Bill seeks to put porn block on computers sold in SC(goupstate.com)
goupstate.com
Bill seeks to put porn block on computers sold in SC
http://www.goupstate.com/news/20161217/bill-seeks-to-put-porn-block-on-computers-sold-in-sc
195 comments
In Brazil the dystopia is reality:
1. The law requires certain amount of Brazillian made bloatware stuff to be shipped with all phones. "Coincidentally" the software never ends being actually useful stuff, and is always the work of some company owned by a politician or by the friends and family of a politician.
2. To sell games in Brazil (physical board games and rpg books included) you must submit paperwork (of the dead tree kind) to the Ministry of Justice asking permission and asking for age rating. The government argues it is not censorship, only regulation, but it CAN legally refuse giving an age rating, de facto banning the game.
3. Possession, storage or even giving away games also fall in the previous point. It don't happened yet, but theoretically anyone can get up to two years in jail for owning a game that isn't rated by the Ministry of Justice.
4. Because of points 2 and 3, Brazil for many years didn't had the games categories in mobile stores (iTunes for example) and still to this day have less content than other countries in digital games platforms (Steam, Xbox Live, PSN...)
5. Brazil constitution banned censorship, and has freedom of expression explicitly protected, yet Brazil has more games judicially banned than China, usually on "morality" grounds, for example EverQuest was banned because it allowed players to do evil quests.
1. The law requires certain amount of Brazillian made bloatware stuff to be shipped with all phones. "Coincidentally" the software never ends being actually useful stuff, and is always the work of some company owned by a politician or by the friends and family of a politician.
2. To sell games in Brazil (physical board games and rpg books included) you must submit paperwork (of the dead tree kind) to the Ministry of Justice asking permission and asking for age rating. The government argues it is not censorship, only regulation, but it CAN legally refuse giving an age rating, de facto banning the game.
3. Possession, storage or even giving away games also fall in the previous point. It don't happened yet, but theoretically anyone can get up to two years in jail for owning a game that isn't rated by the Ministry of Justice.
4. Because of points 2 and 3, Brazil for many years didn't had the games categories in mobile stores (iTunes for example) and still to this day have less content than other countries in digital games platforms (Steam, Xbox Live, PSN...)
5. Brazil constitution banned censorship, and has freedom of expression explicitly protected, yet Brazil has more games judicially banned than China, usually on "morality" grounds, for example EverQuest was banned because it allowed players to do evil quests.
Sigh.. I wish legislators would stop telling us what kind of porn we are or aren't allowed to watch.
For one thing default porn filter installed on all laptops doesn't make any kind of sense given most of the population is over 18.
Opt in makes a lot more sense than opt out in this case.
Plus the fact that they are asking for money from the manufacturer and the customer to opt out makes it look like just another scheme to make money under the theme "it's for the children".
Honestly I'm calling BS on this. It's just some greedy politicians trying to squeeze money out of people for stupid reasons.
For one thing default porn filter installed on all laptops doesn't make any kind of sense given most of the population is over 18.
Opt in makes a lot more sense than opt out in this case.
Plus the fact that they are asking for money from the manufacturer and the customer to opt out makes it look like just another scheme to make money under the theme "it's for the children".
Honestly I'm calling BS on this. It's just some greedy politicians trying to squeeze money out of people for stupid reasons.
It's more than that. If you have any regular exposure to the right side of the political spectrum in the US, porn basically came out of nowhere as a political issue fairly recently. It's always been there, but it was sort of a fringey thing to get upset about (compared to, say, think-of-the-fetuses, or hating on teh gheys for wanting to get married, etc.). Plus it had a certain whiff of feminism about it, which probably scared off some of the hard-right who can't decide if Andrea Dworkin should be venerated as a conservative or burned as a witch.
But, for reasons that are opaque to me, the intellectual tarpit of the hard right seems to have coughed up pornography as their newest social wedge issue.
And now we're seeing the next phase in the playbook, which is to push various degrees of insane legislation at the state or sometimes even local level, while at the same time they have an army of pundits working the media, beating the drum about "porn addiction" and generally trying to frame it as the latest "public health crisis".
I would not write it off as simply some greedy politicians. That's probably how it was sold to a particular group of self-interested politicians, in this particular instance. But there's a greater strategy at work (whether directed or as a sort of emergent behavior), and it fits together very neatly with other socially-conservative/authoritarian issues.
But, for reasons that are opaque to me, the intellectual tarpit of the hard right seems to have coughed up pornography as their newest social wedge issue.
And now we're seeing the next phase in the playbook, which is to push various degrees of insane legislation at the state or sometimes even local level, while at the same time they have an army of pundits working the media, beating the drum about "porn addiction" and generally trying to frame it as the latest "public health crisis".
I would not write it off as simply some greedy politicians. That's probably how it was sold to a particular group of self-interested politicians, in this particular instance. But there's a greater strategy at work (whether directed or as a sort of emergent behavior), and it fits together very neatly with other socially-conservative/authoritarian issues.
> porn basically came out of nowhere as a political issue fairly recently
Not everyone would be counting LBJ's anti-porn commission as 'fairly recently.'
Even then, it only 'came out of nowhere' if you discount legislating porn as separate from the overall legislating morality platform that everything else you mention is an outgrowth of.
Not everyone would be counting LBJ's anti-porn commission as 'fairly recently.'
Even then, it only 'came out of nowhere' if you discount legislating porn as separate from the overall legislating morality platform that everything else you mention is an outgrowth of.
[deleted]
>The mindset that would even produce such an idea is incredibly dangerous.
To be fair, politicians and computer policy has always been poor and the USA just voted someone in who asked a foreign power to find his opponents emails and uses the term "the cyber" frequently. In other words, I suspect its going to get worse before it gets better.
>a Central Authority that somehow dictates what must, and what cannot....
Append "be done" and that's the very definition of government. Typically humans without government is a recipe for failure, so its not the existence of government per-se that's the issue. The larger question is why government in many countries, including the USA, are failing on such an abysmal level for what should be basic tasks like regulating computer issues. The elephant in the room here seems to be a strong anti-intellectual atmosphere and strongman politics taking root and winning elections of late worldwide. Voters are seeking this stuff out. That's the problem.
To be fair, politicians and computer policy has always been poor and the USA just voted someone in who asked a foreign power to find his opponents emails and uses the term "the cyber" frequently. In other words, I suspect its going to get worse before it gets better.
>a Central Authority that somehow dictates what must, and what cannot....
Append "be done" and that's the very definition of government. Typically humans without government is a recipe for failure, so its not the existence of government per-se that's the issue. The larger question is why government in many countries, including the USA, are failing on such an abysmal level for what should be basic tasks like regulating computer issues. The elephant in the room here seems to be a strong anti-intellectual atmosphere and strongman politics taking root and winning elections of late worldwide. Voters are seeking this stuff out. That's the problem.
Do we have proof of that? I mean Trump asking for Hillary's emails.
I know that it's pretty probable that the whole DNC/DCleaks was done by a well known foreign power, but that doesn't mean Trump asked for it or know about it beforehand, right?
I know that it's pretty probable that the whole DNC/DCleaks was done by a well known foreign power, but that doesn't mean Trump asked for it or know about it beforehand, right?
No, the request was sarcastic, it was for Hillary's 30,000 emails that she deleted from her personal email server as being "not work-related", the ones from well before the campaign. The sarcastic request was made right after the July DNC leak (the DNC primaries shenanigans). It was not a request for Podesta's, or any other DNC operative's, emails. Since the DNC leak had already occurred, and since Podesta's emails had already been hacked (but not yet released), it's not as if Russia (if it's certain they're behind Guccifer 2.0 and the Podesta hack) needed Trump to ask (sarcastically or not) for more DNC or HRC material before they'd go looking for it.
Since Hillary stated repeatedly that she (her lawyers) deleted the 30,000 emails, if Russia could "find" them at all, it would mean that either Hillary lied and had them backed up somewhere, or that Russia was in possession of them long before Trump jokingly asked for them.
Since Hillary stated repeatedly that she (her lawyers) deleted the 30,000 emails, if Russia could "find" them at all, it would mean that either Hillary lied and had them backed up somewhere, or that Russia was in possession of them long before Trump jokingly asked for them.
Proof of Donald Trump asking Russia to find Hillary's emails?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/28/us/politics/donald-trump-r...
It's pretty well documented, man.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/28/us/politics/donald-trump-r...
It's pretty well documented, man.
Thanks!
I wasn't following the whole sadwagon, but I'm fully aware of how everything is sensationalized, hence I was asking for sources.
I wasn't following the whole sadwagon, but I'm fully aware of how everything is sensationalized, hence I was asking for sources.
