tag:,2008:/1/tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.3371- 2008-05-09T18:08:15Z Comments for US Congress: Wifi Providers Must Report Dirty Pictures to Government Movable Type 4.1 tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.3371 2007-12-06T17:03:36Z 2007-12-16T23:08:34Z US Congress: Wifi Providers Must Report Dirty Pictures to Government digg_url = 'http://digg.com/arts_culture/Congress_Wifi_Providers_Must_Report_Dirty_Pics_to_Govt_NSFW'; digg_bgcolor = '#ffffff'; digg_skin = 'compact'; Here's a sticky situation. The US House of Representatives voted yesterday to approve the `Securing Adolescents From Exploitation-Online (SAFE) Act of 2007.' The resolution requires "electronic communication and remote computing service providers" to report and forward any obscene images related to children to the government.... Marshall Kirkpatrick http://www.readwriteweb.com Here's a sticky situation. The US House of Representatives voted yesterday to approve the `Securing Adolescents From Exploitation-Online (SAFE) Act of 2007.' The resolution requires "electronic communication and remote computing service providers" to report and forward any obscene images related to children to the government. In addition to providers of public wifi, that could include social networks and email providers. The Resolution will now face a vote by the Senate.

News.com's DC beat blogger Dean McCullagh summarizes the content at issue thusly: "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.'" I'll leave commentary about American Apparel ads to other people. I can't help but think there could be some teenagers snared by this for posting sexy pictures of themselves and friends to MySpace and Facebook if the resolution becomes law.

Point being, obscenity is a subjective matter, age is difficult to prove and this is a mess waiting to happen. Sexual exploitation of children is one of the most clearly wrong things that happens in this world, and drawing cartoons of children in sexualized situations is a possible red flag of actual behavior - but I'm not sure this is an appropriate way to deal with the situation.

]]> At least some states in the US already require people in certain occupations to be "mandatory reporters" of suspected child abuse. Those people are usually school counselors, doctors and similar professionals. Adding the poorly paid teenage baristas at Starbucks to that list seems like a bad idea. To be fair, Starbucks can probably afford the huge fine for noncompliance far better than the local independent coffee shop can. Small businesses might stop offering public wifi if they fear how they will be held responsible for what's done on it.

The Resolution says explicitly that nothing in its text should be interpreted as requiring pro-active policing of user behavior. That's hardly reassuring, though.

The resolution was passed yesterday in the House by a huge margin of 409 to 2. The only Republican to vote against it was the only Presidential candidate imaginable who would vote alone against a bill purporting to protect children on the internet - Ron Paul.

Thanks to the good folks at PodcastingNews, where I read about this first. I expect it will be more widely discussed today.

]]> tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.3371-comment:27784 Comment from David B. on 2007-12-06 David B. http://www.daveberube.com/blog Bills like this pass by a huge margin usually NOT because they're good bills, but because those against the bill will be labeled as 'Pro Molester' or some other ridiculous tag.

]]> 2007-12-06T17:14:34Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.3371-comment:27785 Comment from Diana Moneymaker on 2007-12-06 Diana Moneymaker http://www.chapter322.biz/forex-investing When a VAST majority of old farts vote for something like this then you know there are issues with the government.

This is just getting their foot in the door for monitoring online use.

-Diana

]]> 2007-12-06T23:50:38Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.3371-comment:27786 Comment from Mike Trotzke on 2007-12-07 Mike Trotzke http://mike.trotzke.com Correction:

Ron Paul was not the only republican to vote against SAFE. I know Paul Broun, Republican from GA voted against it.

What is of note is that absolutely 0 Democrats voted for it.

]]> 2007-12-07T16:15:18Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.3371-comment:27787 Comment from Mike Trotzke on 2007-12-07 Mike Trotzke http://mike.trotzke.com Correction to my correction....
Meant to say:

What is of note is that absolutely 0 Democrats voted against it.

I need more coffee.

]]> 2007-12-07T16:21:41Z tag:72.47.210.69,2007://1.3371-comment:27788 Comment from David Mackey on 2007-12-07 David Mackey http://www.informednetworker.com/ Hmmm...Interesting. Not sure what I think of this legislation. I am all for anything that helps prevent child exploitation, I'm just wondering how enforcable this law would be. Perhaps we would better focus on pursuing the criminals who create this material?

]]> 2007-12-08T02:21:35Z