Republican congressman Lamar Smith from Texas, introduced a bill, which he dubbed the Safety Act, to the US House of Representatives. If it goes through, the bill would require ISPs to record all users' surfing activity, IM conversations and email traffic and would impose fines and a prison term of one year on ISPs which failed to keep full records. As well, owners of sexually explicit websites would be forced to include warning labels on their web pages, or face jail. Finally, a 20-year "jail tariff" would be standard for anyone ordering child pornography that crosses state borders, with a $150,000 fine for the ISP that allowed the transaction to take place.
"A crime is still a crime, whether it occurs on the street or on the internet. In this age of increasing digital and technological sophistication, cyber-crimes and cyber-terrorism pose a serious threat to the US. Law enforcement and the private sector must be prepared to deal with these crimes," said Congressman Smith.
News source: vnunet.com
"A crime is still a crime, whether it occurs on the street or on the internet. In this age of increasing digital and technological sophistication, cyber-crimes and cyber-terrorism pose a serious threat to the US. Law enforcement and the private sector must be prepared to deal with these crimes," said Congressman Smith.
News source: vnunet.com
But can't they go about fighting it a different way, instead of imposing on the normal internet users?
Monitoring private conversations, surfing habbits, and email? That is rediculous! It's like... hm, it sounds kind of like a certain president we all know and love monitoring our calls without permission or warrant.
What I am wondering is when a bill is going to be proposed/passed that forces unlike articles to be forced on to a new bill. While they may argue it would cause them to get less done because their work load would increase, I say it would actually be the opposite. It would force transparency and prevent bill that need to be passed because they cant agree on some mundane article that is attached to the bill thus preventing it from being passed.
Speak for yourself. Child pornography is art. If you don't like it, just don't look at it.
Speak for yourself. Child pornography is art. If you don't like it, just don't look at it.
What the hell?
Speak for yourself. Child pornography is art. If you don't like it, just don't look at it.
:-/. lol thats like the first time i have ever, in like my whole life seen someone post that, ever
:-/
Speak for yourself. Child pornography is art. If you don't like it, just don't look at it.
You know, when the ruling government decides that to do something (e.g. stop child porn), they must monitor everything you say to anybody else online.
Speak for yourself. Child pornography is art. If you don't like it, just don't look at it.
Holy Macaroni!
What the...
man, the members of Neowin must be always like high on crack
Speak for yourself. Child pornography is art. If you don't like it, just don't look at it.
I'm actually speechless. Just... no.
Even if you're joking... no.
Speak for yourself. Child pornography is art. If you don't like it, just don't look at it.
After reading this... I need some motivation.
Much better now.
Speak for yourself. Child pornography is art. If you don't like it, just don't look at it.
Now, THAT'S a TROLL!
Speak for yourself. Child pornography is art. If you don't like it, just don't look at it.
Oh.My.****ing.God
Speak for yourself. Child pornography is art. If you don't like it, just don't look at it.
I know I'm entering this topic late, but after reading this comment by DeeJay2 I just had to say something...
W...T...F...?!?!?!?!?! You mean to sit there at your ****ing computer and tell me that you think that the naked photography and SEXUAL EXPLOITATION and ABUSE of CHILDREN is ART?!?!?!?!?!
May you pray to GOD that I NEVER, EVER find you in real life,
BECAUSE I WILL PERSONALLY AND WITH PLEASURE BEAT THE MOTHER ****ING DAYLIGHTS OUT OF YOUR SORRY PERVERTED AND SICK MIND!!!
Child pornography legislation is going nuts. I cannot wait to see "bulldozing of Yellowstone National park in place for a parking lot" that has a rider of "anti-child pornography" attached to it and goes through. A bit extreme, but you get the gist.
Politicians are going crazy with it in order to get whatever they want, and are using it to manipulate votes out of people. It makes sense, everyone with a sane mind is against child pornography, and if you're not against it you look like a pedophile yourself so it's easy to abhor the people who would actually protest something like this. Well, this blatant abuse of it to destroy our civil liberties is just reprehensible.
Child pornography needs to be combated, but at what price are we willing to pay? Are we willing to tear the constitution to pieces over it like this guy wants?
