![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
From C|Net:
In response to C|Net's article, ZDNet quotes the bill):
Which, um ... why bother writing, passing, etc this bill, then? It does increase the retention requirements on ISPs*. So why have all these other requirements? Is this really going to do any good?
*Requiring ISPs to store TBs of material that could potentially be construed as illegal: helping nerds have access to porn, increasing the barriers of entry to the biz, and violating the privacy of millions. Wow.
Thus far all google results are references to the C|Net article. Will see what else turns up.
This is what the SAFE Act requires: Anyone providing an "electronic communication service" or "remote computing service" to the public who learns about the transmission or storage of information about certain illegal activities or an illegal image must (a) register their name, mailing address, phone number, and fax number with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children's "CyberTipline" and (b) "make a report" to the CyberTipline that (c) must include any information about the person or Internet address behind the suspect activity and (d) the illegal images themselves. (By the way, "electronic communications service" and "remote computing service" providers already have some reporting requirements under existing law too.)Do they honestly expect hotels and restaurants that provide wifi will hire someone just to snoop on every image crossing the wires? Or could this make it LESS likely that public wifi providers will want to see what's on your monitor?
In response to C|Net's article, ZDNet quotes the bill):
Protection of Privacy- Nothing in this section shall be construed to require an electronic communication service provider or a remote computing service provider to–Which seems to suggest that "don't look" is the simplest strategy.
- monitor any user, subscriber, or customer of that provider;
- monitor the content of any communication of any person described in paragraph (1); or
- affirmatively seek facts or circumstances described in subsection (a)(2).
Which, um ... why bother writing, passing, etc this bill, then? It does increase the retention requirements on ISPs*. So why have all these other requirements? Is this really going to do any good?
*Requiring ISPs to store TBs of material that could potentially be construed as illegal: helping nerds have access to porn, increasing the barriers of entry to the biz, and violating the privacy of millions. Wow.
Thus far all google results are references to the C|Net article. Will see what else turns up.