It sure is a joy questioning a crackdown on child porn. In December. Heading into primary season.
But this bill called the SAFE Act could make it very cumbersome and expensive just to provide free wi-fi, because cafe customers or library patrons might view child porn. Or images of fully clothed children in "lascivious" poses. Or drawings, cartoons, or paintings of obscene images. Many may decide the cost of free wi-fi isn't worth the payoff.
The SAFE Act was just overwhelmingly approved in the House with no hearings or committee votes, and is very popular in the Senate, CNET is reporting - House vote on illegal images sweeps in Wi-Fi, Web sites:
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.
What the bill requires cafe owners to report to the government is listed on the flip.
CNET's Declan McCullah reported how Cafe owners who discover images transmitted on their network must register with the government:
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.)
Just in case there was any confusion, what does and does not define child pornography is laid out:
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).
For such an impactful bill it doesn't appear to have been covered widely. Heading into election season, it's hard to imagine politicians eager to oppose a crackdown on child porn. A crackdown supported by tv personality John Walsh, host of America's Most Wanted. But it's sneaking by with little notice:
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.
Full article here: http://www.news.com/... Good or bad, its impacts could be broad and deserves some scrutiny.