Speak for yourself. Child pornography is art. If you don't like it, just don't look at it.
Thing is, art (beauty) is in the eye of the beholder. People who think child porn is "art" are "pre-verts" and should be shot and/or castrated upon proof (a 20 cent bullet is much cheaper than a medical procedure though).
Now I'm all for helping protect "the children," but this part of the proposed bill is kind of redundant:
As well, owners of sexually explicit websites would be forced to include warning labels on their web pages, or face jail.
Every pr0n site I've visited (either intentionally or unintentionally) has had warning labels about being over a certain age to view the material. I haven't seen any popups lately as I keep clean systems, but perhaps some spyware is presenting nude photos with the warning label, but if there aren't, then this is where the proverbial slippery slope comes in I'd think.
How exactly is an ISP expected to stop a transaction like this?
Don't elected officials have at least some sort of requirement to fully understand the particular areas they're trying to legislate?
You made me lol irl.
Quite the opposite, actually.
In Texas, you have to take an IQ test to run for public office: if your IQ is higher than 75, you're not allowed to run. And if your score is higher than 60, you're not allowed to propose legislation if you win!
I wish they'd stop making propositions like this.
It would really suck if any of them passed.
Dems do this sort of junk too, you just don't see it on the headlines.
As for me, I doubt anyone would support it and it's really just a one-guy supporter. If he had a large following of people, then it might be something. This is just pure political bias at work in the media.
From a filtered standpoint I'd say it (the bill) sounds pretty bad, and it won't pass. Like I said though, he doesn't have support AND the actual bill may be a little different than what this article states (read the raw data, it always has better information than reporters can give).
Dems do this sort of junk too, you just don't see it on the headlines.
As for me, I doubt anyone would support it and it's really just a one-guy supporter. If he had a large following of people, then it might be something. This is just pure political bias at work in the media.
From a filtered standpoint I'd say it (the bill) sounds pretty bad, and it won't pass. Like I said though, he doesn't have support AND the actual bill may be a little different than what this article states (read the raw data, it always has better information than reporters can give).
Dems do this sort of junk too, you just don't see it on the headlines.
So, then how do you know the "Dems" do it also? Maybe you're just sensitive.
Dems do this sort of junk too, you just don't see it on the headlines.
That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard.
Dems do this sort of junk too, you just don't see it on the headlines.
That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard.
Dems do this sort of junk too, you just don't see it on the headlines.
That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard.
ok prove it!!! prove democrats have done something like this.
Dems do this sort of junk too, you just don't see it on the headlines.
That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard.
Agree. While the democrats aren't totally innocent, they're not that bloody retarded to do this sort of crap.
Dems do this sort of junk too, you just don't see it on the headlines.
That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard.
ok prove it!!! prove democrats have done something like this.
Please do your research before you make statements like this. This isn't a Republican vs Democrat issue. One of the biggest supporters of this kind of thing is a Democrat.
http://www.house.gov/list/press/co01_deget...ploitation.html
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6068339.html?tag=nl
It's fun to look at the top 20 campaign financiers for this idiot:
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/con...p?CID=N00001811
It's a direct violation of our right to privacy.
They'll just have to find more elite ways of dealing with child pornographers instead of just using that one excuse to spy on everyone.
Show me where this "right to privacy" is codified. If it were actually law, this BS about the President's warrantless wiretaps wouldn't have dragged on half as long as it has.
Your phone company keeps records of your phone calls, so does your cell phone company, are they violating any laws? Give me a break. This "it violates my rights" crap that liberals spew is getting old.
They keep a record of who you called and how long the call was, they don't record the conversation... This bill seemingly wants ISPs to store all data their users download...
Show me where this "right to privacy" is codified. If it were actually law, this BS about the President's warrantless wiretaps wouldn't have dragged on half as long as it has.
IIRC it's either in the bill of rights or the constitution which your government tramples over. I'm not too familiar with US law. But in either case I AM more familiar with the NSA case(s) than your messed up legislations.
The reason the suits are taking so long is not because there is no guarantee of privacy in your law, it is because of a legal technicality that the government counsel argues. They claim that due to the States Secret Privilege any action against them is unable to proceed as to prove their illegal activities the plaintiff must disclose state secrets, and also that they are unable to defend the state without revealing state secrets.
