backtop

Print 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...


By nekobawt on 12/6/2007 7:09:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The most innocent phrase in the world these days can turn up the dirtiest.


true enough. in fact, that's the inspiration for a game my friends used to play with the google image search function. the object of the game is to turn off safe search and see what phrase takes the most pages for google's image search to find porn of. obscurer phrases are more likely to "win," but the internet will inevitably surprise you. ;)


By theapparition on 12/7/2007 9:51:12 AM , Rating: 2
I once had to do a 3D model of an oyster for a product I was designing. Try doing a google image search on "clam" with safe search turned off.........


By Oregonian2 on 12/6/2007 2:40:18 PM , Rating: 2
Seems to me that someone in the government wants to collect child porn and create a large archive of them for themselves -- having the ISPs do the hunting for them. Should make a nice 60 minutes lead-in segment.

Each ISP seems to be required to also collect and archive child porn photos as well. Almost as if a child porn'oholic wrote the law.


By retrospooty on 12/6/2007 4:37:34 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."

Thats not what I read. It sounds to me like they are holding your ISP (or starbucks or any open wifi access point) responsible for tracking what you browse for, which is wrong, and next to impossible.

They need to go after the companies and individuals who own the domains and hosting companies that put the child porn out there, not ISP's and Wifi providers. WTF?


By Christopher1 on 12/7/2007 9:09:17 PM , Rating: 1
There is another problem there, and one reason why I am against the 'child sexual abuse', statutory rape laws, and other laws like this one mentioned in the article.

Children can and do have the right to have sexual partners at any age, regardless of whether they know what it is for or not. When they DON'T, that is more a failure of parents. That is why I tell children EXACTLY how babies are made whenever I get them alone and they bring the subject up so that I can make them MORE safe by letting them know that NO ONE has the right to force them into certain kinds of touching, but that they do have a right to consent to that touching if they wish to.

Our government is interfering in WAAAAAAAY too many areas where it shouldn't, and George Washington put it best: The governments place is not to push the morality of the minority or even the majority on the people of this country, it's place is to protect people from those who would wish to do them physical harm or force them to do something they do not wish to do.
That means that applies for children and adults, and it means that if children want to be sexually active.... our government should NOT get involved.


End of Open WiFi's
By TomZ on 12/6/2007 2:40:01 PM , Rating: 2
If such a law were to be passed, you can be sure that a lot of businesses would decide to eliminate their open WiFi services in order to avoid incurring the responsibility and cost of monitoring usage. The WiFi at Starbucks could go the way of the dinosaur.

Following the same logic, cell and landline phone companies will have to start monitoring all phone calls for any illegal activities.




RE: End of Open WiFi's
By BMFPitt on 12/6/2007 3:10:03 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know why they are being so inconsistent. If any illicit activity goes on in a building and is not reported by the maintenance guy, that building should be firebombed.


RE: End of Open WiFi's
By RaisedinUS on 12/6/2007 4:28:16 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget the added cost of a new branch of internet police. Taxes to pay for this will soon follow. We have few good jobs left in the US but hey, let's create a few more senseless government jobs the tax payers will have to be burdened with.
Makes sense, NOT.


RE: End of Open WiFi's
By Oregonian2 on 12/10/2007 4:30:58 PM , Rating: 2
Don't worry! Those jobs probably can be outsourced.


RE: End of Open WiFi's
By bodar on 12/6/2007 9:41:18 PM , Rating: 3
Are they required to actively search for it though? The language says that they must report it if they "learn" that a transfer took place. If they are not inspecting packets or tracking URLs with something like Websense, how would they learn of it? I don't know if these Starbucks or McD's use these techniques, I'm just curious (assuming they don't monitor) if the language of the law allows them to say to the Feds "prove that we knew about it".

I do love how they not only require providers to report such occurrences, but to archive the data with their own resources. Why not just require them to perform the investigation themselves while they're at it?


RE: End of Open WiFi's
By bodar on 12/6/2007 9:45:37 PM , Rating: 2
Also, does this apply to people with unsecured wireless networks? Could that be interpreted as providing internet service to the public?


RE: End of Open WiFi's
By Spuke on 12/7/2007 12:21:03 PM , Rating: 2
In order to find out if there was an actual violation to report, the ISP would have to perform its own investigation. Our ISP's are now a branch of law enforcement. In reality, how many ISP's are going to actually follow this law (if passed)? Maybe the large one's will sort of do it. But the small one's won't because they don't have the resources to do it. I know I wouldn't. They would just have to fine me.


RE: End of Open WiFi's
By bodar on 12/10/2007 2:39:01 PM , Rating: 2
So in reality, the only way they could prove that you knew about it and fine you is if someone complained to you.


Actually..
By tmouse on 12/6/2007 2:53:57 PM , Rating: 2
Several websites catering to CG art have already banned images of cherubs or baby new year if the content has ANY nudity for fear of prosecution for child pornography.




RE: Actually..
By themadmilkman on 12/6/2007 4:18:25 PM , Rating: 2
Then they are fools.

The Supreme Court has stated VERY clearly that virtual child pornography does not violate child pornography laws. Since the purpose of the laws is to protect children, and since no children are (directly) harmed by virtual child pornography, there is no violation.


RE: Actually..
By BladeVenom on 12/7/2007 1:25:17 AM , Rating: 2
They aren't fools; they just don't want to spend several millions dollars and years in court to prove their innocence.


RE: Actually..
By tmouse on 12/7/2007 8:03:02 AM , Rating: 2
I agree but everyone is covering their own a@@. Today I saw a 3d model with a disclaimer that the model depicted was over 18. Several sites censor themselves because their CC companies do not like any form of nudity. It’s a strange world. I'm 100% for protecting children but more and more politicians are producing "feel good" laws, which at the surface seem good (who in their right minds dosen't want to stop pedophiles) but really do nothing but feed paranoia.


RE: Actually..
By tmouse on 12/7/2007 8:12:00 AM , Rating: 2
I want to make it clear I do not think "virtual child pornography" is good. I just do not think artists should have to feel they have to put a disclaimer on a CG picture stating the artificial being portrayed there is of the age of consent (consent for what? since their binary I do not know).


How broad can we make this brush...
By Cygni on 12/6/2007 2:24:01 PM , Rating: 5
"to images of minors fully clothed in overly “lascivious” poses and some obscene depictions including drawings, sculpture and painting."

...and suddenly MySpace, Facebook, LiveJournal, Xanga, Diaryland, and Flickr go dark...




RE: How broad can we make this brush...
By Wightout on 12/6/2007 7:18:16 PM , Rating: 2
so if I put up a pic of my lil bro (age: 3) and my lil sis (age: 2) taking a bath together... bubbles and suds and all My pop would be responsible for the illegal act of allowing me to post such a horrific pic from his wifi?

le sigh...


By Oregonian2 on 12/10/2007 4:33:42 PM , Rating: 2
At least he gets to join you in jail!


A small suggestion to the author
By TheCurve314 on 12/6/2007 4:57:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Illegal images is an umbrella covering everything from child pornography (and rightly so) ...


Though I'm sure many would agree with you on this last part, I think it would be more professional for you to stay as neutral as possible when writing articles.

Otherwise, good work with the story and thanks for sharing it with us.




RE: A small suggestion to the author
By BMFPitt on 12/6/2007 5:35:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Though I'm sure many would agree with you on this last part, I think it would be more professional for you to stay as neutral as possible when writing articles.
Next thing you know he'll be writing pieces clearly biased against murder...


RE: A small suggestion to the author
By TheCurve314 on 12/7/2007 12:22:35 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not entirely certain, but I'm pretty sure this is a news article and not a blog. If it is a blog, then I take back everything as I would expect explicit declarations of opinion to be present in a blog. If it's a news article, then I should probably elaborate my original point.

DailyTech, from what I have seen, is a reputable and serious online publication. Being the professionals that they are, I'm sure they understand the value of having a "focus on the facts" approach to journalism, as is largely demonstrated in this article. This way, the readers know they have accurate and neutral information from which they can form their own opinions. Should the author(s) want to voice their opinions or share more personal writings, then the Blogs section is ideal.

I know that your response was sarcastic, but my point applies to your example as well. I would not expect a professional news organization to say, "We're happy to report that John Doe was acquitted today" or "Thankfully, Act XYZ passed today which requires a mandatory death sentence for all convicted murderers." Even if society holds an overwhelming opinion on an issue like murder, a good news team should keep opinions to themselves.


RE: A small suggestion to the author
By FNG on 12/7/2007 12:43:56 AM , Rating: 2
Here, Here! Not that I am a pedophile / serial murderer / seal clubber (canadians?) fanboi or anything, but you bring up a good point when it boils down to credibility. Honestly though, I would not have caught that if you did not bring it up. Maybe I am conditioned to bias, especially when said bias agrees with my position; it feels like fact.


Goes too far
By sonoran on 12/7/2007 12:20:57 PM , Rating: 2
This legislation should have stopped at requiring you to notify authorities in a timely fashion if you learn about the child porn. Requiring people to archive it? Doesn't that - by law - require them to now violate a whole bunch of existing state and fed laws about possessing child porn? It must be Christmas, because this law was written by a bunch of fruitcakes.




RE: Goes too far
By Spuke on 12/7/2007 12:27:57 PM , Rating: 2
That part doesn't make any sense to me either. It would be a violation of law to keep the images (I think it's over a certain amount of images anyways). Maybe that part will get changed before it goes into law. If this passes as is then the pedo's just got a loophole.


Senator Ron Paul?
By Buspar on 12/6/2007 2:11:54 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The Securing Adolescents From Exploitation-Online Act (SAFE Act) won by a margin of 409 to 2 with the only two Senators not voting for the bill being Republicans Rep. Ron Paul from Texas and Rep. Paul Broun from Georgia.

I believe the proper term is "Congressmen" or "Representatives." Senators serve in the other part of the legislative branch.

With Ron Paul, though, if his legions of followers have their way we may one day call him President. Heh.




RE: Senator Ron Paul?
By T4RTER S4UCE on 12/6/07, Rating: 0
RE: Senator Ron Paul?
By sweetsauce on 12/6/2007 11:43:21 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah god forbit we vote for someone who doesn't have to repay all the corporations feeding them illegal money. Or someone with some common sense.


"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki