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.

Ah, paranoia strikes again.  

want the tattoo on your forehead, or your forearm, senna?
  
this shit sucks.

   It isn't paranoia, senna.  As an example, Grex may well have to
cease it's open newuser because of this.

This item now linked to the cyberpunk conf see www.eff.org for more info.

You missed my point.

Care to clarify your point senna, or would you prefer that we
keep guessing, with you keeping score?

Re STeve's #3: Why might we have to close newuser?

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.

We would have had to restructure for the original CDA, too.

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.

What's the best way to stop crime?  Make it all legal.

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.

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.

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)

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.

ssh, don't talk about the international conspiracy in agora

which conf should I talk about it in? lol

I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.  And you wouldn't taste 
very good.

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.

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.

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.

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.]

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.

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..."

It says "Congress shall make no law....abridging the freedom of speech..."
We should not quibble about that but instead take action against the
specific crimes and criminals as we define them in law. There is plenty
of "porn" that violates law - harassment, subjugation, injury - that we
can have our hands full addressing those problem. Attacking freedom of
speech as the cause of *any* criminal action is a misdirection of intention
and resources.

I happen to like porn, as an adult I think I shouldn't have to feel
dirty or degenerate for that. If people have some bizarre sexual
problems I don't think that they can honestly blame it on porn, blaming
porn is just easier than saying "Yep, I'm one sick puppy, have been my
whole life, and there's nothing I can do about it" much easier to say
"Well, I was a fine upstanding christian cizizen, until the evil filth
of pornography infected my life. Porn turned me into a sinner, and now I
seek to cast it out."


I don't know, I"ll shut up.

        It's not even productive to attempt to stamp out something which
people really want;  it only leads to the creation of a black market, and
the criminalization of a common behaviour.  I'd imagine that if America were
significantly more sexually liberated, instead of less, then we'd see a drop
in rape and sexual abuse.

read wilhelm reich

Misti excellently put a point which I have been trying to get across.  One
person's porn is another's art.  Well, if we start bannning things, it could
be that we get to the point where one person's porn is another's political
opinion.  A stretch?  Maybe, but where do we draw the line?  The same thing
holds for hate groups.  Are they wrong?  Of course, but where do we draw the
line?  The KKK is a hate group.  But it could be argued that Nation of Islam
is a hate group too (hear about the Million Youth March?  I know that's not
Nation, but there are affiliations).  Then, people could start moving against
the religious right.  And the other side could start censoring NOW.  

It's best not to get started in that sort of murk.

All that may be true, but its still frustrating to know that something is
wrong, and yet be unable to do anything about it.  *sigh*

        Yeah, it does annoy me that I can't do anything about the people who
try to ban concepts, ideas, and images, too. :)

Not just can't legally or logistically, but also can't morally or logically.

What is it the ancient greek philosopher said abiout  democracies degenerating
into a state where license becomes more important than true rights?

How would they know?

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss