[LibWhacker]

Make sure your wireless home networks are properly configured -- or go to jail!

[Jeff Chandler]

LOL! I don’t think this applies to folks having their bandwidth stolen.

[Mr. Jeeves]

Congress has once again conclusively demonstrated how out of touch it is with reality. Emigration has to be seriously considered.

Kudos to Ron Paul for paying attention. This one is even dumber than Sarbanes-Oxley and the Internet gambling ban.

[KarlInOhio]

There is no way for any company to do this without hiring someone to look at every single image being downloaded. Do you know of any AI which could take every image and determine "kiddie porn" or "not kiddie porn"? Toss on top of that if the user encrypts the transmissions from his computer to some proxy site, so that the local router will only have access to IP addresses of the proxy site and not to anything being transmitted.

Exploitation of children is wrong, but this law is unenforceable except by shutting down all public (or even semi-private) networks.

[gondramB]

>>Make sure your wireless home networks are properly configured — or go to jail!<<

I do that.

But this sounds like it might kill open Wifi.

[Don Corleone]

They are going after the 1st Amendment anyway they can.

[Red_Devil 232]

I have a wireless home network. If someone somehow were to pick up the signal and use it to send or download something from the internet how could I possibly know and how in the world would I be able to capture that data?

[BlueStateBlues]

A weird vote from a weird Congress. Keep your hands off my internet content Pelosi.

[DBrow]

I’m not so sure that home wireless or other stolen wireless is not included. If they catch someone transmitting “illegal images” like “obscene cartoons” and find that the felon was using your wireless (and your IP address) you think they’ll leave you alone? Especially if your defense is that you just got the thing out of the box and plugged it in without clicking up the security functions.

This is not about “saving teens”, imo, this is about regulating net communications content.

[billmor]

“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.”

This is pure BS !..a Last desperate act by a useless good for nothing dimRAT congress to pass anything so they can say they had a successful year...No one read this bill, it was never read in Commission even !..then suddenly it is on the HOuse floor and passes overwhelmingly. Talk about taking away people’s freedoms..Yes it clamps down on the worst porn but it also takes a huge bite out of personal freedom and is a set up by the dimRATS to probe even more into people’s personal lives...They will say that if you oppose this you are one of ‘those’ !...Sorry, not one of those and will not be duped....

[TomGuy]

I don’t see how this would pass the first court test.

It would require the wi-fi providers to become policemen and scrutinize every bit that passes through the wi-fi connection.

[DBrow]

H. R. 3791, go to http://thomas.loc.gov and get a copy.

[KarlInOhio]

and certain obscene visual depictions including a "drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting." (Yes, that covers the subset of anime called hentai).

Or painting? Yikes. Here on FR in a thread discussing the new Christmas stamp someone posted Leonardo di Vinci's painting of Madonna and Child with a Carnation instead of Luini's The Madonna of the Carnation (which was used on this year's stamp). Leonardo's painting had Jesus naked. Yep, right here on FR "Divine Child Porn".

Imagine the ISP or local Wi-Fi provider of every single Freeper viewing that thread having to examine that painting and determine "Child porn or legitimate artwork".

[MaxMax]

Looks like the libraries that have WiFI will be in big trouble.

Damn Rats are undermining American freedom one step at a time.
And they don't want wire tapping "my a$$"..

[JerseyHighlander]

This has already been knocked down by the Supreme Court once in the last decade. This is the reason why John McCain can never be President of this country, he honestly believes every single person on the internet is a prime suspect for child pornography charges, as per his own comments in years past. The challenge had to reach the Supreme Court to be overruled. Internet Censorship: Global (Cont'd)

US Senate Committee Approves Internet Censorship Bills, 12 Mar 98

The Senate Commerce Committee approved two Internet censorship bills on 12 March 1998. Senator McCain's bill, "Internet School Filtering Act" - S. 1619, require schools and libraries receiving federal "e-rate" Internet subsidies to certify that they are using filtering software designed to prevent minors from accessing "inappropriate" material. Senator Coats' bill, S. 1482 would criminalize "commercial" material that is "harmful to minors" on the Internet.

See the Internet Free Expression Alliance site for information on the bills.

Statement on the Senate Commerce Committee's Approval of Coats and McCain Internet Censorship Bills, Electronic Frontier Foundation President Barry Steinhardt, 12 Mar 98

"The Coats bill, which in the name of protecting children, will effectively block adults from receiving a wide variety of legitimate material that falls under a vague category of "harmful to minors", has all of the same constitutional defects as the earlier Communications Decency Act (CDA). Like the CDA, it cannot withstand a review in the courts.
The Mc Cain bill would force libraries and schools, which receive Federal Universal Service monies for Internet connections, to use all too frequently crude and overbroad filters that also block out a wide array of non-"indecent" speech. Children and adults alike will be denied the full potential of the Internet as the true marketplace of diverse ideas. It will deprive library patrons, students and speakers of the their First Amendment rights. "

Spawn of CDA: New Internet Censorship Bills Slither Through Senate, ACLU Press Release, 12 Mar 98

"When the Court struck down the CDA, we anticipated that members of Congress would renew their attempts at Internet censorship," Nojeim said. "But no matter how many bills are spawned from this ill-fated and unconstitutional legislation, the ACLU stands ready to stamp them out."

