|
|
| Author |
Message |
richard
|
|
The Pro- CDA forces are at it again!
| 
Jul 28 22:31 UTC 1998 |
The pro-CDA forces are at it again.. Last week, very quietly, Senator
Dan Coates (R-Indiana) put an amendment on the senate appropriations bill
that would make it illegal for Internet providers or web page operators to
provide material considered "harmful to children" Since the bill doesnt
define what "harmful to children" means, it will be politically popular
but never pass lega muster.
More likely to become law is Senator John McCain's amendment to same bill
(at the request of the FBI) which would allow the FBI to be able to
legally force ISPs to give them access to customer/user files and records
without need of a court order or search warrant. The FBI contends that
such procedures take too much time and cuases them to lose track of
pedophiles and others they are tracking.
This will probably become law. Clinton wont veto the Appropriations bill
to kill it. Welcome to big brother folks.
|
| 34 responses total. |
senna
|
|
response 1 of 34:
|
Jul 29 04:10 UTC 1998 |
Ah, paranoia strikes again.
|
tsty
|
|
response 2 of 34:
|
Jul 29 07:44 UTC 1998 |
want the tattoo on your forehead, or your forearm, senna?
this shit sucks.
|
steve
|
|
response 3 of 34:
|
Jul 30 02:58 UTC 1998 |
It isn't paranoia, senna. As an example, Grex may well have to
cease it's open newuser because of this.
|
raven
|
|
response 4 of 34:
|
Jul 30 03:31 UTC 1998 |
This item now linked to the cyberpunk conf see www.eff.org for more info.
|
senna
|
|
response 5 of 34:
|
Jul 30 05:55 UTC 1998 |
You missed my point.
|
remmers
|
|
response 6 of 34:
|
Jul 30 17:55 UTC 1998 |
Care to clarify your point senna, or would you prefer that we
keep guessing, with you keeping score?
|
remmers
|
|
response 7 of 34:
|
Jul 30 17:57 UTC 1998 |
Re STeve's #3: Why might we have to close newuser?
|
raven
|
|
response 8 of 34:
|
Jul 30 21:09 UTC 1998 |
Maybe Steve thinks we would have to start age verifying which would be
impossin\ble to do so it would be easier just to shut down newuser <shrug>.
BTW The new CDAish law if it passes *only* applies to comercial sites so the
worst I can imagine happening is that we would have to stop selling t-shirts &
mugs and probably not even that because of our non-prfit tax exempt status.
|
senna
|
|
response 9 of 34:
|
Jul 31 03:16 UTC 1998 |
We would have had to restructure for the original CDA, too.
|
jcool
|
|
response 10 of 34:
|
Jul 31 23:16 UTC 1998 |
Well if stuff starts getting limited to age, which most of the people I know
on the Internet are at least 2 years under 18, they'll just have to put up
with more people doing *illegal* things. They won't be able to stop us.
We've found ways around everything else, which means they'll need more people
to monitor us which means more taxpayer's money to stop people who don't even
pay tax. Go figure.
|
senna
|
|
response 11 of 34:
|
Aug 1 06:18 UTC 1998 |
What's the best way to stop crime? Make it all legal.
|
daimon
|
|
response 12 of 34:
|
Aug 1 16:12 UTC 1998 |
The CDA in any form, IMHO, is just silly. It's a popular way to get
votes in conservative districts and that's really about it. The net
has gone too far and trying to police it on a matter of taste is a waste
of effort. Security is one thing, but porn.... if people want porn,
let them have it. If you're worried about your kid, teach them. Don't
rely on laws to dictate how things work from without.
|
richard
|
|
response 13 of 34:
|
Aug 1 18:52 UTC 1998 |
The FBI would use the new amendment to require Grex to provide it
with both root access and lists of all grex users and personal
information (whatever info user volunteers when running newuser or
becoming a member). They see the 'net like the phone company...
you can have an unlisted number to the public but not to the FBI...
the FBI has all phone numbers, listed or unlisted.
The FBI wants the legal right to require root and keys to any
encryption programs used by any ISPs in the country.
