Internet being governed

I am increasinly seeing articles about lawmakers trying to write laws against pornography.

On the 27th on June there was an article writen about new laws being mulled over by Congress. The trump card they are using is child protection. I have no problem protecting children from things they shouldn't experience, but I whole heartly believe that it is the parents duty to restrict the child, not the governments job.

From what I see, and what the article described the lawmakers as purposing is as follows:
Forcibly blocking off-color Web sites
Eavesdropping on what Americans are doing online
Making certain hyperlinks illegal
Recording which customer is assigned which Internet Protocol address
Dispatching "search and destroy" bots
Restricting naughty Webcams

Now in my opinion. I don't want the government doing any of these things. I enjoy reading and looking at off-color material. I don't want the government eavsdropping on my internet activity anymore than I want them listening in on my phone conversations. I don't want to be restricted from accessing material I find to be interesting (blocking anyones access to child pornography could be accepted). I definintly don't want the government hacking my computer, or hacking websites that I go to. I sure as hell don't want the government restricting me from seeing the 19yo girl down the street do naughty things on her webcam.

The blocking access to child pornography is where they get you. Who wants to allow access to this? No one. So what they are trying to get you to agree to is greater restrictions so that you don't look like some kind of sick pervert (don't like child porn, but I am a pervert).

So they are left without good solutions, but are steadly making ground at inacting bad solutions.

V/R
ID

As I said in another thread.. making laws based on morality is bad -- very bad if you happen not to be in the majority.

This rising battle about the internet.. is huge issue and one the public, so far, doesn't much seem to care about. Part of this is due to a lack of caring by the media -- in fact the media may well support a tiered internet. Make no mistake, things like TV and net exist not to entertain us or make our lives "better", but as mediums for folks to make money.

Yes, I'm feeling overly cynical today.

About the legislation, I highly doubt it is anymore than republicans doing their best to appeal to their base.

About the actual issue - whats the big deal? The government has always and will always watch what you do; online and offline. If you actively participate in child porn then you will be arrested, not much you can say in the defence of a child molestor. If you go to off-color sites as you describe, keep it over the age of 18 and you'll be fine. The rest is posturing.

Its silly, this is all they spend their time on. Child molestors and flag burning. As if they dont have anything better to talk about.

It's not just pornography, though that will come again soon enough...yesterday they succeeded in passing a U.S. House bill to ban internet gambling:

The House voted 317-93 to impose a ban on most forms of Internet gambling by making it illegal for banks and credit card companies to make payments to online gambling sites. Internet gambling generates some $12 billion annually worldwide, half from American gamblers.

The House bill, which was also sponsored by Jim Leach of Iowa, is part of the Republican party's emphasis on moral values as congressional elections approach this fall.

It won support from majorities of both Republicans and Democrats.

Supporters cited examples of college students and other young people whose lives were ruined after they became addicted to Internet gambling. In one case, they said, a man robbed a bank to try to recover his losses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JackBNimble

It's not just pornography, though that will come again soon enough...yesterday they succeeded in passing a U.S. House bill to ban internet gambling:

The House voted 317-93 to impose a ban on most forms of Internet gambling by making it illegal for banks and credit card companies to make payments to online gambling sites. Internet gambling generates some $12 billion annually worldwide, half from American gamblers.

The House bill, which was also sponsored by Jim Leach of Iowa, is part of the Republican party's emphasis on moral values as congressional elections approach this fall.

It won support from majorities of both Republicans and Democrats.

Supporters cited examples of college students and other young people whose lives were ruined after they became addicted to Internet gambling. In one case, they said, a man robbed a bank to try to recover his losses.

---

lol I noticed you said it was also supported by Democrats---and so will the anti porn bill ----Democrats are trying to capture some of the moral majority's votes----They do not want to be seen not supporting morality ---Being a democrat I am sorry to say ---Most of them have lost their Balls to stand up and vote for what is right instead of worring about elections

Most credit card companies will not pay for membership on porn sites now --But that has not even slowed things down ---as the major Porn pay sites now use a blind---your member ship is billed as maybe Better Homes Inc---but you are paying for a porn membership ---LOL

So as long as there is a will there is a way --- trying to govern the internet is like trying to bail out the ocean with a teaspoon----they may slow it down for a time but they will never be able to stop it ----A lot of sites just moved their servers over seas ---so they do not have to comply with US Laws

Parents are too busy to be involved in their childs life which is why they depend on electronics to do the babysitting for them. I get so tried of hearing about the "myspace" and other personal blogging sites. If they parents knew what their children were doing, they wouldn't have to worry about the internet.

When I was growing up we weren't allowed to be inside during the day unless you were sick. We didn't have video games and the internet to keep us busy, we had to use or imagination.

Just wondering, this country was builded on the freedoms of every one, but thinking that maybe the looney liberials on the left and the wacko relgions conservied right needs to all be took out and dumped some where, As this country should be one step left or one step right, but mainly as per our founding fathers wanted, is that we should be moderte. right down the middle.

Um...isn't the internet International? I mean I am over here in Japan using the same internet as everyone else, how can Congress pass a law that hurts all peoples? Also yes, this bill should burn, its complete lunacy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uzukasai

Um...isn't the internet International? I mean I am over here in Japan using the same internet as everyone else, how can Congress pass a law that hurts all peoples? Also yes, this bill should burn, its complete lunacy.

---

These laws are only binding over servers operated in the US. They're not censoring the internet as a whole, they can't do that (Thank God..). I do think it's total BS. They're using protecting children as a smokescreen for censorship. The key to protecting children online is two words: PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY.

So the applicable law is decided by where the server is located, rather than where the program/data owner or user sits? Or do all apply? I had wondered about that from time to time...

cariad

The content server location doesn't matter per se. The proposed laws can/will be applied to the traffic servers/routers, which can be configured to allow or deny access to selected content servers. They all work via DNS names which are shared server to server. Load a list of DNS names not to be forwarded and you are cut off if your ISP uses those particular routers. Think of it as a firewall around the country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozme52

Think of it as a firewall around the country.

---

Like China