backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 50 comment(s) - last by Spivonious.. on Dec 11 at 10:47 AM
SAFE Act requires ISPs to report child pornography and store the illicit images or face stiff fines

Many U.S. governmental officials are looking for ways to make the Internet safer for adults and minors alike. The catch is that with the huge amounts of traffic moving over the Internet, monitoring it all is difficult to say the least.

Some of the legislature aimed at making Internet safer for users is outright flawed, yet it still seeks approval. This was the case for the New Jersey Online Dating bill that is seeking ratification in the New Jersey State Senate despite what is viewed by many as glaring flaws in the logic of the bill. The U.S. Attorney General has attempted, in the name of preventing child pornography, to require search engines to store web-browsing records of users.

A vote in the U.S. House of Representatives Wednesday approved a new bill by a landslide that requires anyone offering open Wi-Fi connections to the public to report illegal images including what is termed “obscene” cartoon and drawings according to News.com. What constitutes obscene isn’t defined specifically.

The Securing Adolescents From Exploitation-Online Act (SAFE Act) won by a margin of 409 to 2 with the only two representatives not voting for the bill being Republicans Rep. Ron Paul from Texas and Rep. Paul Broun from Georgia. According to News.com, the SAFE Act requires the following:

Anyone providing an "electronic communication service" or "remote computing service" to the public who learns about the transmission or storage of information about certain illegal activities or an illegal image must (a) register their name, mailing address, phone number, and fax number with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children's "CyberTipline" and (b) "make a report" to the CyberTipline that (c) must include any information about the person or Internet address behind the suspect activity and (d) the illegal images themselves.

Illegal images is an umbrella covering everything from child pornography (and rightly so) to images of minors fully clothed in overly “lascivious” poses and some obscene depictions including drawings, sculpture and painting. The ISP’s are the providers that the act is targeting and the providers would be required to report the user transmitting illegal images and store copies of the alleged illegal images.

Katie Dean, Head of the U.S. Internet Service Providers Association said, “We remain concerned, however, that industry would be required to retain images of child pornography after reporting them to NCMEC. It seems like the better approach would be to require the private sector to turn over illicit images and not retain copies."

The SAFE Act sets stiff penalties for ISP’s that fail to comply with the first instance being a fine of up to $150,000 and up to $300,000 for repeated offences. The good part of the legislation for the ISP is that if an ISPO complies they are protected from civil lawsuits and criminal prosecutions.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Ambiguity
By Orbs on 12/6/2007 2:28:17 PM , Rating: 4
While I agree with the spirit of this law, a few things concern me. What is an "obscene" scuplture or drawing? How is it different from art? Who draws the line?

Also, who is viewing the material? Something may be obscene if shown to a child, but not to an adult. It may be obscene to a less cultured adult but less so to a fellow artist.

I'm all for punishing everyone involved in child pornography, including ISPs or hosting companies or whoever has the ability to filter the material and chooses not to, but as soon as you expand the definition to something subjective, it gets iffy.




RE: Ambiguity
By drebo on 12/6/2007 2:42:03 PM , Rating: 5
It's not the ISP's job to censor the internet. It's nobody's job. We need to make an important distiction here. ISPs are not always Content Providers.

If a content provider is hosting something illegal, they should be required to comply with prosecution against whoever put that content there. The content provider cannot be held liable for what their customers post, just like Fruit of the Loom isn't responsible for what people write on their plain white t-shirts.

Now, that's not to say that the content provider shouldn't turn customer information over in the result of an active investigation. But, it is not the content provider's responsibility to initiate it. If content breaks the provider's TOS, the content should be removed and private action should be taken against the customer. There's no reason what so ever to bring the government at any level into the matters of the private market.

I have a constitutional right to say anything I want to, whether it be through art, text, publication, graphic, or website. If someone has issue with what I am saying, they should take it up with me. If I am producing something illegal, I should be prosecuted. Nowhere in the line should the government enter to censor what I am doing. That's not their role, and it is not constitutional.


RE: Ambiguity
By TomZ on 12/6/2007 3:07:22 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
It's not the ISP's job to censor the internet.

Exactly - ISPs are supposed to be common carriers, which means they are not responsible for how their networks are used. Forcing ISPs to somehow police their networks for possible illegal materials adds an impossible cost burden. It's no different than phone networks - it would be absolutely foolish to pass a law requiring all phone service providers to monitor all conversations for any illegal activity.

This proposal is just another bit of political B.S. where legislators write a bill that is so unrealistic that it can never get signed into law and they know it. But at the same time they can say they are trying to help eliminate child porn from the Internet. Politicians are treating American citizens like they are complete idiots, and I for one am pretty sick of it.


RE: Ambiguity
By JSK on 12/6/2007 3:09:10 PM , Rating: 3
This is going to rain on the parade of those crazy people over at 4chan...


RE: Ambiguity
By Spivonious on 12/6/2007 3:41:07 PM , Rating: 5
Exactly, and seeing that Ron Paul was one of the reps who voted against this bill, it gives me another reason to vote for him in the primaries.


RE: Ambiguity
By mal1 on 12/6/2007 3:54:59 PM , Rating: 5
Ron Paul seems to be one of the only people in congress that actually bother to read what they sign. Just about any bill can be passed these days if it mentions terrorists, disaster relief or pedophiles.


RE: Ambiguity
By retrospooty on 12/6/2007 4:33:27 PM , Rating: 5
Yup, I am a dem, but Ron Paul makes sense, just listen to him talk, the rest of the political world, both reps and dems are caught up in image, and sheeplike behaviour, and catering to what they think will get them votes... Ron Paul just pays attention to issues, and makes an educated descision based on what he thinks, popular or not... He just makes sense.


RE: Ambiguity
By Spartan Niner on 12/7/2007 6:59:36 PM , Rating: 2
Ron Paul voted against the Patriot Act (one of a handful of congressmen and women who did so)

Ron Paul voted against the Iraq War

Those two votes immediately command my respect for RP.


RE: Ambiguity
By wordsworm on 12/7/2007 10:44:50 PM , Rating: 2
I hate American politicians even more than their lapdogs to the north, and somehow from the posts here I find I like him. Unfortunately, 1 representative against the masses doesn't work. Furthermore, promoting fear is far more popular in the media than promoting rationality, not to mention easier.


RE: Ambiguity
By Spivonious on 12/11/2007 10:47:01 AM , Rating: 2
Ahh, but one man who is president has the power to stop legislation with the veto. Aren't checks and balances great? :)


RE: Ambiguity
By xphile on 12/6/2007 5:57:13 PM , Rating: 4
Let's make it REALLY simple for the idiots out there. What the government really wants out of the ISP'S goes like this if you were to apply it your respective countries' Postal System. They would be totally responsible for:

*Everything sent in the post - legal, illegal, dangerous or lethal and any and all consequential effects of anything sent or received.

*Who sent it, who REALLY sent it (not just who they say they are) whether they had the right to send it, and when they sent it.

*Who received it, who REALLY received it (not just who they say they are), Whether they had the right to receive it and when they received it.

Failure to detect, record or advise any or all of the above details about every single item within the postal system would be prosecutable by law.

The postal system would have died the day after the creation of the first stamp.


RE: Ambiguity
By wrekd on 12/6/2007 8:20:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Anyone providing an "electronic communication service" or "remote computing service" to the public who learns about the transmission or storage of information about certain illegal activities or an illegal image must...


I for one would like to see what the full scope of illegal activities means? What if its a couple teen’s just smoking pot? Our corporations are not supposed to police the public...that’s what the police are for.


RE: Ambiguity
By Polynikes on 12/7/2007 8:10:27 AM , Rating: 2
Someone give this man a cookie!


RE: Ambiguity
By greywood on 12/7/2007 9:55:19 AM , Rating: 1
drebo says:
quote:
I have a constitutional right to say anything I want to, whether it be through art, text, publication, graphic, or website. If someone has issue with what I am saying, they should take it up with me.


As a matter of fact, you don't have a constitutional right to say anything you want. There are many things you could say about someone else, which could get you either sued or even jailed - that's law in this country. A wise man one said that "Your right to swing your fist stops at my nose".

All that said, what really bugs the hell outta me about this bill, is that it is a patently transparent Excuse for govertnment to go snooping where they have "no damn business going" that being the private affairs of people who have done nothing illegal. It assumes we are all guilty, just because....


By MGSsancho on 12/6/2007 2:04:30 PM , Rating: 2
yeah im all for stopping kiddie porn, but this is BS. It is the parents responsibility to monitor what their children. Do people know know that the government can not be trusted to protect family values and interest?




By othercents on 12/6/2007 2:10:29 PM , Rating: 2
I think you miss understand the bill. They are trying to stop people from producing and hosting child porn, not trying to keep children from looking at porn. Those are two different issues. Parents need to watch their kids when they are online, but someone else needs to monitor the people who produce porn.


By FITCamaro on 12/6/2007 2:31:20 PM , Rating: 2
Well the big problem I see here is what if you do a web search for photos and inadvertently, the search turns up said images. Technically, you searched for it and found it, whether or not you wanted to. Yes it can happen. The most innocent phrase in the world these days can turn up the dirtiest.


By geddarkstorm on 12/6/2007 3:06:43 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah really, and then what can you use in your defense? Porn crap sites go out of their way to get metacrawled for search terms that seem utterly unrelated, or even are, to the content on their site. Since this bill also has provisions about transmission, just seeing something would be illegal then, since it must be downloaded by your browser into the temp files to be displayed? Darn ambiguous descriptions...

Oh, and don't look at "The David" in an encyclopedia web site now, since it's a sculpture and he's a naked teen : O. (/sarcasm)


By sweetsauce on 12/6/2007 11:38:41 PM , Rating: 2
Funny you say that, since in washington state some teacher got fired for taking her students to a museum and they saw naked paintings. The world as we know it is ending.


By Verran on 12/6/2007 3:25:27 PM , Rating: 2
I can see it now...

I'm in my office, searching for album art for my MP3 collection. I type in "Led Zeppelin - Houses of the Holy" and hit enter. A few seconds pass, and right as the page refreshes, the internet disconnects. Suddenly there's a knock at my front door...