You're quite welcome! The election and the aftermath has had the curious result of making The Onion headlines look almost indistinguishable from real news, so if unless you put some serious effort into following what happens it's pretty easy to not be able to tell what things are people joking about terrible events and what actually happened.
Um, he said it in a public press conference. He says he was joking, but he did say it.
It wasn't Russia, whether Donald asked that or not. Julian Assange has said so.
How naive we were to think that Assange/Wikileaks kept sources strictly private. /s
It's not the first time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-chip
(Apparently this is still in production, and therefore presumably in today's modern "Smart TVs". Haven't heard anything about it for years)
(Apparently this is still in production, and therefore presumably in today's modern "Smart TVs". Haven't heard anything about it for years)
In practice the V-chip didn't dial out and couldn't really accept orders from a central authority. A v-chip owner could set programs of a given rating to not be displayed without a password.
I suppose the system could have been suborned to make all tv shows have the most strict rating blocking it on TV with the chip enabled... but if you have that power you can just turn off the TV signal. Anyway the lack of central control prevented it from being meaningful.
I suppose the system could have been suborned to make all tv shows have the most strict rating blocking it on TV with the chip enabled... but if you have that power you can just turn off the TV signal. Anyway the lack of central control prevented it from being meaningful.
I would hope computer manufacturers would simply stop selling to SC to set an example. I can imagine the cost involved for them to have a SC-customized sales and build process would be substantial.
"We are excessively burdened by government regulation."
It's gonna be the other way around: They ship the censored version anywhere.
I don't believe the politicians either; however, I still don't know why every computing device must have a color screen that plays videos. I'm led to believe that computers of our day serve the vendors' need for profit more than the consumers' need for focus.
Also, Alan Kay said we have the same problem with books, and it's not a very important problem, etc.
Also, Alan Kay said we have the same problem with books, and it's not a very important problem, etc.
> I still don't know why every computing device must have a color screen that plays videos.
It's mainly because hardware design is more expensive than software design. I've been working for a while on a side project that's going to be a standalone "appliance" of sorts, and it's much easier to basically punt on the hardware -- just toss a general-purpose SoC in there, with a big old touchscreen on top, and then do the entire UI in software -- than it is to iteratively design the UI in hardware, with traditional buttons, switches, LCD multiline displays, etc. Even though I think the overall UX is often much better with traditional hard controls (more tactile feedback, easier to use without looking or with vision impairments... long list).
3D printing is closing this gap a little, but it's still a heck of a lot easier to upload some new files to a touchscreen-based device and plop it in front of your testers than it is to produce a new version of a hard control panel.
It's mainly because hardware design is more expensive than software design. I've been working for a while on a side project that's going to be a standalone "appliance" of sorts, and it's much easier to basically punt on the hardware -- just toss a general-purpose SoC in there, with a big old touchscreen on top, and then do the entire UI in software -- than it is to iteratively design the UI in hardware, with traditional buttons, switches, LCD multiline displays, etc. Even though I think the overall UX is often much better with traditional hard controls (more tactile feedback, easier to use without looking or with vision impairments... long list).
3D printing is closing this gap a little, but it's still a heck of a lot easier to upload some new files to a touchscreen-based device and plop it in front of your testers than it is to produce a new version of a hard control panel.
> with a big old touchscreen on top
So a monochrome screen and USB input are actually harder to find I take it?
I also noticed snapdragon doesn't do wired ethernet.
So a monochrome screen and USB input are actually harder to find I take it?
I also noticed snapdragon doesn't do wired ethernet.
I know that it's easy to find 16x2 character LCD displays, 7 segment displays, and small monochrome displays (like old phone displays), but at least at the hobbyist level, it seems like you may as well go for the general-purpose color screen. Similar sized screens look like they're around the same price, regardless of if they're color or not.
> Stallman's worst dystopian nightmare: a Central Authority that somehow dictates what must, and what cannot, run on your computer.
For some people, that's not a dystopia, it's a feature.
For some people, that's not a dystopia, it's a feature.
For some people, totalitarian dictatorship is a feature. Doesn't mean that it wouldn't be terrible for society as a whole.
Funny that he didnt suggest the computer have a blocking function for anything that mentions guns either ... I'm sure there's a big problem with that upstate too...
This is just grist to keep the religious people fired up and to get some good press hits in that community.
And then once they have these controls into place, just defund the office that gives you the key to unlock the filter.
Why not just tax all computers sales for $20? It would be much more cost effective than developing a really terrible piece of easily hackable filtering software that would have to be deployed on every OS in the world to comply with the law, not to mention the costly workflow of collecting the tax. (Ignoring the obviously strange "pay for speech" game happening here that is just ODD)
This seems like a really complicated, silly approach to solve a very simple problem - funding the Attorney General's Task Force.
Kickstarter would be a more effective governance strategy here. Hopefully lawmakers AND the citizens of South Carolina can see how terrible this would be for their state. I have no doubt North Carolina PC stores are excited, though.
In general, I'm upset to see these micro-targeted pieces of legislation that also contribute a great deal to erosion of constitutional protections without an afterthought.
This seems like a really complicated, silly approach to solve a very simple problem - funding the Attorney General's Task Force.
Kickstarter would be a more effective governance strategy here. Hopefully lawmakers AND the citizens of South Carolina can see how terrible this would be for their state. I have no doubt North Carolina PC stores are excited, though.
In general, I'm upset to see these micro-targeted pieces of legislation that also contribute a great deal to erosion of constitutional protections without an afterthought.
This law will actually cost the Attorney General's office as they spend money to defend a law which will inevitably be found unconstitutional.
Hey man, it's all for the protection of kids and to prevent human trafficking! I mean, it's in the name: Human Trafficking Prevention Act. It doesn't matter that we're stepping on the toes of other citizens and their right to browse the Internet freely. It's for the sake of protecting the helpless and, most of all, the children!
Note: For the sake of Poe's Law, this post is scathing sarcasm.
Note: For the sake of Poe's Law, this post is scathing sarcasm.
> Why not just tax all computers sales for $20?
Because SC didn't invent computers, the internet, or anything related to this. This isn't their territory, and they should quickly and apologetically "back off".
When in doubt, follow the money. $20 per device to a "task force" that you may or may not believe in is theft, a shakedown, or whatever variant someone may refer to it as.
The effect: "You want a computer? Pay for it, and give me $20: you have no choice."
Because SC didn't invent computers, the internet, or anything related to this. This isn't their territory, and they should quickly and apologetically "back off".
When in doubt, follow the money. $20 per device to a "task force" that you may or may not believe in is theft, a shakedown, or whatever variant someone may refer to it as.
The effect: "You want a computer? Pay for it, and give me $20: you have no choice."
[deleted]
Interestingly, the difference in SC sales tax (6%) and NC sales tax (4.75%, but county/city taxes make it ~6.75%), effectively come out to nearly $20 on a $2000 laptop.
>I have no doubt North Carolina PC stores are excited, though.
Can you clarify what this means?
Can you clarify what this means?
The implication is that people will travel to North Carolina from South Carolina to buy their computers instead of having to buy the "filtered" ones in their home state.
Yes, this sums it up. State-based taxes and fees on goods are pretty easily circumventable when you buy in another state, or, you know, on a website.
But this also conveniently ignores the fact that the same brand of blue-fearing SC republican also dominates the NC state legislature [0]. I can imagine NC easily passing a similar law in an after hours closed door special session. So the more rational GA, TN, and VA states should be excited.
[0] See all behavior since McCrory was ousted from being Governor and the State Supreme Court flipping pro-Dem.
[0] See all behavior since McCrory was ousted from being Governor and the State Supreme Court flipping pro-Dem.
South Carolina is a weird place. I always thought that it was like a southern version of Pennsylvania or New Hampshire -- the regional "vice" state. They have fireworks, strippers, cheaper gas etc.
A vice state? This Pennsylvania?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_laws_of_Pennsylvania
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_laws_of_Pennsylvania
We actually have software companies here, so no that's actually not as likely. It's the exact reason this happened in south carolina and not say georgia.
To be fair, they might also go to Georgia.
I suspect that the author is suggesting that consumers who don't wish to be subject to the filter or the tax would just drive over the border to North Carolina to purchase a computer.
North Carolina borders South Carolina, where the proposed ban is. GP is pointing out that South Carolinians will be incentivized to buy computers out of state, driving up sales there.
[deleted]
Probably that if it passes, people will buy computers across state lines and transport them back. A bounty for NC electronics stores.
[deleted]
$20 is not enough to get people to go to another state on a $500 purchase. Sales tax is more than that, and there aren't a lot of people buying stuff in other states to avoid that.
