Freedom of speech is enshrined in the constitution of the USA an dunfortunately much of that has already been eroded by the patriot act and other onerous legislation…

At the end of the day, the public will be herded and rounded up in much the same way that they always have been

If we subtract out concerns about senationalism, web evangelism, yellow journalism and various forms of bad behavior, a couple questions remain: 1) is this a good bill? 2) do we need it?

What think ye?

“Well, wtf is an “electronic communication service” or a “remote computing service provider”? This language is so broad that eager enforcement can be made to include anything …”

No, that’s wrong. There’s extensive case law on both points.

“The language of the SAFE Act doesn’t seem that far away, to my old eyes, from the language of the Communications Decency Act …”

Because you’re being taken by a yellow journalist who is misrepresenting the context. The CDA was argued over for months and months where it was very clear it was intended to impose a far-reaching regulatory regime. This law was a minor reporting change, and the sponsor has been clear on that. In fact, that’s even addressed in the article, where the hype-monger dismisses that aspect in favor of his own fantasy as to the impact of the law. I would say that’s a very significant difference.

I’ve said this before, but these common examples of sensationalism winning out over rational thought should show just how nonsensical is all the web-evangelism.

However, I think the criticism of the original Cnet coverage (which I joined here, although not really adding anything all that new) is more to do with the tone and how the focus of criticism is on this particular bill. As I argued, the failure of this bill will not change the definition of the ‘provider of an electronic communications service or a remote computer service’, nor the fact that they already have a silly reporting obligation (the bill makes it sillier and increases the fine, but there already are big fines for non-compliance) , nor the overbroad definitions of what is considered illegal under US law. All of these things are already law so even if a well-meaning lawmaker was to heed the call to abandon this law, the trucks can still drive right through the loopholes – and that’s my biggest fear. Yes, this particular proposal does continue the march towards CDAism in US tech law but it is not a wild power-grab, rather a reflection of the state we are in…

REPORTING REQUIREMENTS OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION SERVICE PROVIDERS AND REMOTE COMPUTING SERVICE PROVIDERS.

Well, wtf is an “electronic communication service” or a “remote computing service provider”? This language is so broad that eager enforcement can be made to include anything, and you’ll get chilling effects out the wazoo.

Back in 2002, getting an open access point in the U.K. was almost a matter of opening your laptop. Now the open signals are all but gone, victims of anti-terrorist lawmaking that does not, as I understand it, make open wi-fi illegal outright, but might as well.

The language of the SAFE Act doesn’t seem that far away, to my old eyes, from the language of the Communications Decency Act, way back in ‘96.

In any case, my argument here is against people who don’t know tech making laws regulating tech that contain huge loopholes through which unintended consequences can drive like trucks.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071206-safe-act-wont-turn-mom-and-pop-shops-into-wifi-cops.html

See:

We need to calm down over the SAFE act
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=916

SAFE Act won’t turn mom-and-pop shops into WiFi cops
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071206-safe-act-wont-turn-mom-and-pop-sh
ops-into-wifi-cops.html

A useless law that smells of political grandstanding while benefiting corporations which supply wi-fi equipment and services. But that may just be my cynicism talking.