House vote on illegal images sweeps in Wi-Fi, Web sites

c|net ^ | 12/5/07 | Declan McCullagh

[djf]

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.

[Red_Devil 232]

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?

[djf]

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.

[nitzy]

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.

[DBrow]

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.

[DBrow]

“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.

[Kay Ludlow]

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 ;-)

[jiggyboy]

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

[Pinkbell]

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.

[steve86]

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.

[Cementjungle]

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

I'm willing to bet it would apply. If you choose to offer that service (by not locking it down) then I would think they could nail you.

[Cementjungle]

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

Projection.

[DBrow]

“Projection.”

Whoa! You think if we podslurped his notebook, there’d be actionable images there? That would make for interesting news! (I don’t think it’s likely).

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

>>I believe this won’t past Constitutional muster.<<

There is already some preposterously vague language in
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 71 > § 1466A:

“a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting ....an image that is, or appears to be....”

“Appears to be” in whose judgement? Can a cloud be “obscene?” To some people, yes. I don’t understand how that part is not unconstitutionally vague.