Probably not for a lot of the state, but the Charlotte metro area contains a significant number of people who live across the border in Rock Hill for property tax reasons. These people make that commute almost daily. (It's actually enough that the Charlotte Transit Authority has a bus that runs to Rock Hill).
> State Rep. Bill Chumley, R-Spartanburg, said the Human Trafficking Prevention Act would require manufacturers or sellers to install digital blocking capabilities on computers and other devices that access the internet to prevent the viewing of obscene content.
> “If we could have manufacturers install filters that would be shipped to South Carolina, then anything that children have access on for pornography would be blocked,” Chumley said. “We felt like that would be another way to fight human trafficking.”
Is this South Carolina or North Korea?
> “If we could have manufacturers install filters that would be shipped to South Carolina, then anything that children have access on for pornography would be blocked,” Chumley said. “We felt like that would be another way to fight human trafficking.”
Is this South Carolina or North Korea?
I live in South Carolina and I'm trying to find way to get this into the news. It starts with this, and then other things get added. I think before the state can introduce a bill such as this, they need to prove their claims beyond a shadow of a doubt. I agree that human trafficking is a huge deal, but this isn't the solution. I hate to invoke the gun owners argument but I think it could hold weight here--People are going to find out a way to get around this if they intend to traffic humans, this stops nothing.
The reality is that this state has bound many laws to the ideals of the church for far too long and deep down I feel that this is what it's really about. Taking the approach of "guilty until proven innocent" is ridiculous.
Offtopic but related to this brand of republican: These are some of the same politicians that are freaking out because Charleston, SC is being more and more blue. They have openly started legislating to try and keep population boom from turning the state blue in future elections.
The reality is that this state has bound many laws to the ideals of the church for far too long and deep down I feel that this is what it's really about. Taking the approach of "guilty until proven innocent" is ridiculous.
Offtopic but related to this brand of republican: These are some of the same politicians that are freaking out because Charleston, SC is being more and more blue. They have openly started legislating to try and keep population boom from turning the state blue in future elections.
> It starts with this, and then other things get added.
It doesn't even have to be done with additional laws; the bill specifies that "human trafficking hubs" must be blocked, but doesn't seem to define the term. It would be rather easy to start adding all sorts of things to that list.
It doesn't even have to be done with additional laws; the bill specifies that "human trafficking hubs" must be blocked, but doesn't seem to define the term. It would be rather easy to start adding all sorts of things to that list.
What ever happened to parental responsibility?
I'm reminded of this scene in the Simpsons ("Won't somebody please think of the children?"): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo
I'm reminded of this scene in the Simpsons ("Won't somebody please think of the children?"): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo
"It takes a village". ;)
North Korea forbids all Internet access. South Korea is a better example, since they block pornography.
First quote shows Chumley has no idea of how tech works, the costs involved, and the negligible effect it will have on the problem he is trying to solve.
> “If we could have manufacturers install filters that would be shipped to South Carolina, then anything that children have access on for pornography would be blocked,” Chumley said. “We felt like that would be another way to fight human trafficking.”
What? I guess he thinks child pornography is "porno for children". So he wants manufacturers to install filter that would block children from viewing porn by blocking access. Which by the way does not help prevent human trafficking at all.
> “If we could have manufacturers install filters that would be shipped to South Carolina, then anything that children have access on for pornography would be blocked,” Chumley said. “We felt like that would be another way to fight human trafficking.”
What? I guess he thinks child pornography is "porno for children". So he wants manufacturers to install filter that would block children from viewing porn by blocking access. Which by the way does not help prevent human trafficking at all.
Well, I suspect the general theory is that decreasing revenues to internet porn outfits will put a damper on the entire online porn industry, which will, in some measure, reduce demand in the trafficking industry...
...or England?
The British(+) proposed system is much more extreme - complete ISP-level censorship of listed sites.
https://www.openrightsgroup.org/campaigns/digital-economy-bi...
(+) It's not a devolved matter.
https://www.openrightsgroup.org/campaigns/digital-economy-bi...
(+) It's not a devolved matter.
And apparently if you show women squirting in your porn videos you're breaking some other English law. It's like some people over there are back in the Victorian era.
I think it's just regular old hypocrisy. I'm sure we can find examples of the newspaper with bare-breasted women on Page 3 running a campaign against internet porn.
It doesn't help that the UK opposition is in total disarray at the moment and Brexit dominates all news cycles.
It doesn't help that the UK opposition is in total disarray at the moment and Brexit dominates all news cycles.
Also don't forget that drawn representations of completely fictional people who even appear (the wording used is "predominantly conveys") a child engaged in any kind of sexual act, or a focus on the genitals, is illegal to even possess.
The UK is a state that does not care about freedom of speech. I can't find the parliamentary debate right now, but someone argued that possession should not be a crime - and a Tory MP retorted that "well mere possession of cannabis is illegal, so what's wrong with making this illegal too?"
I feel like there is no hope, and I don't think there is hope. The UK is not founded on the principles of liberty or libertarianism, the populace doesn't care for it or they are actively against it ("think of the children!"), the people in parliament don't care about evidence, etc.
The world is turning more and more against freedom of expression it feels.
The UK is a state that does not care about freedom of speech. I can't find the parliamentary debate right now, but someone argued that possession should not be a crime - and a Tory MP retorted that "well mere possession of cannabis is illegal, so what's wrong with making this illegal too?"
I feel like there is no hope, and I don't think there is hope. The UK is not founded on the principles of liberty or libertarianism, the populace doesn't care for it or they are actively against it ("think of the children!"), the people in parliament don't care about evidence, etc.
The world is turning more and more against freedom of expression it feels.
I can think of much worse things to ban than squirting.
I don't recall a $20 opt out for England. Also, I think the plan there is to tap the network (i.e your ISP), not the devices themselves.
[deleted]
What are the odds that the sponsors know this bill is garbage, and only proposed it for the sake of having the opposition on record "voting for sexual exploitation of children"? I know this kind of rhetoric (distorting votes against a bill to be votes for the opposite, most commonly: all votes against any bill including a tax cut => "Senator Johnson voted for higher taxes 4194304 times") is used regularly, but I don't know how much of a stretch it is that someone would propose a bill primarily to fuel it.
I don't think it's that only reason. However, it serves as a great talking point when campaigning against an opponent.
Imagine having to defend against, "Candidate X voted against the Human Trafficking Prevention Act!" when you and other privy voters know it's stop the turd hidden underneath the polished gold.
Imagine having to defend against, "Candidate X voted against the Human Trafficking Prevention Act!" when you and other privy voters know it's stop the turd hidden underneath the polished gold.
That's probably not what's happening in this case (this is just good, old-fashioned puritanism), but what you're referring to is exactly what a certain party did in congress for a few decades with flag-burning bills and amendments.
"the Human Trafficking Prevention Act would require manufacturers or sellers to install digital blocking capabilities on computers and other devices that access the internet to prevent the viewing of obscene content."
What does plain vanilla adult materials have to do with child trafficking????!
And how will it make children safer if a simple tax can get around it?
You gotta question the motives here
What does plain vanilla adult materials have to do with child trafficking????!
And how will it make children safer if a simple tax can get around it?
You gotta question the motives here
> What does plain vanilla adult materials have to do with child trafficking????!
Yea, it's basically a morality tax wrapped in child-protection language. To a certain puritanical set, the difference is indistinguishable. It's a similar rhetorical strategy to saying that anti-gay laws are for the protection of children, or anti-trans laws are for the protection of cis women.
Yea, it's basically a morality tax wrapped in child-protection language. To a certain puritanical set, the difference is indistinguishable. It's a similar rhetorical strategy to saying that anti-gay laws are for the protection of children, or anti-trans laws are for the protection of cis women.
> install digital blocking capabilities on computers and other devices that access the internet to prevent the viewing of obscene content.
Smartphones? Routers and switches? Refrigerators?
Smartphones? Routers and switches? Refrigerators?
If you build your own PC, does this apply? If so, which PC component does the fee apply to? The hard drive, the motherboard, the CPU...? What if you want to build a PC and install a flavour of Linux, without a proprietary OS? Do you need a special flavour of Linux that's patched especially for South Carolina?
How about Alexa / Echo / Dot / Tap?
I'll know pr0n when I see it, well, what if its a speaker?
Another fascinating question is cat-5 ethernet cables.
I'll know pr0n when I see it, well, what if its a speaker?
Another fascinating question is cat-5 ethernet cables.
Presumably those would be included, as well as anything with a speaker and an interface to the internet, because SC's obscenity statute is incredibly broad.
How about smartwatches?
"Human Trafficking Prevention Act" - I guess they assume that all people involved in being filmed for pornography are trafficed. That no normal person would want to record themselves having sex or performing sex acts.
