What is Digg?139 Comments
- nedders, on 12/06/2007, -7/+55this is when our forefathers would have overthrown congress at gunpoint, but nowadays, you'll be fined $300,000 for reading what I just wrote (evil terrorist that I am).
- Error601, on 12/06/2007, -10/+51Of course if you actually read the bill instead of blindly believing the dumbed down and usually partially wrong media version:
* Only applies to Interstate or International services
* You must knowingly and willingly not report violations
* The bill specific says it cannot be used to require any kind of monitoring of your network.
Basically...it's meant to go after companies that knowingly sell access to foreign child porn sites. Essentially being part of the illegal activity and profiting from it but claiming to be an uninvolved third party. - ivandir, on 12/06/2007, -6/+46I call this stupid law unconstitutional and idiots the ones who signed it. Are the house of representatives out of their minds?
What about the mesh networks? This law limits my freedom as a consumer to use a free WiFi hot spot. - kushed, on 12/06/2007, -2/+38We all know child porn is ***** illegal (as it should be), how the content is delivered is irrelevant. This is just stupid.
- id10tjoeuser, on 12/06/2007, -10/+40guess who voted this down? Ron Paul, and some other rep. Besides, are there not already laws for ISPs to look and report kiddie porn and terrorism? And why the sudden secrecy in pushing this through. Time to call our Senators again and tell them to keep their dirty hands off the internet. Freedom now.
- Ceeman, on 12/06/2007, -1/+25Cartoons? Cartoons hurt who? Well my eyes if its anime but still who is the victim ?
- latrosicarius, on 12/07/2007, -1/+25Who gave the federal government the authority to control the internet? Seriously. Name the constitutional amendment.
They have no legal right to meddle in the affairs of people or businesses unless expressly permitted by the constitution. - SwedishNinja, on 12/06/2007, -2/+25Damn, now I can't share my massive collection of cartoon porn on my network without registering with some child protective service? What is this *****?!
- jrgd, on 12/06/2007, -3/+25it's a very strange law - how are they going to control ad-hoc networks and mini ephemerous connection? i would be interrested in knowing more about those controls - a shame the article doesn't report much about...
"who learns" is effectively a bit short :) does everybody with an open wifi knows about ethereal?
on the other hand and more seriously it means more control from ISP and has certainly much to do with net neutrality - no? - A11YND, on 12/06/2007, -4/+24So, its now illegal to go to 4Chan in a mall?
- Renton, on 12/06/2007, -1/+20There goes Japan's economy
- bbqsalad, on 12/07/2007, -2/+21George Bush wants your hentai !!
- GalacticXenu, on 12/07/2007, -0/+18Note that Paul voted against it, but Kuchinich did not.
- Genrre, on 12/06/2007, -1/+19Every day, the government's noose on the internet gets a little tighter.
- rootfiend, on 12/07/2007, -1/+18guess who voted this up? Dennis Kucinich: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/member ...
RP was one of only two to vote against this crap: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/ho ... - everslim101, on 12/07/2007, -0/+17Two words... OLD PEOPLE. Old people who don't know anything about the internet, that is.
And remember, the internet is a series of tubes. - gudnbluts, on 12/06/2007, -1/+18"Cartoons hurt who?"
As far as I can see, it's usually the cat. Occasionally the duck. - orxor, on 12/07/2007, -1/+17How much will i get fined for digging what you wrote?
- lateralus, on 12/07/2007, -0/+12Ron Paul voted against this.
- kuwan, on 12/07/2007, -0/+12I must say that I don't wet myself like the rest of the digg population at the mention of Ron Paul but I've gained a bit of respect for him in his vote against this bill. Not only is this bill unenforceable, it puts undue and extreme burden on anyone - individual, small business or any ISP - that might try to actually comply with it. The only thing that surprises me is that only he and one other person voted against it. I know the government's screwed up, but I'd figure there'd be at least more than 2 reasonable people left in Congress. Oh well.
- Nanobe, on 12/06/2007, -2/+13Anime lolis have feelings too.
- mrxenon15999, on 12/06/2007, -6/+17Here's a crazy liberal idea - if you want to go after companies that sell access to child porn sites, why not use the existing laws instead of creating new laws so vague that we have to argue about what they really mean?
