Hollywood trying to sneak packet inspection into stimulus bill
The amendment, which was put forth by Senator Feinstein from California, would allow ISPs to exercise "reasonable network management," to keep tabs on what you're downloading. While the possibility of deterring more serious crimes like child pornography sounds like a good thing, it could also mean that we can kiss most of our online privacy goodbye.
Why? To separate good downloaders from bad, ISPs would have to inspect all traffic. Do you really want your activities online subject to that kind of scrutiny without any probable cause?
The worst part of this: even though the bill passed without being amended, Senator Feinstein and Hollywood lobbyists are now trying feverishly to get the language added in conference - where the "network management" stipulations could still be added.
Keep an eye on Public Knowledge's updates to see how things stand, and do your part. Contact your congressperson and let them know where you stand.
So, just how good at time waster games are you? Think you've got the stuff? Well, The World's Hardest Game 2.0 doesn't think you do.
Yes, amazingly, it's possible to have a sequel to a game called "The World's Hardest Game". It doesn't seem logically possible, since if the first one was actually the world's hardest, how could another one come along and share the moniker? It made me doubt the name in the first place. That is, until I tried the game.
The mechanics of the game are very simple. You are a small red square, ...
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Peter said 9:02PM on 2-11-2009
I would love to know big a problem child porn really is. We have had so many "big brother" things like this forced on us under the auspices of child porn. It's the new "drugs" and "terrorism". It seems like a phrase they pull out whenever they want people to stop asking questions, "you don't support child porn do you?" No, I don't, but I also support freedom and privacy too.
Reply
radman1331 said 9:15PM on 2-11-2009
Won't somebody please think of the children!
Mysterius said 1:58AM on 2-12-2009
Quite. The cry of "child porn!" to justify every law enforcement expansion, especially online, has if anything made me more cynical towards the motives of such folks.
I'm increasingly convinced that those pushing "anti-child-porn" are really just the union of anti-porn and pro-surveillance types. Either they're in it because they're against "moral decay" in general (i.e. when teens taking pics of themselves are "child pornographers"), or because it's simply the latest excuse in the long tradition of raising scares to steal freedoms and rights.
Rocketboy said 8:53AM on 2-12-2009
How is it by stealing CP, you're supporting the CP industry, but if you steal movies, you're going to destroy hollywood?
Ridgecity said 9:52PM on 2-11-2009
"Contact your congressperson and let them know where you stand."
you can bet he will rat you out first: "This guy is opposing this, better check what has he downloaded during the whole year..."
Poor americans.
Reply
bradwjensen said 9:55PM on 2-11-2009
I agree like most people that child porn is bad, but that (or anything else) does not give anyone or any company the right to invade peoples private lives; at least without a probable cause.
So far I think people are already doing a pretty good job at stopping internet child porn. When was the last time (if ever), that anyone here has ever stumbled upon any when using the web? My point exactly.. It's fine the way it is. Those who get their kicks from that disturbing stuff will eventually be caught and charged.
There is no need to waste more money, invading more of the worlds privacy, and treating everyone as if their guilty until proven innocent (which would never happen, you'll end up living your life as guilty until death.)
Reply
Joe said 11:45PM on 2-11-2009
This is essentially like having the post office open all your mail before delivering it, just to check and make sure you don't have child porn or a burned dvd. Just because its easier to do because it's electronic doesn't mean it invades my privacy any less.
Reply
bradwjensen said 1:03AM on 2-12-2009
Well said!
Hamman Samuel said 3:05AM on 2-12-2009
Is "privacy" being over-used, mis-used, mis-quoted, etc? Why does privacy matter so much to everyone? What do you keep doing online that you wish to keep so secret? I wonder...
If just anyone hacked my login data, yes it would be a problem with me. But if someone is looking at how I spend my time on the Internet, what sites I visit, I don't have a problem with that at all! Now the "privacy" concerns are not related to gaining unauthorized access to your data, but rather to monitoring your web lifestyles, isn't it? What's so wrong with that?
