SOPA author back and worse than ever

Another day, another threat to internet freedom. According to International Business Times, beloved Texas Representative Lamar Smith is the author of a new bill that includes extreme surveillance provisions, and a name that will make opponents sound like criminals: H.R. 1981 (bump that last digit up three times for a more fitting title), or the 'Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011.'

The new name has outraged many opponents of SOPA and other bills that could bring more government control to the internet, like PIPA and ACTA. It's hard to imagine the whole world turning out against a bill with the words 'protect' and 'children' in the title, regardless of the actual contents of the bill.

In the words of Business Insider's David Seaman, it's “just a B.S. name so that politicians in the House and Senate are strong-armed into voting for it, even though it contains utterly insane 1984-style Big Brother surveillance provisions.” Ouch.

So, what's so dangerous about the bill? If it's really designed to protect innocent children from pedophiles, why should anyone (other than pedophiles, of course) be worried about it? As David Seaman pointed out, H.R. 1981 contains some very hefty surveillance provisions, including one which would require ISPs to keep track of the IP addresses it assigns to its users, and to record that information for at least 18 months. Other information like credit card data and who knows what else would also be stored.

Adding insult to injury, the bill describes its target – in reality the entire internet – as 'unregistered sex offenders.' Once again, ouch. The scary part is that the bill could lead to monitoring of all internet activity, so that a subpoena can be issued for further investigation of the suspicious activity.

For those of us who aren't worried about the government keeping track of our hopefully innocent browsing habits, there is the whole issue of your very private and very sensitive information being stored for years. The bill would leave such storage in the hands of ISPs, although it does urge that 'such records... be stored securely to protect customer privacy and prevent breaches of records.' Presumably, this means that they would be kept in plain text files.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has been doing what it can to raise a fuss about the bill, pointing out that the data collected it the bill could be used not only to investigate possible pedophiles, but that it could also 'become available to civil litigants... whether it's the RIAA trying to identify downloaders, a company trying to uncover and retaliate against an anonymous critic, or a divorce lawyer looking for dirty laundry.' It's also started a letter writing campaign, much as it did with SOPA and PIPA.

Unsurprisingly, Anonymous has also been quite vocal voicing its distaste for the bill. Various representatives of the group who cannot be verified since they are, well, anonymous, have taken to Twitter to raise awareness of the bill. They've also joined in on a campaign to '#UnseatLamar,' urging voters to remove him from office in the upcoming election.

It seems like it's every week now that a new piece of legislation comes up somewhere in the world, threatening the collective internet with fire, brimstone and eternal damnation. For such a massive and disorderly group, netizens have actually done a surprisingly good job at combating the bills.

When the internet is threatened, it seems that everyone from the masked hacker to the founders of reputable websites are willing to stand side by side at its defense. It's enough to bring tears to our eyes. Hopefully a heavy handed title won't be enough to keep this from happening again, because H.R. 1981 truly is, as WebProNews has said, a giant turd wrapped in cotton candy.

Image courtesy of Quickmeme

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Guide to smartphone hardware (2/7): Graphics

Next Story

Interview: Lukewarm Media head talks about Primal Carnage

101 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

this has just confirmed my theory that peeple who LOOK as stupid as dumbya will really behave as stupid as dumbya, if not more so.

my gawd. he's even from texas. think maybe bush sr has too much to drink one night more than half a decade ago?

Concerning Lamar Smith the title for your bill is disgusting and misrepresents what you are trying to force through who is to say a pedo doesn't just use a public IP address or run through proxy servers to upload and download their sick perversion. All this bill will achieve is gathering massive amounts of private information like bank account/credit card numbers, social security numbers, home addresses, and account passwords making it extremely easy to commit fraud. To those out there saying that this info would be under lock and key all I have to say is look at Sony Online Entertainment March 2011 and Mastercard 2010,2011,2012 also we must not forget February 2 2012 when in retaliation for the shutdown of Megaupload anonymous launched the largest DDS attack ever,

"H.R. 1981 (bump that last digit up three times for a more fitting title)."

Ahh, that gave me a good chuckle. This bill is completely ridiculous.. we might as well start wiping Big Brothers arse if this goes through.

