The "Protecting Children From Online Pornographers Act" aka "We're still watching"

Lord_Asmodeus

Ok so, I haven't seen a topic about this (correct me if I'm wrong) and I was a bit surprised. There's a new bill in that Congress (*cough* Republicans *cough*) is trying to get put through. It's called, as the title may have led you to believe, the "Protecting Children From Online Pornographers Act" or as I've heard it called the "Sign This Bill or You Hate Children Act"

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.1981:

Basically what it would do is require ISP's to keep a record of all of your online activities for a year or so, and they don't even need probable cause to look through your entire internet history without your consent. From The Police and even lawyers in things like civil divorce cases can go digging around in it for, well, whatever the fuck they want, since they don't need anyone's permission to do so. It's 'supposed' to help children from child pornographers and children from regular pornography, but one of the things it will do is, if you've ever downloaded a movie or T.V. show illegally, guess who could file to check your internet information? Well, a whole lot of people actually.

So what does debate and discourse think about this?

RMS Oceanic

It's a shame I'm not surprised at the naked appeal to emotion in the act name.

Also, if one requires a subpeona to get your phone records, the same burden of proof should apply to your internet activities.

Atomika

It's funny how Republicans are the anti-government Randroid Party until it's time to think of the children.

Echo

Ah yes, kiddie porn.

Watch the backers of this bill. They're on record going "Politicians don't understand the internet unless it involves child porn."

RMS Oceanic

Also this still feels like treating the symptoms of CP. You can track that people went to these sites and punish them, but isn't it better to find who's actually making the CP and shutting them down?

That would require a concerted effort, however, so instead we resume the game of whack-a-mole.

redx

Well, ok then. I guess I'm be using TOR. Sure, the CIA spys on it, but the information they collect is at least classified and they aren't going to go turning it over for civil suits.

Ego

RMS Oceanic wrote:

It's a shame I'm not surprised at the naked appeal to emotion in the act name.

Also, if one requires a subpeona to get your phone records, the same burden of proof should apply to your internet activities.

You fellows could use a law where your proposed laws/acts/bills/whatever are just given arbitrary numbers and politicians are legally required to refer to them only by the number of the bill.

To get it into law, you could all it the 'Protecting Children From Online Pornographers Act.'

Echo

RMS Oceanic wrote:

Also this still feels like treating the symptoms of CP. You can track that people went to these sites and punish them, but isn't it better to find who's actually making the CP and shutting them down?

That would require a concerted effort, however, so instead we resume the game of whack-a-mole.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkmcupFx3FQ

RMS Oceanic

Ego wrote:

RMS Oceanic wrote:

It's a shame I'm not surprised at the naked appeal to emotion in the act name.

Also, if one requires a subpeona to get your phone records, the same burden of proof should apply to your internet activities.

You fellows could use a law where your proposed laws/acts/bills/whatever are just given arbitrary numbers and politicians are legally required to refer to them only by the number of the bill.

To get it into law, you could all it the 'Protecting Children From Online Pornographers Act.'

How about a law that abolishes the Debt Ceiling and raises taxes called the "If You Don't Vote For This You Hate Children Act"?

Atomika

Echo wrote:

Ah yes, kiddie porn.

Watch the backers of this bill. They're on record going "Politicians don't understand the internet unless it involves child porn."

"I may not know what an internet is, but I don't need to know much to know that I should blindly support any measure that purports to keep children away from pornography, even if it's dangerously intrusive and invading of personal privacy. Our attitude towards child pornography should be one of guilty until constant ransacking and confiscation of personal property prove otherwise."


Child protection laws are a great interest to me, actually, as it's a huge outlet for some of our most irrational and logically-unsupported legislation. There is such a small window of practicality when talking about "protecting" children, especially in the abstract, e.g., pornography, sexual solicitation, legal marriage agreements, parental divorce, television and movie ratings, that it boggles the mind that we try to legislate so much of what is actually a very individual and subjective response for each child in that practical range, when parents really should be making those calls.

Think about it. The age range that most of this legislation impacts is ages 6 to 15. A decade. And very little of it makes sense. A child can get married at 14 or 15, but can be a victim of statutory rape at 17?

Ego

RMS Oceanic wrote:

Ego wrote:

RMS Oceanic wrote:

It's a shame I'm not surprised at the naked appeal to emotion in the act name.

Also, if one requires a subpeona to get your phone records, the same burden of proof should apply to your internet activities.

You fellows could use a law where your proposed laws/acts/bills/whatever are just given arbitrary numbers and politicians are legally required to refer to them only by the number of the bill.