Reply
mrSHEiK124 said 3:56AM on 2-12-2009
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin
What the hell do you mean "why does privacy matter so much to everyone?" This amendment would basically legalize the automatic ILLEGAL SEARCH WITHOUT WARRANT, CAUSE, OR CONSENT of everyone's internet activity. Would you sit by idly and allow the government to search your home without a warrant, without ANY probably cause, and without your consent, whenever the hell they wanted? Oh wait, we already have that thanks to Bushie, in the backwardly named "PATRIOT" Act. Then again, people like you probably have no problem with that either.
Do you not understand that it is a constitutional right to privacy?
Nick8708 said 4:35AM on 2-12-2009
It's not necessarily that we need privacy for what we do on the internet, but that they have no right to know in the first place. It wouldn't be just the government who would have access to what you are doing; the ISP would as well. Maybe you can feel comfortable that some elected official or government employee may know everything you do on the internet (which you shouldn't; they can't be trusted any more than any private citizen, usually less), but the private citizens working for the ISP would have that information as well. Here's an example:
Let's say you're homosexual, but you haven't yet decided to "come out of the closet", as it were. Now, there's nothing wrong with you viewing homosexual pornography, dating websites, or blogs, etc. etc. However, would you feel comfortable with some Congressman or ISP employee having the ability to so easily find out a very personal detail about yourself, that you may not even want your closest friends or family to know? Even if you were comfortable with it being public information, do you still feel that people beyond those you choose to make it known to have a right to know private, personal details about yourself?
It's not much different from them setting up cameras in everybody's home to monitor their activity under the guise that they want to prevent "domestic violence" or "terrorist cells" or whatever hot button issue gets their foot in the door. Not only would they have access to all the "dirty", "terrible" things you may do on the internet, but they'd also have access to the stuff you'd consider harmless. For instance, let's say you actively read, perhaps even post, on a political blog. What happens when the ISP is pressured to restrict the stream of data from the controlling party's oppositions' websites because Congressman Bupkis thinks too many people are accessing information he thinks biased, misinformed, or simply "dangerous"? Don't think that'd happen? They're trying to do that with radio broadcasts right now with this "Fairness Doctrine". It's really not a far stretch.
In the end, protecting privacy not only is a boon unto itself, but it also protects the first amendment. In a society where no communication is unmonitored, can any speech truly be free?
Peter said 7:10AM on 2-12-2009
Just because I don't have anything to hide, doesn't mean I want everyone to know every detail of my life.
Privacy gets chipped away in small amounts. Today they are checking the websites you visit, but tomorrow it will be something else. And what happens when instead of monitoring, they decide you shouldn't be allowed to visit a certain site? It's a slippery slope.
Rocketboy said 8:56AM on 2-12-2009
How can you 'sneak' something into a bill that's already a cluster-f of crap? Yes, there's no "Pork" in this bill, because the bill itself is Pork. It's like trying to sneak vodka in your Screwdriver. You can't, because it's already there.
Reply
aangelaa said 9:17AM on 2-12-2009
This isn't about child porn protection, it's about copyright and corporate control. No person in their right mind would propose this sorta crap without corporate wink wink prodding.
It doesn't matter though, cause they will only drive the technology to thwart them.
If they do get through enough laws to control what they think are the weak points, ppl will just come up with some sorta encrypted hotline google earth kmls... or who knows what...?... we won't know until after, but it will certainly appear very quickly and then slowly to the masses and the laws will try to catch again and then repeat and repeat.. it drives innovation of a sort...
These sorta laws just waste everyones time and those promoting them look only like they are trying to justify their own luddite existences. The net web mash is already beyond those who devote to know what it's doing.
It's a great sea of bit chaos and there can be no control.
They just don't seem to get that it's not television.
Reply
Martin K. said 3:49PM on 2-19-2009
Nothing reduces privacy or steals liberty like fighting child pornography and terrorism.
Reply