What is Digg?98 Comments
- BigW, on 12/07/2007, -1/+58I am really, really uncomfortable with laws that _depend_ on this much interpretation of vague statements.
This article says nothing to prove that the government won't go after coffee shops and other public wifi establishments.
Overzealous enforcement of this law could certainly do exactly that. - EntropyFan, on 12/07/2007, -10/+58It just amazes me how much Digg behaves like the people it seems to hate.
I saw several posts on this earlier, and almost without exception the comments railed against the 'massive invasion of privacy' or how everyone would be testifying against their neighbors.
And they say GW makes ***** up.... - linzichan, on 12/07/2007, -3/+29No, I'm pretty sure he's just against the SAFE Act...
- The_Wallbanger, on 12/07/2007, -4/+30Does this mean there's still a possibility I could enjoy streaming "2 Girls 1 Cup" while sipping latte at my nearest Starbucks?
- capiCrimm, on 12/07/2007, -0/+19political corruption laws for one.
- jasonharrier, on 12/07/2007, -3/+21This was contributed in the discussion by "ah-ok." As an attorney myself I couldn't have said it much better so I will copy it here:
"Parse that as you will"?
I am an attorney. Your legal advice is not quite up to par.
I am sure that the prosecutor and the judge will think it's really cute that you have your own "parsing" of the law, but it won't get you out of trouble.
Let's see an actual interpretation...
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."
First of all, everything is interstate commerce, so you can ignore that part (they have to give it lip service because the Supreme Court said to in 1995, but that is about it).
So we're left with anyone "engaged in providing an electronic communication service...to the public..."
Does your local coffee shop provide an electronic communication service to the public? That clearly encompasses wifi.
And what did you rely on to write an article to the contrary? You asked the bill's sponsor! As though the legal system offers any such recourse.
This is an atrocious piece of journalism. You should go up for the unauthorized practice of law. Then you should face legal malpractice damages for every small business owner that reads your article and believes it. Horrible. - Error601, on 12/07/2007, -1/+18Okay...point out the vague parts. Have you read it?
(1) IN GENERAL- Whoever, while 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, obtains actual knowledge of any facts or circumstances described in paragraph (2) shall, as soon as reasonably possible--(details on how to report)"
(f) Protection of Privacy- Nothing in this section shall be construed to require an electronic communication service provider or a remote computing service provider to--
`(1) monitor any user, subscriber, or customer of that provider;
`(2) monitor the content of any communication of any person described in paragraph (1); or
`(3) affirmatively seek facts or circumstances described in subsection (a)(2). - falstaff, on 12/07/2007, -1/+12Digg users flew off the handle when they made assumptions about something they didn't completely understand? NO WAY!
- codesuidae, on 12/07/2007, -0/+9Only if it's a mocha latte.
- inactive, on 12/07/2007, -1/+10There's that goddamn interstate commerce clause again.
- therealkdog, on 12/07/2007, -4/+12And how many people will be harassed for watching perfectly legal porn?
- GreyICE, on 12/07/2007, -0/+8I support child abuse... but only if you're the one being abused.
- Biks, on 12/07/2007, -0/+7What I want to know is if the IDEA of child porn is illegal..or just shots of exploited children? If someone renders a kiddie shot in 3D and gets off on it, is that bad? (but no kids were exploited) Same goes for drugs - if you could modulated your brain to give you a high, (but it would stop with no side effects once you turned off the machine) is that bad?
- platypibri, on 12/07/2007, -1/+7What is this, Slashdot?
- Error601, on 12/07/2007, -2/+8You can't quote half a sentence.
- insertAliasHere, on 12/07/2007, -0/+6Good point.
- blazerin05, on 12/07/2007, -0/+6Unfortunately, the bill also includes a sweepingly vague section on "obscene cartoons". If you can pick apart the legal wording I encourage everyone to simply read the bill.
- BrandonMills, on 12/07/2007, -0/+6Or how they scream about the media being biased, when it's clear and obvious that pretty much all Digg posts are highly biased towards whatever the fans 'want' to be news. At Digg, it's not about what is news, it's more about fanboi desires and finding that random blog post that makes their delusion a reality.
- pegisys, on 12/07/2007, -0/+6They do that because if they make the it look like something terrible then they can praise Ron Paul for not voting for it.
- rhkaloge, on 12/07/2007, -0/+5Article is completely wrong. It has been show over and over that Congress' intentions are not what judges take into account, instead telling Congress to fix the law if they don't like how the judge interpreted it. Early on everyone will use the law as the article suggests, until they need it to get some evidence on a pedophiles. Then a local prosecutor with corporate backers will go after people reading *****.com. Finally, federal prosecutors will go after people reading website that "promote dissent".
