Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

House vote on illegal images sweeps in Wi-Fi, Web sites
c|net ^ | 12/5/07 | Declan McCullagh

Posted on 12/06/2007 2:39:08 PM PST by LibWhacker

The U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday overwhelmingly approved a bill saying that anyone offering an open Wi-Fi connection to the public must report illegal images including "obscene" cartoons and drawings--or face fines of up to $300,000.

That broad definition would cover individuals, coffee shops, libraries, hotels, and even some government agencies that provide Wi-Fi. It also sweeps in social-networking sites, domain name registrars, Internet service providers, and e-mail service providers such as Hotmail and Gmail, and it may require that the complete contents of the user's account be retained for subsequent police inspection.

Before the House vote, which was a lopsided 409 to 2, Rep. Nick Lampson (D-Texas) held a press conference on Capitol Hill with John Walsh, the host of America's Most Wanted and Ernie Allen, head of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

Allen said the legislation--called the Securing Adolescents From Exploitation-Online Act, or SAFE Act--will "ensure better reporting, investigation, and prosecution of those who use the Internet to distribute images of illegal child pornography."

The SAFE Act represents the latest in Congress' efforts--some of which have raised free speech and privacy concerns--to crack down on sex offenders and Internet predators. One bill introduced a year ago was even broader and would have forced Web sites and blogs to report illegal images. Another would require sex offenders to supply e-mail addresses and instant messaging user names.

Wednesday's vote caught Internet companies by surprise: the Democratic leadership rushed the SAFE Act to the floor under a procedure that's supposed to be reserved for noncontroversial legislation. It was introduced October 10, but has never received even one hearing or committee vote. In addition, the legislation approved this week has changed substantially since the earlier version and was not available for public review.

Not one Democrat opposed the SAFE Act. Two Republicans did: Rep. Ron Paul, the libertarian-leaning presidential candidate from Texas, and Rep. Paul Broun from Georgia.

This is what the SAFE Act requires: 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. (By the way, "electronic communications service" and "remote computing service" providers already have some reporting requirements under existing law too.)

The definition of which images qualify as illegal is expansive. It includes obvious child pornography, meaning photographs and videos of children being molested. But it also includes photographs of fully clothed minors in overly "lascivious" poses, and certain obscene visual depictions including a "drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting." (Yes, that covers the subset of anime called hentai).

Someone providing a Wi-Fi connection probably won't have to worry about the SAFE Act's additional requirement of retaining all the suspect's personal files if the illegal images are "commingled or interspersed" with other data. But that retention requirement does concern Internet service providers, which would be in a position to comply. So would e-mail service providers, including both Web-based ones and companies that offer POP or IMAP services.

"USISPA has long supported harmonized reporting of child pornography incidents to the (NCMEC). ISPs report over 30,000 incidents a year, and we work closely with NCMEC and law enforcement on the investigation," Kate Dean, head of the U.S. Internet Service Provider Association, said on Wednesday. "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."

Failure to comply with the SAFE Act would result in an initial fine of up to $150,000, and fines of up to $300,000 for subsequent offenses. That's the stick. There's a carrot as well: anyone who does comply is immune from civil lawsuits and criminal prosecutions.

There are two more points worth noting. First, the vote on the SAFE Act seems unusually rushed. It's not entirely clear that the House Democratic leadership really meant this legislation to slap new restrictions on hundreds of thousands of Americans and small businesses who offer public wireless connections. But they'll nevertheless have to abide by the new rules if senators go along with this idea (and it's been a popular one in the Senate).

The second point is that Internet providers already are required by another federal law to report child pornography sightings to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which is in turn charged with forwarding that report to the appropriate police agency. So there's hardly an emergency, which makes the Democrats' rush for a vote more inexplicable than usual.


TOPICS: Government; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: 110th; aliens; house; immigrantlist; internet; porn; safeact; vote; wifi
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last
Make sure your wireless home networks are properly configured -- or go to jail!
1 posted on 12/06/2007 2:39:15 PM PST by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

LOL! I don’t think this applies to folks having their bandwidth stolen.