What the FBI doesnt understand is how much 'net business this will
drive out of the country. There are many many ISPs based in foreign
countries that will end up being more private places than any U.S.
site if/when this becomes law.
|
hhsrat
|
|
response 14 of 34:
|
Aug 2 00:48 UTC 1998 |
Why the FBI needs access to the root system on Grex is beyond me. I
don't think Grex is hiding some international conspiracy in comment
lines of PERL code (would a staff member please correct me if I'm wrong)
|
scott
|
|
response 15 of 34:
|
Aug 2 12:21 UTC 1998 |
I really doubt the FBI would start demanding root access to every system in
the country that provides email. What with ISPs, systems like Grex, and even
small office systems, they would be swamped just trying to keep track. I'd
view it as more likely that there would be a demand for information after a
complaint. Even then, "root access"? Not enough computer types in the FBI
to make any use of that.
|
senna
|
|
response 16 of 34:
|
Aug 2 13:05 UTC 1998 |
ssh, don't talk about the international conspiracy in agora
|
hhsrat
|
|
response 17 of 34:
|
Aug 2 23:42 UTC 1998 |
which conf should I talk about it in? lol
|
senna
|
|
response 18 of 34:
|
Aug 3 16:34 UTC 1998 |
I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you. And you wouldn't taste
very good.
|
lilmo
|
|
response 19 of 34:
|
Sep 7 22:14 UTC 1998 |
Re #12: I find porn personally offensive, but that's not why I approve of
government intentions to prevent its spread.
I think the govt is right to oppose it b/c it is a precursor of sexual crimes,
both minor and horrifying. I believe that it was Ted Bundy who publicly
acknowledged that porn had been a factor in his crime spree. As I understand
it, virtually all child molestors and a goodly proportion of rapists are
heavily into porn. It starts out innocuously enough, with Playboy, or
Penthouse, or Hustler, but for too many ppl, such "tame" material soon is not
enough to satisfy them, and they get into more and more explicit stuff, until,
for some, fantasy itself is no longer sufficient.
That said, I was not a fan of CDA, or nor do I favor the proposed amendments
by Coates and McCain. The Fourth Amendment is a very important part of the
Bill of Rights, and deserves to be given more attnetion than it is.
As a side note, I read one commentary that said that Clinton should have
invoked his Fourth Amendment right to privacy to avoid answering many of the
questions in the Jones and Lewinsky cases, and gave an early (early 1800's)
example that showed that this really was one type of situation that was to
be covered by that amnedment.
|
senna
|
|
response 20 of 34:
|
Sep 7 22:55 UTC 1998 |
Porn is disgusting. I read about a sting involving a highly exclusive child
porn ring based on the internet. Members were required to show that they had
access to 10,000 unique child porn pictures. Activities included live
viewings of the rape of children. Just pleasant.
Now that I've said this, I still don't think internet censorship is quite the
way to go.
|
eieio
|
|
response 21 of 34:
|
Sep 8 02:04 UTC 1998 |
Re 19, the third sentence of the second paragraph: George Carlin, I believe
it was, noted you could draw a correlation even further back, to breast milk.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 22 of 34:
|
Sep 8 04:41 UTC 1998 |
The problem with the logic in #19 is that porn does not *necessarily* lead
to crime. I knew numerous "upright law abiding citizens" that enjoy a some
porn now and then. Quite a few of the finest writers, artists, sculptors
in history have written/drawn/sculpted pornographic material. It is a
perfectly normal human interest and trait.
I do not deny that there also appears to be a correlation between
obsessions with porn and crude or worse behavior.
The question is then, should people that can handle porn in their lives,
and enjoy it very much, be denied this, just because other people cannot
handle it appropriately? Perhaps, one should get a license to get porn?
[I am not speaking about porn that involves injury, subjugation, or even
harassment, but only porn created with none of these.]
|
mta
|
|
response 23 of 34:
|
Sep 8 15:26 UTC 1998 |
Actually, the problems with sociopaths who commit crimes start long
before they become involved with pornography. For most opf them porn
starts out as a way to try to control impulses that they *know* are
unacceptable.
I abhor porn. I really am uncomfortable with it and would just as soon
not know who does and doesn't enjoy it because when I do know, I have
to fight irrational fears and control my visceral reactions.
But I don't think censorship is the answer. One person's pornography is
another's art and erotica. I'd just as soon not see this country embark
on the slippery slope of censorship to deal with problems that are,
fundamentally, not about literature, tasteless or otherwise. They are
about mental illness and a profound lack of empathy.
|
lilmo
|
|
response 24 of 34:
|
Sep 9 01:49 UTC 1998 |
I have conflicting impulses. One says, "Stop porn," and the other says, "Stop
censorship." The problem is that laws so often put a burden on ppl who are
not targets of the law anyways, and are ignored or circumvented by those who
wish to engage in the activities prohibited (or regulated).
"If men were angels, no government would be needed..."
|