To get it into law, you could all it the 'Protecting Children From Online Pornographers Act.'

How about a law that abolishes the Debt Ceiling and raises taxes called the "If You Don't Vote For This You Hate Children And Freedom And America And You're a Communist And You Hate Job Creators Act"?

There we go.

Nerissa

Echo wrote:

RMS Oceanic wrote:

Also this still feels like treating the symptoms of CP. You can track that people went to these sites and punish them, but isn't it better to find who's actually making the CP and shutting them down?

That would require a concerted effort, however, so instead we resume the game of whack-a-mole.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkmcupFx3FQ

"Ministry of Truth" was a nice touch... and my first clue that it wasn't 100% serious. Unfortunately, too many people will take it seriously, and think it's a good thing.

durandal4532

So seriously, where can I oppose this directly? Or is it just write to your congressperson again?

I can't believe this is considered a remotely plausible bill.

Shanadeus

I'm starting to feel like saying "Fuck the children".

Figuratively speaking.

RMS Oceanic

Or "How about we protect the children from short sighted opportunistic politicians who tap into the deepest darkest fears of anyone who has ever had children for their own ends?"

oldsak

Apparently, all you have to do to get something nobody understands passed is call it some equivalent of "protect the children," because nobody wants a soundbyte saying they're against protecting children next election cycle.

So.. I'm afeared this might actually get passed.

Echo

Here's a little read.

“Child pornography is great,” the man said enthusiastically. “Politicians do not understand file sharing, but they understand child pornography, and they want to filter that to score points with the public. Once we get them to filter child pornography, we can get them to extend the block to file sharing.”

The date was May 27, 2007, and the man was Johan Schlüter, head of the Danish Anti-Piracy Group (Antipiratgruppen). He was speaking in front of an audience from which the press had been banned; it was assumed to be copyright industry insiders only. It wasn’t. Christian Engström, who’s now a Member of the European Parliament, Oscar Swartz, and I were also there.

“My friends,” Schlüter said. “We must filter the Internet to win over online file sharing. But politicians don’t understand that file sharing is bad, and this is a problem for us. Therefore, we must associate file sharing with child pornography. Because that’s something the politicians understand, and something they want to filter off the Internet.”

RMS Oceanic

Echo wrote:

Here's a little read.

“Child pornography is great,” the man said enthusiastically. “Politicians do not understand file sharing, but they understand child pornography, and they want to filter that to score points with the public. Once we get them to filter child pornography, we can get them to extend the block to file sharing.”

The date was May 27, 2007, and the man was Johan Schlüter, head of the Danish Anti-Piracy Group (Antipiratgruppen). He was speaking in front of an audience from which the press had been banned; it was assumed to be copyright industry insiders only. It wasn’t. Christian Engström, who’s now a Member of the European Parliament, Oscar Swartz, and I were also there.

“My friends,” Schlüter said. “We must filter the Internet to win over online file sharing. But politicians don’t understand that file sharing is bad, and this is a problem for us. Therefore, we must associate file sharing with child pornography. Because that’s something the politicians understand, and something they want to filter off the Internet.”

I'm shocked. Shocked.

Atomika

Vote No on Prop ∞!

MagicPrime

Get a bunch of old men who can't check their email without an intern assisting and this is what we get.

Lord_Asmodeus

Echo wrote:

Here's a little read.

“Child pornography is great,” the man said enthusiastically. “Politicians do not understand file sharing, but they understand child pornography, and they want to filter that to score points with the public. Once we get them to filter child pornography, we can get them to extend the block to file sharing.”

The date was May 27, 2007, and the man was Johan Schlüter, head of the Danish Anti-Piracy Group (Antipiratgruppen). He was speaking in front of an audience from which the press had been banned; it was assumed to be copyright industry insiders only. It wasn’t. Christian Engström, who’s now a Member of the European Parliament, Oscar Swartz, and I were also there.

“My friends,” Schlüter said. “We must filter the Internet to win over online file sharing. But politicians don’t understand that file sharing is bad, and this is a problem for us. Therefore, we must associate file sharing with child pornography. Because that’s something the politicians understand, and something they want to filter off the Internet.”

I swear I've seen that before. I don't know which is more depressing, that there's a group that's so enthusiastic about using emotional appeal to abuse people's freedoms, or that it might actually work.

MagicPrime

I'm all for a law that makes it illegal for ISPs to record or monitor internet activity outside of bandwidth usage.

Elldren

RMS Oceanic wrote:

Also this still feels like treating the symptoms of CP. You can track that people went to these sites and punish them, but isn't it better to find who's actually making the CP and shutting them down?

