Lawmakers Want to Block Pornography at the Expense of Free Speech and Privacy(eff.org)
eff.org
Lawmakers Want to Block Pornography at the Expense of Free Speech and Privacy
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/02/state-lawmakers-want-block-pornography-expense-your-free-speech-privacy-and-hard
64 comments
> "If you outlaw freedom, only outlaws will have freedom."
Couldn't help but think of Malcolm Reynolds and his group from the Firefly series, given that I was re-watching it last night.
Couldn't help but think of Malcolm Reynolds and his group from the Firefly series, given that I was re-watching it last night.
>"Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither."
so, this is generally attributed to Franklen, and makes a lot more sense in context:
"those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
It's not really that there's a problem with trading freedom for security; we all do that. But mind the exchange rate!
so, this is generally attributed to Franklen, and makes a lot more sense in context:
"those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
It's not really that there's a problem with trading freedom for security; we all do that. But mind the exchange rate!
You are refering to the Green Dam Youth Escort.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Dam_Youth_Escort
>Trying to tie this into "human trafficking" is a cruel diversion, just like pornography, terrorism, and drugs.
More than that, it's downright frustrating. Human trafficking is a very real problem in America. It's not even just a problem that applies to illegal Asian or Latin American immigrants either (which might sound like a strange distinction but I've met people with this view). Teens are immensely vulnerable as well and it's ridiculous that something this serious is being used as just another tool in the war on pornography that some groups have been waging for decades.
More than that, it's downright frustrating. Human trafficking is a very real problem in America. It's not even just a problem that applies to illegal Asian or Latin American immigrants either (which might sound like a strange distinction but I've met people with this view). Teens are immensely vulnerable as well and it's ridiculous that something this serious is being used as just another tool in the war on pornography that some groups have been waging for decades.
It bears repeating (perhaps incessantly, given that this kind of proposal keeps popping up) that "obscenity filters" have a long and ugly track record of blocking material about reproductive health, gender studies, and LGBT rights/culture. There used to be a handful of websites that cataloged these incidents back in the '90s, but I don't know if anyone's still doing it. Just punch something like 'Websense LGBT' into your favorite search engine if you have any doubt.
> Those filters could only be removed if consumers pay a $20 fee.
Wait, what? Why should a fee to opt out exist?
Wait, what? Why should a fee to opt out exist?
Read their faq... this question and the one after it:
http://humantraffickingpreventionact.com/#q2
They encourage retailers and manufacturers to charge more than the $20 and pocket the difference. They are marketing the bill as pro-business.
They encourage retailers and manufacturers to charge more than the $20 and pocket the difference. They are marketing the bill as pro-business.
The writing and grammar on that site is terrible, but the double-entendre on that question takes the cake:
> the retailers can set the amount to be what it feels the market can bare.
I'm hoping that wasn't intentional.
> the retailers can set the amount to be what it feels the market can bare.
I'm hoping that wasn't intentional.
The writing and grammar on that site is terrible,
I’m sorry to do this, but I think you mean that the writing and grammar are terrible, not that they is terrible.
I’m sorry to do this, but I think you mean that the writing and grammar are terrible, not that they is terrible.
Things aren't always what they seem.
Fish and chips is what I had for dinner.
Fish and chips is what I had for dinner.
[deleted]
This is mindblowing. "I can't believe" is so watered down it can not express the feeling felt when reading things like this. This past year has been insanity - this is just insanity..
"I can't believe" is so watered down it can not express the feeling felt when reading things like this.
I believe the suitable phrase is now "I can't even."
I believe the suitable phrase is now "I can't even."
I'll charge my friends <$20 to install a custom rom/firmware. More $$$$$ for me.
Because they don't care about the moral and psychological aspects of the content filtered. They care about making money and they know that people will buy the opt out.
> they don't care about the moral and psychological aspects
I disagree. Authoritarians are always obsessed with being able to control peoples access to sex. Because that's a powerful lever you can use to control people.
