[Update] "Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers" HR 1981

[Wolfram23]

Sure, there's that... or they could just make porn sites registered so that browsers can have a filter "allow porn sites yes/no" and bam, no more porn on your browser. Granted, they'd have to pull a SOPA and block/DNS any sites that don't comply for it to be effective...

Then again, parents could just be responsible. And maybe advertisement campaigns could promote setting security settings on the router to block inappropriate sites...

 

[ph0b0s123]

So goes to show again, that as long as you say something is to combat a heinous crime, terrorism, child abuse, it short circuits most peoples intelligence, so that they will allow you to put in almost any kind of legislation. China and N. Korean missed a trick by not saying their Internet lock downs were to enable them to catch people committing these crimes.

Once this system if in place, of course, it will be used for nothing but chasing child abusers, right?

The EU is not much different in pushing for this for the same reasons.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/28/details_of_all_internet_traffic_should_be_logged_says_mep/

Since this is something from a year ago that people are now starting to take notice of, like the recent resurgence in opposition to ACTA. I am hoping that the SOPA fight has made people want to be more aware of these things.

 

[SageRuffin]

We need people from this generation to be politicians. I think we can all agree that some common sense will work wonders.

Agreed. I normally can't stand politics (not do I know shit about them), but this is getting fucking ridiculous.

Fuck it, let ME be president. I'll institute a law that makes it legal to physically smack stupid people, commoners and world leaders alike.

 

[BooDoug187]

Its only a matter of time before Lamar Smith is found to be watching child porn on the internet.

Well, remember Congressman Mark Foley? He was all "We must protect children from porn and child molesters!" then he would go to his office and chat with teen boys, talking about taking showers with them then having rough sex with them...

Yeah any time I hear any government person talking about protecting children, I get a bad feeling they are some sick child molester.

 

[Von Strimmer]

I'm curious to see which companies will stick up for individual freedoms and freedom of speech considering this new law will not impact them significantly. I sure hope they stay true to their convictions!

 

[Lucem712]

A new bill supported by Lamar Smith [http://www.examiner.com/civil-rights-in-wilmington/hr-1981-protecting-children-from-internet-pornographers-sounds-good-right] has emerged.

HR 1981 comes from May of last year. It's nearly a year old. It is not a new bill, and there's already been threads on it.

Just so you know.

Apologies, I read an article that was written on it yesterday so that is my source. It was placed on the union calender on Dec. 16th (According to the library of congress), so perhaps that is why I found such a fresh article?

Thank you for informing me, I'll update the information.

 

[Byere]

A new bill supported by Lamar Smith [http://www.examiner.com/civil-rights-in-wilmington/hr-1981-protecting-children-from-internet-pornographers-sounds-good-right] has emerged.

And it's including some pretty funky stuff in it.


It?s their solution that appalls me: under language approved 19 to 10 by a House committee, the firm that sells you Internet access would be required to track all of your Internet activity and save it for 18 months, along with your name, the address where you live, your bank account numbers, your credit card numbers, and IP addresses you?ve been assigned.

Tracking the private daily behavior of everyone in order to help catch a small number of child criminals is itself the noxious practice of police states. Said an attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation: ?The data retention mandate in this bill would treat every Internet user like a criminal and threaten the online privacy and free speech rights of every American.? Even more troubling is what the government would need to do in order to access this trove of private information: ask for it.
As written, The Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act of 2011 doesn?t require that someone be under investigation on child pornography charges in order for police to access their Internet history ? being suspected of any crime is enough. (It may even be made available in civil matters like divorce trials or child custody battles.) Nor do police need probable cause to search this information. As Rep. James Sensenbrenner says, (R-Wisc.) ?It poses numerous risks that well outweigh any benefits, and I?m not convinced it will contribute in a significant way to protecting children.?



Yay! I loved being monitored!

You know what? I have little problem with internet providers tracking my net activity. Yes, I'm not say I don't see some weird and/or bad stuff (to put it lightly, though nothing illegal, of course), but I wouldn't allow anyone I don't personally know and trust to have my credit card numbers, bank details, etc. I know I don't live in the states, but that's beside the point. I have to agree, even seen as jokingly, with Supertegwyn. Time to go kill Lamar Smith... or at least, get him kicked out of politics.

 

[HardkorSB]

A new bill supported by Lamar Smith [http://www.examiner.com/civil-rights-in-wilmington/hr-1981-protecting-children-from-internet-pornographers-sounds-good-right] has emerged.

And it's including some pretty funky stuff in it.


It?s their solution that appalls me: under language approved 19 to 10 by a House committee, the firm that sells you Internet access would be required to track all of your Internet activity and save it for 18 months, along with your name, the address where you live, your bank account numbers, your credit card numbers, and IP addresses you?ve been assigned.

Tracking the private daily behavior of everyone in order to help catch a small number of child criminals is itself the noxious practice of police states. Said an attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation: ?The data retention mandate in this bill would treat every Internet user like a criminal and threaten the online privacy and free speech rights of every American.? Even more troubling is what the government would need to do in order to access this trove of private information: ask for it.
As written, The Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act of 2011 doesn?t require that someone be under investigation on child pornography charges in order for police to access their Internet history ? being suspected of any crime is enough. (It may even be made available in civil matters like divorce trials or child custody battles.) Nor do police need probable cause to search this information. As Rep. James Sensenbrenner says, (R-Wisc.) ?It poses numerous risks that well outweigh any benefits, and I?m not convinced it will contribute in a significant way to protecting children.?



Yay! I loved being monitored!

I have a great idea:
How about we monitor every politician (just in case they might be doing something illegal or abusing their power in general) and make the information public?
After all, they represent the PEOPLE so everything they do should be monitored by the PEOPLE.
That makes more sense, I think.

 

[WouldYouKindly]

How about we use actual police work to find criminals rather than treating EVERYONE ON THE WHOLE CHUCKLEFUCKING INTERNET as child molesters. For fucks sake, I hate when game publishers and devs treat me like a criminal with crazy DRM but damn, I don't need this shit from my the government with my ISP too.

 

[alandavidson]

It seems to me that American law already covers this; if you're suspected of child pornography, don't the police have the ability to get a warrant so they can seize your computer and look through it's files, and request any data from your service provider that might aid them?

Yes they do. I'm not sure what the point of HR 1981 is, because (as you have pointed out) police can already do all of that legally. The problem that police face is that they have very little funding to actually look for and combat child pornography and predators on the internet. It's usually two guys in an office using outdated equipment, spending lots of time in chat rooms, opening up subscriptions, and looking through photos trying to match faces to missing persons cases, in an attempt to nail the people who make child porn.

Instead of passing legislation that is inherently dangerous to the American public (seriously, storing CC info?) why don't we urge congress to pass legislation that gives more funding to these guys, increasing their teams and training?