- diffraction, on 12/07/2007, -0/+10Liberty is Brewing on December 16th!
http://TeaParty07.com - gorndog, on 12/06/2007, -1/+10Hey, Congress, RTFB (Read The Freaking Bill!)
http://www.downsizedc.org/read_the_laws.shtml - Thuktun, on 12/06/2007, -4/+13It's another iteration of the same movement that produced the CDA, COPA, and other things that flirt with First Amendment violations in the name of child protection. I'm not sure if there are any studies to support the efficacy of these, but they keep popping up anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decenc ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Online_Protecti ... - flaterates, on 12/07/2007, -0/+9Your idiot government at work.
- GhostFreeman, on 12/07/2007, -0/+9Damnit Dems, I voted you in to stop Bush, not tell me what to do with MY wifi.
- rootfiend, on 12/07/2007, -3/+11For those wondering how Kucinich voted: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/member ...
(he was in favor)
RP ftw! - asforme, on 12/07/2007, -0/+8Just a guess, but I'm willing to bet that he voted it down because there is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to do so. Sadly, he seems to be the ONLY politician who understands how that works.
- pacman122, on 12/06/2007, -2/+10Now the people have to police themselves? Don't we have police for that?
- BuzzFriendly, on 12/07/2007, -0/+8My country, my freedom and my rights need Ron Paul.
- inactive, on 12/07/2007, -0/+8Not a single democrat voted against it.
- theholyraptor, on 04/07/2008, -0/+8child pornography != cartoons as ruled by the Supreme Court (in 2005 I believe) which means that this law directly contradicts a recent constitutional ruling, not just our original rights.
- rockmanac, on 12/07/2007, -0/+7"[citation needed]"
I did a quick bit of searching.
About all I can find even remotely dealing with that is "Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition" from 2002 which says that "Congress cannot regulate virtual child pornography because it does not require the use of actual children".
Quoted Source: http://docket.medill.northwestern.edu/archives/000 ...
Full Text of Ruling: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Spe ...
There is, however a case, United States v. Williams dealing with the PROTECT act that has yet to be heard by the court. Not entirely sure what all the case is about, however, as I can't find much about it.
-A - beathermit, on 12/07/2007, -0/+7what if your wep key is your ssid?
- kedohmen, on 12/07/2007, -1/+8Customer: "Do you mind not standing over my shoulder?"
Starbucks Employee: "Sir, I have to monitor your web browsing....it's the law" - inactive, on 12/07/2007, -0/+6Someone help me out here, what's the law about obscene cartoons? Why would cartoons be questionable?
- MadN, on 12/06/2007, -2/+8You just need to share it with Congress.....
Send them Goatse links too! - D3koy, on 12/06/2007, -1/+7Does this also apply to Household Wifi? Will my neighbor now have to put up a WPA key? (Not that I'm trafficking kiddie porn, I just get better reception from them than from my own...)
- inactive, on 12/07/2007, -0/+6Kucinich is a Socialist, even if he is honest.
The people supporting him are the idiots who think that America can have its cake and eat it too, with both personal responsibility and soul-sucking corporatocracy.
Newsflash, it ain't possible. Time to eat yer greens. - asforme, on 12/07/2007, -0/+6Yes, and Ron Paul is the only politician with the balls enough to acknowledge that fighting child porn is not the federal government's responsibility.
- gudnbluts, on 12/06/2007, -2/+7I bet you have. You probably didn't know it. It's not always easy to judge age.
- Tomson74, on 12/07/2007, -0/+5see? doesn't matter if its Democrats or Republicans, THEY ALL SUCK.
- phaed, on 12/07/2007, -0/+5At the end of the day you can create an ssh tunnel from a remote box to your laptop then send/receive encrypted data through the wifi's internet (port 80) without anyone being the wiser. So this law means nothing.
- Rom102, on 12/07/2007, -1/+5It's quite easy (scary) to see how they'll control it. They'll simply file felony charges against ANYONE they deem to be worth it and either FORCE them to comply through FEAR or IMPRISON them for a RIDICULOUS charge. Much like they do with much of the 'Net'.
- burke, on 12/07/2007, -0/+4And therefore it's legal. Oh wait. That's the problem.
- Ceeman, on 12/07/2007, -1/+5So cyber privacy is different than privacy in your bed room how?
- MikeFallopian, on 12/07/2007, -0/+4Another unenforceable feel-good bill, yawn. Congress should be focused on more important issues.
- mal1964, on 12/06/2007, -2/+6Ive watched, downloaded , and search for porn many times over the years and not once have I come across child porn. So I wont worry to much about it.
- inactive, on 12/06/2007, -1/+5I wonder how they'd feel about a refund or discount.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 139 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is