by Mike Masnick

Filed Under:
congress, protect the children, safe act, wifi

Author Of SAFE Act Insists He Didn't Mean For It To Cover WiFi... But Won't Promise Any Changes

from the well-that-helps dept

Yesterday we posted on the no-discussion-necessary rapid approval of the SAFE Act, and highlighted some of the more questionable problems in the bill. While the post was pretty clear about why we (and others) believed it covered WiFi (the broadly worded language in the bill, which we had in the post), we've been getting some emails from folks who say that we twisted the legislation out of context. It probably doesn't help that whoever submitted our post to Digg (and got it Dugg onto the front page) did so in a misleading way, making it sound like our post said something it did not. However, with so much interest in this bill, it's worth digging a little deeper. The bill's author quickly responded to the charges by saying that it wasn't intended to cover open WiFi networks, but the bill itself doesn't make that clear -- and the courts tend to go by the text of the law, rather than intent (intent can be helpful, but it's much less important). The author of the original article has a clarifying conversation with the author of the bill, asking him if he'll change the text to make it clear that open WiFi is not covered -- and he gets no promises. Instead, in typical "protect the children" fashion, the guy just goes on about what an awful problem this is. The thing is, no one is denying that child pornography is a terrible thing. What we're worried about is incredibly broadly worded bills that were clearly written and approved in a hurry with little oversight, and which do not appear to take into account the unintended consequences of what they're putting into law.

Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1. identicon
    Forget the kids, Dec 7th, 2007 @ 12:28pm

    Save us all from these

    Dumbasses making all these crap laws.. Kids or no kids, I still say we need to light the fires on your current setup!

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2. identicon
    Alfred E. Neuman, Dec 7th, 2007 @ 12:59pm

    Safe Act

    What ever happened to Safe Harbor ?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3. identicon
    Tubes, Dec 7th, 2007 @ 1:08pm

    The Internet is not a Big Truck

    "It is NOT the intent of the SAFE Act to target Wi-Fi providers but rather the entities that provide the internet to those conduits."

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4. identicon
    MJ, Dec 7th, 2007 @ 1:26pm

    Re: Safe Act

    That's what I was wondering. Maybe they're *still* only required to report ones that are brought to their attention? In which case this law would be redundant and create no new real crimes.
    It's already a crime to fail to report what you know about, and you're already allowed to choose ignorance and wait for someone to tell you what you're hosting, which especially benefits big places like say imageshack, who can't feasibly go over every image, but do have a reporting system.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5. identicon
    Rich Kulawiec, Dec 7th, 2007 @ 1:31pm

    Election-year grandstanding

    That's what this is. No more, no less. I'll bet that the utterly clueless moron behind this bill can't even quote statistics on the incident of child pornography online, can't describe its economic, criminal or social aspects, and wouldn't grasp how trivially easy it is to modify photographs (and video) at the bit level to slip them past any detection method. The purpose of this bill is NOT to "protect the chillllllllddrrrrrrrun"; it's to get this dirtbag re-elected. And that, in turn, is why it's being rushed through just in time to be an early Christmas present for its author.

    Oh, let me anticipate the you're-soft-on-kiddie-porn retort. No, exactly the opposite. But I'd prefer to see real, effective, substantive action taken that directly addresses the problem rather than a farce like this.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6. identicon
    Rocky J Squirrel, Dec 7th, 2007 @ 1:37pm

    YAWSTOTCA (Yet Another Won't Someone Think of the

    Again? But that trick never works!

    We'll see how long it takes for the Supreme Court to overturn this latest attempt at legislating thought crime for people too stupid to know the difference between text, art and illegal acts...

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.