As at late 1997, Net censorship proposals were also focussed on industry "self regulation" and rating and labelling of content. For further information see The Debate: Government Coercion and Privatised Censorship.

[BROKEN LINK] CDA Struck Down!, Declan McCullagh, Netly News, 26 Jun 97

"The U.S. Supreme Court, in a landmark decision that firmly establishes unbridled free speech in cyberspace, struck down the Communications Decency Act. In a 40-page majority opinion handed down this morning, the Justices determined that the act is unconstitutional. The court also resoundingly rejected the argument that broadcast standards should apply to the Internet..."

[BROKEN LINK] Supreme Court rejects CDA, Courtney Macavinta, 26 Jun 97

CNN report on Court decision, 26 Jun 97

[BROKEN LINK] The Supreme Court Rules, Jeff Pundyk, editor-in-chief, TechWeb, 27 Jun 97

"Let me tell you what's really cool about the Supreme Court's knocking down the Communications Decency Act as unconstitutional: They get it. The Supreme Court, those oldsters with their black robes, stern faces, dusty chambers and hallowed halls get it."

For coverage of the CDA ruling and its aftermath, see TechWire's Special Report.

Supreme Court decision:

http://archive.aclu.org/court/renovacludec.html
http://www2.epic.org/cda/cda_decision.html
http://www.ciec.org/SC_appeal/decision.shtml
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-511.ZS.html

"In Sable...we remarked that the speech restriction at issue there amounted to " 'burn[ing] the house to roast the pig.' " The CDA, casting a far darker shadow over free speech, threatens to torch a large segment of the Internet community."

"The record demonstrates that the growth of the Internet has been and continues to be phenomenal. As a matter of constitutional tradition, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we presume that governmental regulation of the content of speech is more likely to interfere with the free exchange of ideas than to encourage it. The interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship."

Transcript of Reno v. ACLU Oral Arguments

On March 19th, 1997 at 10:00 am, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a legal battle over the constitutionality of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), a law which imposes broadcast-style content regulations on the Internet. The Court decision was handed down on 26 June 1997.

Communications Decency Act (CDA) ruled unconstitutional, 12 June 96

"Just as the strength of the internet is chaos, so the strength of our liberty depends upon the chaos and cacaphony of the unfettered speech the First Amendment protects."
In a victory for everyone who uses computer communications, a Philadelphia federal court has struck down the CDA which would have criminalised constitutionally protected speech on the Internet and other online forums.

• Highlights and Analysis of the decision prepared by EPIC
• ACLU Press Release, 12 Jun 96
• [BROKEN LINK] Implications for Australia of the CDA decision in USA, Philip Argy

Legal Challenge to Internet Censorship, EPIC

In the opening round of the court challenge to the CDA by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), and several other plaintiffs, the judge has issued a temporary restraining order against one of the portions of the Act (Feb 96). Information on the lawsuit is available.

[BROKEN LINK] Net-Friendly Legislators Announce [US] Congressional Internet Caucus, Mar 96

A bi-partisan group of members of both the U.S. House and Senate on Thursday 29 Mar 96 announced the formation of the Congressional Internet Caucus. The group will work to educate members of Congress about how the Internet works, bring more members of Congress online, and encourage the use of the Net to facilitate better communication between members of Congress and their constituents.

On Repealing The Communications Decency Act, Senator Leahy's Floor Statement, 9 Feb 96

"Should we not say that the parents ought to make this decision, not us in the Congress? We should put some responsibility back on families, on parents. They have the software available that they can determine what their children are looking at. That is what we should do. Banning indecent material from the Internet is like using a meat cleaver to deal with the problems better addressed with a scalpel."

[BROKEN LINK] National Day of Protest against Net Censorship, 12 Dec 95, USA, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)

"Communications Decency" legislation would criminalize users and system operators for Constitutionally-protected speech. Full analysis of Internet censorship bill passed by US Senate, text of bill, info on other bills by Feinstein, Dole, etc and links to statements, editorials, commentaries, etc.

[BROKEN LINK] EFF's Analysis of the Communications Decency Act

EFF's Internet Censorship Legislation Archive

[wildbill]

Would you offer free wifi service under these draconian penalties and rules? How are they going to monitor this and keep logs and copies?

I suspect you can say goodbye to working on the internet for free at your local coffee shop or restaurant.

My guess is that Pelosi and company got a large donation from somewhere.

[sourcery]

I predict that those who enjoy child pornography will now start their own ISPs, and conform fully to the SAFE act, thus obtaining safe harbor for “retaining” child porn.

[engrpat]

We take our RV out several times a year for 3 to 4 week trips and try to stay at campgrounds that offer wifi, either open (free) or pay to use which I assume is secure. If I read this right many campgrounds that offer free (open)wifi to their customers will no longer be able to do so. Am I reading this right?

[Pinkbell]

This seems pretty unenforceable. It says “learns”, so businesses who provide these connections could just say they didn’t “learn” of it. If they do somehow catch a person looking at child porn, then they’ll have to report it.