Comments on: House vote on illegal images sweeps in Wi-Fi, Web sites
Bill would force anyone offering an open Wi-Fi connection, plus social-networking sites, ISPs, and e-mail sites to report illegal images including "obscene" cartoons and drawings.
Most Popular
The browser battles go on and on
roundup From Firefox to IE and from Chrome to Opera and Safari, there's no sitting still for browser makers looking to keep their products fresh and competitive.
3G wireless still holds promise
The next generation of 4G wireless may get all the headlines, but advanced 3G technology will likely dominate services for the next few years.
About Politics and Law
News at the intersection of technology, politics, and law, ranging from intellectual property to censorship to tech policy.
Add this feed to your online news reader
Politics and Law topics
Keep in mind that I am not a proffessor or learned person on any study of whatever. However, this subject affects me deeply because, well, I look at these images quite often.
Not real child pornography, but the fictional drawings that they are trying to ban. And it's all freakin' stupid. Why? Because unlike real children who are molested and often exploited, drawings are not of real people. That's the whole point of a drawing. It ISN'T real. Therefore, nobody is being hurt. Not only that, but since they are fictional characters, they have no legal age in real life. It's not like you can arrest a fictional character for a crime they committed in a book. So how can you have a real world law that protects the life of a fictional character? The author/artist can do whatever they want due to creative freedom. There is nothing any law can do that doesn't directly violate the first ammendment.
The images they are talking about are known as lolicon(underage girls) and shotacon(underage boys). And there are plenty comics involving them that you can view on the internet or buy online. The only real legality involved that deals with age is that you have to be 18+ to view or buy them.
I really don't see why these politicians have to be such sore losers because somebody found a loophole that's been around since before they were even born.
Government is trying their best to get into your personal lives. With so much going on the net, it's like bees to honey for the government to get in your business than it is without a computer. Websites like Youtube.com is a threat because it gives the users more flexibility to be heard unlike any time in our lives on the planet.
"Kiss the Net Goodbye" and "The U.S. government is just another China" is right.
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.
Understand that I am not a lawyer, but I see no language in the bill that prevents this kind of interpretation. As avenues of abuse go, so someone will abuse it eventually.
I do remember recent headlines (a few months ago)that a guy got convicted for this very thing, and attempted to use the unsecured anonymous user as the reason, but it did not matter to the courts. This was a case of the ISP actually monitoring and reporting the traffic, which I still think is weak, because they can not see beyond the router. But they had other evidence as well, I think.
There are two groups in America today that serve this purpose: "pedophiles" and "terrorists." Every piece of legislation that the government uses to take away more and more of our freedom is represented by the government as "cracking down" on either "pedophiles" or "terrorists." The definitions of these two terms have been (and will continue to be) expanded to include greater and greater numbers of people, until eventually the government will be able to define them to include anyone they want.
Anyone "undesireable" for whatever reason will be labeled either a "pedophile" or a "terrorist" and locked away, and the public will be OK with it because "pedophiles" and "terrorists" deserve whatever they get, right?
Heck, just last week I was repulsed by an image I saw. It was of my late mother in law!
here's a good example.
yesterday i had voiced my opinion on this issue.
i had stated a few thing that may have came off a little harsh but used no profanity kept it respectful and attack no individual what so ever.
but it seems someone did not agree with my opinion
and it was removed. i guess they had found it offensive.
well i may not agree with everyone's opinions but at least i have the dignity to acknowledge and respect there voice whether i agree or not.
so who ever you are remember that.
and sorry but the truth hurts don't it.
and i felt i had hit some pretty important points
on this whole issue that no one else had yet to stress.
so i guess freedom of speech and freedom to voice an opinion dose not count for much anymore either?
i am very offended and upset that c-net had even removed my comment and it's clear to me now that they will only allow opinions that reflect in there views only.
and don't try telling me i broke your T.O.S.
we both know this is not true.
"(15) "electronic communication service" means any service which provides to users thereof the ability to send or receive wire or electronic communications;
Seems to be all encompassing.
Next, look for vague or overly broad language which prosecutors love, for instance the word "appears" is found 4 different times in the first two subsections, (a) and (b) which deal with the actual (apparent) offense.
Look for what's missing. There is no affirmative duty for anyone to destroy collected privacy information after the "apparent" offense was found to be legal adult porn, which of course would violate privacy statutes and policies.
This allows NCMEC, which has no oversight, to keep a database of porn sufers who frequent "teen", "vintage" or other sites targeted by anti-porn organizations.