You can read about the ACLU vs. NSA case's decision and also listen to the audio recording of the argument in the sixth circuit court urging them to uphold the lower court's decision. But of course, it'll be confusing as hell for someone who isnt even aware of his basic rights.
more information on the case at the ACLU's website
Note also that the EFF is taking action against AT&T for its part in the illegal wiretapping.
Your phone company keeps records of your phone calls, so does your cell phone company, are they violating any laws? Give me a break. This "it violates my rights" crap that liberals spew is getting old.
Well, for one thing, "123-555-1212 to 123-555-1313, 8:40 PM to 9:20 PM on 1/2/07" doesn't tell any stories as to WHAT information was discussed in the call. Anything from "Is this the Peking Palace", to "Your son is in the same class as my son, can he pick up his homework?", to "Let's do evilness." all look the same
A server log saying "GET /path/path?options" gives you a lot more insight as to what information was transferred.
That leads to a lot more potential for "fishing" the logs for criminal behaviours.
Furthermore, there are capacity issues.
If you look at a log of a site with hundreds of thousands of hits per day, you're talking about gigabytes upon gigabytes of logs which must be preserved-- not for any business purpose, but only for compliance with the law-- at the ISP's expense.
It also produces a terrible signal-to-noise ratio in most cases. Even from a legitimate law-enforcement stand point, it would be a lot more efficient to ask the ISP to start monitoring traffic from client X, rather than trying to sort through an all-inclusive log of the last 10 years to see what client X was doing afterwards.
but this smells like 1984 to me.
I get nervous even trying to talk about anything innocent on the internet anymore. Word it wrong you could have the FBI, CIA or the NSA at your door. You could say something like:
"Yeah man I was setting off fireworks last night and I was totally bombed and accidently caught this bush on fire"
They'd be at your door within an hour
Yes, I'm paranoid. It's hard not to be in the world we live in today.
What I'm talking about is fact and I don't believe everything I see on the news.
Know what you're talking about before making a post
Get Educated
I think it goes well beyond the NSA, and even the USA - it's called Echelon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON)
Gotta love (or hate) these congressmen who don't understand technology at all and yet try to make laws on it anyways.
Such moronic words.
Ok. Let's track people on the streets and in the houses too! It will help to prevent ALL crimes!
Let's track everything!
Some people are sick...
However, the proper response is that civil rights (including protection from invasion of privacy or unreasonable search and seizure and so forth) are rights, whether on the streets or on the internet.
Such moronic words.
Ok. Let's track people on the streets and in the houses too! It will help to prevent ALL crimes!
Let's track everything!
Some people are sick...
They do that already in the UK. You can't go anywhere there without at least 1 camera tracking your movements. Give it time I can see some Politician asking for this to happen here. (notice I didn't pick on any specific party, stupid laws do come from both parties)
Already have phone tapping, now they want to monitor your emails and instant messages, whats next? Thought police anyone?
pay with cash. lol
Ah, the irony.
heh, and using child pornography to launch a scheme like that is as bad as child pornography itself.... and hell you know how ogrish child pornography is...
Politicians are all alike, similiar to the old phrase many spout about teachers and "those who can do, do and those that can't, teach" or something. Politicians can't hack it in the real world actually working for their money and family, so instead learn to be sneaky sniveling little pricks out for a quick buck, helping themselves and their friends along the way. And this goes for both parties.
The sad thing is every year the masses continue to prove they are asses and continue to fall for this same old song and dance and support these people. I guess you have to have a government of some form, what can you do huh?
I forgot why I cared and wasted my time typing this.
Remember Bush Jr's fake White House reporter who actually poses for gay porn on the internet? It's believed he's a person who was kidnapped back in the late 1970's when he was a kid and was sold into child sex slavery. When asked to take a DNA test by the mother of the original kidnapped child he denied it. He has the same birthmark and and scars as the kidnapped child and everything.
Look up some of this stuff. I'm not saying it's all true, but it really gets you thinking.
I mean if EVERYTHING you did on the internet was logged the logfiles would get very large very quickly.
