What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.Sponsored by Best Buy
Meet Antoine: Best Buy Chicago meets Best Buy New York. view!
www.youtube.com/bestbuy - One Chicago employee makes Best Buy’s holiday campaign cut.
97 Comments
- mgarde, on 12/07/2007, -8/+54This is too bad because the original purpose of the SAFE Act was to limit the government's surveillance and better protect our rights, not have the corner coffee shop owner become the newest branch of the NSA.
http://w2.eff.org/patriot/safe_act_analysis.php - Trention, on 12/07/2007, -10/+47This is FUD, and has been debunked:
http://digg.com/tech_news/SAFE_Act_won_t_turn_mom_ ... - bossm4n, on 12/07/2007, -6/+28FTA - "Only two Representatives voted against the bill (and, yes, for his fans, one of them was Ron Paul)" That's going to make a lot of people around here very happy.
On a side note, how is this legislation going to affect plans in place to offer citywide WiFi? - EnjoyFailure, on 12/07/2007, -11/+32Bye-bye, information. I hope you, truth, and freedom are very happy living in a land far far away.
- Error601, on 12/07/2007, -5/+21Repeat and wrong.
- dondara, on 12/07/2007, -7/+22Buried as inaccurate.
- GreatSunJester, on 12/07/2007, -0/+15Quick search of the Washington Post reveals: (formatting does not paste)
Yes No Not Voting
Democratic 223 0 9
Republican 185 3 11
Total 408 3 20
Odd that the only 3 to vote No were republicans. Paul Broun, Jeff Flake, Ron Paul - Spuy767, on 12/07/2007, -1/+14Introduced by Senator Craig? He's probably got a computer full of stuff that would get him arrested.
- BigW, on 12/07/2007, -1/+12Open public WiFi will die, just like the big cellular companies want. They want you forced to use their piss poor internet data services and pay them $30 a month for the privilege.
This bill doesn't protect a single child, unless you consider the cell companies children. Come to think of it, the way they act, maybe they're the children that are actually going to be protected by this bill. - Giblet2, on 12/07/2007, -1/+9"including viewing or transmitting certain obscene drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings"
yeah, paintings.... - inactive, on 12/07/2007, -1/+9Even more odd that the number of comments is about 1/10th than if Congress were held by Republicans. Kind of interesting how this 20% approval rating congress get's ignored by the SF Digg crowd for the most part. But the second a republican does something, its "Impeach Bush & Cheney" macros all over the place.
See how great life is with Democrats in control of congress?? Want more of this with Dems in the presidency and no checks and balances on this lunacy? - SteelFrog, on 12/07/2007, -2/+9I hate politics.
- ctrlfreak13, on 12/07/2007, -0/+7You're referring to a different act on the EFF site, the Security And Freedom Ensured Act (S. 1709) introduced by Sen. Craig (R-ID) and Sen. Durbin (D-IL). This article refers to the Securing Adolescents From Exploitation-Online Act of 2007 (H R 3791) introduced by Rep. Lampson (D-TX).
Damn acronyms. - Spuy767, on 12/07/2007, -0/+6I think that's a different safe act.
- dondara, on 12/07/2007, -2/+8Correct. This is about fines for ISP's that ignore and fail to report violations. ie. User's website w/ pic's of him screwing his poodle.
- cawpin, on 12/07/2007, -2/+8THIS IS INACCURATE. This is from the bill. It specifically prohibits WiFi suppliers from monitoring your use for enforcement.
(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). - SteveMax, on 12/07/2007, -2/+8Hopefully, they will be kept alive in every country besides the US of A.
- wendelgee2, on 12/07/2007, -0/+5Except, the wording in the bill might be so vague that it could be prosecuted counter to its intent. From the other SAFE article on the front page:
"WiFi isn't mentioned in the bill. Neither are coffee shops, libraries, or individuals running access points in their basements. 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." Parse that as you will."
It doesn't matter how WE parse it, it's how a prosecutor parses it. - looselips, on 12/07/2007, -0/+5I suggest people clone the CEO's phones and mac addresses and begin teaching them a lesson, on their own corporate wifi and other public networks.
Maybe once they are falsely accused and they get arrested, they might begin to see how unconstitutional laws can be be used in an unlawful way; hopefully then they will start to lobby just as hard to get it repealed. - Bravecombo, on 12/07/2007, -0/+4........wow...congress is a bunch of vaginas........
- inactive, on 12/07/2007, -11/+15Typical. People can always be counted on to misinterpret legislation. And then post it as many times as possible on Digg.
- Spuy767, on 12/07/2007, -0/+4Perhaps you mean completely? I'm struggling to contemplate what the concept of a remotely different relationship might entail.
- themoosejuice, on 12/07/2007, -0/+4delete all logs every 5 minutes
- Violent, on 12/07/2007, -0/+4Whats to say they won't introduce legislation in the not far away future that DOES require you to maintain logs and report?