They know that. They just hate porn. But banning porn has been found unconstitutional so many times they know it won't work. Thus they label it "anti-human trafficking" in hopes it will pass constitutional muster. Sort of like labeling creationism "intelligent design."
I'd wager they love porn. I would bet a de-filtering fee that the person who wrote this specifically loves the kind of porn that looks like human trafficking porn, in fact.
But he has to signal to his constituency - most of whom probably enjoy porn as well, but can't be seen to - that he shares their surface values.
But he has to signal to his constituency - most of whom probably enjoy porn as well, but can't be seen to - that he shares their surface values.
The name won't affect it's constitutionality and they know it, but as others have pointed out it's politically beneficial to say they voted for the "protection of children" and their opponents voted against it.
In the unlikely case of this law passing as written, I'd like to see it blow up in their faces when manufacturers and sellers simply choose not to sell devices in SC.
You trust the industry too much, or you're naive. All of them will do whatever it takes to make money. See Cisco and the GFW, for example.
You overestimate the greed of today's leaders. See Uber bailing from Austin because of unfriendly regulation.
It's true the the original post is too broad, but if just Apple, Microsoft, and Google decided to stop selling devices in S.C. that might be enough to oust a large number of state officials and get the law overturned by the next senate/congress.
It's true the the original post is too broad, but if just Apple, Microsoft, and Google decided to stop selling devices in S.C. that might be enough to oust a large number of state officials and get the law overturned by the next senate/congress.
Yeah this is pretty much what I was thinking. There will still be plenty of companies that will install the government-mandated malware with glee (or raise prices by $20), but I think there would be enough pushback from a few large companies that it would get overturned pretty quickly.
Uber + Lyft in Austin is a good example, so is PayPal + others in NC over HB2.
Uber + Lyft in Austin is a good example, so is PayPal + others in NC over HB2.
I'm still willing to lay money that Uber returns to Austin by SXSW. They can cry regulatory malfeasance all they want but there's too much brand recognition opportunity lost if they skip SXSW.
UBER doesn't need to sacrifice it's position in it's battle with Austin over a little brand awareness at a conference where everyone already knows who UBER is...
If anything the absence of UBER and Lyft at SXSW will be louder than if they returned.
If anything the absence of UBER and Lyft at SXSW will be louder than if they returned.
Are there really no other problems for the SC legislature to solve? Is this really the most burning problem facing the state or is this some bible thumpers push to be relevant and in the news?
FTFA:
> The bill also would prohibit access to any online hub that facilities prostitution and would require manufacturers or sellers to block any websites that facilitate trafficking, Chumley said.
At this point, I'm thinking to myself, "South Carolina is a hotbed of human trafficking?!"
> “The human trafficking thing has exploded. It’s gotten to be a real problem,” Chumley said.
> State officials have categorized the Upstate as a hotbed for human trafficking due to its location on Interstate 85 between Atlanta and Charlotte, N.C., two cities that consistently rank among the top 20 for human sex trafficking in the U.S.
Oh.
Yeah, it's a stupid solution, but he says that's not the point. It's to draw attention to the problem.
The article wasn't even long.
> The bill also would prohibit access to any online hub that facilities prostitution and would require manufacturers or sellers to block any websites that facilitate trafficking, Chumley said.
At this point, I'm thinking to myself, "South Carolina is a hotbed of human trafficking?!"
> “The human trafficking thing has exploded. It’s gotten to be a real problem,” Chumley said.
> State officials have categorized the Upstate as a hotbed for human trafficking due to its location on Interstate 85 between Atlanta and Charlotte, N.C., two cities that consistently rank among the top 20 for human sex trafficking in the U.S.
Oh.
Yeah, it's a stupid solution, but he says that's not the point. It's to draw attention to the problem.
The article wasn't even long.
It doesn't seem like he's proposing the bill as a PR stunt to bring attention to human trafficking, but rather to the fact that porn is easily available:
> “It’s where almost everybody has access to a computer now. It’s porn on demand,” Chumley said. “We have to start somewhere. … We’re bringing attention to it. We’re not being political. It’s an issue I’m pretty passionate about.”
He also said that they're going to continue debating the bill:
> Chumley referred to the bill as a “beginning point” and said once the legislation is debated in session, changes could be made.
> “It’s where almost everybody has access to a computer now. It’s porn on demand,” Chumley said. “We have to start somewhere. … We’re bringing attention to it. We’re not being political. It’s an issue I’m pretty passionate about.”
He also said that they're going to continue debating the bill:
> Chumley referred to the bill as a “beginning point” and said once the legislation is debated in session, changes could be made.
Conservative southern politicians aren't exactly worried about what makes sense past what gets them re-elected. Vigorous hand-wringing about nebulous moral issues due to the self-righteous nature of their constituents is one of the issues that checks that box. Pay no attention to the fact that this is one of those regulations that will unduly burden businesses. Or the fact that every PC already has a hosts file of sorts. The only thing a porn filter has in common with sex trafficking is that they both have something to do with sex.
I moved to SC (somewhat unfortunately I suppose) a couple of years ago and I have been quite surprised at the many Stop Sex Trafficking bill boards and things I've seen around. It seems to be a fairly big issue in the state (or at least the upstate area). I lived up in PA most of my life and spent about 4 years in Southern CA and I don't really ever recall seeing sex trafficking billboards anywhere else that I've traveled or lived. So when I first saw that a bill was introduced about combating sex trafficking, I thought - man this must REALLY be a big problem here. And maybe there are some pieces of it that make sense. But they always seem to bury in and hide so much extra bullshit that it starts to make zero sense what they are trying to really achieve.
tl,dr: not surprised SC trying to pass stop sex trafficking law; not surprised bill contains extra bullshit tactics for raising more money to fund said law.
tl,dr: not surprised SC trying to pass stop sex trafficking law; not surprised bill contains extra bullshit tactics for raising more money to fund said law.
That's pretty much how "sex trafficking" works as a political issue - people see all the billboards and laws and articles and think that it must be a really big problem, so they support more billboards and laws and so on and infinitum. No evidence that it actually exists is required.
You may disagree with the method and whether it is effective or not, but if the goal is to stop sex trafficking then that indeed should be a high priority.
Stopping people from looking at porn is, at best, orthogonal to sex trafficking.
This is a bunch of religious zealots trying to control others under the guise of humanitarianism. It's a classic technique: who can argue with sex trafficking as a cause? So just wrap up hideous legislation in that disguise.
This is a bunch of religious zealots trying to control others under the guise of humanitarianism. It's a classic technique: who can argue with sex trafficking as a cause? So just wrap up hideous legislation in that disguise.
There seems to be a creeping habit of quietly slipping in draconian legislation as a rider to otherwise routine proposals. This feels like a slightly different approach in that the primary legislation has a nice easily defendable title. Who wouldn't want to stop human trafficking? Unfortunately, it seems that there is little interest in challenging this behaviour, presumably because the only ones who are in a position to directly challenge those doing it also have a vested interest in keeping such behaviour out of the public eye.
> Stopping people from looking at porn
"Porn" is open to a lot of interpretation. What is pornography... women wearing colored clothing? Pictures of Islamic women's ankles? It's a slippery slope as they say, and incredibly subjective.
"Porn" is open to a lot of interpretation. What is pornography... women wearing colored clothing? Pictures of Islamic women's ankles? It's a slippery slope as they say, and incredibly subjective.
>"Porn" is open to a lot of interpretation.
No, it's open to completely arbitrary redefinition for the sake of an authority figure's personal power. If this bill passes, I give an 85% chance that at some point someone will claim the Democratic Party's website is child pornography. I am willing to bet money on this.
A power-grab is a power-grab.
No, it's open to completely arbitrary redefinition for the sake of an authority figure's personal power. If this bill passes, I give an 85% chance that at some point someone will claim the Democratic Party's website is child pornography. I am willing to bet money on this.
A power-grab is a power-grab.
I know it when I see it.
> who can argue with sex trafficking as a cause?
Anybody who thinks the police raping prostitutes is a bad thing.
Anybody who thinks the police raping prostitutes is a bad thing.
Given "stop sex trafficking" usually means "empower the police to harass and often rape sex workers", I really don't want any legislature prioritising it.
I'd recommend reading up on sex workers' rights movements - you'll find that, in general, "anti-trafficking" operations mostly hurt the very people they're claiming to protect while appealing to people's prudishness to deny the agency of the women in question when they dare to disagree.
I'd recommend reading up on sex workers' rights movements - you'll find that, in general, "anti-trafficking" operations mostly hurt the very people they're claiming to protect while appealing to people's prudishness to deny the agency of the women in question when they dare to disagree.