Who elected this guy anyway?
oh yeah they pass law to benefit them self how come they include we could not monitor them back. ****ers.
This is all kinds of illegal in several ways. This sh*t will never pass.
no ISPs in the states any more... ROFL
no seriously, if the governement has really a hard watch on those records...
And ISPs actually don't have a chance to filter that much "illegal content" in real-time.
Glassed Silver:mac
They powers that be effectively used the fear they had generated hand in hand with only highlighting the points of the Patriot Act that most people were arguably for at the time thanks to the fear, to sneak past so many more aspects that were never really mentioned by any mass media, and this is really just an extension of that.
Some more info I found through a Google Search.
Essentially what I am saying is that this should come as no surprise, as the seeds have already been put in place.
Glassed Silver:mac
They'll be putting microphones in your house and in the streets next. Its scary frankly.
These moron politicians just want to make it legal to control others.
Then they can justify their behaviour.
Billions upon billions of emails and messeges are sent everyday, gunna neeeeeeeeeed er lotta people to cover them!
The point of this law is to take out the big fish. For example, someone saying, "Hey I have 100 pounds of weed ready to ship to your house." 100 pounds of weed is a lot (basically unimaginable) and when you have a LOT of something that's illegal-- that's where you're going to get caught. Do you honestly think they're going to track down every little ****** who admitted he's smoked a joint before?
Worried about the guy behind the desk at your favorite ISP and all the secrets he'll find out about you? They could encrypt the messages with only the government knowing the encryption key. The government would have to design a system for the ISP's to control privacy, in which when messages are received; they are automatically encrypted to the ISP's database. That's the only real way I could see this plan work, it shouldn't be too advanced to create either.
I don't support this law, but i'm just saying that it's really not a huge deal that affects us normal people. And if this did turn out to be some huge fiasco-- don't talk about illegal things over the internet! Hell, maybe it's GOOD for us, it'll encourage us to not sit at the computer all day but to actually talk people in real life.
The point of this law is to take out the big fish. For example, someone saying, "Hey I have 100 pounds of weed ready to ship to your house." 100 pounds of weed is a lot (basically unimaginable) and when you have a LOT of something that's illegal-- that's where you're going to get caught. Do you honestly think they're going to track down every little ****** who admitted he's smoked a joint before?
Worried about the guy behind the desk at your favorite ISP and all the secrets he'll find out about you? They could encrypt the messages with only the government knowing the encryption key. The government would have to design a system for the ISP's to control privacy, in which when messages are received; they are automatically encrypted to the ISP's database. That's the only real way I could see this plan work, it shouldn't be too advanced to create either.
I don't support this law, but i'm just saying that it's really not a huge deal that affects us normal people. And if this did turn out to be some huge fiasco-- don't talk about illegal things over the internet! Hell, maybe it's GOOD for us, it'll encourage us to not sit at the computer all day but to actually talk people in real life.
You need to read 1984.
Lets sum it up really simple.
Republican = Borrow and spend monetary policy
Democrat = Tax and spend monetary policy
Democrat & Republican = We want to make you safe and secure, hand over all your privacy and human rights so we can monitor you as only we know what is right and wrong. We will ignore all the laws we already have on the books that we can use to prosecute. Everything is always fixed by adding another layer of patronage in the form of yet another department (Department of Homeland Insecurity, et. al.), instead of mandating that the already existing departments (FBI, ATF, Customs, CIA, etc.) just do their jobs and furthermore share information to help each other do their mandated roles.
I think the ship of state hit the iceberg several decades back, only now, some of the less ignorant of us have noticed the deck chairs sliding towards the prow of the ship.
Fortunately the Democrats control the senate now and something like this would have no hope of passing.
Fortunately the Democrats control the senate now and something like this would have no hope of passing.
You'll regret saying that once you see all the Democrats jumping to get this implemented, it JUST so happened that a Republican proposed it doesn't mean the Dems weren't already considering it.
Fortunately the Democrats control the senate now and something like this would have no hope of passing.