Gee, was he talking to Canada's Stephen Harper or Vic Toews, who last week introduced Bill C-30 "Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act", to the Canadian House of Commons. To a rather ice cold public reception, I might add.

Talk about being original in naming the bill.

"Various representatives of the group who cannot be verified since they are, well, anonymous,"

Best sentence ever...

Governments always seek more control & regulation -- it makes the government's various jobs easier. Rather than deal with with all the ways web access might enable their citizens to be less cooperative, the gov shuts down the Internet in Iran. Rather than deal with what would be more outside condemnation & potentially interference, Syria blocks independent journalists. Being able to put a citizen's identity together with what they've said, where they've been, & what they've uploaded/downloaded etc. on-line makes law enforcement & potentially control easier, so there are always going to be gov officials that push the idea. The US gov knows this as well as anyone else, providing funding & assistance in getting around government restrictions RE: communications & information, to citizens in other countries for decades. The US gov also knows what everyone else knows -- if you present monitoring, control, &/or regulations as ways of protecting citizens, some percentage will go along with it, perhaps even ask that such measures be put in place.

SO yeah, another effort's popped up in the US Congress, perhaps spurred on a bit by the likes of the RIAA shoveling cash all over DC in an election year.

IMO pretending it's unexpected is about as silly as crying that these politicians: "Just Don't Get It". Of course they do. If Smith doesn't have any tech abilities himself [& I have no idea one way or another], he certainly has a well funded staff, & one or more of those people do -- those running for (re)election do have & use an on-line presence to at the least advertise & assist in fund raising. I mean does anyone think that organizations like the RIAA float all that cash on a whim, with no idea of what it'll buy? If lobbyists didn't get results, would it be an industry, let alone one that's so lucrative?

I'm NOT Saying the proposed legislation is any good or that it shouldn't be opposed -- just trying to inject a little pragmatism so [I hope] everyone's efforts are taken seriously, have more of an impact. Seaman's populist-sounding rant: "... just a B.S. name so that politicians in the House and Senate are strong-armed into voting for it ..." is just that, designed/written so he sounds cool. Yes, politicians can/will say their opponent didn't vote for whatever & try to use it against them, but how well did that work with SOPA/PIPA? Most in the US Congress ran from both once their content was publicized.

So Thanks Neowin for bringing this up, posting it on your front page. Hopefully *if* there's any more to it, anything more to cover, you'll follow the mold you used with SOPA/PIPA, with maybe a wee bit less histrionics that you used here today. It wasn't whining afterall that led to their defeat, but the fact that what seemed to be most Americans were opposed to SOPA/PIPA once they were told what each meant &/or contained.

Why don't we have all politicians arrested and only have then released if they can prove they are not guilty of anything? You know "Unregistered-Potential-Criminals"

Just a curious question to all of you out there: Have any of you actually read the bill?? I have and the only thing it requires is for ISPs to store the DHCP assigned addresses for 18 months. There is nothing in it that requires the storage of everything else you do on the internet. Also, the bill was introduced into the House on May 25, 2011, a full 5 months before SOPA was introduced into committee! Here is the full bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/...D?c112:1:./temp/~c112SEavH8:: . Also, before anyone says otherwise, no, this doesn't mean I support such a bill as this. I just think it's getting blown way too far out of proportion.

CMG_90 said,
Hes from Texas. Same state of bush.... That explains it...

+100500 this state should form it's own government and keep these people to themselves.

Kirkburn said,
Let's not insult the entire population of Texas based on a few fools?

The Bush dynasty is epic greatness. I only wish that Daddy Bush had a second term and that GW could of had a third and that Jeb Bush would have run.... God praise the Bush Family

Deniss said,

+100500 this state should form it's own government and keep these people to themselves.
What do you think our chances are of annexing Texas?

satukoro said,
What do you think our chances are of annexing Texas?
Bit confused ... who is 'our' in that sentence? Texas is already part of the US, so how would you annex it?

Kirkburn said,
Bit confused ... who is 'our' in that sentence? Texas is already part of the US, so how would you annex it?
Well that's embarrassing. I can't for the life of me think of the antonym of annex associated with the removal of states in US History.

satukoro said,
Well that's embarrassing. I can't for the life of me think of the antonym of annex associated with the removal of states in US History.

Secede, perhaps? Not sure whether that's what your shooting for or not.

I hope they never stop trying to put legislation like this through. If only to watch the nerd rage fill the internet

using child pornography as an excuse make him looks even more SMART!.
This is double or nothing, a typical american move but this time canada has started with this ****.

ThePitt said,
using child pornography as an excuse make him looks even more SMART!.
This is double or nothing, a typical american move but this time canada has started with this ****.

Similar proposals have been brought up in Canada before, and they never come to pass. I'm not worried, as a Canadian.

-- Begin Charlton Heston mode --

You maniacs! You blew it up! Damn you! God damn you all to hell!

-- End Charlton Heston mode --

I don't see the problem with current laws.

Police can patrol the internet. Find evidence of wrongful acts. Ask for a warrant then track a user suspected of illegal activities using the warrant.

There's no problem with the current way of doing things.

O5M3L said,
Reminds me of the Protect Marriage bill

I think in order to protect marriage we need to ban marriage thus the no one then can claim bias as no one would be able to marry. If we allow gays to marry then what is next, people marry goats? children? many wives? marry their cars? were does it end... we allow for one thing then they want a mile....

OMG. There are so many things wrong with this. I was reading the article and all I could picture was this huge downward spiral of bad things happening.
Heres to hoping this gets buried QUICK.

It comes down to either your are for protecting children or your are for protecting pedophiles. I think we need to license each and every internet user. The internet should not be for underage children until it can be cleaned up and made child safe. Lets face it not all parents have parental controls and time limit software. Even if they do have that type of software it is not effective 1000% of the time. The license would also be tied to our national ID card with bio-metrics to log into the internet. It would then say this user is underage and route them to the safe internet if you will and all browsing and internet usage would be sent to the govt and the parents as well. Each child will be given just 1 hour each day and a max of 4 hours per week. Since the US govt invented the internet then they own it and can place any restrictions on the usage of it that they see fit. If you do not like the internet then make a new way to connect that has nothing what so ever to do with the internet.

WTF!!

Donald Zuchowski said,
It comes down to either your are for protecting children or your are for protecting pedophiles. I think we need to license each and every internet user. The internet should not be for underage children until it can be cleaned up and made child safe. Lets face it not all parents have parental controls and time limit software. Even if they do have that type of software it is not effective 1000% of the time. The license would also be tied to our national ID card with bio-metrics to log into the internet. It would then say this user is underage and route them to the safe internet if you will and all browsing and internet usage would be sent to the govt and the parents as well. Each child will be given just 1 hour each day and a max of 4 hours per week. Since the US govt invented the internet then they own it and can place any restrictions on the usage of it that they see fit. If you do not like the internet then make a new way to connect that has nothing what so ever to do with the internet.

bgood1 said,
WTF!!


its simple really either you are for children being safe and protected from pedophiles or you support the pedophiles. This bill is about protecting children. Can can surmise from your reply that you are then for the pedophiles, otherwise you would be for this bill. If you have nothing to do with pedophiles then how would this bill harm you unless you are doing something that you should not be doing.

Also keep in mind that once you are on the internet you leave the confines of your house so the protections of unreasonable searches is gone. The US Constitution does not guarantee freedom of privacy only that a person has a right to be secure in there papers from unreasonable searches and seizers. Now the internet is not a "paper" as it is electronic so no protections from the US Constitution.

Donald Zuchowski said,
It comes down to either your are for protecting children or your are for protecting pedophiles. I think we need to license each and every internet user. The internet should not be for underage children until it can be cleaned up and made child safe. Lets face it not all parents have parental controls and time limit software. Even if they do have that type of software it is not effective 1000% of the time. The license would also be tied to our national ID card with bio-metrics to log into the internet. It would then say this user is underage and route them to the safe internet if you will and all browsing and internet usage would be sent to the govt and the parents as well. Each child will be given just 1 hour each day and a max of 4 hours per week. Since the US govt invented the internet then they own it and can place any restrictions on the usage of it that they see fit. If you do not like the internet then make a new way to connect that has nothing what so ever to do with the internet.
First of all, no, the US government did not invent the internet. The US government simply uses it and thinks they can regulate it. Social networks such as MySpace and Facebook require you to be a minimum age prior to using their services. If you want your children to be safe using the internet, don't play ostrich and bury your head in the sand. Younger children have no business being on the internet unless they need to research information. Parents who don't watch their kids shouldn't be relying on the government to make their children safe, they should be focusing on being better parents. Trying to tame the internet, a place of free expression and information, is like trying to make an EOW Fallout void of raiders and cannibals.

