Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011

[Weezy]

Judiciary committee approves...

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20084939-281/house-panel-approves-broadened-isp-snooping-bill/

Internet providers would be forced to keep logs of their customers' activities for one year--in case police want to review them in the future--under legislation that a U.S. House of Representatives committee approved today.

The 19 to 10 vote represents a victory for conservative Republicans, who made data retention their first major technology initiative after last fall's elections, and the Justice Department officials who have quietly lobbied for the sweeping new requirements, a development first reported by CNET.


A last-minute rewrite of the bill expands the information that commercial Internet providers are required to store to include customers' names, addresses, phone numbers, credit card numbers, bank account numbers, and temporarily-assigned IP addresses, some committee members suggested. By a 7-16 vote, the panel rejected an amendment that would have clarified that only IP addresses must be stored.

Something about the government reaching further and further into the internet bothers me, especially since it's always on the back of child pornography. I agree child pornography is all kinds of wrong, but it's simply being used as a power pull here.

And the obvious ridiculousness is the storing of credit card information for a year. It's like they don't have a clue.

Land of the free.

 

[therealUT]

Did the Bill pass the House or did it just pass the Judiciary Committee? From the article, it sounds as though the Bill has only passed the vote in Committee to send it to the floor.

 

[IPorange]

The Tea Party isn't about social conservatism.

 

[Weezy]

Did the Bill pass the House or did it just pass the Judiciary Committee? From the article, it sounds as though the Bill has only passed the vote in Committee to send it to the floor.

I'm not sure. All I can find is that, "The U.S. House Judiciary Committee approved a bill Thursday that would require Internet service providers to keep a record of their customers’ web activity for 12 months." I'm not going to lie. I'm not exactly sure if that means it's just an amendment to an existing law or an amendment to a bill that must still be voted on.

Either way, I'm just protective over the internet, and I feel like child pornography laws are over reaching into methods that can be easily abused. And storing of credit card information for a year seems to be way more risk than the reward of assisting in catching the .1% of child pornographers out there.

 

[therealUT]

H.R. 1981

It has not made it to the floor for a vote.

 

[BearCat204]

Hopefully this never gets passed

 

[Weezy]

H.R. 1981

It has not made it to the floor for a vote.

Good. OP corrected.

 

[therealUT]

Unfortunately, this will pass because there is not a politician in the nation who would vote 'no' to a bill that says "Protecting Children from..." in it.

 

[n_huffhines]

This is total BS.

 

[JTrainDavis]

Unfortunately, this will pass because there is not a politician in the nation who would vote 'no' to a bill that says "Protecting Children from..." in it.

All in the wording. If you need something passed, include children, veterans, or firemen in some round about way.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[gsvol]

This proposed legislation is nowhere near as bad as
the 'pedophile protection act' that was stuck into a
defense budget bill.

 

[OrangeYankee]

H.R. 1981

It has not made it to the floor for a vote.

They should rename it to H.R. 1984 ... yes leaving things open runs you the risk of bad things happening (patriot act), however are the costs to our freedoms and liberty really worth it?

 

[sjt18]

The Tea Party isn't about social conservatism.

I.... am not about this bill. This is an egregious and ridiculous intrusion into privacy.

I hope if our elected officials are so callous toward rights to enact this that SCOTUS will strike it down with a harsh rebuke.

 

[TheDeeble]

All in the wording. If you need something passed, include children, veterans, or firemen in some round about way.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

The what we really need is the "Protecting Our Children's Future from Unsustainable Debt Act".

 

[milohimself]

Or the protecting our childrens future from nosy social conservatives bill.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[sjt18]

Or the protecting our childrens future from nosy social conservatives bill.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Or nosy social and economic liberals bill... or know it all post-modernists bill...

 

[DoctorHurt]

YOU'VE BEEN HAD!! PLEASE READ THE BILL BEFORE FORMING YOUR OPINION!!
THE BILL DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT REQUIRING ISPs TO KEEP A HISTORY OF WEB BROWSING!! It only requires them to log users IP addresses, something that ISPs already do with normal system logging. This data is normally used for troubleshooting, etc. They just now have to keep the IP logs for 18months which most ISPs probably already do.
ITS ACTUALLY DIFFICULT FOR AN ISP TO RECORD ALL USERS WEB BROWSING HISTORY without lots of expensive hardware and again, I don't see it as a requirement in the bill text. Don't believe me? Read the bill yourself:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1981ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr1981ih.pdf

 

[Weezy]

I wonder if that's the last minute rewrite in the article.

edit: nevermind, bills are hard to read. I'll let somebody else figure out if the CNET article was wrong or not.

 

[DC Vol]

CNet article is wrong.

Internet providers would be forced to keep logs of their customers' activities for one year

is not

A provider of an electronic communication service or remote computing service shall retain for a period of at least 18 months the temporarily assigned network addresses the service assigns to each account

Basically they're requiring all ISPs and, what looks to me, to be all website administrators to retain full IP connection logs for a period of 18 months.

"Remote Computing Service" is exceedingly vague.

 

[Weezy]

That's the feeling I got as well after googling for a bit. And I think the CNET article was basing that off of a California Representative's comments and not the bill.

This is a good thing.

 

[theutvolunteers]

I could handle conservatives better if they kept it out of social items. Social conservatives are the worst.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[sjt18]

I could handle conservatives better if they kept it out of social items. Social conservatives are the worst.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

So IOW's if those who disagree with you would just not practice their rights... you'd be OK with them? If social liberals kept out of social items I would have alot less difficulty with them... how's that?

I more often agree with social conservatives than social liberals. I frankly think social liberalism can and will lead to societal decay and collapse. HOWEVER, I am opposed to anyone on either side who would attempt to use the force of gov't to impose their views on the rest of society. I oppose those who are trying to bully Christians into accepting homosexuality... but I do not approve when guys like Dobson or Robertson propose using gov't power to suppress free speech on tv or other media.

There is ALWAYS a third way that we can choose to preserve everyone's rights, ensure gov't does not take sides, and effectively assure that no one's ox must be gored. Choose freedom and protect it. You cannot protect your rights and freedoms by empowering gov't to violate someone else's.

 

[YorkVol]

So IOW's if those who disagree with you would just not practice their rights... you'd be OK with them? If social liberals kept out of social items I would have alot less difficulty with them... how's that?

I more often agree with social conservatives than social liberals. I frankly think social liberalism can and will lead to societal decay and collapse. HOWEVER, I am opposed to anyone on either side who would attempt to use the force of gov't to impose their views on the rest of society. I oppose those who are trying to bully Christians into accepting homosexuality... but I do not approve when guys like Dobson or Robertson propose using gov't power to suppress free speech on tv or other media.

There is ALWAYS a third way that we can choose to preserve everyone's rights, ensure gov't does not take sides, and effectively assure that no one's ox must be gored. Choose freedom and protect it. You cannot protect your rights and freedoms by empowering gov't to violate someone else's.

Well said.

 

[YorkVol]

I could handle conservatives better if they kept it out of social items. Social conservatives are the worst.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Defend that. Worst what?

 

[n_huffhines]

Defend that. Worst what?

Well, I don't know where he's coming from but social conservatives drive me crazy because the majority of them are free market advocates. It's very hypocritical in my mind.

One major argument posited by free market advocates is that human interaction is too complex and unpredictable so you can't centrally plan for it and that's why socialism is an impossible ideal. It's incongruent for these same people to turn around and try to socially engineer the US by banning drugs and pornography from the marketplace as well as centrally plan the non-economic functions of society. If you think you can pass a law and suddenly people will homogenize then you are in fantasy land.