For instance dominionist evangelicals and polygamist Mormons are obsessed with taking sexual rights away from women and commoditising access. Keeping young people and especially young men from access to porn, same deal.
I disagree. Authoritarians are always obsessed with being able to control peoples access to sex. Because that's a powerful lever you can use to control people.
For instance dominionist evangelicals and polygamist Mormons are obsessed with taking sexual rights away from women and commoditising access. Keeping young people and especially young men from access to porn, same deal.
That almost makes me wonder if this is being pushed by someone with a financial interest in the outcome.
Point of personal privilege: I am so embarrassed that Iowa is on that list.
If your state happens to be listed, please remember to vote in November. There has to be serious electoral consequences for every politician who thought it was a good idea to put their name on such an abhorrent piece of legislation.
Freedom of speech is not an in-app purchase.
If your state happens to be listed, please remember to vote in November. There has to be serious electoral consequences for every politician who thought it was a good idea to put their name on such an abhorrent piece of legislation.
Freedom of speech is not an in-app purchase.
Really, that makes you embarrassed?
Not US Rep. "McCarthy was an American Hero" Steve King? https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/steve-king-iowas-embarr...
Not giving gun permits to the blind? https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/08/iowa-g...
Not the Iowa State Basketball Coach making out with the coeds? http://www.iowastatedaily.com/news/article_37ac54e3-06c1-563...
THAT... THAT embarrasses you about Iowa?
Not US Rep. "McCarthy was an American Hero" Steve King? https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/steve-king-iowas-embarr...
Not giving gun permits to the blind? https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/08/iowa-g...
Not the Iowa State Basketball Coach making out with the coeds? http://www.iowastatedaily.com/news/article_37ac54e3-06c1-563...
THAT... THAT embarrasses you about Iowa?
[deleted]
Don't you think it's the other way around? Lawmakers want to block free speech and eliminate privacy by using pornography as an excuse?
> The gist of the model legislation is this: Device manufacturers would be forced to install "obscenity filters" on cell phones, tablets, computers, and any other Internet-connected devices. Those filters could only be removed if consumers pay a $20 fee.
Assuming that the device manufacturers do not actually want to participate in this, is there anything that stops them from making the removal code be some simple function of the serial number, and throwing up a website that will compute that function for $20? It will quickly get cracked, of course, and for the most part won't serious inconvenience anyone during the time it takes to get the stupid law overturned.
Assuming that the device manufacturers do not actually want to participate in this, is there anything that stops them from making the removal code be some simple function of the serial number, and throwing up a website that will compute that function for $20? It will quickly get cracked, of course, and for the most part won't serious inconvenience anyone during the time it takes to get the stupid law overturned.
Surely this just isn't even practical, even if it does pass... if the filter has to be installed on the end user device it will be widely known how to bypass it. Why do people even write these rediculous things (the bills in question).
Don't forget that most new phones have locked bootloaders and cryptographically secure boot processes. If lawmakers required manufactures put a piece of software on every phone, it would be technically possible and very difficult to bypass.
What about phones that have already been bought? You can easily get a phone today that runs an open source OS and boatloader: As bad as this bill may be, I doubt they could justify confiscating all of them, but short of that there is no way to enforce that law.
Similarly with computers - with a law like this in place Linux cannot exist.
Similarly with computers - with a law like this in place Linux cannot exist.
It's not about controlling all the people, it's about controlling a significant percentage of people.
Just to legitimise it in public perception is still a big win for wannabe tyrants. That's a good first step upon which they can incrementally build on and tighten the screws, just like the anti-piracy groups have done. So it's not at all ridiculous. It's devious, and a cunning attempt to gauge how apathetic the public are to their own freedoms.
That was a serious question. Why write a bill like this? Who gains from it?