2 posted on 12/06/2007 2:44:04 PM PST by Jeff Chandler ("Liberals want to save the world for the children they aren't having." -Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

Congress has once again conclusively demonstrated how out of touch it is with reality. Emigration has to be seriously considered.

Kudos to Ron Paul for paying attention. This one is even dumber than Sarbanes-Oxley and the Internet gambling ban.


3 posted on 12/06/2007 2:44:36 PM PST by Mr. Jeeves ("Wise men don't need to debate; men who need to debate are not wise." -- Tao Te Ching)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
There is no way for any company to do this without hiring someone to look at every single image being downloaded. Do you know of any AI which could take every image and determine "kiddie porn" or "not kiddie porn"? Toss on top of that if the user encrypts the transmissions from his computer to some proxy site, so that the local router will only have access to IP addresses of the proxy site and not to anything being transmitted.

Exploitation of children is wrong, but this law is unenforceable except by shutting down all public (or even semi-private) networks.

4 posted on 12/06/2007 2:46:20 PM PST by KarlInOhio (Government is the hired help - not the boss. When politicians forget that they must be fired.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

>>Make sure your wireless home networks are properly configured — or go to jail!<<

I do that.

But this sounds like it might kill open Wifi.


5 posted on 12/06/2007 2:46:32 PM PST by gondramB (Preach the Gospel at all times, and when necessary, use words.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
They are going after the 1st Amendment anyway they can.
6 posted on 12/06/2007 2:48:27 PM PST by Don Corleone (Leave the gun..take the cannoli)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
I have a wireless home network. If someone somehow were to pick up the signal and use it to send or download something from the internet how could I possibly know and how in the world would I be able to capture that data?
7 posted on 12/06/2007 2:49:52 PM PST by Red_Devil 232 (VietVet - USMC All Ready On The Right? All Ready On The Left? All Ready On The Firing Line!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

A weird vote from a weird Congress. Keep your hands off my internet content Pelosi.


8 posted on 12/06/2007 2:51:10 PM PST by BlueStateBlues (Blue State for business, Red State at heart..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker; Jeff Chandler
I’m not so sure that home wireless or other stolen wireless is not included. If they catch someone transmitting “illegal images” like “obscene cartoons” and find that the felon was using your wireless (and your IP address) you think they’ll leave you alone? Especially if your defense is that you just got the thing out of the box and plugged it in without clicking up the security functions.

This is not about “saving teens”, imo, this is about regulating net communications content.

9 posted on 12/06/2007 2:52:05 PM PST by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

“There are two more points worth noting. First, the vote on the SAFE Act seems unusually rushed. It’s not entirely clear that the House Democratic leadership really meant this legislation to slap new restrictions on hundreds of thousands of Americans and small businesses who offer public wireless connections. But they’ll nevertheless have to abide by the new rules if senators go along with this idea (and it’s been a popular one in the Senate).

The second point is that Internet providers already are required by another federal law to report child pornography sightings to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which is in turn charged with forwarding that report to the appropriate police agency. So there’s hardly an emergency, which makes the Democrats’ rush for a vote more inexplicable than usual.”

This is pure BS !..a Last desperate act by a useless good for nothing dimRAT congress to pass anything so they can say they had a successful year...No one read this bill, it was never read in Commission even !..then suddenly it is on the HOuse floor and passes overwhelmingly. Talk about taking away people’s freedoms..Yes it clamps down on the worst porn but it also takes a huge bite out of personal freedom and is a set up by the dimRATS to probe even more into people’s personal lives...They will say that if you oppose this you are one of ‘those’ !...Sorry, not one of those and will not be duped....


10 posted on 12/06/2007 2:52:52 PM PST by billmor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

I don’t see how this would pass the first court test.

It would require the wi-fi providers to become policemen and scrutinize every bit that passes through the wi-fi connection.


11 posted on 12/06/2007 2:53:24 PM PST by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy
“It would require the wi-fi providers to become policemen “

Or shut down, or go to a paid subscription so that every user is logged, known, regulated, watched, with an indemnification contract.