I'm not even a Ron Pauler, and I see where this is going. - fredcamino, on 12/07/2007, -0/+5This is the product of the "To Catch A Predator" mindset. While it doesn't require internet providers to actively monitor users, it encourages monitoring and vigilantism by making neglect to monitor a punishable crime. Throughout the bill the words "apparent child pornography" are used, implying that virtually anything could be child pornography and thus reason to file a report (with as much private information about the user as possible) in order to avoid stiff fines due to "willful failure to report". In an age where barely legal Harden Panettiere is the number one pin-up and nude pictures of barely legal Vanessa Anne Hudgens circulate every gossip site on the internet, not the mention the prevalence of scantily clad girls willfully posting pictures of themselves on MySpace and Facebook, the amount of fodder for "apparent child pornography" is staggering. Are you willing to accept a $150,000 fine by NOT reporting that dude looking at his sister's spring break photos on Flickr? Can't hurt, might as well give all his personal information to the Feds so they can label him a potential predator. And of course, this also encourages private citizens to set up vigilante sting operations a' la "To Catch A Predator" because it obliges them to. A "witch hunt" can be set up with great ease, and the law is on your side.
- cavergeek, on 12/07/2007, -5/+10Woot! Second comment to first post!
- capiCrimm, on 12/07/2007, -2/+7Perhaps it should be A. left to the states, and B not be urgent *fear* legislation. It's not as if we haven't seen 16 and 17 year olds be labeled sex offenders by shoddy, quick laws. This stuff isn't helping those problems
Theres a difference between making a good law on child pornography and passing *any* law on child pornography. That's something Congress doesn't seem to grasp. - MWeather, on 12/07/2007, -0/+5You can't change that sentence fragment's meaning based on context either.
- kylemory, on 12/07/2007, -0/+5the short-sightedness of this article is frustrating.. even if the bill was made with the best of intentions, it still does not mean that future politicos will not interpret this in a way as to further repress the masses.
just look at how corporate lawyers used the 14th amendment (which was written to ensure freed slaves their freedom) to further their cause and create the system of corporate power currently in place. - blorc, on 12/07/2007, -0/+4I'm quite certain Ron Paul voted against it because it's clear that the Federal Government isn't the entity that should be issuing such a law (assuming such a law should even exist), and that it could certainly be interpreted to include some of the groups we were worried about yesterday. This is evident in the fact that they included the Commerce Clause within the provisions. When you stick the Commerece Clause into any bill, it more or less gives the Federal Government free reign to make whatever law they want. It's pretty much a loophole in the Constitution.
I'll give you an example: in Florida, a man won a case (United States v. Lopez) regarding a law we have that forbids anyone from possessing a firearm within 1000 feet of a school (except a concealed weapon w/ CHL), and that portion of the law was overturned. He won because when the law was passed, Congress did not include any language identifying the law as necessary to curb an act that "substantially affects interstate or foreign commerce." The judge saw this, and overturned the law.
Of course, Congress wasn't dissuaded and they simply re-passed the law with new language including the Commerce Clause. Now we're back to square one in Florida. If I don't have a concealed permit and I get caught with a gun (w/o CHL on public property) 999.9 feet away from a school, I can be arrested for a felony.
The same thing applies here. They had to include that clause the way they did, otherwise it would be unconstitutional for them to legislate such a law. And it really doesn't matter anyway if it doesn't apply to home networks or local coffee shops. If you're part of a chain it will matter to you as an owner. It will also matter to you if you're the hapless schmuck who is on that network and somehow comes across child pr0n on it, because you're now required by law to report it, regardless of whether or not you want to get involved, under threat of penalty under the law.
I think people hit the nail on the head yesterday. I think most people would likely report it if they saw it. Why make a law that's unnecessary if that's the case? And even if it wasn't the case, why do we need the government to tell us how to behave the right way? That sounds more like a parenting issue and overall issue with society/culture today more than anything. Legislation is not going to fix that. Education will fix it. If this had been something regarding terrorism rather than child pornography, there would be no question that every single person here would be up in arms as we were yesterday. The unconstitutionality is the same regardless of what the ultimate intent is. - TLAKABM, on 12/07/2007, -1/+5Sensationalism grabs readers (or viewers), regardless of who's doing it.
That said, I think people appreciate unbiased and level stories far more (hence this story making the front page). They just have to stop being so reactionary. - wentwj, on 12/07/2007, -0/+4well if the ars forums are doing it
- cjays1, on 12/07/2007, -1/+5You should get a job a Fox News.
