Bushman
www.jigsawpress.com
I will not introduce lag to my pc gaming thank you very much!
"good intentions": The Patriot Act.
Will we EVER learn from our history of mistakes?
If this bill is so good and so important, it needs a full discussion
and taking time to do it right. Let's focus more on quality and less
on quantity of bills.
Just look at numerous laws such as the Patriot Act. The purpose of all of these laws is to increase the power of government at the expense of all of us.
- 5 Billion? Says Who?
- by dayebreak December 7, 2007 1:29 PM PST
- Next chance you get, ask the esteemed Congressman where he got that number, and if he will produce that information to the public. If he directs you to an organization or can not produce any documents in support, then you get an idea of what's going on.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (52 Comments)