I think the bill also broadens the definition of illegal image past child porn (from reading the article, I have not read the bill).

12 posted on 12/06/2007 2:55:50 PM PST by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: All

H. R. 3791, go to http://thomas.loc.gov and get a copy.


13 posted on 12/06/2007 2:58:56 PM PST by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red_Devil 232

You couldn’t. I can drive down the street of almost any neighborhood in America and find (inadvertently) open networks on every block. This bill is just going to sweep up a lot of innocent people into Big Brother’s maw.

If I were a legit business offering my customers open wifi, I’d shut it down before hiring people to examine every downloaded image. The only alternative would be to charge your customers, make them open accounts, and store their every mouse click in perpetuity.


14 posted on 12/06/2007 2:59:09 PM PST by LibWhacker (Democrats are phony Americans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Red_Devil 232
how could I possibly know and how in the world would I be able to capture that data?

That makes no difference. If you are a registered Democrat there is no need for any concern whatsover; Her Highness will not go after you.

OTOH, if you have ANY conservative connections or if you've EVER posted on FR, you'll be prosecuted to the FULLEST extent of the LAW!

15 posted on 12/06/2007 3:00:30 PM PST by C210N
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
and certain obscene visual depictions including a "drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting." (Yes, that covers the subset of anime called hentai).

Or painting? Yikes. Here on FR in a thread discussing the new Christmas stamp someone posted Leonardo di Vinci's painting of Madonna and Child with a Carnation instead of Luini's The Madonna of the Carnation (which was used on this year's stamp). Leonardo's painting had Jesus naked. Yep, right here on FR "Divine Child Porn".

Imagine the ISP or local Wi-Fi provider of every single Freeper viewing that thread having to examine that painting and determine "Child porn or legitimate artwork".

16 posted on 12/06/2007 3:03:49 PM PST by KarlInOhio (Government is the hired help - not the boss. When politicians forget that they must be fired.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
Looks like the libraries that have WiFI will be in big trouble.

Damn Rats are undermining American freedom one step at a time.
And they don't want wire tapping "my a$$"..

17 posted on 12/06/2007 3:10:12 PM PST by MaxMax (God Bless America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
This has already been knocked down by the Supreme Court once in the last decade. This is the reason why John McCain can never be President of this country, he honestly believes every single person on the internet is a prime suspect for child pornography charges, as per his own comments in years past. The challenge had to reach the Supreme Court to be overruled. Internet Censorship: Global (Cont'd)

US Senate Committee Approves Internet Censorship Bills, 12 Mar 98
The Senate Commerce Committee approved two Internet censorship bills on 12 March 1998. Senator McCain's bill, "Internet School Filtering Act" - S. 1619, require schools and libraries receiving federal "e-rate" Internet subsidies to certify that they are using filtering software designed to prevent minors from accessing "inappropriate" material. Senator Coats' bill, S. 1482 would criminalize "commercial" material that is "harmful to minors" on the Internet.
See the Internet Free Expression Alliance site for information on the bills.

Statement on the Senate Commerce Committee's Approval of Coats and McCain Internet Censorship Bills, Electronic Frontier Foundation President Barry Steinhardt, 12 Mar 98
"The Coats bill, which in the name of protecting children, will effectively block adults from receiving a wide variety of legitimate material that falls under a vague category of "harmful to minors", has all of the same constitutional defects as the earlier Communications Decency Act (CDA). Like the CDA, it cannot withstand a review in the courts.
The Mc Cain bill would force libraries and schools, which receive Federal Universal Service monies for Internet connections, to use all too frequently crude and overbroad filters that also block out a wide array of non-"indecent" speech. Children and adults alike will be denied the full potential of the Internet as the true marketplace of diverse ideas. It will deprive library patrons, students and speakers of the their First Amendment rights. "

Spawn of CDA: New Internet Censorship Bills Slither Through Senate, ACLU Press Release, 12 Mar 98
"When the Court struck down the CDA, we anticipated that members of Congress would renew their attempts at Internet censorship," Nojeim said. "But no matter how many bills are spawned from this ill-fated and unconstitutional legislation, the ACLU stands ready to stamp them out."

