arstechnica.com— Despite hyperbole to the contrary, the SAFE Act that passed the House yesterday won't force local coffee shops, libraries, and home users to monitor their network connections for child porn.
Dec 7, 2007View in Crawl 4
"I believe one could argue that the ISP is the key entity providing the service to the public..."The coffee shop's customers are by definition the end users, since they are at the end of chain (Internet -> ISP -> Coffee Shop -> End User). The coffee shop is providing the service to the public, as they are the ones providing the WiFi signal."Also a longshot would be that their WiFi router at their location is providing the service not the owner."What utter bulls**t. Did the WiFi router walk itself out of the store and into the coffee shop, hook itself up to their Internet connection, and put up signs announcing its presence? Property cannot be put on trial, and property owners are responsible for the consequences of the use of their property.
If this bill is just to ensure that ISPs report CP (without the monitoring of traffic), then why does it call for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children to send CP pics (or "unique identifiers associated with a specific image") to ISPs? Is that, "Just in case to happen to run across something that looks like this...?" Give me a break. This is like sending banks serial numbers of counterfeit bills and telling them, "you don't have to scan the bills that come through, but if you fail to catch any counterfeits, there will be a big fine."
You might think that. But the Supreme Court ruled that all commerce is interstate. <a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn</a>"Filburn argued that since the excess wheat he produced was intended solely for home consumption it could not be regulated through the interstate commerce clause. The Supreme Court rejected this argument reasoning that if Filburn had not used home-grown wheat, he would have had to buy wheat on the open market. This effect on interstate commerce, the Court reasoned, may not be substantial from the actions of Filburn alone but through the cumulative actions of thousands of other farmers just like Filburn its effect would certainly become substantial. Therefore Congress could regulate wholly intrastate, non-commercial activity if such activity, viewed in the aggregate, would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, even if the individual effects are trivial."
the specific actions are made in a state. If I look at kiddie porn in Vermont, why can't I be charged with Vermont's law on kiddie porn? Is it that complicated?As for the FBI having control over kiddie porn, the legal backing behind that is not the best in my mind(but then most federal laws aren't).
indecision1Dec 7, 2007
"I believe one could argue that the ISP is the key entity providing the service to the public..."The coffee shop's customers are by definition the end users, since they are at the end of chain (Internet -> ISP -> Coffee Shop -> End User). The coffee shop is providing the service to the public, as they are the ones providing the WiFi signal."Also a longshot would be that their WiFi router at their location is providing the service not the owner."What utter bulls**t. Did the WiFi router walk itself out of the store and into the coffee shop, hook itself up to their Internet connection, and put up signs announcing its presence? Property cannot be put on trial, and property owners are responsible for the consequences of the use of their property.
kwashiorkorDec 7, 2007
If this bill is just to ensure that ISPs report CP (without the monitoring of traffic), then why does it call for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children to send CP pics (or "unique identifiers associated with a specific image") to ISPs? Is that, "Just in case to happen to run across something that looks like this...?" Give me a break. This is like sending banks serial numbers of counterfeit bills and telling them, "you don't have to scan the bills that come through, but if you fail to catch any counterfeits, there will be a big fine."
wiseweaselDec 7, 2007
The internet reaches beyond national borders as well... Perhaps you feel the UN should be enforcing this?
scheissenDec 7, 2007
f**k that. The children are in a public space, they can't be protected from the real world.
scheissenDec 7, 2007
Buried as inaccurate. Screw this bill.
Closed AccountDec 8, 2007
You might think that. But the Supreme Court ruled that all commerce is interstate. <a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn</a>"Filburn argued that since the excess wheat he produced was intended solely for home consumption it could not be regulated through the interstate commerce clause. The Supreme Court rejected this argument reasoning that if Filburn had not used home-grown wheat, he would have had to buy wheat on the open market. This effect on interstate commerce, the Court reasoned, may not be substantial from the actions of Filburn alone but through the cumulative actions of thousands of other farmers just like Filburn its effect would certainly become substantial. Therefore Congress could regulate wholly intrastate, non-commercial activity if such activity, viewed in the aggregate, would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, even if the individual effects are trivial."
capicrimmDec 8, 2007
the specific actions are made in a state. If I look at kiddie porn in Vermont, why can't I be charged with Vermont's law on kiddie porn? Is it that complicated?As for the FBI having control over kiddie porn, the legal backing behind that is not the best in my mind(but then most federal laws aren't).