House Outlaws Free Wi-Fi Connections
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Bad Decisions, Law, TechnologyThat’s not technically correct, but it might as well be.
The U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday overwhelmingly approved a bill saying that anyone offering an open Wi-Fi connection to the public must report illegal images including “obscene” cartoons and drawings–or face fines of up to $300,000.That broad definition would cover individuals, coffee shops, libraries, hotels, and even some government agencies that provide Wi-Fi. It also sweeps in social-networking sites, domain name registrars, Internet service providers, and e-mail service providers such as Hotmail and Gmail, and it may require that the complete contents of the user’s account be retained for subsequent police inspection.
Here’s the reason…
Allen said the legislation–called the Securing Adolescents From Exploitation-Online Act, or SAFE Act–will “ensure better reporting, investigation, and prosecution of those who use the Internet to distribute images of illegal child pornography.”
First off, this seems pretty much unenforceable, but I’m sure the federal government will find a way. They always do, regardless of what rights they’re violating. Second, and most importantly, what business is going to want to offer free Wi-Fi if they could get fined by the government for $300,000 because some criminal used their connection for illegal activities? Answer: none. Goodbye free Wi-Fi. It was nice knowing you.
This is just bad law. No two ways about it. You don’t punish the millions for the sins of the few.
By the way, this passed 409 to 2, and Ron Paul voted against it. Good for him.
This entry was posted on Thursday, December 6th, 2007 and is filed under Bad Decisions, Law, Technology. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
December 6th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
Well, that just proves Ron Paul supports child pornography.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
What’s next? Punishing camera manufacturers because their products are used by pornographers? Fining sketchpad and photo paper makers because their products can be used to produce pornographic images? Ron Paul was right when he said the majority of his colleagues don’t even READ the legislation before they vote on it. This proposed law is so broadly applicable and vague that it is either unenforceable, unconstitutional or both.
Of course, that won’t stop the fun-governing fascists from TRYING to enforce it! After all, this type of law is rarely used for the purpose it is supposedly intended for. Instead, it will be used to stifle free speech, the free flow of information and the opposition to a government that tries to bind and gag it’s citizens at seemingly every turn!
This type of legislation used to be (and still is, officially) under the domain of the ‘tinfoil-hat, lunatic-fringe conspiracy nut’ file of the media. But it’s funny how much of what the so-called ‘fringe’ has been warning us about is actually coming to fruition! I guess calling it a ‘Conspiracy’ doesn’t necessarily mean it isn’t really happening…
xtrabiggg
++++++++++++++++
December 6th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
Just baffles me how many of our rights are being stripped of us for the sake of such trifling matters. The internet is the last truely free place we can exchange ideas and it is under attack by our regulating-happy ‘representatives’ in Washington.
“A well-instructed people alone can be permanently a free people”
-James Madison
December 6th, 2007 at 11:48 pm
I think google should throw up wifi for everyone and charge $1 per month.
December 7th, 2007 at 12:04 am
what upsets me is the problem here isn’t the child porn thing as much as it’s the protectionist bandwith companies that are threatened via free wi-fi. I haven’t even looked at the backers of this bill but I bet there were some tech\comm lobbyist’s behind it. This is sickening and I’m going to write my congressman to let him know what an idiot he is for voting for this bill!
That’s it America! Keep allowing our rights to be stripped away from us! Keep letting the government regulate us to death. While you are at it, don’t vote for Ron Paul. I mean, he only wants to restore our rights and liberties! Who cares right?
I think it’s time I run for congress and join Ron Paul on his votes! Anyone else with me?
December 7th, 2007 at 12:40 am
Ars Technica already debunked this one. It’s not true. The law explicitly says no additional monitoring is required of the people and businesses it applies to. They’re only required to report an incident if they happen to see one, and it ups the penalties for knowingly and willfully failing to report child pornography on their networks. If you’re not monitoring the network, and you don’t see any crimes being committed, you don’t have to report anything. Also, the spokesperson for the bills author said they didn’t believe that the bill was meant to apply to operators of WiFi access points. It certainly doesn’t mention them explicitly.
So open WiFi is still safe.
Also, the Flash crap at the bottom of the page still sucks, it’s still kicking my computer’s butt, and if it’s not removed, I’m going to be very sad. That or else I might just edit my hosts file to point their IP address somewhere else. Poor man’s blocking software. I’m really tired of seeing the spinning beach ball of death every time I visit the site.
December 7th, 2007 at 7:23 am
Check out another view on this article at Arstechnica. Not to be rude, but I think they may have a better grasp on the technical aspects of the bill
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071206-safe-act-wont-turn-mom-and-pop-shops-into-wifi-cops.html
December 7th, 2007 at 9:01 am
Van – They really don’t:
No parsing needed, the bill directs to 18 USC 2711 to defind “remote computing service” to the public.. It is define as:
Rep. Lampson may need someone to tell him or confirm to him that the sky is blue, but the rest of humanity does not and this legislation does threaten my local coffee shop and honestly I believe it is a violation of the 1st amendment’s restriction on “prior restraint.”
Go Ron Paul! And thanks for the story Justin.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:06 am
I agree that “remote computing service can, and probably will be considered wi-fi access, however, the bill clearly states:
“Nothing in this section shall be construed to require an electronic communication service provider or a remote computing service provider to—
“(1)
“monitor any user, subscriber, or customer of that provider;
“(2)
“monitor the content of any communication of any person described in paragraph (1); or
“(3)
“affirmatively seek facts or circumstances described in subsection (a)(2).”
In its entirety, this bill is designed to protect children that are victims of child pornography, and to prosecute people who trade in such filth, with one exception. In 18 USC Sec. 1466A it mentions
“(a) In General. – Any person who, in a circumstance described in
subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or
possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any
kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that -
(1)(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
and
(B) is obscene; or
(2)(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor
engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or
sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-
genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or
opposite sex; and
(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific
value;
Yes, “is obscene”. It’s obvious that the intent of this bill is not to restrict your right to view pornographic cartoons if thats your wish. It is intended to better protect against child pornography. Getting hysterical about one line in the bill regarding obscene cartoons is pointless.
And if Ron Paul opposed it, I would like to hear his solution to internet distribution of Child Pornography.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:00 am
Isn’t it funny how Donkelephant and other liberal sites are reporting that Ron Paul was one of the two “No” votes on this legislation, but there’s not a single mention of the fact that the other “No” vote was cast by Republican Congressman Paul Broun of Georgia.
It’s a sign that the GOP is open to libertarian views, and much more supportive of free speech than the Democrats. The free speech issue has come full circle.
Yet, it’s an embarrassment for liberals to mention this. So, they drop Ron Paul’s name, cause everyone knows, he’s not really a Republican. But they say nothing about Broun.
Eric Dondero, CEO
http://www.mainstreamlibertarian.com
December 7th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Frankly, I am just astonished at the reaction to this.
xtrabiggg
“Ron Paul was right when he said the majority of his colleagues don’t even READ the legislation before they vote on it.”
Did anybody else here actually read the bill before they started commenting?
I can’t imagine how you could read it and start whining about your supposed loss of free speech and wifi access, when it is CLEARLY targeting child pornography. I am not about to suggest that any of you are worried about losing your right to view illicit images of children, so what exactly ARE you crying about? READ THE BILL YOURSELF. Get back to me when you do. Be sure to read the specific sections it mentions. Which ALL relate to child pornography.
And then the bill itself goes on to mention that the ISPs providing access are not expected to monitor usage themselves, simply report it if seen.
And I am asking again, in all honesty and with no sarcasm, what does Ronny suggest instead? What is his plan to deal with this type of problem, that the constitution clearly is not equipped to handle? He doesn’t approve of this? Fine. I can’t imagine that he or any of you value your right to free speech so far as to consider child pornography under its umbrella.
So whats the plan, guys?
December 7th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Eric,
In the words of Foghorn Leghorn “Son, I say Son….. Go away, you bother me boy!”
I have to laugh at you Eric….I didn’t realize that Donklephant was a liberal website. What is even funnier, it that yes, Paul Broun, the newly elected representative from Georgia describes himself as a Ron Paul Republican, Not libertarian leaning.
I applaud Rep. Broun for casting a no vote against this legislation and he should be applauded, but trying to horn in proves just how out of touch you are.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Eric,
Paul Broun isn’t running for President. The end.
As far as the legislation goes, you KNOW it’s going to be interpreted as broadly as possible. And personally, I don’t trust the government to make the right decisions regarding civil liberties post 9/11.
And yes, I read it, and it doesn’t come anywhere close to solving the problem of the exploitation of children. It only puts innocent citizens on the hook for reporting something that may or may not be seen as obscene done by somebody else. Again, would those citizens rather shut down their free wi-fi instead of having to deal with the Feds coming knocking at their door? Yes, I think they would.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Broun was described many times in his race for Congress as “libertarian leaning,” and as a “libertarian conservative.”
Plus, he was supported by the Republican Liberty Caucus.
Now, Tex, go back to you’re ranch there boy, and go do what ever it is you do with them cows out back.
December 9th, 2007 at 7:29 am
Wow. Broun, too, huh? Besides Ron Paul, that’s like…
One…
.
.
.
.
.
.
whole…
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Republican.
[clap]……………… [clap]……………………………………….
………………………………………………[clap.]
Good job, man.
You guys deserve all the credit…
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com