engadget.com — Only 2 it turns out (Rep. Paul Broun from Georgia and Rep. presidential candidate, Ron Paul) with 409 members voting yesterday in favor. The new bill requires everyone (that includes you and Starbucks) offering an open WiFi connection to the public to be on the lookout for "illegal images" and "obscene" cartoons and drawings which you must report.
Dec 6, 2007 View in Crawl 4
tech42erDec 7, 2007
Two things: 1. I assume the first part of your post was sarcasm. 2. We can't relax the definition of obscenity any more. I don't think it's rhetorically possible! :)
i70cudaDec 7, 2007
Finally someone who thinks logically
ghostsawakeDec 7, 2007
Seriously though Are they going to just start scanning everyones computer for what they deem to obscene??? And then the third party involved ie coffee shops are granted access to the contents of your computer? Sounds like an invasion of privacy to me?
xdccDec 7, 2007
Ron Paul wants to end all wars, not just the ones in foreign countries.
realunderdogDec 7, 2007
WOW
josephacoteDec 7, 2007
People will be angry at Ron Paul for this action, many people will criticize him, but he's just being logical: 1. This is a ridiculous and unenforceable law. 2. If the government starts passing all these laws that regulate the Internet, then where did the freedom of information go? 3. kiddie porn and other things of that nature are terrible, I agree, but it's not the fault of the owner of a wifi hotspot if someone is going somewhere they shouldn't be. It's not their job to regulate their user's Internet habits, nor should it be their responsibility. 4. who is right to say what we can and can not post onto the Internet, and who is to say what we can or can not look at that has been posted? 2 girls one cup is ridiculous and disgusting, but should it be illegal to post or view such videos? Did we not get entertainment from said video? Kiddie porn is a whole other issue, but this bill doesn't target that, it targets the hotspot providers. The senators and representatives these days need to recognize the implications of implementing bills like this because it directly effects our future freedom on the Internet, which was one of our last known freedoms in this "land of the free."
leesoongDec 9, 2007
Completely unconstitutional. That is like asking the Cell Phone companies to block obscene speech in all the conversations transmitted over the phone. Carriers ARE NOT responsible for Content. TV stations may be responsible for their content, but the Company that makes their transmission tower is not responsible for the content broadcast by the equipment.Shifting the costs and the burdens of law enforcement onto private corporations - is directly unconstitutional, like housing soldiers in your basement without compensation.Private corporations are supposed to pick up the costs of doing policing for the federal government? More and more profits $$$$ down the drain in the name of bureaucracy. Why does the government insist on damaging the very businesses that it needs, making the USA even more non-competitive with foreign corporations?Any time you hear government talk about 'Child whatever' replace that word with:Presbyterians."We must stop the Presbyterians by taking away this or that."It's all a B.S. smokescreen to attack the civil rights of everyone, first the most despised group, then later they can expand the law with the cop-out precident:''Well, we are already doing this to catch Presbyterians, so It will be good to use against Jews too.'Fascists in the USA, say they want to help children, wrap themselves in the flag, and carry a cross... all leading to a police state with concentration camps and public mass executions.