In other words, every image of Melissa Bertsch and others who "appear" to be under 18 will be reported to the ISP who is then obligated to file the report, and designated identifiers, with NCMEC. It's easy to see how small ISPs will cover their ass and report every complaint, regardless: http://amjur.wordpress.com/
NCMEC's tipline numbers will explode and a "crisis" will require more legislation, resources, and funding, based on dubious testimony by Ernie Allen.
It's no secret the U.S. wants to control the Internet as much as China does, but must proceed differently. Bankrupting small businesses and consolidating the infrastructure with pliable corporate entities is one way.
Meanwhile, Atlanta DA David McDade, Gonzales and FBI Director Mueller are allowed to produce and distribute child porn because it advanced a political agenda: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/14/104719/159
and footage of females, including Tove Jensen, that the DOJ says is child porn, is copyrighted in the Library of Congress, and being re-issued on DVD for rental at the neighborhood video store:
http://trewthe.wordpress.com/
*** is indecent anyway. Watch any TV preacher if you want to see indecent.
to tell you the truth this is not about hentai
or wifi there just throwing that in the mix to get what they really want.and that is to.
make non nude child models illegal period.they can not approach this issue buy it self.they tried before and was always shot down. so they take all this other b/s they could really care less about
to get what they want.GOD BLESS THE U.S.A.
i personally think the whole thing is ridiculous
and i can care less.the whole concept of children models is stupid in my opinion.
when i think of a model i think of a product they are trying to sell.these so called models are waring thongs and unless victoria secret is going to open a children's line. then i say hell yes outlaw it.but don't go putting other things in the mix that have nothing to do with there real objective.
this morning i shared my opinion on this matter.
only to find my comment removed.
well that's not fair.
the last i looked i am a registered voter and i have an opinion.
so everyone can say what they want but me wright.
i had said nothing offensive only the truth.
funny how thing topic's like this seem to be a one sided story.
so ok cnet wants to discriminate OK.
once again i said nothing wrong offensive or incriminating nor did i use any profanity's only stressed my views on this matter in a mature way.
so i guess I'll just report ever comment here as offensive . b/c i am offended that my opinion was removed when there was nothing wrong with it.
Every little coffee shop that offers wifi will have to hire a team of Internet police to constantly watch everything anyone does, or stop offering wifi. Homes that own a wireless router usually just open the box and plug the thing in. They don?t know how to password protect it, and are probably not aware they even can. Fining them $150,000 because of something a wardriver out in the street did is more obscene than anything the pervert was looking at. This will not stand up to its first court challenge.
RT
www.anon-tools.tk
- by Doktor_Jeep July 27, 2009 4:40 PM PDT
- The long range plan is to have a heavily controlled internet where all content is filtered and controlled.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 3 of 4 pages (136 Comments)One way around this is for a free wifi system that spans entire cities and then uses cabling for bridging in between. Something run by private organizations from large hubs run by donations and companies, to neigborhood systems set up by volunteers.
The information power of the internet would not be lost, and any intention of a controlled cable-tv like internet circumvented.
But now the same people who helped the banks steal 24 trillion dollars want to make this a crime and under the color of, as usual, protecting children.
Usually draconian measures like this were only used agains gun manufacturers and owners, so to all you "liby" tech heads, I say "Welcome to the party". Yes, this tactic was in one ear and out the other when it was just smokers and hunters they screwed with.
But now, when you want to keep the internet free, you too will have to deal with: "What? It's for protecting the cheeeldren from molestors. You don't want more cheeeeeldren to get molested do you? Why are you fighting this? Do you really want more cheeeeeeldren to get molested?"
Yes, welcome to the party. Out of control government eventually gets to you or something you care about. Today your friend, tomorrow your worst nightmare.
So, want to keep information flowing freely? Well, that means you want to hurt the cheeeldren.
The same people who robbed the nation of 24 trillion dollars want to control the internet. Government is losing legitimacy at every turn, from a Federal Reserve that is no more federal than Fedex, to entire undeclared wars being fought on "bad intelligence" , and it's because people are figuring this out.
The Soviet Union fell like this.
When they are sending SWAT teams to take out "unlicensed routers", will there be any mindless sheeple watching the report on the news and thinking "Good thing they stopped those perverts", or will anyone be sheeplistic enough to still be watching TV news? Look at TV and print dinosaur media now. There is the question. And "sheeple" are not as such they appear when most people just want to mind their own business.