Well, technically, less funding = smaller scale, since repubs are usually about less taxes... anyhow, thinking the dems couldn't enact Orwellian laws is naive. IMO the repubs seem to want more surveillance ('Patriot' act anyone?) while the dems want to legislate morality (which is futile and a waste of resources). The combination of the two moronic parties will cause 1984, only a few decades later than envisioned.
Do your part by leaving useless posts on it until it's clogged with crap.
at least im safe from the crap laws they have
No you're not. It doesnt matter where you are, you're still not safe from a lot of the retarded crap the US legal system pumps out all the time.
Our rights and freedoms are being striped every day in this county. It's only a matter of time before we don't have any freedom.
Thank you! I was close... :-)
I have news for Mr.Smith: ISPs log all your internet activity anyways but the governemnt needs a supena to retrieve it, also theres really no way to distinguish between IM packets and Unreal Tournament packets besides manually doing it.
Last edited by black_death on 10 Feb 2007 - 22:33
This isn't happening. It's one guy's proposal, it will never be made into law, thanks to our democracy.
But its not surprising statements like this are made, when people also think that others actually want our country ruled by religious beliefs. People make the most ridiculous statements sometimes, like that if we had restrictions on abortion, we would be a theocracy. Yep, we were a theocracy before the Roe V Wade decision forced abortion to be legal, we were a theocracy before the 1970s. Just like the Byzantine empire.
Again, I think certain laws like this are bad precedent and open to abuse... but people sometimes need real perspective.
But its not surprising statements like this are made, when people also think that others actually want our country ruled by religious beliefs. People make the most ridiculous statements sometimes, like that if we had restrictions on abortion, we would be a theocracy. Yep, we were a theocracy before the Roe V Wade decision forced abortion to be legal, we were a theocracy before the 1970s. Just like the Byzantine empire.
Again, I think certain laws like this are bad precedent and open to abuse... but people sometimes need real perspective.
The Patriot Act does turn the US into a police state. And if you think that everything's fine you really need to wake up and be truthful. Have you ever lived in a communist country? I have, for almost half my life. And do you actually feel like you're restricted under the communist regime? nope. Two reasons: 1) you have no chance, or sometimes even the awareness capable to do what you're not supposed to do. and 2) If you do anything you're not supposed to, it's not dealt with publically. It remains silent so the population isnt aware of it. Had you read 1984 you would instantly recognise these as two BIG points in the book. Let me draw another connection for you: You have been told that the terrorists are bad. You have been told that they need to be destroyed. You have been told that you need to be protected against them. And that is all true. But what else have you been told? You have been told never to act even in the slightest suspicious way, you have been told always to trust and to follow your government, and you have been told that your being turned into a pawn of the state is little price to pay for your alleged safety. But no you say, you have not been told thus. Yes you have, not directly but it is implied in the every day actions, events, and news of, from, and about the government. As in a communist country, as in your country right now, you do not FEEL restricted, but rather you KNOW that you are. It has been reduced to mere intellectual knowledge, and soon even that will be wiped out of you.
As to being ruled by religion in many ways it is true. Even on issues of basic human rights your population still chooses to blind itself to major inequalities. Why? what's the rationale? Religion. Because an alleged "God" that nobody's ever seen, heard, felt, tasted, nor even had the slightest of contact with, had allegedly "told" them the right way. Your people choose to believe in a fiction and to dismiss cold hard proven facts. This is ignorance of the greatest degree.
Again, laws impact society in small steps. Today it takes away this, that's no big deal, tomorrow it takes away that, no big deal again. But people, a lot of people, need to put things into perspective and see the bigger picture. Every little tid-bit adds up over time. That is what many people do not realise.
This isn't happening. It's one guy's proposal, it will never be made into law, thanks to our democracy.
We aren't a Democracy we are a Republic, get your facts straight.
My mother was from a communist country. Her family had their possessions taken from them when they left. This doesn't happen in the US. I have friends from communist countries... All of them are conservatives and Republicans who criticize the governments they grew up in. Free market, limited government, and a lot of them are religious and hate how Communism repressed religion. One of my friends, who grew up in Armenia under the Soviet Union, serves in the US Navy. None of this has to do with the question of a police state, but at any rate...
Do you live in the US right now? If not, then I'll redirect the question to you on how you could make a statement, like you questioned how I could because I didn't live in communism.
