Log in

View Full Version : McCain proposes bevy of new Internet regulations



Xiahou
12-12-2006, 17:37
Think about the children!!! :dizzy2:

link (http://news.com.com/Senator+Illegal+images+must+be+reported/2100-1028_3-6142332.html)
Millions of commercial Web sites and personal blogs would be required to report illegal images or videos posted by their users or pay fines of up to $300,000, if a new proposal in the U.S. Senate came into law.

The legislation, drafted by Sen. John McCain and obtained by CNET News.com, would also require Web sites that offer user profiles to delete pages posted by sex offenders.

In a speech on the Senate floor Wednesday, the Arizona Republican and former presidential candidate warned that "technology has contributed to the greater distribution and availability, and, some believe, desire for child pornography." McCain scored 31 of 100 points on a News.com 2006 election guide scoring technology-related votes.

After child pornography or some forms of "obscenity" are found and reported, the Web site must retain any "information relating to the facts or circumstances" of the incident for at least six months. Webmasters would be immune from civil and criminal liability if they followed the specified procedures exactly.

McCain's proposal, called the "Stop the Online Exploitation of Our Children Act" (click for PDF), requires that reports be submitted to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which in turn will forward them to the relevant police agency. (The organization received $32.6 million in tax dollars in 2005, according to its financial disclosure documents.)

Internet service providers already must follow those reporting requirements. But McCain's proposal is liable to be controversial because it levies the same regulatory scheme--and even stiffer penalties--on even individual bloggers who offer discussion areas on their Web sites.

"I am concerned that there is a slippery slope here," said Kevin Bankston, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. "Once you start creating categories of industries that must report suspicious or criminal behavior, when does that stop?"

According to the proposed legislation, these types of individuals or businesses would be required to file reports: any Web site with a message board; any chat room; any social-networking site; any e-mail service; any instant-messaging service; any Internet content hosting service; any domain name registration service; any Internet search service; any electronic communication service; and any image or video-sharing service.

Kate Dean of the U.S. Internet Service Provider Association said her members appreciated McCain's efforts to rewrite the current procedures for reporting illegal images, which currently are less than clear.

McCain's proposal comes as concern about protecting children online has reached nearly a fever pitch in Washington. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales gave two speeches recently on the topic, including one on Friday in which he said "we must do all that we can to protect our children from these cowardly villains who hide in the shadows of the Internet."

But the reporting rules could prove problematic for individuals and smaller Web sites because the definitions of child pornography have become relatively broad.

The U.S. Justice Department, for instance, indicted an Alabama man named Jeff Pierson last week on child pornography charges because he took modeling photographs of clothed minors with their parents' consent. The images were overly "provocative," a prosecutor claimed.

Deleting sex offenders' posts
The other section of McCain's legislation targets convicted sex offenders. It would create a federal registry of "any e-mail address, instant-message address, or other similar Internet identifier" they use, and punish sex offenders with up to 10 years in prison if they don't supply it.

Then, any social-networking site must take "effective measures" to remove any Web page that's "associated" with a sex offender.

Because "social-networking site" isn't defined, it could encompass far more than just MySpace.com, Friendster and similar sites. The list could include: Slashdot, which permits public profiles; Amazon.com, which permits author profiles and personal lists; and blogs like RedState.com that show public profiles. In addition, media companies like News.com publisher CNET Networks permit users to create profiles of favorite games, gadgets and music.

"This constitutionally dubious proposal is being made apparently mostly based on fear or political considerations rather than on the facts," said EFF's Bankston. Studies by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children show the online sexual solicitation of minors has dropped in the past five years, despite the growth of social-networking services, he said.

A McCain aide, who did not want to be identified by name, said on Friday that the measure was targeted at any Web site that "you'd have to join up or become a member of to use." No payment would be necessary to qualify, the aide added.

In this political climate, members of Congress may not worry much about precise definitions. Another bill also vaguely targeting social-networking sites was approved by the U.S. House of Representatives in a 410-15 vote.

And in July, for instance, Congress overwhelmingly approved a bill that made it a federal felony for Webmasters to use innocent words like "Barbie" or "Furby" to trick minors into visiting their sites and viewing sexually explicit material.

Next year, Gonzales and the FBI are expected to resume their push for mandatory data retention, which will force Internet service providers to keep records on what their customers are doing online. An aide to Rep. Diana DeGette, a Colorado Democrat, said Friday that she's planning to introduce such legislation when the new Congress convenes.

Cathy Milhoan, an FBI spokeswoman, said on Friday that the FBI "continues to support data retention. We see it as crucial in advancing our cyber investigations to include online sexual exploitation of children."

In addition, Sen. Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, and McCain said that they'll introduce similar legislation dealing with sex offenders and social-networking sites in January.

CNET News.com's Anne Broache contributed to this report

Major Robert Dump
12-12-2006, 17:43
gay. if a 15 year old wants to make an obscene video of herself and post it on the internet then maybe they should go after her parents rather than the site that hosts it and the people who view it.

McCain tried the same crap with UFC. Obviously, his efforts didn't work then and this effort won't work now. It's simply too much government, and I'm starting to like him less and less as a potential president. His campaign finance reform has done nothing but make things worse.

BDC
12-12-2006, 17:53
It's all a little insane. Either it will never come to pass, or it will never be enforced. One of the two.

Failing that, move all the servers to Belgium.

doc_bean
12-12-2006, 18:05
All your pr0n belongs to us !

Actually child pornography servers are actively sought out and both users and providers are prosecuted to the fullest extend of the (international) law

macsen rufus
12-12-2006, 19:05
Gah! Effort required for enforcement will be huge, effort required for evasion will be minimal.

BDC
12-12-2006, 19:12
Gah! Effort required for enforcement will be huge, effort required for evasion will be minimal.
And thus employment issues are solved. Every out of work American can be employed plowing through porn to check everything is legitimate.

yesdachi
12-12-2006, 20:24
Will McCain work on something worthwhile… ever?

Crazed Rabbit
12-12-2006, 20:33
That's it, I'm never voting for the man.

PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY, YOU TWIT!

How about, instead of regulating the internet into ruin to 'protect the children', we teach our children not to be stupid?!

CR

Lemur
12-12-2006, 21:23
Well, I really think McCain and Hillary Clinton should get together and create a comprehensive Stop Bad Things in Technology bill. Joe Lieberman and Tipper Gore can crib notes from Jack Thompson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Thompson_%28attorney%29), and finally, finally the children will be safe.

Teh pron! Teh pron destroyz teh children!

ajaxfetish
12-12-2006, 23:09
It's all Al Gore's fault for inventing the damn thing in the first place. He should now be required to come in and fix it.

Ajax

Prince of the Poodles
12-12-2006, 23:23
Guilliani(sp) in '08!!

AntiochusIII
12-12-2006, 23:28
*wonders when Obama will jump on the bandwagon.*
:thinking2:

if a 15 year old wants to make an obscene video of herself and post it on the internetThat should be a religious tradition.

ezrider
12-13-2006, 18:15
Legislation to help take the burden of responsibility away from the individual.

The death of freedom is nigh




does the babe thread count as obscene content on a social networking site

Kralizec
12-13-2006, 18:31
That's it, I'm never voting for the man.

PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY, YOU TWIT!

How about, instead of regulating the internet into ruin to 'protect the children', we teach our children not to be stupid?!

CR

I think that said bill is a bad, poorly thought-out idea, but I disagree with this kind of reasoning. According to you, the government shouldn't do anything about potential dangers to children if it's in the powers a good, caring parent to protect him/her.

The problem is that not every child has good, caring parents.

Over here, parents are legally allowed to refuse vaccinal treatments on their childrens behalf. They're christian extremists who think that applying any sort of medical treatment is diverting people away from the path God layed out for them.
So we now have, and will for the foreseeable future, people who have serious health problems or even are crippled because their parents wouldn't allow them to receive safe and effective medicine.

I'm not saying that parental responsibility is by definition a bad idea, it's a good idea in fact- but like with many things a good ballance needs to be found, treating different issues on a case-by-case basis.