That would require a concerted effort, however, so instead we resume the game of whack-a-mole.

Of course.

Because this bill has nothing whatsoever to do with child pornography

Echo

MagicPrime wrote:

I'm all for a law that makes it illegal for ISPs to record or monitor internet activity outside of bandwidth usage.

Funny thing here in Sweden is that we have that law too.

So currently ISPs break the law no matter what they do. That law says they may not retain more information than they need to bill the customer for services rendered.

My ISP, Bahnhof, is really awesome and changed their infrastructure so they'd be less able to store data. They also nuke whatever data they have within two weeks of each bill I get, for that billing period.

RMS Oceanic

MagicPrime wrote:

I'm all for a law that makes it illegal for ISPs to record or monitor internet activity outside of bandwidth usage.

Something that respects privacy?! But then the terrorists win! [/Cynical Mode]

Ego

Everyone knows privacy isn't important in things that you don't use.

MagicPrime

But other than flat-out privacy intrusion is there any reason for your ISP to know what you're doing aside from how much bandwidth?

I mean, does the gas company record how much of my gas is going to my furnace, stove, flame throwers, etc? Fuck no. They know I use X cubic feet per month and bill me appropriately.

Elldren

MagicPrime wrote:

But other than flat-out privacy intrusion is there any reason for your ISP to know what you're doing aside from how much bandwidth?

I mean, does the gas company record how much of my gas is going to my furnace, stove, flame throwers, etc? Fuck no. They know I use X cubic feet per month and bill me appropriately.

But gas doesn't explode like the internet! The internet is highly volatile, they need o monitor specifically how much of it goes where.

MagicPrime

Information is the most dangerous of resource.

Drez

Nerissa wrote:

Echo wrote:

RMS Oceanic wrote:

Also this still feels like treating the symptoms of CP. You can track that people went to these sites and punish them, but isn't it better to find who's actually making the CP and shutting them down?

That would require a concerted effort, however, so instead we resume the game of whack-a-mole.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkmcupFx3FQ

"Ministry of Truth" was a nice touch... and my first clue that it wasn't 100% serious. Unfortunately, too many people will take it seriously, and think it's a good thing.

Hahahahahahahahah wtf. Hahahah.

Echo

Drez wrote:

Hahahahahahahahah wtf. Hahahah.

That list of blocked "example" sites?

It has a wikipedia page on it. That's an actual page that's on the Danish block list.

DivideByZero

MagicPrime wrote:

But other than flat-out privacy intrusion is there any reason for your ISP to know what you're doing aside from how much bandwidth?

I mean, does the gas company record how much of my gas is going to my furnace, stove, flame throwers, etc? Fuck no. They know I use X cubic feet per month and bill me appropriately.

This will change the instant somebody finds a crudely-rendered stick figure drawing of child pornography traced in the dust on a gas furnace.

"Coming up, an entirely new vector for child pornography to enter YOUR HOME! ...But first: sports."

Urcbub

Echo wrote:

MagicPrime wrote:

I'm all for a law that makes it illegal for ISPs to record or monitor internet activity outside of bandwidth usage.

Funny thing here in Sweden is that we have that law too.

So currently ISPs break the law no matter what they do. That law says they may not retain more information than they need to bill the customer for services rendered.

My ISP, Bahnhof, is really awesome and changed their infrastructure so they'd be less able to store data. They also nuke whatever data they have within two weeks of each bill I get, for that billing period.

Yeah but Sweden is like socialist and stuff... we in America believe in freedom! Like the freedom to have your internet history recorded and monitored for no reason whatsoever.

But yeah, bahnhof is a good ISP

nexuscrawler

my question is how many politicians penises will we have to endure under this law

Synthesis

I could have sworn the name for the act was going to be an acronym for something.

PCOPA? COPA? POPA?

RMS Oceanic

Pacopa has a nice ring to it.

Echo

Protecting Online Orifices from Penises Act.

DivideByZero

And its companion bill, Securing Children Online from Ocular Penetration Act.

TL DR

How would legislation like this impact DMCA safe harbor provisions? Would ISPs then become essentially responsible for users' online activity?

Void Slayer

The important thing is how awesome it will be when this data can be mined to sell more male enhancement pills.

Or pornography.

Echo

Void Slayer wrote:

The important thing is how awesome it will be when this data can be mined to sell more male enhancement pills.

Or pornography.

Shit, you just know that data-mining access for marketing purposes will be tacked on to that act sooner or later.