As at late 1997, Net censorship proposals were also focussed on industry "self regulation" and rating and labelling of content. For further information see The Debate: Government Coercion and Privatised Censorship.

[BROKEN LINK] CDA Struck Down!, Declan McCullagh, Netly News, 26 Jun 97
"The U.S. Supreme Court, in a landmark decision that firmly establishes unbridled free speech in cyberspace, struck down the Communications Decency Act. In a 40-page majority opinion handed down this morning, the Justices determined that the act is unconstitutional. The court also resoundingly rejected the argument that broadcast standards should apply to the Internet..."
[BROKEN LINK] Supreme Court rejects CDA, Courtney Macavinta, 26 Jun 97
CNN report on Court decision, 26 Jun 97
[BROKEN LINK] The Supreme Court Rules, Jeff Pundyk, editor-in-chief, TechWeb, 27 Jun 97
"Let me tell you what's really cool about the Supreme Court's knocking down the Communications Decency Act as unconstitutional: They get it. The Supreme Court, those oldsters with their black robes, stern faces, dusty chambers and hallowed halls get it."
For coverage of the CDA ruling and its aftermath, see TechWire's Special Report.

Supreme Court decision:
http://archive.aclu.org/court/renovacludec.html
http://www2.epic.org/cda/cda_decision.html
http://www.ciec.org/SC_appeal/decision.shtml
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-511.ZS.html
"In Sable...we remarked that the speech restriction at issue there amounted to " 'burn[ing] the house to roast the pig.' " The CDA, casting a far darker shadow over free speech, threatens to torch a large segment of the Internet community."

"The record demonstrates that the growth of the Internet has been and continues to be phenomenal. As a matter of constitutional tradition, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we presume that governmental regulation of the content of speech is more likely to interfere with the free exchange of ideas than to encourage it. The interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship."

Transcript of Reno v. ACLU Oral Arguments
On March 19th, 1997 at 10:00 am, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a legal battle over the constitutionality of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), a law which imposes broadcast-style content regulations on the Internet. The Court decision was handed down on 26 June 1997.

Communications Decency Act (CDA) ruled unconstitutional, 12 June 96
"Just as the strength of the internet is chaos, so the strength of our liberty depends upon the chaos and cacaphony of the unfettered speech the First Amendment protects."
In a victory for everyone who uses computer communications, a Philadelphia federal court has struck down the CDA which would have criminalised constitutionally protected speech on the Internet and other online forums.

Legal Challenge to Internet Censorship, EPIC
In the opening round of the court challenge to the CDA by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), and several other plaintiffs, the judge has issued a temporary restraining order against one of the portions of the Act (Feb 96). Information on the lawsuit is available.

[BROKEN LINK] Net-Friendly Legislators Announce [US] Congressional Internet Caucus, Mar 96
A bi-partisan group of members of both the U.S. House and Senate on Thursday 29 Mar 96 announced the formation of the Congressional Internet Caucus. The group will work to educate members of Congress about how the Internet works, bring more members of Congress online, and encourage the use of the Net to facilitate better communication between members of Congress and their constituents.
On Repealing The Communications Decency Act, Senator Leahy's Floor Statement, 9 Feb 96
"Should we not say that the parents ought to make this decision, not us in the Congress? We should put some responsibility back on families, on parents. They have the software available that they can determine what their children are looking at. That is what we should do. Banning indecent material from the Internet is like using a meat cleaver to deal with the problems better addressed with a scalpel."

[BROKEN LINK] National Day of Protest against Net Censorship, 12 Dec 95, USA, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
"Communications Decency" legislation would criminalize users and system operators for Constitutionally-protected speech. Full analysis of Internet censorship bill passed by US Senate, text of bill, info on other bills by Feinstein, Dole, etc and links to statements, editorials, commentaries, etc.