Crazed Rabbit
12-13-2006, 21:09
According to you, the government shouldn't do anything about potential dangers to children if it's in the powers a good, caring parent to protect him/her.

Um, I did not say that. If it infringes on other's freedoms (which requiring parents not to neglect their children does not) then I'm against it.

Crazed Rabbit

Xiahou
12-14-2006, 05:05
That's it, I'm never voting for the man.
Here's hoping this bill gets wider publicity- people's short memories seem to be already forgetting his last attack on our freedoms- Campaign finance reform.

Reading this article certainly served to steel my resolve to never support the man.

BDC
12-14-2006, 16:51
Over here, parents are legally allowed to refuse vaccinal treatments on their childrens behalf. They're christian extremists who think that applying any sort of medical treatment is diverting people away from the path God layed out for them.
So we now have, and will for the foreseeable future, people who have serious health problems or even are crippled because their parents wouldn't allow them to receive safe and effective medicine.

Child abuse. Children should be removed.

Lemur
12-14-2006, 19:41
Child abuse. Children should be removed.
The rules vary from state to state, but parents can opt out of most vaccinations here in the U.S. It isn't easy to do, but it's possible for fundies to deny their children all sorts of medical care. The only exception I'm aware of is the denial of necessary life-saving measures for an already-sick child. That was the case that the Christian Scientists got sued over ...

Big King Sanctaphrax
12-14-2006, 19:45
The rules vary from state to state, but parents can opt out of most vaccinations here in the U.S. It isn't easy to do, but it's possible for fundies to deny their children all sorts of medical care. The only exception I'm aware of is the denial of necessary life-saving measures for an already-sick child. That was the case that the Christian Scientists got sued over ...

That is, if you'll pardon the expression, freakin' whack. Why doesn't anyone do anything about it?

I personally also believe that those crazy parents who take their children to homeopaths rather than doctors should be prosecuted.

Vuk
12-14-2006, 19:55
I have never been vaccinated in my life, and all my friends who got vaccinations for diseases, always got the disease. I have never had chicken pox, or anything else they vaccinate you for. If my parents heard that, they'd be laughing through the coffin! It should be a parent's decision...I think my parents made the right choice.

Big King Sanctaphrax
12-14-2006, 20:00
That's some nice anecdotal evidence there, Vuk. Screw the huge body of medical literature that demonstrates vaccines are a hugely effective intervention.

Smallpox? It went away on its own!

Vuk
12-14-2006, 20:03
That's some nice anecdotal evidence there, Vuk. Screw the huge body of medical literature that demonstrates vaccines are a hugely effective intervention.

Smallpox? It went away on its own!


LOL, you are do hilarious!!

Every time there was a new scare where you "needed to be vaccinated" against this or that, I never got "this or that", but many of my vaccinated friends did.
You seem to ignore the scientific evidence against it. While it has its purposes, it is for the most part a scam. In the big time!

Scurvy
12-14-2006, 20:04
I have never been vaccinated in my life, and all my friends who got vaccinations for diseases, always got the disease. I have never had chicken pox, or anything else they vaccinate you for. If my parents heard that, they'd be laughing through the coffin! It should be a parent's decision...I think my parents made the right choice.

Give it time ~;)

Just because nothings happened to you doesnt mean it wouldnt happen to others....



You seem to ignore the scientific evidence against it. While it has its purposes, it is for the most part a scam. In the big time!

the scientific evidence in favour of vaccinations? Its a huge life-saver, and makes a lot of peoples lives a lot easier...

Lemur
12-14-2006, 20:09
Going slightly back on-topic, it looks as though McCain's abasement and genuflection to the Religious Right isn't playing well with independents (http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/12/mccain_and_inde.html):


McCain's favorability ratings have declined over the past nine months. Among independents, his support has dropped 15 percentage points since March. Independents were his strongest supporters when he sought the Republican nomination in 2000. The decline comes at a time when McCain is calling for sending more troops to Iraq and has aggressively reached out to conservative groups and Christian conservative leaders.