Donald Zuchowski said,

Now the internet is not a "paper" as it is electronic so no protections from the US Constitution.

That's not how the Constitution is supposed to be read. If you interpret it that strictly, then you make it irrelevant. It's meant to contain the ideals and powers of government which should always be relevant, not to strictly define a few narrow points.

satukoro said,
First of all, no, the US government did not invent the internet. The US government simply uses it and thinks they can regulate it. Social networks such as MySpace and Facebook require you to be a minimum age prior to using their services. If you want your children to be safe using the internet, don't play ostrich and bury your head in the sand. Younger children have no business being on the internet unless they need to research information. Parents who don't watch their kids shouldn't be relying on the government to make their children safe, they should be focusing on being better parents. Trying to tame the internet, a place of free expression and information, is like trying to make an EOW Fallout void of raiders and cannibals.

well the US Govt did invent the internet as a means in the 1960s as a way for the government and select universities to share information. The internet at that time was text based and as the technology developed it turned into the smut filled thing we have today. Informed parents like myself can only rely on things like norton online family safety with time limits and parental controls to a certain degree and it is not 110% effective. Thus children need to have an adult sit next to them at all times until the internet can be rid of the filth that is in it. I know parents who simply lie when they let their kids sign up for facebook because it makes it easier for the kid to have access to facebook and the parents dont want to approve all the postings that the kids make.

when you say freedom of expression i do not see it in the 1st amendment at all as it says... "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." It would see that to me the amendment is only talking about dealing with petitioning the government for a redress of grievances. It also does not say anything about expression now does it...
Once might also say the the so called right to bear arms is that we have a right to our arms that are on our body or that of a bears arm on a bear....

Donald Zuchowski said,

well the US Govt did invent the internet as a means in the 1960s as a way for the government and select universities to share information. The internet at that time was text based and as the technology developed it turned into the smut filled thing we have today. Informed parents like myself can only rely on things like norton online family safety with time limits and parental controls to a certain degree and it is not 110% effective. Thus children need to have an adult sit next to them at all times until the internet can be rid of the filth that is in it. I know parents who simply lie when they let their kids sign up for facebook because it makes it easier for the kid to have access to facebook and the parents dont want to approve all the postings that the kids make.

when you say freedom of expression i do not see it in the 1st amendment at all as it says... "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." It would see that to me the amendment is only talking about dealing with petitioning the government for a redress of grievances. It also does not say anything about expression now does it...
Once might also say the the so called right to bear arms is that we have a right to our arms that are on our body or that of a bears arm on a bear....

You claim to be well informed, yet you use Norton. Also, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." Freedom of speech and press are not limited to such mediums as oral representation or paper. If you wanted to keep your children safe, keep them off the internet. This lawless wasteland isn't simply going to be tailored to poor parenting.

Either you're intentionally being a troll and a tool, or you sir, are a severely brain-damaged and/or misguided individual (probably some liberal 99%er at that). If you think that the government has your best interests and the interests of your children at heart, think again. The government has interests only in expanding it's power and influence into every facet of the lives of the citizens of this country. If you think I'm wrong, look at all of the legislation that has been passed over the last 100 years.... Anyone with a reasonable set of critical thinking skills would understand that your reading/interpretation of the Constitution is fundamentally flawed as well. You really should go back to school and study a little more, because expression has been continually held as a form of "speech". Also, your analysis of the 4th Amendment is wrong, you need to quote it properly: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Notice, they didn't just say "papers", they said "persons, houses, papers and effects" (if you don't have a dictionary, "effects" means belongings in the vernacular of the times).
Also, the 1st Amendment specifically is stating that Congress can't make any laws respecting the following areas of the citizen's lives: Their religion (ie. you can't outlaw a religion, even one that is frowned upon, like Satanism), speech (You can say what you want without fear of reprisal from the government), press (duh, newspapers are free speech), assemblage (ie. the basis for civilian rights and why we don't have curfews, and can go congregate together for any peaceful reason, like oh, protests, theatre going, sporting events, family reunions, etc), and the right of the people to seek the attention of the government to address their greivances.
I won't even bother with the 2nd Amendment because you're obviously being obtuse just to get people riled up with that idiotic statment.