[BROKEN LINK] EFF's Analysis of the Communications Decency Act

EFF's Internet Censorship Legislation Archive

18 posted on 12/06/2007 3:13:14 PM PST by JerseyHighlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio

Yep, it’s totally unenforceable, as you said. But the idiots will probably keep trying though until they get something workable, but no doubt equally objectionable.


19 posted on 12/06/2007 3:14:14 PM PST by LibWhacker (Democrats are phony Americans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio

Imagine the cities like S.Francisco who are working to cover the entire city area under an open wi-fi connection. How in the world will they monitor an entire city’s internet connections?


20 posted on 12/06/2007 3:14:45 PM PST by RedFred In A Blue State
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MaxMax

I believe this won’t past Constitutional muster. the Supreme Court struck down the CDA, there is no way that this bill as written now will hold up to muster if the CDA case is used as a priori.


21 posted on 12/06/2007 3:14:54 PM PST by JerseyHighlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: DBrow
I don't think so.

The bill states: 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.

The key word here is "Learns". I take that to mean discovered or found out by either deliberately reading my users traffic or inadvertently discovering such while preforming something like intrusion detection or traffic analysis.

I will not read the users data or traffic deliberately as that would violate other laws. So they only way this would come to my attention as an ISP employee, etc, would be inadvertently.

How they gonna prove I "learned" of it?

For my users, my motto is what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. Don't ask, don't tell. Now if you get caught because you're violating the rules or are extremely blatant about it, that's another thing, but I don't see ISPs being forced to spy on their customers in this bill.

22 posted on 12/06/2007 3:15:16 PM PST by Alas Babylon!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

Would you offer free wifi service under these draconian penalties and rules? How are they going to monitor this and keep logs and copies?

I suspect you can say goodbye to working on the internet for free at your local coffee shop or restaurant.

My guess is that Pelosi and company got a large donation from somewhere.


23 posted on 12/06/2007 3:20:29 PM PST by wildbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
But this sounds like it might kill open Wifi.

Who profit$ if that happens?

24 posted on 12/06/2007 3:22:08 PM PST by Graybeard58 ( Remember and pray for SSgt. Matt Maupin - MIA/POW- Iraq since 04/09/04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler

If New York passed a particular law last year, it is against the law in NY to have an unsecured wi-fi.


25 posted on 12/06/2007 3:22:48 PM PST by RJS1950 (The democrats are the "enemies foreign and domestic" cited in the federal oath)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Red_Devil 232

Depends on your setup.

Most home wireless AP’s can be configured to only use a certain range of IP addresses or to only respond to certain MAC addresses. Start off by using WEP encryption, and if you still detect somebody stealing bandwidth, tighten the screws down.

If most of this sounds Greek to you, hire a professional or talk to your ISP.


26 posted on 12/06/2007 3:27:36 PM PST by djf (Send Fred some bread! Not a whole loaf, a slice or two will do!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio
but this law is unenforceable except by shutting down all public (or even semi-private) networks.

Don't you think that's really the point? 409 to 2? What's the biggest threat to our legislators comfortable positions? The way the Internet is revolutionizing politics!The fewer people who can get on line and search out the facts for themselves, the safer our congress-critters will be...

27 posted on 12/06/2007 3:28:44 PM PST by Kay Ludlow (Free market, but cautious about what I support with my dollars)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
I can drive down the street of almost any neighborhood in America and find (inadvertently) open networks on every block.

Right here where I'm sitting, I have FOUR different unsecured wireless networks that come up on my computer.

I know who two of them belong to, but as for the other two, I have no earthly idea. They didn't even bother to give the network a name, let alone secure it.

28 posted on 12/06/2007 3:30:19 PM PST by AnAmericanMother ((Ministrix of Ye Chase, TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

What you are saying is that a busness offering WiFi to its customers is a totally different setup than the home wireless connections I have. In the business setup is there a server on site that the connection goes through? Just asking because I have no idea how they work.