> Anyone who wants to unlock the filters on their devices would have to put their request in writing, show ID, and verify that they’ve been shown a “written warning regarding the potential dangers” of removing the obscenity filter.
A near-future dystopian fiction could involve the opposite, with people being required to show their ID and aver that they've been shown a "written warning regarding the potential dangers" of installing censorship software on their devices, abrogating the decision of what's decent to either the state or to the device manufacturer, and paying $20 for the privilege.
A near-future dystopian fiction could involve the opposite, with people being required to show their ID and aver that they've been shown a "written warning regarding the potential dangers" of installing censorship software on their devices, abrogating the decision of what's decent to either the state or to the device manufacturer, and paying $20 for the privilege.
Laws like this reminds me how little many people understand technology. There is no realistic way to my knowledge to implement this on all devices when torrents and open source operating systems exist. The article even agrees with me at some levels "The technical requirements for this kind of aggressive platform censorship at scale are simply unworkable."
On the contrary, now with locked smartphones and tablets this is very easy to implement. Of course it would be trivially defeatable, but that is never the point. The vast majority of people would not know how to defeat it. The law is not concerned with edge cases, it's concerned with bulk surveillance.
Just like the laws against cryptography. Lawmakers are not stupid, they know they can't stop bad actors from using crypto. They don't care about bad actors, they care about you and me.
Just like the laws against cryptography. Lawmakers are not stupid, they know they can't stop bad actors from using crypto. They don't care about bad actors, they care about you and me.
Well, sure there are "bad actors". But some of us like to work around that bullshit just for fun, and to share :) And indeed, many of those "bad actors" are actually pretty clueless.
Would you really share if you knew you would get charged as someone who supports human trafficking and faced a decade long prison sentence? Even if you beat the charge, how employable would you be of the first thing people saw when they searched for you is your mugshot as someone arrested for supporting human trafficking?
Huh?
First, I wouldn't knowingly consult for human traffickers. But I do share online in various forums, some of which are effectively anonymous.
Second, Mirimir is a pseudonym. It's quite well firewalled from my meatspace identity. And it actually plays pretty safe. For anything at all iffy, I use temporary personas, and compartmentalize more thoroughly.
Third, by that standard there'd be no Tor Project, or Freenet Project, and a lot fewer Github sites.
First, I wouldn't knowingly consult for human traffickers. But I do share online in various forums, some of which are effectively anonymous.
Second, Mirimir is a pseudonym. It's quite well firewalled from my meatspace identity. And it actually plays pretty safe. For anything at all iffy, I use temporary personas, and compartmentalize more thoroughly.
Third, by that standard there'd be no Tor Project, or Freenet Project, and a lot fewer Github sites.
Good point, but wouldn’t a few of the other 6.7 billion people on earth do it? They won’t care about US law, nor should they.
Wow, they're being so goddamn vague with it as well in order to mislead people. "Protecting children" my fucking arse.
A better way would be to require all browser makers or OS makers add an easy to use child protection filter that can be easily enabled by parents.
This is a serious issue and while the OP bill is obvious censorship, all parents want more easy control.
This is a serious issue and while the OP bill is obvious censorship, all parents want more easy control.
A better way would be to require all browser makers or OS makers add an easy to use child protection filter that can be easily enabled by parents.
That's still a bad idea, unless we want to criminalize a whole lot of existing software. Suppose I have a Python script that parses HTML from a URL and downloads all the images it finds. Would that be illegal to distribute unless I hook into the OS-level filters? For that matter, what about Python itself?
That's still a bad idea, unless we want to criminalize a whole lot of existing software. Suppose I have a Python script that parses HTML from a URL and downloads all the images it finds. Would that be illegal to distribute unless I hook into the OS-level filters? For that matter, what about Python itself?
> * all parents want more easy control*
Refuted. I am a parent. I do not want 'more easy control'.
Refuted. I am a parent. I do not want 'more easy control'.
Really? You don't want to be able to easily ensure that your pre-teens aren't able to easily access violent porn?