If the Upstate is a hotbed for sex trafficking, then it only makes sense that the Greenville County Sheriffs Office spent $26,000 over the course of a year at a single strip club "investigating" illegal prostitution.
Source: http://www.thestate.com/news/local/article25716517.html
Source: http://www.thestate.com/news/local/article25716517.html
Personally, I doubt it. Feels like a wolf in sheep's clothing. Rep says: "It's to stop human sex trafficking save children!"
History says: "It's to push my religious agenda and reduce the privacy and freedoms of the populace under the guise of helping the disenfranchised"
History says: "It's to push my religious agenda and reduce the privacy and freedoms of the populace under the guise of helping the disenfranchised"
If we are going to disregard the cause and effect, then there is such better methods available to deal with this high priority problem. Lets just eliminate free movement of people and require travel paper for anyone moving between cities and states. People may disagree with the method, but free movement is what enables sex trafficking. Drastic problem require drastic measures, and if the goal is to stop sex trafficking then indeed it should be applied, right?
Is there any recent development I am unaware of that makes SC the sex trafficking hotspot of the United States?
If you want to stop human trafficking, enforce labor laws in Chinese restaurants.
As a South Carolina resident, I'm confident this won't happen.
Right-wingers introduce nutty bills all the time here (example: Lee Bright introduced [1] a bill to have South Carolina make its own currency), and they get a fair amount of attention, but for the most part they don't have enough clout to run the state. If this bill gets any traction, lobbyists from BMW (factory in Spartanburg, SC), Boeing (Charleston), and other big business interests will see to it that it is defeated.
[1] http://www.goupstate.com/news/20110212/sen-lee-bright-sc-sho...
Right-wingers introduce nutty bills all the time here (example: Lee Bright introduced [1] a bill to have South Carolina make its own currency), and they get a fair amount of attention, but for the most part they don't have enough clout to run the state. If this bill gets any traction, lobbyists from BMW (factory in Spartanburg, SC), Boeing (Charleston), and other big business interests will see to it that it is defeated.
[1] http://www.goupstate.com/news/20110212/sen-lee-bright-sc-sho...
I think there is a problem relying on big business to fight such fights. I wouldn't think they would care except that it would be a tax on equipment they might use, but that could be sidestepped in a number of ways. The businesses could just get a commercial exemption written into the law or just import their compute gear from a remote division.
The same politician who's public office website has a disclaimer on their contact form which reads:
"Notice: This form may not be fully-compatible with Google Chrome.
If you are experiencing issues sending a message while using Chrome, please try another web browser."
Figures, the same guy who thinks this is practical is the same guy who says to people surfing his website that it's not compatible with the number one internet browser in the world.
Why does government choose to be ignorant about technology? And why do we accept political ignorance of technology?
"Notice: This form may not be fully-compatible with Google Chrome.
If you are experiencing issues sending a message while using Chrome, please try another web browser."
Figures, the same guy who thinks this is practical is the same guy who says to people surfing his website that it's not compatible with the number one internet browser in the world.
Why does government choose to be ignorant about technology? And why do we accept political ignorance of technology?
My theory why government choose to be ignorant about technology is that for them technology too often dictates its own terms (or the developers behind tech). Tech often drives societal change faster than politicians can (cars, mobile phones, internet, antibiotics, are a few examples). This is very uncomfortable for politicians so they prefer to dictate how tech should work instead, regardless if it is a good idea or even feasible.
a $20 fee to remove the filtering? Seems an incredibly rent-seeking proposal.
I'm just SURE that there won't be any FOIA'able lists of everyone who pays to look at porn. Surely something like that would NEVER be abused in any way... right?
Let's perform a thought experiment.
Imagine yourself a little print shop. Now dream up a movable-type printing press and bolt it down in the workroom. Give yourself a few trays of letters, and some ink and paper. Give it some late-1780s appropriate decor.
Now imagine that Mr. Legis Socaro barges into your print shop one fine day and demands that you install a device on your press that prevents you from printing the word "aſshole" with it.
How much does that device cost, in relation to the cost of your press? Let's bear in mind that Mr. Socaro has not provided you with any such device to install, the plans to build one, nor even any expectation that any suitable device has been invented yet.
Might as well cite the article as the "Computer Trafficking Prevention Act".
Imagine yourself a little print shop. Now dream up a movable-type printing press and bolt it down in the workroom. Give yourself a few trays of letters, and some ink and paper. Give it some late-1780s appropriate decor.
Now imagine that Mr. Legis Socaro barges into your print shop one fine day and demands that you install a device on your press that prevents you from printing the word "aſshole" with it.
How much does that device cost, in relation to the cost of your press? Let's bear in mind that Mr. Socaro has not provided you with any such device to install, the plans to build one, nor even any expectation that any suitable device has been invented yet.
Might as well cite the article as the "Computer Trafficking Prevention Act".
And, don't forget that the first book printed was the Bible. Of the next ten thousand, many were smut. Civilization survived.
Here is the full text of the proposed bill: http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess122_2017-2018/bills/3003.htm
Reading the article was upsetting. Reading the actual law being proposed, however, is even worse. Gobsmacked. I am not sure how any lawmaker or attorney viewing this bill would be able to press ahead with this.
"What about the first amendment?" "Oh, nevermind that - they can pay to remove the filter." "...?! I guess Freedom isn't free after all, but I didn't think that's what that meant. Are you going to manage the filter?" "No, the companies will manage it - it won't cost us a thing to block the traffic of the whole state. People will just do it for us, you know, because we tell them so." "...?"
> COMPANY MUST: "make reasonable and ongoing efforts to ensure that the digital content blocking capability functions properly, including establishing a reporting mechanism such as a website or call center to allow for a consumer to report unblocked obscene content or report blocked content that is not obscene"
This is far more than the $20 cost it purports to be.
"What about the first amendment?" "Oh, nevermind that - they can pay to remove the filter." "...?! I guess Freedom isn't free after all, but I didn't think that's what that meant. Are you going to manage the filter?" "No, the companies will manage it - it won't cost us a thing to block the traffic of the whole state. People will just do it for us, you know, because we tell them so." "...?"
> COMPANY MUST: "make reasonable and ongoing efforts to ensure that the digital content blocking capability functions properly, including establishing a reporting mechanism such as a website or call center to allow for a consumer to report unblocked obscene content or report blocked content that is not obscene"
This is far more than the $20 cost it purports to be.
>... such as a website or call center to allow for a consumer to report unblocked obscene content or report blocked content that is not obscene...
How would the customer be able to ever get to know that a (non-obscene) blocked site actually exists? I mean short of using a no-filter-installed device i.e. paying 20 bucks anyway.
How would the customer be able to ever get to know that a (non-obscene) blocked site actually exists? I mean short of using a no-filter-installed device i.e. paying 20 bucks anyway.
Phone Center! Imagine that. "Yes, the URL reads: doubleu-doubleu-doubleu dot ......."
OK, let's do this.
"A business, manufacturer, wholesaler, or individual that manufactures, distributes, or sells a product that makes content accessible on the Internet is prohibited from doing business in this State unless the product contains an active and operating digital blocking capability that renders any obscenity, as defined in Section 16-15-305, inaccessible.
The business, manufacturer, wholesaler, or individual must:
(1) make reasonable and ongoing efforts to ensure that the digital content blocking capability functions properly, including establishing a reporting mechanism such as a website or call center to allow for a consumer to report unblocked obscene content or report blocked content that is not obscene;
(2) ensure that all child pornography and revenge pornography is inaccessible on the product;
(3) prohibit the product from accessing any hub that facilitates prostitution; and
(4) render websites that are known to facilitate any trafficking of persons, as defined in Section 16-3-2010(9), inaccessible."
What is "a product that makes content accessible on the internet"? A computer? A router? A telephone line? Or does the computer simply access things which are already accessible, in which case we're talking about webservers and the like?
Since this applies to an individual too, does this mean you can't sell your old computer unless you set up a method for people to report things they shouldn't see on there?
Leaving aside the practical fact that it's impossible to do, given that it is (presumably) illegal to access child pornography, how is somebody supposed to "ensure that all of it is inaccessible" without breaking the law?
How would one report blocked content that isn't obscene? How can you know it's not obscene if you can't access it?
I can't face reading the rest of it. The first paragraph is already making my brain hurt.
"A business, manufacturer, wholesaler, or individual that manufactures, distributes, or sells a product that makes content accessible on the Internet is prohibited from doing business in this State unless the product contains an active and operating digital blocking capability that renders any obscenity, as defined in Section 16-15-305, inaccessible.
The business, manufacturer, wholesaler, or individual must:
(1) make reasonable and ongoing efforts to ensure that the digital content blocking capability functions properly, including establishing a reporting mechanism such as a website or call center to allow for a consumer to report unblocked obscene content or report blocked content that is not obscene;
(2) ensure that all child pornography and revenge pornography is inaccessible on the product;
(3) prohibit the product from accessing any hub that facilitates prostitution; and
(4) render websites that are known to facilitate any trafficking of persons, as defined in Section 16-3-2010(9), inaccessible."
What is "a product that makes content accessible on the internet"? A computer? A router? A telephone line? Or does the computer simply access things which are already accessible, in which case we're talking about webservers and the like?
Since this applies to an individual too, does this mean you can't sell your old computer unless you set up a method for people to report things they shouldn't see on there?
Leaving aside the practical fact that it's impossible to do, given that it is (presumably) illegal to access child pornography, how is somebody supposed to "ensure that all of it is inaccessible" without breaking the law?
How would one report blocked content that isn't obscene? How can you know it's not obscene if you can't access it?
I can't face reading the rest of it. The first paragraph is already making my brain hurt.
Regulating interstate commerce is outside the purview of a State anyway. Since the internet and the manufacturers are external to the State and its boundaries, this law is nothing more than a political statement. First federal judge that sees this bill will laugh it out of court.
> (2) ensure that all child pornography and revenge pornography is inaccessible on the product;
This is literally impossible, short of monkey-wrenching the operating system to prevent it from displaying images altogether.
> (3) prohibit the product from accessing any hub that facilitates prostitution; and
Where is a list of these hubs? Will each manufacturer have to keep their own list, or can I just call and ask Mr. Chumley for his personal one?
This is literally impossible, short of monkey-wrenching the operating system to prevent it from displaying images altogether.
> (3) prohibit the product from accessing any hub that facilitates prostitution; and
Where is a list of these hubs? Will each manufacturer have to keep their own list, or can I just call and ask Mr. Chumley for his personal one?
What about non-internet media? There are still laptops being sold with DVD players. Laptops have USB and media card slots. I mean would not it make much better sense to put (let's assume for the sake of argument such filters do work in reality) this filter at ISP level? There are countries who are very good at blocking obscene and political content to a great accuracy.
Human trafficking is a much bigger problem that unfortunately cannot be solved with a 20 bucks filter. It is unfortunate to read that apparently in the eyes of the policy-makers this is a “beginning point” of a solution to a gruesome issue.
Human trafficking is a much bigger problem that unfortunately cannot be solved with a 20 bucks filter. It is unfortunate to read that apparently in the eyes of the policy-makers this is a “beginning point” of a solution to a gruesome issue.
Sometimes I suspect lawmakers are among the dumbest of all possible human beings.
Hanlon's razor?
I think in the case of many politicians it's necessary to invoke the 'adequately' and look for the malice.
I think in the case of many politicians it's necessary to invoke the 'adequately' and look for the malice.
I wouldn't call it malice - just indifference.
A politician's job is to get reelected. Ideally, he gets reelected by doing a good job, but that's not actually necessary (and it might not even be a good idea in some circumstances). His goal is to energize a base of excited, passionate voters who will overwhelm any challenges to the incumbency. After all, most people don't vote, so if he has a reliable, excited base, he is guaranteed victory.
And you don't do that through rational thought. You do that by appealing to people who are easy to rile up with fear, hate, and prejudice. Fear and hate drives people to the polls. Educated opinion makes people shrug and stay home because they don't feel that strongly about it.
What better way to rile up fear than talking about sex trafficking and children? Raise this specter of menace over the good people of this state and demonstrate that you're going to Do Something About It. Never mind the fact that your proposed measure does absolutely nothing to prevent sex trafficking and has catastrophic side effects - the electorate couldn't give less of a fuck about that because they vote based on feels, not reals.
This isn't malice; it's just "I'll say whatever I need to say and do whatever I need to do to stay in office." It's a symptom of a societal ill, not a personal one. If this Congressman wasn't willing to do it, he would be replaced by a Congressman who would.
---
And before people start chiming in with GOP-hatred, the Democrats do the exact same thing, especially at the local level.
A politician's job is to get reelected. Ideally, he gets reelected by doing a good job, but that's not actually necessary (and it might not even be a good idea in some circumstances). His goal is to energize a base of excited, passionate voters who will overwhelm any challenges to the incumbency. After all, most people don't vote, so if he has a reliable, excited base, he is guaranteed victory.
And you don't do that through rational thought. You do that by appealing to people who are easy to rile up with fear, hate, and prejudice. Fear and hate drives people to the polls. Educated opinion makes people shrug and stay home because they don't feel that strongly about it.
What better way to rile up fear than talking about sex trafficking and children? Raise this specter of menace over the good people of this state and demonstrate that you're going to Do Something About It. Never mind the fact that your proposed measure does absolutely nothing to prevent sex trafficking and has catastrophic side effects - the electorate couldn't give less of a fuck about that because they vote based on feels, not reals.
This isn't malice; it's just "I'll say whatever I need to say and do whatever I need to do to stay in office." It's a symptom of a societal ill, not a personal one. If this Congressman wasn't willing to do it, he would be replaced by a Congressman who would.
---
And before people start chiming in with GOP-hatred, the Democrats do the exact same thing, especially at the local level.
I disagree, politicians acting like their job is to get reelected is malice.
more like, dunning kruger effect. The sort of persons who are least qualified to regulate the internet or computers are also the persons most likely to THINK that they need to do so and introduce legislation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
I don't see what human trafficking has to do with freedom of speech. The article tries waving that like this law could help that problem somehow.
This is a clear violation of freedom speech as it is, but in reality such a "filter" would certainly be used to monitor the computer violating the 4th amendment and likely be used by the government to do other illegitimate things. It could likely be used to censor political opinions as well.
This is a clear violation of freedom speech as it is, but in reality such a "filter" would certainly be used to monitor the computer violating the 4th amendment and likely be used by the government to do other illegitimate things. It could likely be used to censor political opinions as well.
This policy reminds me of a recent TOR blog post [0]. A good example why the tech industry shouldn't ignore the political climate and why the second principle is so important.
[0] https://blog.torproject.org/blog/technology-hostile-states-t...
[0] https://blog.torproject.org/blog/technology-hostile-states-t...
It's not the $20 taxes that worry me. It's the government mandate that software be installed on my devices. It seems like a new thing to me, forced software?
Okay, so I'm shipping my hypothetical computers with a HOSTS file entry that directs Playboy to an invalid IP. Am I conforming with the law?
Having just gotten back from South Korea, a country with a massive, state-run filter for "porn," all I can keep thinking is that such ideas are always subject to abuse.
The mechanisms to protect "the children" already exist as third party software and alternative DNS. Shit, how would South Carolina IMPLEMENT such filtering?
The mechanisms to protect "the children" already exist as third party software and alternative DNS. Shit, how would South Carolina IMPLEMENT such filtering?
So of all the issues that South Carolina has, this one is the most pressing for that elected official to address.
Not really surprising, because this type of legislation tends to come from Red states. There was the one in Texas about high school cheer leaders not be able to make certain moves because they're too suggestive.
Not really surprising, because this type of legislation tends to come from Red states. There was the one in Texas about high school cheer leaders not be able to make certain moves because they're too suggestive.
For the record, Bill Chumlee is not a terribly bright man. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/24/bill-chumley-charle...
[deleted]
Pornography is not illegal in the US. Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_in_the_United_Stat..., has a good summary of the legal situation.
Even if passed, this would be unenforceable. Pornography is notoriously difficult to define in a legal context; see Jacobellis v Ohio. Miller v California further explores the issue and attempts to lay some kind of groundwork for definition, but it's still very subjective.
> Pornography is notoriously difficult to define
That's the beauty of such a scheme, you can go after anyone just by making a "pornography" case, without being constrained by definitions. It widens prosecution and control tremendously.
That's the beauty of such a scheme, you can go after anyone just by making a "pornography" case, without being constrained by definitions. It widens prosecution and control tremendously.
Would this not hurt SC more than it helps? If everyone is forced to purchase electronics online, then will local stores not suffer?
How will they enforce this for online purchases? Maybe Amazon would eventually give in. There are many places to buy computers online.
Am I missing something?
How will they enforce this for online purchases? Maybe Amazon would eventually give in. There are many places to buy computers online.
Am I missing something?
Confusing tweet from the bill's sponsor: https://twitter.com/BillChumleySC/status/702746882385248256
Dont take this seriously. It cannot survive judicial review and they know it. Remember that many legislators just do these things to make conservative bones.
The freedom of speach arguments, not to mention the impact on interstate commerce, write themselves.
The freedom of speach arguments, not to mention the impact on interstate commerce, write themselves.