If you do, I really don't think you'd really say there's no difference. "What you're not supposed to do". What do you think people in the US are really restricted from doing? What can't they do? Please don't tell us that its implied we have to be obedient to the government. Please don't tell me things like Tianamen Square (public) happen in the US. Many communist countries have been secretive and closed off, the military crushed protestors, children's education was regimented, access to foreign media was restricted, etc. Don't tell me this describes the US. If your answer is "not exactly" well I'll say "not exactly" makes a world of difference.
And almost nobody believes anything just beause "the Bible says so." If you think this is true you have no clue to what people believe. NO CLUE. If you think 'basic human rights' are at stake you also have no perspective on the US political debate. What ways do you actually believe people are oppressed? Should I talk about Europe and how saying the wrong things about historical events, or saying something that can be considered 'hate speech' can put you in jail? Do you think anything similar exists in the US?
"Again, laws impact society in small steps. "... well thats what I said, this is a bad precedent. But if you think TODAY's America is just like a fascist state, then you really don't have perspective. Its not about what laws like this can lead to, its what America is like TODAY.
One of the reason many Americans aren't worried about this though, is because there's a difference between enacting such a law in a tightly controlled country and one that has less controls. That is, how much the government can abuse the law without it being noticed.
I'm not sure wiretapping will really ever affect the average citizen even though it can create injustices. That doesn't make it right. More broadly, its the legal precedent which is not defendable.
I can't wait to see this in the "Daily News with John Stewart" lol he's gonna have a field day.
Remember the last time a member of congress was so adamant with a similar law...he said "the internet is a series of tubes..."
LMFAO
I can't wait to see this in the "Daily News with John Stewart" lol he's gonna have a field day.
Remember the last time a member of congress was so adamant with a similar law...he said "the internet is a series of tubes..."
LMFAO
It's "The Daily Show..." Not "The Daily News..." Get your fictional news show titles strighht, will ya?
Anyway, check this out: http://lamarsmith.house.gov/news.asp?FormM...tail&ID=866
So, he's for privacy on anything other than the internet? What an idiot. o.O
Last edited by cypher543 on 11 Feb 2007 - 02:26
It's the only way to be sure.
if it violates the constitution, it won't become law
if it violates the constitution, it won't become law
It will and it will stay as law until someone challenges it. And at the rate this is going, by that time there might not even BE a constitution to overrule this law.
if it violates the constitution, it won't become law
Since the vast majority of Democrats are Socialists, it would be hard for them to not pass this law, and it would be even harder to overturn it if it were to pass.
if it violates the constitution, it won't become law
Since the vast majority of Democrats are Socialists, it would be hard for them to not pass this law, and it would be even harder to overturn it if it were to pass.
You sir, and a lot of others here, have no idea what socialism and communism is.
You really should think before you post.
Pretty much like any other politician.
Name me one that is purely "for the people" and not for their pocketbook, their power, or getting a young intern nekkid.
The Democratic party would need to be disbanded too, maybe reform with a more realistic party name Democrats = Socialist Party, Republicans = Whigs.
The Democratic party would need to be disbanded too, maybe reform with a more realistic party name Democrats = Socialist Party, Republicans = Whigs.
Whigs?
Actually, the Democrats should go back to their original Jeffersonian Republican roots. Ironic name, eh?
Damn, if you don't think that also describes the Democrat party, you are living on the moon. Wake up man. When you move out of mom's house, maybe you'll learn how the world works.
Both partys are full of ignorant, greedy and self-centered twits. Main difference between the two is Democrats couldn't smell their own stink if it fell on them.
First of all, republicans are minoritory right now. This is gonna get rejected faster than a fat dude who sat down too fast (pardon the Eminem lyrics there).
Second of all, if there's any senator with half a brain at the senate, they'll know that not only the global cost such logging involves will just be WAY too enormous for communication companies to handle without suffering huge losses, but that the bill will also litterally cripple the current internet infrastructures as they are right now.
Third, have you seen something as ludicrous as this pass before? With republicans being in such a slump, you can bet this is gonna get dismissed pretty quickly!
Let them try to crack all that encrypted data passing over the net.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.