"I'm sure your judicial system will find a fair and balanced way to deal with this, as they always have." - What country have you been living in??? - TritonX, on 12/07/2007, -0/+4A decent web hosting hosting program on a decent OS and it should be a breeze not to keep any logs.
- archer75, on 12/07/2007, -1/+5http://digg.com/tech_news/SAFE_Act_won_t_turn_mom_ ...
- jgzman, on 12/07/2007, -0/+4If they would write bills in English instead of *****, it might not be so bad.
- TheSwashbuckler, on 12/07/2007, -3/+7Bush doesn't care about people...
- stressfree, on 12/07/2007, -0/+3Thanks for posting the vote break down by parties. Yet another reason why I am voting for Dr. No!
- Spuy767, on 12/07/2007, -1/+4Wel, I mean, if you paint a picture of a guy ***** a mongoose, and then digitize it.
- tman84, on 12/07/2007, -0/+3its shocking that there are only 3 true Republicans left in the party. Neocons have invaded the Republican party, they want more Gestapo like tactics, they have gotten just as control happy as the Democrats.
- dcorey07, on 12/07/2007, -3/+6this is entirely inaccurate... read the actually bill before digging some bs
- turpenine, on 12/07/2007, -1/+4his poodle's underage daughter more so
- TritonX, on 12/07/2007, -2/+5From what I understand of it, as long as you don't keep and look at the logs and don't spy on anyone there is nothing they can do against you. The law seems to imply that you need to be aware of these illegal activities, so if you open your wifi and don't bother checking what's going in and out of your network, how can they accuse you if you aren't aware of it. My question is, how are they going to define if you knew about it or not? I'm sure your judicial system will find a fair and balanced way to deal with this, as they always have.
- BHSPitMonkey, on 12/07/2007, -0/+3It hurts to bury an xkcd, but you're just so damn irrelevant.
- inactive, on 12/07/2007, -0/+2the bill is purposely extremely vague
they can apply it to wifi easily
and im sure people will be arrested for it - Datawalke, on 12/07/2007, -0/+2"The Government will now be opening all of your incoming mail as well. Screening everything from your medical bills to birthday cards."
Now, I believe everything possible should be done to protect children and keep child molesters and perverts away. However, I see this along with The Internet "Freedom" and Preservation Act as the government blatantly regulating the internet.
The Internet is the one last place on this earth where you are still free. You can build, create, search for new things under only your control. It's a place that is community driven. These acts placed forth by old farts in Washington are their scared attempts at controlling what they do not understand. - phoomp, on 12/07/2007, -0/+2not for long ...
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/12/07/canadians-tom ...
Our government seems intent on following in the footsteps of the American government. - UnstableMind, on 12/07/2007, -0/+2Cause all ISP's have the resources and manpower to do that.
Note, there are more ISP's that are strapped for cash (municipalities, small cable companies, etc...) than the comcasts and at&t's. This legislation might as ***** well say, we'll monitor the backbone (Bell / AT&T, the ISP for the ISP's) for pRon and if we think it's bad, we'll report you to the nanny government for thought crimes.
/You make me sick - djm101, on 12/07/2007, -0/+2They should really just give these acts numbers, it's completely unfair to call an act "the Patriot Act" for example. It provides an unnecessary bias; especially in the case of less educated people who automatically assume anyone who doesn't support such a thing is unpatriotic. This of course can be translated to the SAFE act, what politician is going to turn down an act that is portrayed as protective to children?
- Darkone253, on 12/07/2007, -0/+2Inaccurate. GG posting biased and distorted articles.
- mal1964, on 12/07/2007, -1/+3If he was president and the votes are the sane. what will get done?
- alexanEmpire, on 12/07/2007, -2/+4Amen to that, brother. Manipulating a population that is relucant to read anything is a godsend to those who are trying to control it.
- mrsteveman1, on 12/07/2007, -2/+4http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071206-safe ...
It won't. - annonimality, on 12/07/2007, -1/+2"Nothing in this section shall be construed to require" - It doesn't prohibit, it just doesn't require.
- annonimality, on 12/07/2007, -0/+1He could veto the bill. At this point it's only passed through the House.
- inactive, on 12/07/2007, -0/+1Tman84 says "Its the States, which also means that you will have more choice and more rights over where to live. If you don't like the laws in California, move to New Mexico"
This is what I thought made 1967 Europe great and the UN/EU killed all that.Now it suks like the USA. - SiNN4R, on 12/07/2007, -0/+1It's not the end it's just the begining.
- emazee, on 12/07/2007, -0/+1The best thing to do is to start turning in all the politicians for illegal acts over the community wifi, complete with special prosecutors.
That will get the law changed really quickly. - tman84, on 12/07/2007, -1/+2please get your facts straight. Libertarianism is about self ownership, everyone has rights. Ron Paul is Pro Life, but under his ideals, its not the federal government's duty to regulate this. Its the States, which also means that you will have more choice and more rights over where to live. If you don't like the laws in California, move to New Mexico
-
Show 51 - 97 of 97 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is