- Kwashiorkor, on 12/07/2007, -0/+4If 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." - Scheissen, on 12/07/2007, -1/+5***** that. The children are in a public space, they can't be protected from the real world.
- TritonX, on 12/07/2007, -0/+4Your point is very interesting and will be obviously a problem in the future. 3D imaging is becoming more powerful everyday and drawing/modeling tools are easier to use, making it accessible to almost everyone that cares about it. 3D porn already exist and will probably progress to the point where we can't tell the difference between CG and real life. So could and should you be prosecuted for possessing or creating scenes that would be considered illegal and very morally wrong in the real world. I really don't think so, because it's the first step of having a thought police and I believe that any form of censorship is harming creativity. Their failure to approve everything we see and do could force the police to really go for the root of the problem, those that creates the real ***** in the first place. So will someone ever go to jail for abuses of digital content creation, probably.
- inactive, on 12/07/2007, -5/+9P.S. Buried!
- blackmage439, on 12/07/2007, -0/+4I behaved the same way, because the evidence that early posters presented us with pointed to a clear invasion of privacy. Thanks to Ars Technica, this has been cleared up somewhat. Unfortunately, the law is fairly ambiguous, broad, and vague. I'll now reserve judgment until experts fully understand this law.
I would still like to know why Ron Paul voted against the bill, especially one with such amazingly high acceptance. Then again, he is "Dr. No"...
And Dear Digg,
Stop putting double spaces in my comments. Thanks! - wentwj, on 12/07/2007, -0/+4Wait, so what does this change then? Are you telling me that starbucks previously COULND'T turn you in if you were trafficing kiddie porn or doing something else illegal using their wifi?
- WiseWeasel, on 12/07/2007, -0/+3The internet reaches beyond national borders as well... Perhaps you feel the UN should be enforcing this?
- sonicdevo, on 12/07/2007, -1/+4I believe the point is that existing legislation does just fine for finding and prosecuting child pornographers. It's not necessary to give up to the federal government any more of our rights to combat this evil. Sexual abuse of children is a sick thing. But we need to display some common sense as a society, both in combating it, and in not overreacting to the personal choices of sexually mature human beings.
I know that this doesn't relate directly to this legislation, but it pisses me off that I, as a 25 year old male, can be labeled a sex offender (and all the horror that comes with that) for simply taking a leak outside. - Caspercreep, on 12/07/2007, -2/+5Maybe I don't wanna be SAFE government!
- Nidy1, on 12/07/2007, -4/+7You shouldn't be watching your porn in a public place where children might be anyway.
- sotopheavy, on 12/07/2007, -2/+5Lawyers are already saying ARS is wrong on this one. I hope not.
- Atomic1fire, on 12/08/2007, -0/+3Perhaps we should just create a interweb commission
- hockey, on 12/07/2007, -0/+3Yes but Digg users claim to be smarter than the average joe and they also claim not to be so easily taken in.
This isn't the case anymore. - twojciac, on 12/07/2007, -0/+3If it indeed is a law with no teeth, why on earth should we be happy about our legislature spending time on such laws if they're only to inflate their record against obscene crime? We should be outraged either way.
- inactive, on 12/07/2007, -1/+4wut
- ringthief, on 12/07/2007, -1/+4It is only illegal when real children are exploited.
Drawing of a child: Legal
3d model of a child: Legal
Kid's section of a catalog: Legal (they are real, but they aren't being exploited)
Disclaimer: Just because something is legal doesn't mean a cop won't arrest you for it.
The article I got that info from was about people being in jail for years before being found innocent for the above. That serves as a precedent so it would not be as hard to prove innocence now. - billmccartney, on 12/07/2007, -2/+4This article is piece of junk journalism... Read the comments in ars... Many attorneys have basically said the author is an idiot...
His ONLY reference is some staffer of a congressman who is sponsering the bill - NOT THE BILL ITSELF..
BURIED AS INACCURATE. You decide for yourself!! - WiseWeasel, on 12/07/2007, -0/+2Yeah, sorry, that was my bad... I bet the NEXT one will be the end of the world as we know it, though... : P
- UnstableMind, on 12/07/2007, -0/+2So, my interpretation of this is part (f) and its sub-sections cancel the whole ***** thing out. If you're not monitoring a "user", "subscriber", or "customer", what the ***** are you monitoring and who is doing the monitoring? Because the smaller ISP's won't be able to do this. Thoughts?
- blazerin05, on 12/07/2007, -0/+2No, Ron Paul supports the strictest interpretations of the constitution, and he opposes bills like this that threaten to impede on the first amendment.
-
Show 51 - 97 of 97 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