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
-- Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 2
How often have we seen politicians champion an issue only to find out that it's over-compensation for the presence of that issue in their personal life... cough Foley cough
-- Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 2
How often have we seen politicians champion an issue only to find out that it's over-compensation for the presence of that issue in their personal life... cough Foley cough
Here is the representatives contact information for the curious.
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/member.php?code=0351704504
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/member.php?code=0351704504
India tried this a couple of years ago. Ask them how well it worked. (Particularly since it involved publishing a list of 800 specifically blocked sites.)
OTOH global VPN services were ecstatic.
OTOH global VPN services were ecstatic.
Is it horrible of me to hope that this means that popular porn sites will soon harass users from South Carolina, telling them to try Linux?
Has anyone checked if this is fake news site? It seems hard to believe...
While I've had a hard time finding good information about this source, the bill is real.
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess122_2017-2018/bills/3003.htm
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess122_2017-2018/bills/3003.htm
You don't know South Carolina...
What does the bill say about wiping your hard disk and installing Linux?
The lack of insight into how computers work is breathtaking.
Isn't violence worse than porn?
"We're not being political"?
This is another politician conspiring to raise taxes to enlarge government, harm small businesses, and kill jobs.
Wait. The guy that wants this is a Republican? WTF?
Wait. The guy that wants this is a Republican? WTF?
>The guy that wants this is a Republican? WTF?
Is this feigned surprise or real surprise? This kind of thing always comes from republicans (for an approximate definition of "always").
Is this feigned surprise or real surprise? This kind of thing always comes from republicans (for an approximate definition of "always").
What's next? Chastity belts and witch burning lol
$20 for a chastity belt seems like a bargain to be honest.
A quick search on Amazon shows that you can get "low end" chastity devices for both men and women around that price point (I am not sure whether I look forward to seeing the ads that will now follow me around the web for the next few days, but who knows what I'll learn)
EDIT: Startup idea: Fetish toy in the form of a chastity device that gives the wearer an electric shock if they try to access blocked sites. I love the thought of "abusing" such a filter to power a BDSM toy that the supporters of the bill will surely find obscene.
EDIT: Startup idea: Fetish toy in the form of a chastity device that gives the wearer an electric shock if they try to access blocked sites. I love the thought of "abusing" such a filter to power a BDSM toy that the supporters of the bill will surely find obscene.
Ok, is it wrong that my first thought had nothing to do with the actual content... (from you EDIT) ... but instead immediately was like "Shit, yeah... the person on the site could open "banned" sites in an iframe remotely... like a remote controlled dog collar" ...
So yeah, i just go right to the tech... engineer life... I don't know if i love or hate the "problem" of seeing everything as a problem with a solution to be found..
So yeah, i just go right to the tech... engineer life... I don't know if i love or hate the "problem" of seeing everything as a problem with a solution to be found..
I think the audience for a device like that would see the ability to intentionally trigger it remotely as a feature, not a bug.
Joking aside, I think this would sell like mulled wine at the Christmas Market in Vienna. add a smartphone app that does the same when you walk into a store or church, or go into a 'pokemon gym' (capability to react to augmented reality)
"Fencing" in a sub and applying various punishments or rewards for certain movements would probably be a popular control element for some into BDSM... A generic geo-fencing app with a suitable bluetooth interface coupled with various "attachments" would be interesting. And the same for various online behaviours.
C'mon people. We're trying to use facts to negotiate.
In the USA post 2017, everybody is entitled to their own facts, but not their own opinions.
So, it's entirely pointless to use facts (such as the fact that the internet is hard to censor even with Great Firewall of China scale infrastructure) in conversations with elected officials.
Facts are in the eye of the beholder. Facts are just "smart" people yakking away spouting stuff that's contrary to established opinion. So, our facts are wrong. Get over it. We can't convince people whose livelihood depend on sticking to established opinion.
How do you counter this kind of stuff?
1. Say yes. 2. Do whatever you were doing before. 3. If a jurisdiction imposes some kind of tax on some kind of product, just say that it's contrary to established opinion for businesses to collect new taxes for governments. 4. Do whatever you were doing before.
I lived for a while in an open-town-meeting town in New England. Occasionally the townspeople would vote in two contradictory articles, giving contradictory instructions to the town manager or public works department.
In those cases, the moderator often said, "It's possible the town manager won't be able to obey article 7 without violating article 8. Do you want to do anything about that before we adjourn tonight? Do I hear a motion to reconsider?" THAT's the way to deal with this stuff: let the legislative machinery deal with conflicts in established opinion.
In the USA post 2017, everybody is entitled to their own facts, but not their own opinions.
So, it's entirely pointless to use facts (such as the fact that the internet is hard to censor even with Great Firewall of China scale infrastructure) in conversations with elected officials.
Facts are in the eye of the beholder. Facts are just "smart" people yakking away spouting stuff that's contrary to established opinion. So, our facts are wrong. Get over it. We can't convince people whose livelihood depend on sticking to established opinion.
How do you counter this kind of stuff?
1. Say yes. 2. Do whatever you were doing before. 3. If a jurisdiction imposes some kind of tax on some kind of product, just say that it's contrary to established opinion for businesses to collect new taxes for governments. 4. Do whatever you were doing before.
I lived for a while in an open-town-meeting town in New England. Occasionally the townspeople would vote in two contradictory articles, giving contradictory instructions to the town manager or public works department.
In those cases, the moderator often said, "It's possible the town manager won't be able to obey article 7 without violating article 8. Do you want to do anything about that before we adjourn tonight? Do I hear a motion to reconsider?" THAT's the way to deal with this stuff: let the legislative machinery deal with conflicts in established opinion.
This reminds me of a recent conversation I had with a friend. We were discussing some of the crazy things politicians do (corruption, sex scandals, etc.) as well as some of the batshit crazy legislation they come up with (such as this bill), and this led to a discussion on what type of person runs for political office (at least in the US).
We generally agreed that many, if not most, politicians probably suffer from some form of megalomania mixed with a strong desire for power over others. These are not positive personality traits in general, but especially not for people in positions of power. Intelligent, well-meaning, balanced people generally do not seem to suffer from these traits and perhaps that's why we seem to have a lack of them in office (since they don't run in the first place). This seems like a fundamental problem at the very core of US politics, and I'm not sure what could be done about it. We obviously can't restrict people from running for office on the basis of personality faults, and we certainly can't force people who would make better candidates to run (especially given how subjective that is).
Disclaimer: This is all obviously conjecture, and I don't have any sort of extensive knowledge in political science or anything related.
We generally agreed that many, if not most, politicians probably suffer from some form of megalomania mixed with a strong desire for power over others. These are not positive personality traits in general, but especially not for people in positions of power. Intelligent, well-meaning, balanced people generally do not seem to suffer from these traits and perhaps that's why we seem to have a lack of them in office (since they don't run in the first place). This seems like a fundamental problem at the very core of US politics, and I'm not sure what could be done about it. We obviously can't restrict people from running for office on the basis of personality faults, and we certainly can't force people who would make better candidates to run (especially given how subjective that is).
Disclaimer: This is all obviously conjecture, and I don't have any sort of extensive knowledge in political science or anything related.
I'm going to take an unpopular view and say that I think this bill is a good idea. . .
I use digital blocking software on my laptop now, I use bluecoat's K9 software which is an effective way to avoid thins like pornography, hate speech, and other similar content that I would prefer not to see.
I think many people feel the same way and would like a safer internet except they don't really know they have options for filtering. In churches they often promote software like covenant eyes, which is useless crap, so that tells me that the average person doesn't really know about effective filtering software.
The 20 dollar fee isn't a bad idea either. It will ensure that minors don't have free access to porn. I suspect that many parents, having the option to filter the internet for their kids, will choose to do so, I know I would. Also internet porn and certain types of internet directories are some of the biggest contributors to human trafficking, so it is only reasonable that people who use these services pay something to help government deal with some of the social problems that these services produce. Just as we have a tire tax on drivers so that those who user the roads can help pay for them, so too we can have a very small one time premium on users of porn sites to help pay for human trafficking.
Also, by sending unfiltered internet to people as default, we have created a norm for the internet filled with sexual content and hate speech. By creating a new default, and insisting on filtering as the default, we can create a new norm by which people come with a much safer internet experience.
I use digital blocking software on my laptop now, I use bluecoat's K9 software which is an effective way to avoid thins like pornography, hate speech, and other similar content that I would prefer not to see.
I think many people feel the same way and would like a safer internet except they don't really know they have options for filtering. In churches they often promote software like covenant eyes, which is useless crap, so that tells me that the average person doesn't really know about effective filtering software.
The 20 dollar fee isn't a bad idea either. It will ensure that minors don't have free access to porn. I suspect that many parents, having the option to filter the internet for their kids, will choose to do so, I know I would. Also internet porn and certain types of internet directories are some of the biggest contributors to human trafficking, so it is only reasonable that people who use these services pay something to help government deal with some of the social problems that these services produce. Just as we have a tire tax on drivers so that those who user the roads can help pay for them, so too we can have a very small one time premium on users of porn sites to help pay for human trafficking.
Also, by sending unfiltered internet to people as default, we have created a norm for the internet filled with sexual content and hate speech. By creating a new default, and insisting on filtering as the default, we can create a new norm by which people come with a much safer internet experience.
I use k9, too, but that doesn't mean I want the state government enforcing my use of it. That is censorship, and censoring at the hardware/manufacturer level seem very wrong to me. What if it was not about porn? What if they said you could not research your religion? What if you could not visit political sites? It is a worrisome precedent.
It's not censorship because people still have access to it. The supreme court has already held it's okay to put small reasonable restrictions on certain types of speech so long as you don't forbid it altogether. Putting a small fee on obscenity to prevent access by minors and fund human trafficking is well within the bounds of the first amendment.
Free speech is not some pure beautiful ideal concept. It exists solely as a creation of the constitution as interpreted by the Supreme court. And there is strong precedent from the Supreme court that these types of restrictions are perfectly compatible with the first amendment.
Free speech is not some pure beautiful ideal concept. It exists solely as a creation of the constitution as interpreted by the Supreme court. And there is strong precedent from the Supreme court that these types of restrictions are perfectly compatible with the first amendment.
Explain to me how your view that porn is obscene (morally? religiously?) necessitates a government-mandated censorship that can be removed with a $20 bribe. You have absolutely no business telling adults what content is unwholesome and what is not, as long as that content does not break the law. Framing this as an effort to stop the funding of human trafficking seems ridiculous to me given the context of what this law will actually do in effect.
The supreme court has found that the legislature can make laws regarding morality and in fact that one of their jobs was to legislate towards public morality. You're debating based on what your ideals of government should be instead of what government is.
I don't disagree that this law could be passed. I'm asking, in regards to this specific bill, why you feel that porn being an "obscene" activity means that it should be blocked by a state-controlled censorship paywall.
I think you are just rephrasing "20 dollar fee to prevent minors and fund human trafficking" into "state controlled paywall." This is no different from the British TV tax, it's a small restriction on speech that will have benefits of preventing minors from accessing porn and help fund human trafficking prevention efforts.
Isn't that appropriate? Shouldn't discussion of potential legislation include discussing what the people want, and their ideals?
I'm guessing you are a lawyer? You sure are arguing like one. The rest of us are sharing how we feel about this, not arguing its legality.
I'm guessing you are a lawyer? You sure are arguing like one. The rest of us are sharing how we feel about this, not arguing its legality.
I'm not the one who brought up the first amendment or free speech or legislating morality issues, I'm just responding to legal based arguments of others with legal based responses. My feelings on the subject and why it's good were clearly outlined in my first post without consideration of it's legality.
> In churches they often promote software like covenant eyes, which is useless crap,
How do you know that the mandated software wouldn't be useless crap as well?
How do you know that the mandated software wouldn't be useless crap as well?
You're right, it probably won't be at first, but it all has to start somewhere, I am hopeful that manufacturers will be smart enough to just contract it out to existing makers like blue coat instead of trying to build a system from scratch themselves.
A mandate is unlikely to yield the best product. The legislature's proposed bill would offer a new cost to manufacturers and so they would likely find the cheapest product that satisfies the specific terms in the new legislation.
What will happen when someone decides that a controversial political belief you have, or activity you participate in, is something they "would prefer not to see"?
No one who supports this bill cares or believes it will effect them.
Government has never used precedent that pornography filters set to expand the scope of filtering before [0] [3]. The government doesn't have incentive to block things that aren't 'obscene' [1] [2].
The warm fuzzies the idea of a wholesome internet limited to Facebook, World Net Daily and Veggie Tales videos, absent of bad ideas and hard truths, brings are too intoxicating.
[0] http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2470767/uk-governme...
[1] https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2016/08/india-acc...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/jan/22/sopa-pipa...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_Uni...
Government has never used precedent that pornography filters set to expand the scope of filtering before [0] [3]. The government doesn't have incentive to block things that aren't 'obscene' [1] [2].
The warm fuzzies the idea of a wholesome internet limited to Facebook, World Net Daily and Veggie Tales videos, absent of bad ideas and hard truths, brings are too intoxicating.
[0] http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2470767/uk-governme...
[1] https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2016/08/india-acc...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/jan/22/sopa-pipa...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_Uni...
Or a merely unpopular one?
I don't think that slippery slope is likely. There is a world of difference between pornography and controversial political speech. We have had obscenity laws putting strong restrictions on pornography for a very long time (see 18 USC 1462 - 1468) and they haven't resulted in other speech rights being curtailed, I don't think there is any reason to think this law will be any different.
> There is a world of difference between pornography and controversial political speech.
Until a website you frequent gets marked as a "human trafficking hub", whatever that means.
Until a website you frequent gets marked as a "human trafficking hub", whatever that means.
This doesn't explain why everyone must be forced to have their internet access censored by the state.
If people want to filter their internet access, those people can buy and install filtering software.
> By creating a new default, and insisting on filtering as the default, we can create a new norm by which people come with a much safer internet experience.
Again, why must this option be forced upon everyone?
If people want to filter their internet access, those people can buy and install filtering software.
> By creating a new default, and insisting on filtering as the default, we can create a new norm by which people come with a much safer internet experience.
Again, why must this option be forced upon everyone?
> we can create a new norm by which people come with a much safer internet experience
Is this a direct quote from Fahrenheit 451? It sounds like the same mentality that led to the destruction of all books.
Is this a direct quote from Fahrenheit 451? It sounds like the same mentality that led to the destruction of all books.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion but
> Also internet porn and certain types of internet directories are some of the biggest contributors to human trafficking
...this claim boggles the mind and needs some evidence IMO. Are you really making a claim that "if porn then trafficking"? Please clarify.
> Also internet porn and certain types of internet directories are some of the biggest contributors to human trafficking
...this claim boggles the mind and needs some evidence IMO. Are you really making a claim that "if porn then trafficking"? Please clarify.
Backpage has been investigated for human traffiking and the sex trade
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-16/can-prose...
and here is an article on the link between human trafficking and internet pornography
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johnhenry-westen/want-to-stop-...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-16/can-prose...
and here is an article on the link between human trafficking and internet pornography
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johnhenry-westen/want-to-stop-...
The evidence in the HuffPo article amounts to:
1. Testimony from Fight The New Drug (FTND, a non-profit) regarding anecdotes about how non-consensual porn is produced to look as if it's consensual.
2. FTND research that states those who engage in trafficking have watched porn.
3. Testimony from the CEO of FTND regarding interviews of over 20 performers who state that they were forced or coerced to produce porn.
4. Testimony from a professor of sociology that "As an academic, a sociologist, and mother, I believe [increase in demand for trafficking] is the way men are shaped by society".
5. FTND summary of studies (specifics not disclosed by HuffPo, but perhaps available at FTND): "men who go to prostitutes are twice as likely to have watched a porn film in the last year compared to the general population."
6. FTND study "[FTND] cites a 2007 study of 854 women in nine countries that found 49% of women “said that porn had been made of them while they were in prostitution, and 47% said they had been harmed by men who had either forced or tried to force their victims to do things the men had seen in porn."
I find all of this remarkably unconvincing to support "if porn, then trafficking." It might make sense that "if trafficking, then porn" though.
1. Testimony from Fight The New Drug (FTND, a non-profit) regarding anecdotes about how non-consensual porn is produced to look as if it's consensual.
2. FTND research that states those who engage in trafficking have watched porn.
3. Testimony from the CEO of FTND regarding interviews of over 20 performers who state that they were forced or coerced to produce porn.
4. Testimony from a professor of sociology that "As an academic, a sociologist, and mother, I believe [increase in demand for trafficking] is the way men are shaped by society".
5. FTND summary of studies (specifics not disclosed by HuffPo, but perhaps available at FTND): "men who go to prostitutes are twice as likely to have watched a porn film in the last year compared to the general population."
6. FTND study "[FTND] cites a 2007 study of 854 women in nine countries that found 49% of women “said that porn had been made of them while they were in prostitution, and 47% said they had been harmed by men who had either forced or tried to force their victims to do things the men had seen in porn."
I find all of this remarkably unconvincing to support "if porn, then trafficking." It might make sense that "if trafficking, then porn" though.
There's still a real danger that something like this will come to pass, especially when all the popular OSs come from centralised vendors upon whom pressure can be applied.