Alright, I guess "all" is little hyperbolic. But I think the sentiment stands firm.
I also think we need to avoid censorship as much as possible, and ensure parents have more control by default is the best path forward. Otherwise we'll end up with a solution like the UK has where age registration has to be done by everyone.
Alright, I guess "all" is little hyperbolic. But I think the sentiment stands firm.
I also think we need to avoid censorship as much as possible, and ensure parents have more control by default is the best path forward. Otherwise we'll end up with a solution like the UK has where age registration has to be done by everyone.
Aren't there hundreds of parental control applications available out there already?
[deleted]
Apple could basically choose to ignore this law if it passed and these state governments would reveal they have no actual power in the globalized world. Oops
Why would Apple do such a thing? Presumably there would be fines if they didn't comply. If everybody is doing it (which is just Google and Apple, really), nobody gains or loses and advantage, so why would they care?
Apple has a large part of their reputation built on security and privacy, neither of which is at all possible with arbitrary government censorship software baked into every device.
Blocking malware for the security of the nation is the justification for GCHQ building a Chinese-style firewall around the UK’s Internet.
So in that case, the pitch is security. The pitch can always be varied as long as there are bogeymen.
This is the problem with relying on marketing (or markets) to protect you.
So in that case, the pitch is security. The pitch can always be varied as long as there are bogeymen.
This is the problem with relying on marketing (or markets) to protect you.
Apple could take a gamble and cease operations in states that require the changes, thus pissing off constituents and making them back pedal and change the laws.
A lot of Apple users aren't too bright (1000+ Mac Mail TS issues while serving a stint at a major shitty hosting firm owned by EIG), and would be lost without their apple devices.
Device manufacturers could instead sue on grounds that it's not their responsibility that the local govt will need to come up with their OWN apps and force consumers to install them, or local telecoms. There will be lots of court battles for sure...
A lot of Apple users aren't too bright (1000+ Mac Mail TS issues while serving a stint at a major shitty hosting firm owned by EIG), and would be lost without their apple devices.
Device manufacturers could instead sue on grounds that it's not their responsibility that the local govt will need to come up with their OWN apps and force consumers to install them, or local telecoms. There will be lots of court battles for sure...
> A lot of Apple users aren't too bright (1000+ Mac Mail TS issues while serving a stint at a major shitty hosting firm owned by EIG), and would be lost without their apple devices.
Was that sentence really needed?
Was that sentence really needed?
[deleted]
China already does this, and it works to a large extent. If you want to do it in a free society it's not too hard...
1. Enforce OSHA workplace safety law on all u.s. porn sets. 2. Enforce international trade rules against labor safety arbitrage, and or create new ones. 3. Enforce copyright law against tube sites that have made a mockery of d.m.c.a 4. Unionize all porn workers
Of course this will never happen... Porn is a symptom of the underlying I'll of our society.. where the accumulation of wealth and power are the only denominators of worth or virtue, then things like OSHA, labor rights, copyright law for small producers, and unions, are all seen as enemies of ,if not progress then the system itself.
If the u.s. loses a war to China because China infiltrated our computers with free porn, while they had mass censorship which prevented it, then American capitalism will have lost the Mandate of Heaven.
In other words... If porn destroys society, it might be a natural feedback loop, a self correcting mechanism whereby unrestrained , brutal greed is kept in check, by the society that glorifies it the most , collapsing in on itself.
I did not think of this myself. A young porn star aka victim made a documentary a few year back, about the disgraced CMU professor who began the true mass industrialization of porn. She called it "McDonald's for sex" or something like that. The point is that you can't apply Harvard business school brutalistic to every human process and expect a positive result.