It's people like you who make me SICK to my stomach, you deserve neither security nor freedom, because it's people like you who will give up both because of your own selfish desires. The founding fathers would be spinning in their graves if they knew the kind of things the goverment is doing now. It is already overreached it's Constitutional authority in regards to the enumerated powers given to it in regards to things like monetary policy (the Fed), Taxes (Income tax, which is a whole other ball of wax that required an amendment which was a HUGE power grab away from the States, IMHO), Education (Please tell me where the enumerated power of the Federal goverment of establishing this agency comes from?), FDA, Energy, OBAMACARE (please justify the forcing of citizens to purchase a product under the guise of "Interstate Commerce" if there was no commerce to regulate to begin with? I could go on and on....

Now, I'm not against protecting kids from predators. What I am against is totalitarian rule and living in a survelliance state, which is EXACTLY what this legislation is about. It's the proverbial "frog in a pot" scenario playing out before our very eyes.

DAOWAce said,

Exactly.

Piracy is a service problem. The way to combat piracy is to provide a better service than the pirates.

Gabe Newell has been saying this for years.


I lost all faith in content providers and creators to realize this.

At least for now.

There need to be drastic changes.

GS:mac

Wow. This is really sneaky. I really hate pedophiles, and am all for strict prosecution for them, but I also certainly don't want everyone storing all of my information for such a long period of time. I hope this doesn't get through due to these smoke and mirrors...

Dear U.S. Citizens,

Please keep your legislation within the bounds of your own country. We don't vote in your country so stop forcing your laws on us.

Sincerely, the rest of the world.

3rd impact said,
Dear U.S. Citizens,

Please keep your legislation within the bounds of your own country. We don't vote in your country so stop forcing your laws on us.

Sincerely, the rest of the world.

Maybe I missed something. Do you use a US ISP? Otherwise I don't see how you would be impacted being outside the country... :-/

3rd impact said,
Dear U.S. Citizens,

Please keep your legislation within the bounds of your own country. We don't vote in your country so stop forcing your laws on us.

Sincerely, the rest of the world.


And forcing (US) ISPs to keep track of its customers affects you... how?

>"Adding insult to injury, the bill describes its target - in reality the entire internet - as 'unregistered sex offenders.' Once again, ouch. The scary part is that the bill could lead to monitoring of all internet activity, so that a subpoena can be issued for further investigation of the suspicious activity."

it's on the article.

also, do you really think only in terms of your own country? did not the WHOLE WORLD ,in fact, reacted to your SOPA recently? have you people even seen a globe map? yes, the U.S. is just a small potion of it. not all of it.

Much of 'the internet' is based in the US, from backbone systems to multinational companies. It makes such legislation basically impossible to be limited by country boundaries. Plus, the internet's design generally cares nothing for borders.

Basically like Canada's Bill C-30 but at least law enforcement needs a warrant here Vic Toews doesn't think law enforcement should need a warrant to access the information. Are They related or what?

****mire said,
Basically like Canada's Bill C-30 but at least law enforcement needs a warrant here Vic Toews doesn't think law enforcement should need a warrant to access the information. Are They related or what?

It definitely sounds like it. When I read the name of the bill I couldn't help but think this douche and Vic Toews have been in contact.

seethru said,

It definitely sounds like it. When I read the name of the bill I couldn't help but think this douche and Vic Toews have been in contact.

I sense some Photoshopping is in order.

Nah, maybe not. He'll send the RCMP on a wild goose chase.

From what I've read, paedos often use Facebook to search for their next victims. Facebook - a system that tracks your every move and every thought. If Facebook can't stop paedophiles, how can SOPA?
I'm all for internet security and protection, and I wouldn't want my kids to be at risk. But what is SOPA actually protecting us from? Surely the really bad guys are clever enough to find whys to avoid SOPA.

Mateus said,
From what I've read, paedos often use Facebook to search for their next victims. Facebook - a system that tracks your every move and every thought. If Facebook can't stop paedophiles, how can SOPA?
I'm all for internet security and protection, and I wouldn't want my kids to be at risk. But what is SOPA actually protecting us from? Surely the really bad guys are clever enough to find whys to avoid SOPA.

It's not protecting us from anything. That's the problem. It's not even designed to protect us from anything. It's entire purpose it appears is to legally collect as much information about us online as they possibly can and this WILL be used for a multitude of things I'm sure. Least of which would be any sort of "protection" of us...

Mateus said,
From what I've read, paedos often use Facebook to search for their next victims. Facebook - a system that tracks your every move and every thought. If Facebook can't stop paedophiles, how can SOPA?

Minors need a parent's consent to sign up to Facebook, and true paedos as you call them do not go for the ones who can use facebook unsupervised.

I see why people turn to the government when they can't use their brains unsupervised.

I know this is a big ageist ... but I think a bill should be put in place that anyone under the age of 50 has no say in internet matters -.- .....

or at least allow people qualified in computing (real computing) decided good and bad things... how do we know this guy knows anything about computers? I bet he uses IE 6.....

SPEhosting said,
I know this is a big ageist ... but I think a bill should be put in place that anyone under the age of 50 has no say in internet matters -.- .....

or at least allow people qualified in computing (real computing) decided good and bad things... how do we know this guy knows anything about computers? I bet he uses IE 6.....


Nah yo. He's still using his AOL disc from the '90s.

I'm not religious but I once heard someone say "Listen to the young, God's voice speaks loudest thought them", or something like this.
I bet Lamar Smith is very religious, perhaps someone should tell him to listen to the young too.

Advent said,

Nah yo. He's still using his AOL disc from the '90s.

Thats just sick.... laugh if his computer crashes... goes around the supermarket looking for those free discs ...

Mateus said,
I'm not religious but I once heard someone say "Listen to the young, God's voice speaks loudest thought them", or something like this.
I bet Lamar Smith is very religious, perhaps someone should tell him to listen to the young too.

he cant hear us he deaf old man.... its obvious he is losing touch with reality... he can neither hear, nor smell or even see the bull sh*t he is spewing.. and it just tastes like rice crackers to him..

SPEhosting said,
I know this is a big ageist ...
No, it's *extremely* ageist. The second part of is more reasonable, though still not really that reasonable.

SPEhosting said,
I know this is a big ageist ... but I think a bill should be put in place that anyone under the age of 50 has no say in internet matters -.- .....

I meant to say over....

I'm getting the **** out of the US. I'm embarrassed. "Anonymous" **** this tool up ASAP! There are worse things than death.. do them all.

VoX said,
I'm getting the **** out of the US. I'm embarrassed. "Anonymous" **** this tool up ASAP! There are worse things than death.. do them all.
With luck, I'll be out of the US and in Montreal in three years.

I suppose this bill also states that all pornographic dvds and magazines must be kept in a locked box for which there is only 1 key to stop kids getting at their parent's porn, old skool style...

Please America, get a grip, because the British government will no doubt follow suit as they can't think for themselves.

Doesn't this guy know of the many parental tools available to protect children? Its quite a huge industry!

HardyRexion said,
Please America, get a grip, because the British government will no doubt follow suit as they can't think for themselves.

Doesn't this guy know of the many parental tools available to protect children? Its quite a huge industry!

Unfortunately,
Most Americans can't think for themselves either!!

Who is this dumb a** wanna be famous for what ever stupid reason idiot writing this stuff?

HardyRexion said,
Please America, get a grip, because the British government will no doubt follow suit as they can't think for themselves.

Doesn't this guy know of the many parental tools available to protect children? Its quite a huge industry!

Indeed. Not to mention parenting... The government should not be in charge of parenting our children. It's a shame so many parents are incapable... They're the ones empowering this sort of nonsense!

Geranium_Z__NL said,
Soon the goverment will copyright sleep and you wont be able to sleep anymore without them knowing.. Yes,, I've read a comic. ;(

too late, Apple already has a patent for that

Varemenos said,

too late, Apple already has a patent for that


iDream

A revolutionary feature enhanced with new colors.
Only for the new Brain 2.

