I had not heard of this before today, has anyone else?
Does anyone think this will impact the wifi downtown?

http://techdirt.com/articles/20071206/023423.shtml

Congress Rushes Through Law To Protect The Children... And Make Open WiFi A
Huge Liability from the *congress-folks-at-work* dept

Congress was apparently busy on Wednesday moving forward with incredibly bad
laws that are designed to look good to certain constituents, but are highly
questionable in real terms. We already discussed the new PRO IP
bill<http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071206/020013.shtml>,
but the House also rushed through approval of the SAFE
Act<http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9829759-38.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20>,
which is one of those ridiculous bills that everyone feels compelled to vote
for to "protect the
children."<http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070123/083503.shtml>Only
two Representatives voted against the bill (and, yes, for his fans,
one
of them was Ron Paul). As Declan McCullough's report makes clear, the
backers of this bill rushed it through Congress for no clear reason. They
used a procedural trick normally reserved for non-controversial laws -- and
made significant changes from an earlier version, never making the new
version available for public review prior to the vote.

So what's so awful about the law? Well, like most "protect the children"
legislation, it goes way overboard in terms of what people are expected to
do, and like most legislation having to do with technology, seems utterly
clueless about how technology works. The bill would require anyone providing
an "electronic communication service" or a "remote computing service" to
record and report information any time they "learn" that their network was
used for certain broadly defined illegal activities concerning obscene
images. That's double trouble, as both the illegal activities and the
classification of who counts as a service provider are so broadly defined.
McCullough notes that anyone providing an open WiFi network, a social
network, a domain registry or even a webmail service probably qualify under
the law. Glenn Fleishman describes what the law could
mean<http://wifinetnews.com/archives/008075.html>in practice, points
out that anyone who runs an open WiFi network for the
public is now basically required to snitch on anyone they think may be doing
anything deemed "illegal" in this act, including viewing or transmitting
certain obscene drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings. As Fleishman
notes, it "sounds like viewing an Abercrombie and Fitch catalog could
qualify." Even worse, part of the snitching is that beyond sending a report
*and* the images to the gov't, you're supposed to retain the "illegal" image
yourself -- which would seem to open you up to charges of possession as well
if you somehow screw up (if you follow everything exactly to the letter of
the law, you are granted immunity).

If you don't snitch on anyone suspected of viewing or transmitting these
images, then you, as the network "operator" are suddenly liable for huge
fines. Honestly, the liability is so big that anyone offering WiFi is
probably better off no longer doing so. This is one of those laws that
politicians love to pass, because they think it makes them look like they're
protecting children -- when all they're really doing is creating a huge and
unnecessary headache for all kinds of service providers, from open WiFi
operators to social networking sites to webmail offerings. But, of course,
it moves forward -- with no public scrutiny and no discussion -- because
almost no politician wants to allow a politician to accuse him or her of
voting "against" protecting the children.

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"CHAOS706.ORG" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/chaos706?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to