Vuk
12-14-2006, 20:14
Give it time ~;)

Just because nothings happened to you doesnt mean it wouldnt happen to others....



the scientific evidence in favour of vaccinations? Its a huge life-saver, and makes a lot of peoples lives a lot easier...

I'm 32. It must need a LOT of time. I came from a family of 8. No one in my family ever contracted anything serious that a vacination would have protected against. I have a lot of friends who don't vaccinate, and they are completely healthy. If you want to vaccinate, do it! Just don't try to say everyone HAS to make the same choice as you. I happen to think it is VERY UNhealthy, I do not say that parent who vaccinate their children should have them taken away. If people live a healthy life style, there is very little chance for most diseases that vaccinations are supposed to protect against. And please don't say poverty can affect that. Even Africans who have to draw water from a well can stay clean and live a healthy lifestyle. Of course people can get a disease that is in no way their fault, but from my own experience, I think vaccinations do no good at all, but only harm.
Do what you think best, I plan to do what I think best (when I get married and have kids of my own I mean).

Scurvy
12-14-2006, 20:25
. If people live a healthy life style, there is very little chance for most diseases that vaccinations are supposed to protect against. And please don't say poverty can affect that. Even Africans who have to draw water from a well can stay clean and live a healthy lifestyle.

Its hard to stay clean without soap etc, and diet very much effects health - with less healthy food normally being cheaper --> poverty can effect it! --> although i agree a healthy lifestyle helps too :2thumbsup:



Of course people can get a disease that is in no way their fault, but from my own experience, I think vaccinations do no good at all, but only harm.

I don;t know enough about vaccinations to know if they are good/bad, but i thought they effectively gave you imunisation from a certain disease, how is that harmful? :2thumbsup:


Do what you think best, I plan to do what I think best (when I get married and have kids of my own I mean).

I agree noone should be forced to have vaccinations, or for their childrn to do so, however if there was a vaccination that was known to be effective against a particularly lethal disease/problem, surely it would be in the childs best interest to do so.. (although i would have worries about a law forcing such actions, parents should be given as much responisibilty as possible for their children's upbringings...) :2thumbsup:

Vuk
12-14-2006, 20:41
Only the most extreme cases of poverty.

Xiahou
12-14-2006, 21:35
Going slightly back on-topic, it looks as though McCain's abasement and genuflection to the Religious Right isn't playing well with independents (http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/12/mccain_and_inde.html):


McCain's favorability ratings have declined over the past nine months. Among independents, his support has dropped 15 percentage points since March. Independents were his strongest supporters when he sought the Republican nomination in 2000. The decline comes at a time when McCain is calling for sending more troops to Iraq and has aggressively reached out to conservative groups and Christian conservative leaders.
You know, I was about to say that I'm starting to get sick of the 'religious right', but then I realized that's not it at all- I'm getting sick of the shameless pandering of Republicans to the religious right.

It seems to me that many GOP politicians think that by coming out against gay marriage early and often, they can totally ignore the fiscally conservative side of the platform and continue with the big government, big pork, business as usual. :no:

Scurvy
12-14-2006, 21:42
Only the most extreme cases of poverty.

:bow:

Vuk
12-14-2006, 21:45
You know, I was about to say that I'm starting to get sick of the 'religious right', but then I realized that's not it at all- I'm getting sick of the shameless pandering of Republicans to the religious right.

It seems to me that many GOP politicians think that by coming out against gay marriage early and often, they can totally ignore the fiscally conservative side of the platform and continue with the big government, big pork, business as usual. :no:


It is not religion - it is common morals (which, you are right, usually do stem from religion...). Every normal person hates child pornography, so the scumbag McCain thinks he can play the same ticket as Hilary Clinton and make him self out to be mister nice guy. Of course not only would his bill have no/little affect (on child pornographer, it would have plenty of affect on us) but I doubt it would ever be enforced/he will ever push it through. He is a scumbag and this is a popularity stunt, that he knows will appeal to religious people with morals AND NONreligious people with morals. Little 'Ol McCain is planning on running for President - that is all this is..