1. Enforce OSHA workplace safety law on all u.s. porn sets. 2. Enforce international trade rules against labor safety arbitrage, and or create new ones. 3. Enforce copyright law against tube sites that have made a mockery of d.m.c.a 4. Unionize all porn workers
Of course this will never happen... Porn is a symptom of the underlying I'll of our society.. where the accumulation of wealth and power are the only denominators of worth or virtue, then things like OSHA, labor rights, copyright law for small producers, and unions, are all seen as enemies of ,if not progress then the system itself.
If the u.s. loses a war to China because China infiltrated our computers with free porn, while they had mass censorship which prevented it, then American capitalism will have lost the Mandate of Heaven.
In other words... If porn destroys society, it might be a natural feedback loop, a self correcting mechanism whereby unrestrained , brutal greed is kept in check, by the society that glorifies it the most , collapsing in on itself.
I did not think of this myself. A young porn star aka victim made a documentary a few year back, about the disgraced CMU professor who began the true mass industrialization of porn. She called it "McDonald's for sex" or something like that. The point is that you can't apply Harvard business school brutalistic to every human process and expect a positive result.
[deleted]
Sigh... If the lawmakers want to copy from China, why not copy their gun control laws first and actually save some lives..
Because copying their gun control laws would, at best, not save any lives.
If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns.
If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns.
A few decades ago, before China enforced strict gun control laws, gun ownership were also quite common in China, and it was also a big problem. Now China is way more safer than America (in terms of violent crimes)
Well, I was being sarcastic and don’t actually believe it would work that well for US. But gun control laws certainly saved many lives in China, and there is at least hope that it could actually save some American lives. It would make it much harder for new outlaws to obtain guns at least
Well, I was being sarcastic and don’t actually believe it would work that well for US. But gun control laws certainly saved many lives in China, and there is at least hope that it could actually save some American lives. It would make it much harder for new outlaws to obtain guns at least
It's worth notice that many of these same states[1] mentioned in the article lack any interest in enacting an assault weapons ban to protect their citizens from deadly violence.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/national/assaul...
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/national/assaul...
It's worth notice that "assault weapons" is a loaded term, that really just means "rifles that are [scary looking | painted black | etc]". It's not a meaningful technical class of weapon distinct from other semiautomatic long guns, or really from handguns. (Handguns can be semiautomatic, can shoot the same caliber ammunition as rifles, and can have the same size magazines.)
In any case, it is reasonable that states have no interest in trying to enact some kind of "assault weapon" ban, because that would be contrary to the United States Constitution: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed". Just like this "human trafficking" law would be obviously contrary to the Constitution as well. I can't imagine how any lawmaker could seriously consider introducing a bill like is mentioned in the article - I guess it goes to show how corrupt some politicians can be.
No one should expect state legislatures to infringe the rights of the people that are protected by the Constitution. If someone wants to amend the US Constitution to take away either of these safeguards of peoples' rights, then let them propose that honestly instead.
In any case, it is reasonable that states have no interest in trying to enact some kind of "assault weapon" ban, because that would be contrary to the United States Constitution: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed". Just like this "human trafficking" law would be obviously contrary to the Constitution as well. I can't imagine how any lawmaker could seriously consider introducing a bill like is mentioned in the article - I guess it goes to show how corrupt some politicians can be.
No one should expect state legislatures to infringe the rights of the people that are protected by the Constitution. If someone wants to amend the US Constitution to take away either of these safeguards of peoples' rights, then let them propose that honestly instead.
[deleted]
No, it isn't. Trading one civil liberty for another is a negative-sum game.
[deleted]
I vaguely remember reading about a similar effort in China many years ago --- that failed silently.
Trying to tie this into "human trafficking" is a cruel diversion, just like pornography, terrorism, and drugs.
"Let's make the world safer" seems to be the common thread in all of these anti-freedom bills, with the implicit intent of branding those who are against them as supporters of human traffickers, pedophilia, terrorism, or whatever else.
There are two memorable quotes which will become very relevant in the near future:
"If you outlaw freedom, only outlaws will have freedom."
"Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither."