SAFE Act, WiFi and sextoons
p2pnet news | Politics:- Anyone offering open Wi-Fi to the public will be forced by law to report illegal images including “obscene” cartoons and drawings, or face fines of up to $300,000.
That’s what CNET News‘ Declan McCullagh says.
Sextoons? Yup. And there are plenty of them. And games.
It’s all down to the Securing Adolescents From Exploitation-Online (SAFE) Act, “overwhelmingly” approved by the US House of Representatives yesterday.
Targeted are coffee shops, libraries, hotels, “and even some government agencies that provide Wi-Fi,” says the story, and, “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.”
The vote, “caught Internet companies by surprise,” says the story, going on:
The Democratic leadership, “rushed the SAFE Act to the floor under a procedure that’s supposed to be reserved for noncontroversial legislation. It was introduced October 10, but has never received even one hearing or committee vote. In addition, the legislation approved this week has changed substantially since the earlier version and was not available for public review.
Says CNET, under SAFE Act:
Anyone providing an “electronic communication service” or “remote computing service” to the public who learns about the transmission or storage of information about certain illegal activities or an illegal image must (a) register their name, mailing address, phone number, and fax number with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children’s “CyberTipline” and (b) “make a report” to the CyberTipline that (c) must include any information about the person or Internet address behind the suspect activity and (d) the illegal images themselves. (By the way, “electronic communications service” and “remote computing service” providers already have some reporting requirements under existing law too.)
The definition of which images qualify as illegal is expansive. It includes obvious child pornography, meaning photographs and videos of children being molested. But it also includes photographs of fully clothed minors in overly “lascivious” poses, and certain obscene visual depictions including a “drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting.” (Yes, that covers the subset of anime called hentai).
Someone providing a Wi-Fi connection probably won’t have to worry about the SAFE Act’s additional requirement of retaining all the suspect’s personal files if the illegal images are “commingled or interspersed” with other data. But that retention requirement does concern Internet service providers, which would be in a position to comply. So would e-mail service providers, including both Web-based ones and companies that offer POP or IMAP services.
“Can you imagine the size of the firehose they are going to open on themselves?” – posts Rob in a Wired story on the same subject.
Lets for fun sake stream a copy of our internet cache to their reporting site. Maybe I think the internet is completely obscene. 5000 people could completely obscure the results for years.”
‘Parse that as you will’
But, “WiFi isn’t mentioned in the bill,” posts Nate Anderson on Ars Technica, going on:
“Neither are coffee shops, libraries, or individuals running access points in their basements.
“The bill’s provisions apply to anyone ‘engaged in providing an electronic communication service or a remote computing service to the public through a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce.’ Parse that as you will.
“I contacted the office of Rep. Nick Lampson (D-TX), who introduced the bill, to see whether he understood it to cover hundreds of thousands of Americans and small businesses who offer WiFi. A spokesperson told me that, in his view, that broad interpretation was incorrect, but he had to check in with policy staffers before confirming it. We did not hear back by press time.
“Whatever the bill applies to, though, the law is quite clear that those who offer Internet access don’t have to do any additional monitoring. There are no ‘restrictions’ on their services. The bill updates an already-existing notifcation requirement and stiffens the penalties, but only for those presented with clear evidence of child porn who make a ‘knowing and willful failure’ to report it.”
Also See:
CNET News – House vote on illegal images sweeps in Wi-Fi, Web sites, December 5, 2007
Wired – House Bans Cartoon Porn? $300,000 Fines For “Obscene” Artwork, December 6, 2007
Ars Technica – SAFE Act won’t turn mom-and-pop shops into WiFi cops, December 6, 2007
Want to help p2pnet stay online? Please click here.
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
December 7th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Define obscene drawing and explain how my right to free expression isn’t violated and I won’t have a problem with it. Hey, if these are public records we could even find out which ISP’s are monitoring our connections.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
It’s funny. You google Safe act and get something the EFF supports but is completely different than the bill above. Coincidence in the naming? I think not.
Does this providing “electronic communication service” fall under ISP’s and are they obligated to report any “illegal” (omg marge is fucking homer!) material? I r not understand.
December 8th, 2007 at 3:49 am
Its the usual GOP double-speak and loose definitions, in order to justify ANYTHING as a “violation”. Only this time its coming from the DINOs in congress….and unfortunately Pelosi is the biggest of them.
My mother e-mailed me pictures of the family’s Hawaii holiday this fall, including pics of my little sisters at the beach…does THAT count? “Lascivious” means any action or presentation that could be considered sexually enticing or nonsexually stimulating, in some fashion, to some people. By THAT definition pictures of my mother’s CAR are “lascivious”! There is a fucking fetish for EVERYTHING, so EVERYTHING qualifies.
Just ONE reason for another revolution come 2008 (oops! I just committed a thought-crime! showing dissatisfaction with the US government). Make that TWO reasons.
Wise up you legislative reprobates: come 2008 there will be NONE of you left in power, AND THE PROSECUTIONS WILL BEGIN. Your ONLY chance to stay on THIS side of the steel bars is to start acting more like DECENT HUMAN BEINGS, and less like FASCIST NEOCON MEGALOMANIACS! No amount of election fraud is going to help since WE ARE ALL PAYING ATTENTION, and you will get no protection since now THE MILITARY HATES YOU MORE THAN WE DO!
Its hilarious, come January 2009 I am going to kick back with a big bowl of popcorn and wait to see what happens }:)
December 8th, 2007 at 10:54 am
Could this ultimately make us more secure online? I.E. most ISPs aren’t going to want to risk having the government come down on them, so perhaps they will limit what they log even further. I think its a stupid bill, and perhaps I’m missing something obvious, but is it possible that this might make things even more difficult for the government?
Aaron
December 9th, 2007 at 10:19 am
Im so sorry for your loss of freedom, may you regain it after the Bush era..
While i agree everyone and anyone should be forced to report CP and stuff like that, cartoons or drawings in all their flavors is a whole other deal..
Agree with Bill Of Insomnia aswell.
December 18th, 2007 at 7:51 am
The theoretical protection of children (always being used as a fucking crowbar for anything that shouldn’t exist) should not trump freedom of speech and press.
That’s what this bill does: it says you have to tell mama (the government) if anything bad might happen because of some form of speech existing, even if the chances are so slim as to be laughable.
People exercise daily their right to not report a “crime” to the government if it’s not hurting any unconsenting adults. Take marijuana users that meet up and pass around a bong, for example; they’re committing a “crime” but they choose not to report each other, and THAT IS A RIGHT. Same for the guy who looks at “sextoons” and pulls on a meat popsicle for ten minutes in his locked room and other people in the house know about it: they don’t have to tell the government that the guy might be viewing “obscene” material if they don’t want to, as long as he’s not harming anyone.
I’d have to agree that this law is two things: (1) political posturing that exploits children as a prop to gain votes and (2) a way to bring more power to the federal government, and remove it from the states or the people.
The reason it will fail? Because the PEOPLE grant the power to the government, and the PEOPLE have the power to take it away.