29 posted on 12/06/2007 3:35:20 PM PST by Red_Devil 232 (VietVet - USMC All Ready On The Right? All Ready On The Left? All Ready On The Firing Line!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

I predict that those who enjoy child pornography will now start their own ISPs, and conform fully to the SAFE act, thus obtaining safe harbor for “retaining” child porn.


30 posted on 12/06/2007 3:37:05 PM PST by sourcery (If Hillary is the next President, she may also be the last.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother

Some networks have stealth mode where you can choose to not broadcast the network name.


31 posted on 12/06/2007 3:38:41 PM PST by djf (Send Fred some bread! Not a whole loaf, a slice or two will do!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: djf
Mine is WEP encrypted. Obviously a commercial WiFi setup that offers the service to its customers is quit different that the home wireless setup I have. Since I could not know what was being sent over mine I just assumed it would be the same for a WiFi provider. A lot that I don’t know, obviously
32 posted on 12/06/2007 3:41:51 PM PST by Red_Devil 232 (VietVet - USMC All Ready On The Right? All Ready On The Left? All Ready On The Firing Line!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: djf
If they bothered to set up the stealth feature, they sure wouldn't have it wide open and unsecured! I can use any of these (but mine works fine so I don't).

This is just an ordinary suburban neighborhood, lots about 3/4 acre, people on both sides of us and across the street. Clearly lots of folks have these wireless systems and just plug and play.

33 posted on 12/06/2007 3:44:05 PM PST by AnAmericanMother ((Ministrix of Ye Chase, TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Alas Babylon!

Does this put any responsibility on you to know exactly what they do and don’t consider “offensive”? If I’m reading this correctly, you’ll have to transmit them a copy of the images, and then report yourself for doing it (and include another copy of the images), lather, rinse repeat....


34 posted on 12/06/2007 3:45:55 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Red_Devil 232

Can you get to an option screen for your wireless AP? Are you using the default gateway number of 192.168.0.1?

Without knowing the setup you have, I can’t tell ya exactly what you can or can’t do. My router will:
block certain MAC’s
Hard assign IP addresses to certain MAC’s
allow WEP
allow me to change the default router (192.168.0.1) address
allow stealth mode, where the machine trying to connect has to know the MAC address of the router
about four more options I haven’t even tried playing with


35 posted on 12/06/2007 3:48:28 PM PST by djf (Send Fred some bread! Not a whole loaf, a slice or two will do!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: djf

My set up at home is quite fine and protected from outside access. I just posed the question ... how would I know (if I were not using protection) what someone sent over it? I just thought a commercial WiFi connection would be like my home connection ... how would they know what use their WiFi connection was being used for?


36 posted on 12/06/2007 3:55:54 PM PST by Red_Devil 232 (VietVet - USMC All Ready On The Right? All Ready On The Left? All Ready On The Firing Line!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Red_Devil 232
We're in the same boat then because there's a whole lot I don't know about them either. In fact, about all I do know is how to get on one when I detect it, lol.

Thankfully, today's laptops make that a snap. You can even buy t-shirts that light up when you get close to a wi-fi network. But personally, when I make a connection, I couldn't tell you whether it was peer-to-peer or a client/server setup.

I don't have a home network myself. I'm surprised that you can't tell when someone is using your network, or what they're doing with it. Just another reason I'll probably put off going wireless in this house!

37 posted on 12/06/2007 3:58:57 PM PST by LibWhacker (Democrats are phony Americans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler
LOL! I don’t think this applies to folks having their bandwidth stolen.

The idea is that you're responsible for any usage on your own WiFi router. It's as though you assume responsibility of someone steals your car and then goes forth to commit crimes with it.

38 posted on 12/06/2007 4:24:13 PM PST by BlazingArizona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
Yep, it’s totally unenforceable, as you said

But they'll ram it through anyway. If it perchance gets defeated on the floor, it will reappear as a rider on every unrelated bill until it passes in some unguarded midnight moment. Just as with all the Hollywood-uber-alles copyright legislation, we will have rely on the pirates and hackers to save our last shreds of freedom.

