Comments on: Wi-Fi 'illegal images' politician defends legislation

Nick Lampson, the Democratic politician behind a bill approved by the House that requires reporting of illegal images, says he didn't mean to target wireless access points.

[chash360]

Politicians want to expand their porno collection...

One thing this bill appears try to accomplish is the Gov amassing the largest porno collection on the planet....perhaps thats why they all voted for it, (Ron Paul excused of course).

[Hey You Look]

So let me get this straight...

Just by searching on Google for images using the words "fountain sculpture boy" in a coffee shop you could have your whole life ruined?

(I am sure that there are going to be some images returned on that search that somebody, somewhere feels are obscene.)

That seems a little over the top.

Also, laws that prohibit child porn are meant to cut down on/eliminate the crimes committed against the child - sexual abuse, real or implied, etc.

Who exactly is the victim in a drawing? I am not so cutoff that I have not heard the arguments about how some anime may lead to people thinking about illegal activities. But thought crimes are not really crimes, yet, are they? Or at least not that many, right?

And this does come down to being about thought crimes. It is not about you doing any thing wrong, at all. It is about doing things that the people around you think are wrong.

You didn't see anything wrong with the sculpted fountains that depicted naked little boys peeing, but the owner of the coffee shop did and because of that you are now living under Megan's Law, lifetime parole, and community suppervision. Maybe you never admitted your wrong doing while you were in prison mandated therapy so you were not released. You were civilly committed, for the remainder of your natural life, to protect society from you and your naked little boy fountain ways.

If YOU can imagine YOUrself committing a crime, ANY CRIME, should YOU be punished for it? Have YOU ever thought about running a red light? Or is it ok to pass this kind of law because this kind of legislation does not affect what YOU think about... yet?

If I was caught with child porn (child/children in undeniable sexual situations) in my possession it would be easy to see how I would be found guilty. If I was caught in possession of Henti my guilt would depend entirely on who the jurors were.

In fact, if I chose the right coffee shop I could download Henti with impunity. I mean if the owner is not offended by Henti then there is nothing offensive, and therefore nothing worth reporting, being transfered on their network.

The fact that such things are not so cut-and-dry would suggest a need for discussion and evaluation, and not a bunch of politicians voting yes on something which they could not have read, in its entirety, since it was not finalized until AFTER the vote.

(You do realize, I hope, that I just committed a thought crime. I imagined myself as capable of possessing child porn and/or Henti. Should I be punished for placing myself in this situation, in my imagination, for the purpose of this discussion?)

[sachanta]

well said..

how about if I have a unsecured connection @home? does that qualify me as a wifi provider?

[Had_to_be_said]

His entire defense of this INSANE law...

Rep. Nick Lampsons, entire defense for this un-Constitutional (based upon numerous already-existing Supreme Court decisions) and impossible to implement (for numerous technical-reasons), incredibly-dangerous Law, is that...

...what the "SAFE Act", ACTUALLY SAYS... isnt what they meant it to do.

-It wasnt supposed to be applicable to everyone... but, the way it is ACTUALLY WRITTEN... it is.

-It wasnt supposed to be applicable to "Constitutionally-protected speech"... but, the way it is ACTUALLY WRITTEN... it is.

-It wasnt supposed to place an undue burden on anyone that, in any way, "provides access" to the Internet... but, the way it is ACTUALLY WRITTEN... it does.

-It wasnt supposed to require extensive traffic-monitoring... to avoid the potential of absolutely-insane levels of arbitrary-prosecution... but, the way it is ACTUALLY WRITTEN... it does.

-It wasnt supposed to create impossible technical-requirements (based upon actual technical-realities)... but, the way it is ACTUALLY WRITTEN... it does.

And, when "Rep. Nick Lampson" is actually confronted with all of this information (detailing exactly why this legislation is a complete travesty)... He simply jumps up, and down, screaming the words "child porn"... over, and over... until he is, virtually, red-in-the-face... I guess, he is hoping that the American-People are just as stupid (or as dishonestly-hypocritical) as he, clearly, is.

[firewolf4]

the road to Hell....

it's been said that the Road to Hell is paved in good intentions, but I mean come on already. are "THE PEOPLE" tired of these self righteous hypocits dictating how WE, civilized people (some of which actually VOTED this moron to office) are to conduct our Lives ?
a quick caveat to this, read the constitution particularly these snippets:
Constitution of the United States of America
Article. I.
Section. 9.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
No state may pass a law which will, in effect, make an act , which was legal and permissible when committed, punishable as a crime. This includes those laws which increase the penalty of crimes committed prior to their enactment.
Article. XIV. Section. 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[4Travel]

Why not attack a problem they could solve

People who distribute child porn should be prosecuted. I'm just not certain that this law would do that. It seems to open the door to charges being brought against individuals with WiFi access points which someone used unbeknownst to them to send "illegal images." How would most individuals know if someone were using their AP? And how would they monitor what is sent?

Why don't these politicos solve the number one problem on the internet: SPAM!

[zahc]

HATE ME IF YOU WANT

this is an idiot law.



how exactly is making non nude images of children illegal protecting them?

so one is to assume that someone looking at non nude child models, is going to make them go out and harm a child?

so OK. now all of the sudden we have adults looking at adult porn and going out and raping someone. yea OK i'm sure there are a small percentage of sick animals that would do that.

but the bottom line is.you can take away,outlaw what every you like and the harsh reality is, if someone really wants to go after/harm or even kill?? there going to do it regardless of what there viewing on the computer or anywhere else in that matter.

child protection act!!! WHAT A JOKE.
the only way to keep our children safe is for us the parents to keep them safe.

now speaking of parents.
HELLO PEOPLE WAKE UP .
THE PARENTS ARE THE ONES PUTING THERE CHILDREN
ON THESE NON NUDE MODLE SITES!!!

whether you are a pedophile or not? why should they be prosecuted for exploited pic's/videos that there parents are responsible for?

AND PLEASE REMEMBER THESE ARE NON NUDE MODELS WERE TALKING ABOUT.

who Care's if she is in here underwear whoop-tie doo.

is it your child???? are you putting them out there.NO!!!! people need to stop sterotypeing
and chill out. THERE ARE BETTER PEOPLE THAT DO WORSE THINGS....

stop farting around with nn crap. authorities need
to take down the XXX CHILD PORN GARBAGE! they are the children that need to be protected! not non nude models
that is the parents job.(idiots)

moving on.
PEDOPHILES

dose anyone even know what the word means any more? someone hears the word pedophile and there automatically a child/rapist child molester..

THERE GOSE SOCIETY STEROTYPEING AGAIN..
the reason i say this is.jugeing by a few links
that were provided at the beginning of this topic.
there are endless non nude model sites.so if every pedophile on them is a child molester, child rapist ?? then i suggest we don't even take our children to school.IT'S ENDLESS AND THERE ARE A LOT MORE PEOPLE VIEWING THIS THEN WE ARE EVEN AWARE OF.

so OK i went, i seen, i even thought the girls were pretty. you would be lying if you told me you did not think they were attractive one way or another. that's why there models.

dose that make me a ped??? would i let my daughters do that???
three words.
NO NO -N- NO!!!!!

now i apologize if i sound like i'm defending the people that are on these sites.it has to be demand why is there so much of it?
but it seems passing this bill will only cause more chaos.
MEANING PEOPLE ALWAYS WANT WHAT THEY CANT HAVE.

and whether non nude child models are legal or illegal? it will never end there are always loop wholes.(swimsuits)lol
and once again jugging buy all these endless sites.theres just too much money involved for the parents/agencies to even think of stopping.

so non nude models today.
cheerleading
beauty pageants
dance
even pigtails (funny)
all gone tomorrow

so i will report everything starting with those links i seen earlier. if i so much as see a child with a belly shirt on.there getting reported.
and if i see it when i'm out somewhere then there parents are getting reported too.

after all.
us Americans cant have our children wearing belly shirts.
IT'S CHILD PORN.

stay tuned for part two tomorrow.
we will be discussing non nude art and cartoons.
lets do this everyday. NOT!!!!!

[inachu]

Ok so Wifi non commercial use is not on this hook

Class action if they do try to hook wifi use for home under his bill.

[Karl-Lessig]

Lawfully in the looking place

If there is a Wi-Fi connection that is accessable from the street in front of someone's house, why shouldn't the police be able to use that Wi-Fi connection to monitor transmissions over that Wi-Fi connection?

Would you have a different answer if a private individual did the same thing?

Different answer if the person monitored is a registered sex offender?

Different answer if the person monitored is suspected of being a sex offender?

Different answer if the Wi-Fi is unsecured?

Different answer if the law were a state law?

Different answer--and I suspect this is the real source of the panty bunching in EFFland--if the violation is a different federal law? Oh, say...the copyright act?