Get yours now!

GS:mac

Government trying to get their hands on a bit of the world where it hasnt been corrupted as hell yet. Oh grow up Texas, find something else to graze and herd on, ''because you question this bill your an offender'', this is the most BS i've heard in some time, and I STUDIED HISTORY!!

rippleman said,
go ahead.. track me... i don't give a damn...

Oh yeah? Give me your social security number, address, name, date of birth, credit card numbers, bank account numbers, your mother's name, your father's name, their home addresses, assets, ... Let me track you. Dumbass.

rippleman said,
you are tracked anyways...

No, I am not. You are because you have no clue.

Jebadiah said,

Oh yeah? Give me your social security number, address, name, date of birth, credit card numbers, bank account numbers, your mother's name, your father's name, their home addresses, assets, ... Let me track you. Dumbass.

Playing devils advocate here... but i'm pretty sure the government already has this information to begin with.

shockz said,
Playing devils advocate here... but i'm pretty sure the government already has this information to begin with.

I don't think the issue is specifically the *government* knowing. Jebediah isn't the government, and in the context of this story, neither are ISPs.

Between Lamar Smith and all the intellectual property lawsuits purposefully filed in Texas, I think the world of technology would be better off if the whole state just slid into the ocean.

Unwonted said,
Between Lamar Smith and all the intellectual property lawsuits purposefully filed in Texas, I think the world of technology would be better off if the whole state just slid into the ocean.

Seeing as the state is no where near an ocean, I do not see how that is possible. California has a better chance.

RangerLG said,

Seeing as the state is no where near an ocean, I do not see how that is possible. California has a better chance.

Sigh.

Unwonted said,
Between Lamar Smith and all the intellectual property lawsuits purposefully filed in Texas, I think the world of technology would be better off if the whole state just slid into the ocean.

As a true conservative from Texas, I can tell you that Lamar Smith is NOT "beloved". He's a RINO. As for your complaint about IP lawsuits filed in Texas, that's a problem EVERYwhere---because this nation refuses to get smart with tort reform, the lawyers all continue to enjoy the big party. Also, last time I checked, the Caribbean is an ocean and enjoys a pretty significant shoreline in Texas, so we could, indeed, "slide into the ocean". However, Texas has suffered the least from the Obama administration's ridiculously stupid way of running the nation into the ground, and we are seeing a dramatic increase of residents moving from other states <cough--cough--California--cough--cough> because we are still growing jobs. So, say what you will, but Texas is currently one of the best places to be. We just need to get rid of the liberals and the RINOs and we'll be much better off.

RangerLG said,

Seeing as the state is no where near an ocean, I do not see how that is possible. California has a better chance.

Might want to brush up on your geography.

Xenosion said,

It has one portion that is on the GULF of Mexico.

Well, you're just as uninformed as RangerLG. The Gulf of Mexico is considered an arm of the Atlantic Ocean.

Xenosion said,

It has one portion that is on the GULF of Mexico.
And what, pray tell, is the Gulf of Mexico connected directly to?

sionus said,

Well, you're just as uninformed as RangerLG. The Gulf of Mexico is considered an arm of the Atlantic Ocean.


I'm not saying that this isn't all semantics anyway. Just that RangerLG's point is probably that it borders a gulf and not the Atlantic Ocean directly. Similar to how the Mediterranean Sea might be considered part of the Atlantic Ocean.

I live in Florida and I wouldn't say that I am going to the ocean on the west coast.. I would say that however on the east. I bet the same applies to other seas and gulfs. Lay back on the insults

Unwonted said,
Between Lamar Smith and all the intellectual property lawsuits purposefully filed in Texas, I think the world of technology would be better off if the whole state just slid into the ocean.

ROFL ... I guess the Gulf is deep enough, so it may work!

RangerLG said,

Seeing as the state is no where near an ocean, I do not see how that is possible. California has a better chance.

lmao. -1 to the U.S. school system.

Megan Dillow said,
actually ranger g texas is near an ocean the end of texas is along the gulf of mexico
Why are you quoting my comment?