39 posted on 12/06/2007 4:28:09 PM PST by BlazingArizona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
We take our RV out several times a year for 3 to 4 week trips and try to stay at campgrounds that offer wifi, either open (free) or pay to use which I assume is secure. If I read this right many campgrounds that offer free (open)wifi to their customers will no longer be able to do so. Am I reading this right?
40 posted on 12/06/2007 4:40:40 PM PST by engrpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red_Devil 232

Unless they have some kind of logging function turned on or a sniffer, they wouldn’t.

If there are records, it would be at the ISP itself.

Just like a phone, a wireless connection is simply a pipe. It doesn’t remember what you said or who you talked to.


41 posted on 12/06/2007 5:09:04 PM PST by djf (Send Fred some bread! Not a whole loaf, a slice or two will do!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: djf
Just like a phone, a wireless connection is simply a pipe. It doesn’t remember what you said or who you talked to.

Thanks that is what I thought. So the onus is on the IP not the WiFi provider?

42 posted on 12/06/2007 5:17:10 PM PST by Red_Devil 232 (VietVet - USMC All Ready On The Right? All Ready On The Left? All Ready On The Firing Line!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Red_Devil 232

I would say so, yes. Because no actual content info is stored on the wi-fi equipment. No pictures, no emails, nada.

Now some providers might have proxy servers built in for caching and/or DNS resolution but my guess would be that for wireless setups like McDonalds or whatever, that’d be very few if any.

A simple 802.11 setup could easily handle the volume for a dozen or so users without even breaking a sweat, so there’s little need for that kind of equipment at a local wifi hotspot.


43 posted on 12/06/2007 5:46:11 PM PST by djf (Send Fred some bread! Not a whole loaf, a slice or two will do!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: DBrow
I would imagine it is more about making sure free WiFi doesn't become to widespread. Comcast and AT&T would much rather see you pay for it.

Follow the money.

44 posted on 12/06/2007 5:50:45 PM PST by nitzy (globalism and limited government cannot co-exist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Alas Babylon!

I like your analysis, it looks good. I still dislike it; it seems like the beginnings of a bad law. First they’ll pass the unenforceable law, then “add teeth” later.


45 posted on 12/06/2007 5:57:07 PM PST by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Kay Ludlow

“The fewer people who can get on line and search out the facts for themselves,”

I’ve always seen Thomas from LOC as a huge threat. It used to take a week or more to get the text of a bill (call the rep, wait for the mail), and usually get it after the bill was voted on.

Now, it takes a second.


46 posted on 12/06/2007 5:59:38 PM PST by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: DBrow
true, but if they increase the risk to service providers fewer people will have access to it. Besides, they realize most people can’t understand the “plain english” the bills are written in ;-)
47 posted on 12/06/2007 7:33:07 PM PST by Kay Ludlow (Free market, but cautious about what I support with my dollars)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Red_Devil 232

You’re in the clear. You’re not “offering” it to “the public”.


48 posted on 12/06/2007 7:54:33 PM PST by jiggyboy (Ten per cent of poll respondents are either lying or insane)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

This seems pretty unenforceable. It says “learns”, so businesses who provide these connections could just say they didn’t “learn” of it. If they do somehow catch a person looking at child porn, then they’ll have to report it.


49 posted on 12/06/2007 9:51:59 PM PST by Pinkbell (Duncan Hunter 2008 - Protecting and Restoring America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jiggyboy
You’re not “offering” it to “the public”.

If it's not locked down the person may, in fact, be considered to be "offering it to the public".

Unfortunately, home routers have no ability to monitor or log data, just connections and DHCP requests, and ANY home router security measure (i.e. no broadcast; WEP; WPA; MAC address filtering) can be spoofed or defeated. In fact, I can do it myself given sufficient time.

That said, this measure shouldn't threaten a home wireless network operator who enables the usual (if ineffective) security measures.

50 posted on 12/06/2007 10:04:54 PM PST by steve86 (Acerbic by nature, not nurture™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson