15 ms·

Bill seeks to put porn block on computers sold in SC

180 points by forrestbrazeal 10y ago

sqeaky 10y ago
I don't see what human trafficking has to do with freedom of speech. The article tries waving that like this law could help that problem somehow. This is a clear violation of freedom speech as it is, but in reality such a "filter" would certainly be used to monitor the computer violating the 4th amendment and likely be used by the government to do other illegitimate things. It could likely be used to censor political opinions as well.
thesehands 10y ago
a $20 fee to remove the filtering? Seems an incredibly rent-seeking proposal.
- mratzloff 10y ago
  We're concerned about the children, but for enough money, you know, whatever.
  - Senji 10y ago
    Make it a 100 bucks. If the child can get its shit together enough to get a job and fork over the money, they are grown enough to access the naughty stuff.
- badwolf 10y ago
  I'm just SURE that there won't be any FOIA'able lists of everyone who pays to look at porn. Surely something like that would NEVER be abused in any way... right?
koolba 10y ago
> State Rep. Bill Chumley, R-Spartanburg, said the Human Trafficking Prevention Act would require manufacturers or sellers to install digital blocking capabilities on computers and other devices that access the internet to prevent the viewing of obscene content. > “If we could have manufacturers install filters that would be shipped to South Carolina, then anything that children have access on for pornography would be blocked,” Chumley said. “We felt like that would be another way to fight human trafficking.” Is this South Carolina or North Korea?
- jcwayne 10y ago
  ...or England?
  - koolba 10y ago
    I don't recall a $20 opt out for England. Also, I think the plan there is to tap the network (i.e your ISP), not the devices themselves.
  - pjc50 10y ago
    The British(+) proposed system is much more extreme - complete ISP-level censorship of listed sites. https://www.openrightsgroup.org/campaigns/digital-economy-bill-hub/stop-uk-censorship-of-legal-content https://www.openrightsgroup.org/campaigns/digital-economy-bi... (+) It's not a devolved matter.
    - paganel 10y ago
      And apparently if you show women squirting in your porn videos you're breaking some other English law. It's like some people over there are back in the Victorian era.
      - Cyph0n 10y ago
        I can think of much worse things to ban than squirting.
      - pjc50 10y ago
        I think it's just regular old hypocrisy. I'm sure we can find examples of the newspaper with bare-breasted women on Page 3 running a campaign against internet porn. It doesn't help that the UK opposition is in total disarray at the moment and Brexit dominates all news cycles.
      - ue_ 10y ago
        Also don't forget that drawn representations of completely fictional people who even appear (the wording used is "predominantly conveys") a child engaged in any kind of sexual act, or a focus on the genitals, is illegal to even possess. The UK is a state that does not care about freedom of speech. I can't find the parliamentary debate right now, but someone argued that possession should not be a crime - and a Tory MP retorted that "well mere possession of cannabis is illegal, so what's wrong with making this illegal too?" I feel like there is no hope, and I don't think there is hope. The UK is not founded on the principles of liberty or libertarianism, the populace doesn't care for it or they are actively against it ("think of the children!"), the people in parliament don't care about evidence, etc. The world is turning more and more against freedom of expression it feels.
sailfast 10y ago
Why not just tax all computers sales for $20? It would be much more cost effective than developing a really terrible piece of easily hackable filtering software that would have to be deployed on every OS in the world to comply with the law, not to mention the costly workflow of collecting the tax. (Ignoring the obviously strange "pay for speech" game happening here that is just ODD) This seems like a really complicated, silly approach to solve a very simple problem - funding the Attorney General's Task Force. Kickstarter would be a more effective governance strategy here. Hopefully lawmakers AND the citizens of South Carolina can see how terrible this would be for their state. I have no doubt North Carolina PC stores are excited, though. In general, I'm upset to see these micro-targeted pieces of legislation that also contribute a great deal to erosion of constitutional protections without an afterthought.
- tssva 10y ago
  This law will actually cost the Attorney General's office as they spend money to defend a law which will inevitably be found unconstitutional.
  - hollander 10y ago
    This law is good PR, or it's a decoy.
  - st3v3r 10y ago
    I know in California, the AG office can apparently elect not to defend a law (they did it with the Prop 8 gay marriage ban). Is that something unique to California, or can other states do it?
- dqv 10y ago
  >I have no doubt North Carolina PC stores are excited, though. Can you clarify what this means?
  - farmdawgnation 10y ago
    I suspect that the author is suggesting that consumers who don't wish to be subject to the filter or the tax would just drive over the border to North Carolina to purchase a computer.
ChrisBland 10y ago
Are there really no other problems for the SC legislature to solve? Is this really the most burning problem facing the state or is this some bible thumpers push to be relevant and in the news?
- waynecochran 10y ago
  You may disagree with the method and whether it is effective or not, but if the goal is to stop sex trafficking then that indeed should be a high priority.
  - morgante 10y ago
    Stopping people from looking at porn is, at best, orthogonal to sex trafficking. This is a bunch of religious zealots trying to control others under the guise of humanitarianism. It's a classic technique: who can argue with sex trafficking as a cause? So just wrap up hideous legislation in that disguise.
    - mst 10y ago
      > who can argue with sex trafficking as a cause? Anybody who thinks the police raping prostitutes is a bad thing.
    - TheGrumpyBrit 10y ago
      There seems to be a creeping habit of quietly slipping in draconian legislation as a rider to otherwise routine proposals. This feels like a slightly different approach in that the primary legislation has a nice easily defendable title. Who wouldn't want to stop human trafficking? Unfortunately, it seems that there is little interest in challenging this behaviour, presumably because the only ones who are in a position to directly challenge those doing it also have a vested interest in keeping such behaviour out of the public eye.
    - module0000 10y ago
      > Stopping people from looking at porn "Porn" is open to a lot of interpretation. What is pornography... women wearing colored clothing? Pictures of Islamic women's ankles? It's a slippery slope as they say, and incredibly subjective.
Pietertje 10y ago
This policy reminds me of a recent TOR blog post [0]. A good example why the tech industry shouldn't ignore the political climate and why the second principle is so important. [0] https://blog.torproject.org/blog/technology-hostile-states-ten-principles-user-protection https://blog.torproject.org/blog/technology-hostile-states-t...
woodruffw 10y ago
> install digital blocking capabilities on computers and other devices that access the internet to prevent the viewing of obscene content. Smartphones? Routers and switches? Refrigerators?
- finid 10y ago
  How about smartwatches?
- patrickk 10y ago
  If you build your own PC, does this apply? If so, which PC component does the fee apply to? The hard drive, the motherboard, the CPU...? What if you want to build a PC and install a flavour of Linux, without a proprietary OS? Do you need a special flavour of Linux that's patched especially for South Carolina?
- VLM 10y ago
  How about Alexa / Echo / Dot / Tap? I'll know pr0n when I see it, well, what if its a speaker? Another fascinating question is cat-5 ethernet cables.
  - throwaway729 10y ago
    Presumably those would be included, as well as anything with a speaker and an interface to the internet, because SC's obscenity statute is incredibly broad.
daemin 10y ago
"Human Trafficking Prevention Act" - I guess they assume that all people involved in being filmed for pornography are trafficed. That no normal person would want to record themselves having sex or performing sex acts.
- dreamcompiler 10y ago
  They know that. They just hate porn. But banning porn has been found unconstitutional so many times they know it won't work. Thus they label it "anti-human trafficking" in hopes it will pass constitutional muster. Sort of like labeling creationism "intelligent design."
  - MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
    The name won't affect it's constitutionality and they know it, but as others have pointed out it's politically beneficial to say they voted for the "protection of children" and their opponents voted against it.
  - pavel_lishin 10y ago
    I'd wager they love porn. I would bet a de-filtering fee that the person who wrote this specifically loves the kind of porn that looks like human trafficking porn, in fact. But he has to signal to his constituency - most of whom probably enjoy porn as well, but can't be seen to - that he shares their surface values.
forrestbrazeal 10y ago
Here is the full text of the proposed bill: http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess122_2017-2018/bills/3003.htm http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess122_2017-2018/bills/3003.htm
- sailfast 10y ago
  Reading the article was upsetting. Reading the actual law being proposed, however, is even worse. Gobsmacked. I am not sure how any lawmaker or attorney viewing this bill would be able to press ahead with this. "What about the first amendment?" "Oh, nevermind that - they can pay to remove the filter." "...?! I guess Freedom isn't free after all, but I didn't think that's what that meant. Are you going to manage the filter?" "No, the companies will manage it - it won't cost us a thing to block the traffic of the whole state. People will just do it for us, you know, because we tell them so." "...?" > COMPANY MUST: "make reasonable and ongoing efforts to ensure that the digital content blocking capability functions properly, including establishing a reporting mechanism such as a website or call center to allow for a consumer to report unblocked obscene content or report blocked content that is not obscene" This is far more than the $20 cost it purports to be.
  - jaclaz 10y ago
    >... such as a website or call center to allow for a consumer to report unblocked obscene content or report blocked content that is not obscene... How would the customer be able to ever get to know that a (non-obscene) blocked site actually exists? I mean short of using a no-filter-installed device i.e. paying 20 bucks anyway.
  - Beltiras 10y ago
    Phone Center! Imagine that. "Yes, the URL reads: doubleu-doubleu-doubleu dot ......."
- TheGrumpyBrit 10y ago
  OK, let's do this. "A business, manufacturer, wholesaler, or individual that manufactures, distributes, or sells a product that makes content accessible on the Internet is prohibited from doing business in this State unless the product contains an active and operating digital blocking capability that renders any obscenity, as defined in Section 16-15-305, inaccessible. The business, manufacturer, wholesaler, or individual must: (1) make reasonable and ongoing efforts to ensure that the digital content blocking capability functions properly, including establishing a reporting mechanism such as a website or call center to allow for a consumer to report unblocked obscene content or report blocked content that is not obscene; (2) ensure that all child pornography and revenge pornography is inaccessible on the product; (3) prohibit the product from accessing any hub that facilitates prostitution; and (4) render websites that are known to facilitate any trafficking of persons, as defined in Section 16-3-2010(9), inaccessible." What is "a product that makes content accessible on the internet"? A computer? A router? A telephone line? Or does the computer simply access things which are already accessible, in which case we're talking about webservers and the like? Since this applies to an individual too, does this mean you can't sell your old computer unless you set up a method for people to report things they shouldn't see on there? Leaving aside the practical fact that it's impossible to do, given that it is (presumably) illegal to access child pornography, how is somebody supposed to "ensure that all of it is inaccessible" without breaking the law? How would one report blocked content that isn't obscene? How can you know it's not obscene if you can't access it? I can't face reading the rest of it. The first paragraph is already making my brain hurt.
robmaister 10y ago
In the unlikely case of this law passing as written, I'd like to see it blow up in their faces when manufacturers and sellers simply choose not to sell devices in SC.
- funnyfacts365 10y ago
  You trust the industry too much, or you're naive. All of them will do whatever it takes to make money. See Cisco and the GFW, for example.
  - jonwachob91 10y ago
    You overestimate the greed of today's leaders. See Uber bailing from Austin because of unfriendly regulation. It's true the the original post is too broad, but if just Apple, Microsoft, and Google decided to stop selling devices in S.C. that might be enough to oust a large number of state officials and get the law overturned by the next senate/congress.
    - robmaister 10y ago
      Yeah this is pretty much what I was thinking. There will still be plenty of companies that will install the government-mandated malware with glee (or raise prices by $20), but I think there would be enough pushback from a few large companies that it would get overturned pretty quickly. Uber + Lyft in Austin is a good example, so is PayPal + others in NC over HB2.
    - technofiend 10y ago
      I'm still willing to lay money that Uber returns to Austin by SXSW. They can cry regulatory malfeasance all they want but there's too much brand recognition opportunity lost if they skip SXSW.
      - jonwachob91 10y ago
        UBER doesn't need to sacrifice it's position in it's battle with Austin over a little brand awareness at a conference where everyone already knows who UBER is... If anything the absence of UBER and Lyft at SXSW will be louder than if they returned.
theandrewbailey 10y ago
This is another politician conspiring to raise taxes to enlarge government, harm small businesses, and kill jobs. Wait. The guy that wants this is a Republican? WTF?
- omginternets 10y ago
  >The guy that wants this is a Republican? WTF? Is this feigned surprise or real surprise? This kind of thing always comes from republicans (for an approximate definition of "always").
xfactor973 10y ago
What's next? Chastity belts and witch burning lol
- antihero 10y ago
  $20 for a chastity belt seems like a bargain to be honest.
  - vidarh 10y ago
    A quick search on Amazon shows that you can get "low end" chastity devices for both men and women around that price point (I am not sure whether I look forward to seeing the ads that will now follow me around the web for the next few days, but who knows what I'll learn) EDIT: Startup idea: Fetish toy in the form of a chastity device that gives the wearer an electric shock if they try to access blocked sites. I love the thought of "abusing" such a filter to power a BDSM toy that the supporters of the bill will surely find obscene.
    - jmcdiesel 10y ago
      Ok, is it wrong that my first thought had nothing to do with the actual content... (from you EDIT) ... but instead immediately was like "Shit, yeah... the person on the site could open "banned" sites in an iframe remotely... like a remote controlled dog collar" ... So yeah, i just go right to the tech... engineer life... I don't know if i love or hate the "problem" of seeing everything as a problem with a solution to be found..
      - vidarh 10y ago
        I think the audience for a device like that would see the ability to intentionally trigger it remotely as a feature, not a bug.
    - fosco 10y ago
      Joking aside, I think this would sell like mulled wine at the Christmas Market in Vienna. add a smartphone app that does the same when you walk into a store or church, or go into a 'pokemon gym' (capability to react to augmented reality)
Tepix 10y ago
Has anyone checked if this is fake news site? It seems hard to believe...
- finid 10y ago
  You don't know South Carolina...
- vel0city 10y ago
  While I've had a hard time finding good information about this source, the bill is real. http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess122_2017-2018/bills/3003.htm http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess122_2017-2018/bills/3003.htm
andriesm 10y ago
"the Human Trafficking Prevention Act would require manufacturers or sellers to install digital blocking capabilities on computers and other devices that access the internet to prevent the viewing of obscene content." What does plain vanilla adult materials have to do with child trafficking????! And how will it make children safer if a simple tax can get around it? You gotta question the motives here
- Crespyl 10y ago
  I assume the bit where individuals would have to pay to have the filter removed would immediately put them on a list.
  - Cyph0n 10y ago
    It would end up being a huge list, so I don't really see how that would help.
- MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
  > What does plain vanilla adult materials have to do with child trafficking????! Yea, it's basically a morality tax wrapped in child-protection language. To a certain puritanical set, the difference is indistinguishable. It's a similar rhetorical strategy to saying that anti-gay laws are for the protection of children, or anti-trans laws are for the protection of cis women.
0xcde4c3db 10y ago
What are the odds that the sponsors know this bill is garbage, and only proposed it for the sake of having the opposition on record "voting for sexual exploitation of children"? I know this kind of rhetoric (distorting votes against a bill to be votes for the opposite, most commonly: all votes against any bill including a tax cut => "Senator Johnson voted for higher taxes 4194304 times") is used regularly, but I don't know how much of a stretch it is that someone would propose a bill primarily to fuel it.
- woodruffw 10y ago
  That's probably not what's happening in this case (this is just good, old-fashioned puritanism), but what you're referring to is exactly what a certain party did in congress for a few decades with flag-burning bills and amendments.
- noxToken 10y ago
  I don't think it's that only reason. However, it serves as a great talking point when campaigning against an opponent. Imagine having to defend against, "Candidate X voted against the Human Trafficking Prevention Act!" when you and other privy voters know it's stop the turd hidden underneath the polished gold.
zelon88 10y ago
The same politician who's public office website has a disclaimer on their contact form which reads: "Notice: This form may not be fully-compatible with Google Chrome. If you are experiencing issues sending a message while using Chrome, please try another web browser." Figures, the same guy who thinks this is practical is the same guy who says to people surfing his website that it's not compatible with the number one internet browser in the world. Why does government choose to be ignorant about technology? And why do we accept political ignorance of technology?
- bjelkeman-again 10y ago
  My theory why government choose to be ignorant about technology is that for them technology too often dictates its own terms (or the developers behind tech). Tech often drives societal change faster than politicians can (cars, mobile phones, internet, antibiotics, are a few examples). This is very uncomfortable for politicians so they prefer to dictate how tech should work instead, regardless if it is a good idea or even feasible.
finid 10y ago
So of all the issues that South Carolina has, this one is the most pressing for that elected official to address. Not really surprising, because this type of legislation tends to come from Red states. There was the one in Texas about high school cheer leaders not be able to make certain moves because they're too suggestive.
bandrami 10y ago
India tried this a couple of years ago. Ask them how well it worked. (Particularly since it involved publishing a list of 800 specifically blocked sites.) OTOH global VPN services were ecstatic.
drallison 10y ago
Pornography is not illegal in the US. Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_in_the_United_Stat..., has a good summary of the legal situation.
geff82 10y ago
Sometimes I suspect lawmakers are among the dumbest of all possible human beings.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  Hanlon's razor? I think in the case of many politicians it's necessary to invoke the 'adequately' and look for the malice.
  - omegaham 10y ago
    I wouldn't call it malice - just indifference. A politician's job is to get reelected. Ideally, he gets reelected by doing a good job, but that's not actually necessary (and it might not even be a good idea in some circumstances). His goal is to energize a base of excited, passionate voters who will overwhelm any challenges to the incumbency. After all, most people don't vote, so if he has a reliable, excited base, he is guaranteed victory. And you don't do that through rational thought. You do that by appealing to people who are easy to rile up with fear, hate, and prejudice. Fear and hate drives people to the polls. Educated opinion makes people shrug and stay home because they don't feel that strongly about it. What better way to rile up fear than talking about sex trafficking and children? Raise this specter of menace over the good people of this state and demonstrate that you're going to Do Something About It. Never mind the fact that your proposed measure does absolutely nothing to prevent sex trafficking and has catastrophic side effects - the electorate couldn't give less of a fuck about that because they vote based on feels, not reals. This isn't malice; it's just "I'll say whatever I need to say and do whatever I need to do to stay in office." It's a symptom of a societal ill, not a personal one. If this Congressman wasn't willing to do it, he would be replaced by a Congressman who would. --- And before people start chiming in with GOP-hatred, the Democrats do the exact same thing, especially at the local level.
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      I disagree, politicians acting like their job is to get reelected is malice.
  - 10y ago
CodeSheikh 10y ago
What about non-internet media? There are still laptops being sold with DVD players. Laptops have USB and media card slots. I mean would not it make much better sense to put (let's assume for the sake of argument such filters do work in reality) this filter at ISP level? There are countries who are very good at blocking obscene and political content to a great accuracy. Human trafficking is a much bigger problem that unfortunately cannot be solved with a 20 bucks filter. It is unfortunate to read that apparently in the eyes of the policy-makers this is a “beginning point” of a solution to a gruesome issue.
EGreg 10y ago
"We're not being political"?
dTal 10y ago
The mindset that would even produce such an idea is incredibly dangerous. A computer-naive person might think that requiring that all computers be sold with specific software installed is no more burdensome that requiring that all cars be sold with safety belts. But we all know that making the infrastructure to actually enforce such a rule would lead us to Stallman's worst dystopian nightmare: a Central Authority that somehow dictates what must, and what cannot, run on your computer. There's still a real danger that something like this will come to pass, especially when all the popular OSs come from centralised vendors upon whom pressure can be applied.
- pjc50 10y ago
  It's not the first time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-chip https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-chip (Apparently this is still in production, and therefore presumably in today's modern "Smart TVs". Haven't heard anything about it for years)
  - sqeaky 10y ago
    In practice the V-chip didn't dial out and couldn't really accept orders from a central authority. A v-chip owner could set programs of a given rating to not be displayed without a password. I suppose the system could have been suborned to make all tv shows have the most strict rating blocking it on TV with the chip enabled... but if you have that power you can just turn off the TV signal. Anyway the lack of central control prevented it from being meaningful.
- drzaiusapelord 10y ago
  >The mindset that would even produce such an idea is incredibly dangerous. To be fair, politicians and computer policy has always been poor and the USA just voted someone in who asked a foreign power to find his opponents emails and uses the term "the cyber" frequently. In other words, I suspect its going to get worse before it gets better. >a Central Authority that somehow dictates what must, and what cannot.... Append "be done" and that's the very definition of government. Typically humans without government is a recipe for failure, so its not the existence of government per-se that's the issue. The larger question is why government in many countries, including the USA, are failing on such an abysmal level for what should be basic tasks like regulating computer issues. The elephant in the room here seems to be a strong anti-intellectual atmosphere and strongman politics taking root and winning elections of late worldwide. Voters are seeking this stuff out. That's the problem.
logfromblammo 10y ago
Let's perform a thought experiment. Imagine yourself a little print shop. Now dream up a movable-type printing press and bolt it down in the workroom. Give yourself a few trays of letters, and some ink and paper. Give it some late-1780s appropriate decor. Now imagine that Mr. Legis Socaro barges into your print shop one fine day and demands that you install a device on your press that prevents you from printing the word "aſshole" with it. How much does that device cost, in relation to the cost of your press? Let's bear in mind that Mr. Socaro has not provided you with any such device to install, the plans to build one, nor even any expectation that any suitable device has been invented yet. Might as well cite the article as the "Computer Trafficking Prevention Act".
- OliverJones 10y ago
  And, don't forget that the first book printed was the Bible. Of the next ten thousand, many were smut. Civilization survived.
Beltiras 10y ago
The lack of insight into how computers work is breathtaking.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
hogrammer 10y ago
The anti-human trafficking people in the US are very dangerous. They're mostly on the Left.
manny5d 10y ago
Here is the representatives contact information for the curious. http://www.scstatehouse.gov/member.php?code=0351704504 http://www.scstatehouse.gov/member.php?code=0351704504
vivekd 10y ago
I'm going to take an unpopular view and say that I think this bill is a good idea. . . I use digital blocking software on my laptop now, I use bluecoat's K9 software which is an effective way to avoid thins like pornography, hate speech, and other similar content that I would prefer not to see. I think many people feel the same way and would like a safer internet except they don't really know they have options for filtering. In churches they often promote software like covenant eyes, which is useless crap, so that tells me that the average person doesn't really know about effective filtering software. The 20 dollar fee isn't a bad idea either. It will ensure that minors don't have free access to porn. I suspect that many parents, having the option to filter the internet for their kids, will choose to do so, I know I would. Also internet porn and certain types of internet directories are some of the biggest contributors to human trafficking, so it is only reasonable that people who use these services pay something to help government deal with some of the social problems that these services produce. Just as we have a tire tax on drivers so that those who user the roads can help pay for them, so too we can have a very small one time premium on users of porn sites to help pay for human trafficking. Also, by sending unfiltered internet to people as default, we have created a norm for the internet filled with sexual content and hate speech. By creating a new default, and insisting on filtering as the default, we can create a new norm by which people come with a much safer internet experience.
- codingdave 10y ago
  I use k9, too, but that doesn't mean I want the state government enforcing my use of it. That is censorship, and censoring at the hardware/manufacturer level seem very wrong to me. What if it was not about porn? What if they said you could not research your religion? What if you could not visit political sites? It is a worrisome precedent.
  - vivekd 10y ago
    It's not censorship because people still have access to it. The supreme court has already held it's okay to put small reasonable restrictions on certain types of speech so long as you don't forbid it altogether. Putting a small fee on obscenity to prevent access by minors and fund human trafficking is well within the bounds of the first amendment. Free speech is not some pure beautiful ideal concept. It exists solely as a creation of the constitution as interpreted by the Supreme court. And there is strong precedent from the Supreme court that these types of restrictions are perfectly compatible with the first amendment.
billpg 10y ago
Okay, so I'm shipping my hypothetical computers with a HOSTS file entry that directs Playboy to an invalid IP. Am I conforming with the law?
sandworm101 10y ago
Dont take this seriously. It cannot survive judicial review and they know it. Remember that many legislators just do these things to make conservative bones. The freedom of speach arguments, not to mention the impact on interstate commerce, write themselves.
petiepooo 10y ago
The lady doth protest too much, methinks. -- Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 2 How often have we seen politicians champion an issue only to find out that it's over-compensation for the presence of that issue in their personal life... cough Foley cough
callinyouin 10y ago
This reminds me of a recent conversation I had with a friend. We were discussing some of the crazy things politicians do (corruption, sex scandals, etc.) as well as some of the batshit crazy legislation they come up with (such as this bill), and this led to a discussion on what type of person runs for political office (at least in the US). We generally agreed that many, if not most, politicians probably suffer from some form of megalomania mixed with a strong desire for power over others. These are not positive personality traits in general, but especially not for people in positions of power. Intelligent, well-meaning, balanced people generally do not seem to suffer from these traits and perhaps that's why we seem to have a lack of them in office (since they don't run in the first place). This seems like a fundamental problem at the very core of US politics, and I'm not sure what could be done about it. We obviously can't restrict people from running for office on the basis of personality faults, and we certainly can't force people who would make better candidates to run (especially given how subjective that is). Disclaimer: This is all obviously conjecture, and I don't have any sort of extensive knowledge in political science or anything related.
impendia 10y ago
As a South Carolina resident, I'm confident this won't happen. Right-wingers introduce nutty bills all the time here (example: Lee Bright introduced [1] a bill to have South Carolina make its own currency), and they get a fair amount of attention, but for the most part they don't have enough clout to run the state. If this bill gets any traction, lobbyists from BMW (factory in Spartanburg, SC), Boeing (Charleston), and other big business interests will see to it that it is defeated. [1] http://www.goupstate.com/news/20110212/sen-lee-bright-sc-should-coin-its-own-money http://www.goupstate.com/news/20110212/sen-lee-bright-sc-sho...
- dv_dt 10y ago
  I think there is a problem relying on big business to fight such fights. I wouldn't think they would care except that it would be a tax on equipment they might use, but that could be sidestepped in a number of ways. The businesses could just get a commercial exemption written into the law or just import their compute gear from a remote division.
andrewclunn 10y ago
Is it horrible of me to hope that this means that popular porn sites will soon harass users from South Carolina, telling them to try Linux?
LinuxBender 10y ago
Would this not hurt SC more than it helps? If everyone is forced to purchase electronics online, then will local stores not suffer? How will they enforce this for online purchases? Maybe Amazon would eventually give in. There are many places to buy computers online. Am I missing something?
OliverJones 10y ago
C'mon people. We're trying to use facts to negotiate. In the USA post 2017, everybody is entitled to their own facts, but not their own opinions. So, it's entirely pointless to use facts (such as the fact that the internet is hard to censor even with Great Firewall of China scale infrastructure) in conversations with elected officials. Facts are in the eye of the beholder. Facts are just "smart" people yakking away spouting stuff that's contrary to established opinion. So, our facts are wrong. Get over it. We can't convince people whose livelihood depend on sticking to established opinion. How do you counter this kind of stuff? 1. Say yes. 2. Do whatever you were doing before. 3. If a jurisdiction imposes some kind of tax on some kind of product, just say that it's contrary to established opinion for businesses to collect new taxes for governments. 4. Do whatever you were doing before. I lived for a while in an open-town-meeting town in New England. Occasionally the townspeople would vote in two contradictory articles, giving contradictory instructions to the town manager or public works department. In those cases, the moderator often said, "It's possible the town manager won't be able to obey article 7 without violating article 8. Do you want to do anything about that before we adjourn tonight? Do I hear a motion to reconsider?" THAT's the way to deal with this stuff: let the legislative machinery deal with conflicts in established opinion.
DennisP 10y ago
What does the bill say about wiping your hard disk and installing Linux?
tyingq 10y ago
Confusing tweet from the bill's sponsor: https://twitter.com/BillChumleySC/status/702746882385248256 https://twitter.com/BillChumleySC/status/702746882385248256
bovermyer 10y ago
Even if passed, this would be unenforceable. Pornography is notoriously difficult to define in a legal context; see Jacobellis v Ohio. Miller v California further explores the issue and attempts to lay some kind of groundwork for definition, but it's still very subjective.
- a3n 10y ago
  > Pornography is notoriously difficult to define That's the beauty of such a scheme, you can go after anyone just by making a "pornography" case, without being constrained by definitions. It widens prosecution and control tremendously.
tdy721 10y ago
It's not the $20 taxes that worry me. It's the government mandate that software be installed on my devices. It seems like a new thing to me, forced software?
mikebay 10y ago
Bill, why not "fake news" block also ? Bill, you start to be late from train, mate. China did that 40 years ago!
ChrisLM 10y ago
For the record, Bill Chumlee is not a terribly bright man. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/24/bill-chumley-charleston-shooting_n_7653182.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/24/bill-chumley-charle...
philip142au 10y ago
Isn't violence worse than porn?
thrillgore 10y ago
Having just gotten back from South Korea, a country with a massive, state-run filter for "porn," all I can keep thinking is that such ideas are always subject to abuse. The mechanisms to protect "the children" already exist as third party software and alternative DNS. Shit, how would South Carolina IMPLEMENT such filtering?

180 points by forrestbrazeal 10y ago

I don't see what human trafficking has to do with freedom of speech. The article tries waving that like this law could help that problem somehow. This is a clear violation of freedom speech as it is, but in reality such a "filter" would certainly be used to monitor the computer violating the 4th amendment and likely be used by the government to do other illegitimate things. It could likely be used to censor political opinions as well.

thesehands 10y ago

a $20 fee to remove the filtering? Seems an incredibly rent-seeking proposal.

mratzloff 10y ago
We're concerned about the children, but for enough money, you know, whatever.
- Senji 10y ago
  Make it a 100 bucks. If the child can get its shit together enough to get a job and fork over the money, they are grown enough to access the naughty stuff.
badwolf 10y ago
I'm just SURE that there won't be any FOIA'able lists of everyone who pays to look at porn. Surely something like that would NEVER be abused in any way... right?

koolba 10y ago

> State Rep. Bill Chumley, R-Spartanburg, said the Human Trafficking Prevention Act would require manufacturers or sellers to install digital blocking capabilities on computers and other devices that access the internet to prevent the viewing of obscene content. > “If we could have manufacturers install filters that would be shipped to South Carolina, then anything that children have access on for pornography would be blocked,” Chumley said. “We felt like that would be another way to fight human trafficking.” Is this South Carolina or North Korea?

jcwayne 10y ago
...or England?
- koolba 10y ago
  I don't recall a $20 opt out for England. Also, I think the plan there is to tap the network (i.e your ISP), not the devices themselves.
- pjc50 10y ago
  The British(+) proposed system is much more extreme - complete ISP-level censorship of listed sites. https://www.openrightsgroup.org/campaigns/digital-economy-bill-hub/stop-uk-censorship-of-legal-content https://www.openrightsgroup.org/campaigns/digital-economy-bi... (+) It's not a devolved matter.
  - paganel 10y ago
    And apparently if you show women squirting in your porn videos you're breaking some other English law. It's like some people over there are back in the Victorian era.
    - Cyph0n 10y ago
      I can think of much worse things to ban than squirting.
    - pjc50 10y ago
      I think it's just regular old hypocrisy. I'm sure we can find examples of the newspaper with bare-breasted women on Page 3 running a campaign against internet porn. It doesn't help that the UK opposition is in total disarray at the moment and Brexit dominates all news cycles.
    - ue_ 10y ago
      Also don't forget that drawn representations of completely fictional people who even appear (the wording used is "predominantly conveys") a child engaged in any kind of sexual act, or a focus on the genitals, is illegal to even possess. The UK is a state that does not care about freedom of speech. I can't find the parliamentary debate right now, but someone argued that possession should not be a crime - and a Tory MP retorted that "well mere possession of cannabis is illegal, so what's wrong with making this illegal too?" I feel like there is no hope, and I don't think there is hope. The UK is not founded on the principles of liberty or libertarianism, the populace doesn't care for it or they are actively against it ("think of the children!"), the people in parliament don't care about evidence, etc. The world is turning more and more against freedom of expression it feels.

sailfast 10y ago

Why not just tax all computers sales for $20? It would be much more cost effective than developing a really terrible piece of easily hackable filtering software that would have to be deployed on every OS in the world to comply with the law, not to mention the costly workflow of collecting the tax. (Ignoring the obviously strange "pay for speech" game happening here that is just ODD) This seems like a really complicated, silly approach to solve a very simple problem - funding the Attorney General's Task Force. Kickstarter would be a more effective governance strategy here. Hopefully lawmakers AND the citizens of South Carolina can see how terrible this would be for their state. I have no doubt North Carolina PC stores are excited, though. In general, I'm upset to see these micro-targeted pieces of legislation that also contribute a great deal to erosion of constitutional protections without an afterthought.

tssva 10y ago
This law will actually cost the Attorney General's office as they spend money to defend a law which will inevitably be found unconstitutional.
- hollander 10y ago
  This law is good PR, or it's a decoy.
- st3v3r 10y ago
  I know in California, the AG office can apparently elect not to defend a law (they did it with the Prop 8 gay marriage ban). Is that something unique to California, or can other states do it?
dqv 10y ago
>I have no doubt North Carolina PC stores are excited, though. Can you clarify what this means?
- farmdawgnation 10y ago
  I suspect that the author is suggesting that consumers who don't wish to be subject to the filter or the tax would just drive over the border to North Carolina to purchase a computer.

ChrisBland 10y ago

Are there really no other problems for the SC legislature to solve? Is this really the most burning problem facing the state or is this some bible thumpers push to be relevant and in the news?

waynecochran 10y ago
You may disagree with the method and whether it is effective or not, but if the goal is to stop sex trafficking then that indeed should be a high priority.
- morgante 10y ago
  Stopping people from looking at porn is, at best, orthogonal to sex trafficking. This is a bunch of religious zealots trying to control others under the guise of humanitarianism. It's a classic technique: who can argue with sex trafficking as a cause? So just wrap up hideous legislation in that disguise.
  - mst 10y ago
    > who can argue with sex trafficking as a cause? Anybody who thinks the police raping prostitutes is a bad thing.
  - TheGrumpyBrit 10y ago
    There seems to be a creeping habit of quietly slipping in draconian legislation as a rider to otherwise routine proposals. This feels like a slightly different approach in that the primary legislation has a nice easily defendable title. Who wouldn't want to stop human trafficking? Unfortunately, it seems that there is little interest in challenging this behaviour, presumably because the only ones who are in a position to directly challenge those doing it also have a vested interest in keeping such behaviour out of the public eye.
  - module0000 10y ago
    > Stopping people from looking at porn "Porn" is open to a lot of interpretation. What is pornography... women wearing colored clothing? Pictures of Islamic women's ankles? It's a slippery slope as they say, and incredibly subjective.

Pietertje 10y ago

This policy reminds me of a recent TOR blog post [0]. A good example why the tech industry shouldn't ignore the political climate and why the second principle is so important. [0] https://blog.torproject.org/blog/technology-hostile-states-ten-principles-user-protection https://blog.torproject.org/blog/technology-hostile-states-t...

woodruffw 10y ago

> install digital blocking capabilities on computers and other devices that access the internet to prevent the viewing of obscene content. Smartphones? Routers and switches? Refrigerators?

finid 10y ago
How about smartwatches?
patrickk 10y ago
If you build your own PC, does this apply? If so, which PC component does the fee apply to? The hard drive, the motherboard, the CPU...? What if you want to build a PC and install a flavour of Linux, without a proprietary OS? Do you need a special flavour of Linux that's patched especially for South Carolina?
VLM 10y ago
How about Alexa / Echo / Dot / Tap? I'll know pr0n when I see it, well, what if its a speaker? Another fascinating question is cat-5 ethernet cables.
- throwaway729 10y ago
  Presumably those would be included, as well as anything with a speaker and an interface to the internet, because SC's obscenity statute is incredibly broad.

daemin 10y ago

"Human Trafficking Prevention Act" - I guess they assume that all people involved in being filmed for pornography are trafficed. That no normal person would want to record themselves having sex or performing sex acts.

dreamcompiler 10y ago
They know that. They just hate porn. But banning porn has been found unconstitutional so many times they know it won't work. Thus they label it "anti-human trafficking" in hopes it will pass constitutional muster. Sort of like labeling creationism "intelligent design."
- MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
  The name won't affect it's constitutionality and they know it, but as others have pointed out it's politically beneficial to say they voted for the "protection of children" and their opponents voted against it.
- pavel_lishin 10y ago
  I'd wager they love porn. I would bet a de-filtering fee that the person who wrote this specifically loves the kind of porn that looks like human trafficking porn, in fact. But he has to signal to his constituency - most of whom probably enjoy porn as well, but can't be seen to - that he shares their surface values.

forrestbrazeal 10y ago

Here is the full text of the proposed bill: http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess122_2017-2018/bills/3003.htm http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess122_2017-2018/bills/3003.htm

sailfast 10y ago
Reading the article was upsetting. Reading the actual law being proposed, however, is even worse. Gobsmacked. I am not sure how any lawmaker or attorney viewing this bill would be able to press ahead with this. "What about the first amendment?" "Oh, nevermind that - they can pay to remove the filter." "...?! I guess Freedom isn't free after all, but I didn't think that's what that meant. Are you going to manage the filter?" "No, the companies will manage it - it won't cost us a thing to block the traffic of the whole state. People will just do it for us, you know, because we tell them so." "...?" > COMPANY MUST: "make reasonable and ongoing efforts to ensure that the digital content blocking capability functions properly, including establishing a reporting mechanism such as a website or call center to allow for a consumer to report unblocked obscene content or report blocked content that is not obscene" This is far more than the $20 cost it purports to be.
- jaclaz 10y ago
  >... such as a website or call center to allow for a consumer to report unblocked obscene content or report blocked content that is not obscene... How would the customer be able to ever get to know that a (non-obscene) blocked site actually exists? I mean short of using a no-filter-installed device i.e. paying 20 bucks anyway.
- Beltiras 10y ago
  Phone Center! Imagine that. "Yes, the URL reads: doubleu-doubleu-doubleu dot ......."
TheGrumpyBrit 10y ago
OK, let's do this. "A business, manufacturer, wholesaler, or individual that manufactures, distributes, or sells a product that makes content accessible on the Internet is prohibited from doing business in this State unless the product contains an active and operating digital blocking capability that renders any obscenity, as defined in Section 16-15-305, inaccessible. The business, manufacturer, wholesaler, or individual must: (1) make reasonable and ongoing efforts to ensure that the digital content blocking capability functions properly, including establishing a reporting mechanism such as a website or call center to allow for a consumer to report unblocked obscene content or report blocked content that is not obscene; (2) ensure that all child pornography and revenge pornography is inaccessible on the product; (3) prohibit the product from accessing any hub that facilitates prostitution; and (4) render websites that are known to facilitate any trafficking of persons, as defined in Section 16-3-2010(9), inaccessible." What is "a product that makes content accessible on the internet"? A computer? A router? A telephone line? Or does the computer simply access things which are already accessible, in which case we're talking about webservers and the like? Since this applies to an individual too, does this mean you can't sell your old computer unless you set up a method for people to report things they shouldn't see on there? Leaving aside the practical fact that it's impossible to do, given that it is (presumably) illegal to access child pornography, how is somebody supposed to "ensure that all of it is inaccessible" without breaking the law? How would one report blocked content that isn't obscene? How can you know it's not obscene if you can't access it? I can't face reading the rest of it. The first paragraph is already making my brain hurt.

robmaister 10y ago

In the unlikely case of this law passing as written, I'd like to see it blow up in their faces when manufacturers and sellers simply choose not to sell devices in SC.

funnyfacts365 10y ago
You trust the industry too much, or you're naive. All of them will do whatever it takes to make money. See Cisco and the GFW, for example.
- jonwachob91 10y ago
  You overestimate the greed of today's leaders. See Uber bailing from Austin because of unfriendly regulation. It's true the the original post is too broad, but if just Apple, Microsoft, and Google decided to stop selling devices in S.C. that might be enough to oust a large number of state officials and get the law overturned by the next senate/congress.
  - robmaister 10y ago
    Yeah this is pretty much what I was thinking. There will still be plenty of companies that will install the government-mandated malware with glee (or raise prices by $20), but I think there would be enough pushback from a few large companies that it would get overturned pretty quickly. Uber + Lyft in Austin is a good example, so is PayPal + others in NC over HB2.
  - technofiend 10y ago
    I'm still willing to lay money that Uber returns to Austin by SXSW. They can cry regulatory malfeasance all they want but there's too much brand recognition opportunity lost if they skip SXSW.
    - jonwachob91 10y ago
      UBER doesn't need to sacrifice it's position in it's battle with Austin over a little brand awareness at a conference where everyone already knows who UBER is... If anything the absence of UBER and Lyft at SXSW will be louder than if they returned.

theandrewbailey 10y ago

This is another politician conspiring to raise taxes to enlarge government, harm small businesses, and kill jobs. Wait. The guy that wants this is a Republican? WTF?

omginternets 10y ago
>The guy that wants this is a Republican? WTF? Is this feigned surprise or real surprise? This kind of thing always comes from republicans (for an approximate definition of "always").

xfactor973 10y ago

What's next? Chastity belts and witch burning lol

antihero 10y ago
$20 for a chastity belt seems like a bargain to be honest.
- vidarh 10y ago
  A quick search on Amazon shows that you can get "low end" chastity devices for both men and women around that price point (I am not sure whether I look forward to seeing the ads that will now follow me around the web for the next few days, but who knows what I'll learn) EDIT: Startup idea: Fetish toy in the form of a chastity device that gives the wearer an electric shock if they try to access blocked sites. I love the thought of "abusing" such a filter to power a BDSM toy that the supporters of the bill will surely find obscene.
  - jmcdiesel 10y ago
    Ok, is it wrong that my first thought had nothing to do with the actual content... (from you EDIT) ... but instead immediately was like "Shit, yeah... the person on the site could open "banned" sites in an iframe remotely... like a remote controlled dog collar" ... So yeah, i just go right to the tech... engineer life... I don't know if i love or hate the "problem" of seeing everything as a problem with a solution to be found..
    - vidarh 10y ago
      I think the audience for a device like that would see the ability to intentionally trigger it remotely as a feature, not a bug.
  - fosco 10y ago
    Joking aside, I think this would sell like mulled wine at the Christmas Market in Vienna. add a smartphone app that does the same when you walk into a store or church, or go into a 'pokemon gym' (capability to react to augmented reality)

Tepix 10y ago

Has anyone checked if this is fake news site? It seems hard to believe...

finid 10y ago
You don't know South Carolina...
vel0city 10y ago
While I've had a hard time finding good information about this source, the bill is real. http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess122_2017-2018/bills/3003.htm http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess122_2017-2018/bills/3003.htm

andriesm 10y ago

"the Human Trafficking Prevention Act would require manufacturers or sellers to install digital blocking capabilities on computers and other devices that access the internet to prevent the viewing of obscene content." What does plain vanilla adult materials have to do with child trafficking????! And how will it make children safer if a simple tax can get around it? You gotta question the motives here

Crespyl 10y ago
I assume the bit where individuals would have to pay to have the filter removed would immediately put them on a list.
- Cyph0n 10y ago
  It would end up being a huge list, so I don't really see how that would help.
MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
> What does plain vanilla adult materials have to do with child trafficking????! Yea, it's basically a morality tax wrapped in child-protection language. To a certain puritanical set, the difference is indistinguishable. It's a similar rhetorical strategy to saying that anti-gay laws are for the protection of children, or anti-trans laws are for the protection of cis women.

0xcde4c3db 10y ago

What are the odds that the sponsors know this bill is garbage, and only proposed it for the sake of having the opposition on record "voting for sexual exploitation of children"? I know this kind of rhetoric (distorting votes against a bill to be votes for the opposite, most commonly: all votes against any bill including a tax cut => "Senator Johnson voted for higher taxes 4194304 times") is used regularly, but I don't know how much of a stretch it is that someone would propose a bill primarily to fuel it.

woodruffw 10y ago
That's probably not what's happening in this case (this is just good, old-fashioned puritanism), but what you're referring to is exactly what a certain party did in congress for a few decades with flag-burning bills and amendments.
noxToken 10y ago
I don't think it's that only reason. However, it serves as a great talking point when campaigning against an opponent. Imagine having to defend against, "Candidate X voted against the Human Trafficking Prevention Act!" when you and other privy voters know it's stop the turd hidden underneath the polished gold.

zelon88 10y ago

The same politician who's public office website has a disclaimer on their contact form which reads: "Notice: This form may not be fully-compatible with Google Chrome. If you are experiencing issues sending a message while using Chrome, please try another web browser." Figures, the same guy who thinks this is practical is the same guy who says to people surfing his website that it's not compatible with the number one internet browser in the world. Why does government choose to be ignorant about technology? And why do we accept political ignorance of technology?

bjelkeman-again 10y ago
My theory why government choose to be ignorant about technology is that for them technology too often dictates its own terms (or the developers behind tech). Tech often drives societal change faster than politicians can (cars, mobile phones, internet, antibiotics, are a few examples). This is very uncomfortable for politicians so they prefer to dictate how tech should work instead, regardless if it is a good idea or even feasible.

finid 10y ago

So of all the issues that South Carolina has, this one is the most pressing for that elected official to address. Not really surprising, because this type of legislation tends to come from Red states. There was the one in Texas about high school cheer leaders not be able to make certain moves because they're too suggestive.

bandrami 10y ago

India tried this a couple of years ago. Ask them how well it worked. (Particularly since it involved publishing a list of 800 specifically blocked sites.) OTOH global VPN services were ecstatic.

drallison 10y ago

Pornography is not illegal in the US. Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_in_the_United_Stat..., has a good summary of the legal situation.

geff82 10y ago

Sometimes I suspect lawmakers are among the dumbest of all possible human beings.

maxerickson 10y ago
Hanlon's razor? I think in the case of many politicians it's necessary to invoke the 'adequately' and look for the malice.
- omegaham 10y ago
  I wouldn't call it malice - just indifference. A politician's job is to get reelected. Ideally, he gets reelected by doing a good job, but that's not actually necessary (and it might not even be a good idea in some circumstances). His goal is to energize a base of excited, passionate voters who will overwhelm any challenges to the incumbency. After all, most people don't vote, so if he has a reliable, excited base, he is guaranteed victory. And you don't do that through rational thought. You do that by appealing to people who are easy to rile up with fear, hate, and prejudice. Fear and hate drives people to the polls. Educated opinion makes people shrug and stay home because they don't feel that strongly about it. What better way to rile up fear than talking about sex trafficking and children? Raise this specter of menace over the good people of this state and demonstrate that you're going to Do Something About It. Never mind the fact that your proposed measure does absolutely nothing to prevent sex trafficking and has catastrophic side effects - the electorate couldn't give less of a fuck about that because they vote based on feels, not reals. This isn't malice; it's just "I'll say whatever I need to say and do whatever I need to do to stay in office." It's a symptom of a societal ill, not a personal one. If this Congressman wasn't willing to do it, he would be replaced by a Congressman who would. --- And before people start chiming in with GOP-hatred, the Democrats do the exact same thing, especially at the local level.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    I disagree, politicians acting like their job is to get reelected is malice.
- 10y ago

CodeSheikh 10y ago

What about non-internet media? There are still laptops being sold with DVD players. Laptops have USB and media card slots. I mean would not it make much better sense to put (let's assume for the sake of argument such filters do work in reality) this filter at ISP level? There are countries who are very good at blocking obscene and political content to a great accuracy. Human trafficking is a much bigger problem that unfortunately cannot be solved with a 20 bucks filter. It is unfortunate to read that apparently in the eyes of the policy-makers this is a “beginning point” of a solution to a gruesome issue.

EGreg 10y ago

"We're not being political"?

dTal 10y ago

The mindset that would even produce such an idea is incredibly dangerous. A computer-naive person might think that requiring that all computers be sold with specific software installed is no more burdensome that requiring that all cars be sold with safety belts. But we all know that making the infrastructure to actually enforce such a rule would lead us to Stallman's worst dystopian nightmare: a Central Authority that somehow dictates what must, and what cannot, run on your computer. There's still a real danger that something like this will come to pass, especially when all the popular OSs come from centralised vendors upon whom pressure can be applied.

pjc50 10y ago
It's not the first time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-chip https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-chip (Apparently this is still in production, and therefore presumably in today's modern "Smart TVs". Haven't heard anything about it for years)
- sqeaky 10y ago
  In practice the V-chip didn't dial out and couldn't really accept orders from a central authority. A v-chip owner could set programs of a given rating to not be displayed without a password. I suppose the system could have been suborned to make all tv shows have the most strict rating blocking it on TV with the chip enabled... but if you have that power you can just turn off the TV signal. Anyway the lack of central control prevented it from being meaningful.
drzaiusapelord 10y ago
>The mindset that would even produce such an idea is incredibly dangerous. To be fair, politicians and computer policy has always been poor and the USA just voted someone in who asked a foreign power to find his opponents emails and uses the term "the cyber" frequently. In other words, I suspect its going to get worse before it gets better. >a Central Authority that somehow dictates what must, and what cannot.... Append "be done" and that's the very definition of government. Typically humans without government is a recipe for failure, so its not the existence of government per-se that's the issue. The larger question is why government in many countries, including the USA, are failing on such an abysmal level for what should be basic tasks like regulating computer issues. The elephant in the room here seems to be a strong anti-intellectual atmosphere and strongman politics taking root and winning elections of late worldwide. Voters are seeking this stuff out. That's the problem.

logfromblammo 10y ago

Let's perform a thought experiment. Imagine yourself a little print shop. Now dream up a movable-type printing press and bolt it down in the workroom. Give yourself a few trays of letters, and some ink and paper. Give it some late-1780s appropriate decor. Now imagine that Mr. Legis Socaro barges into your print shop one fine day and demands that you install a device on your press that prevents you from printing the word "aſshole" with it. How much does that device cost, in relation to the cost of your press? Let's bear in mind that Mr. Socaro has not provided you with any such device to install, the plans to build one, nor even any expectation that any suitable device has been invented yet. Might as well cite the article as the "Computer Trafficking Prevention Act".

OliverJones 10y ago
And, don't forget that the first book printed was the Bible. Of the next ten thousand, many were smut. Civilization survived.

Beltiras 10y ago

The lack of insight into how computers work is breathtaking.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

hogrammer 10y ago

The anti-human trafficking people in the US are very dangerous. They're mostly on the Left.

manny5d 10y ago

Here is the representatives contact information for the curious. http://www.scstatehouse.gov/member.php?code=0351704504 http://www.scstatehouse.gov/member.php?code=0351704504

vivekd 10y ago

I'm going to take an unpopular view and say that I think this bill is a good idea. . . I use digital blocking software on my laptop now, I use bluecoat's K9 software which is an effective way to avoid thins like pornography, hate speech, and other similar content that I would prefer not to see. I think many people feel the same way and would like a safer internet except they don't really know they have options for filtering. In churches they often promote software like covenant eyes, which is useless crap, so that tells me that the average person doesn't really know about effective filtering software. The 20 dollar fee isn't a bad idea either. It will ensure that minors don't have free access to porn. I suspect that many parents, having the option to filter the internet for their kids, will choose to do so, I know I would. Also internet porn and certain types of internet directories are some of the biggest contributors to human trafficking, so it is only reasonable that people who use these services pay something to help government deal with some of the social problems that these services produce. Just as we have a tire tax on drivers so that those who user the roads can help pay for them, so too we can have a very small one time premium on users of porn sites to help pay for human trafficking. Also, by sending unfiltered internet to people as default, we have created a norm for the internet filled with sexual content and hate speech. By creating a new default, and insisting on filtering as the default, we can create a new norm by which people come with a much safer internet experience.

codingdave 10y ago
I use k9, too, but that doesn't mean I want the state government enforcing my use of it. That is censorship, and censoring at the hardware/manufacturer level seem very wrong to me. What if it was not about porn? What if they said you could not research your religion? What if you could not visit political sites? It is a worrisome precedent.
- vivekd 10y ago
  It's not censorship because people still have access to it. The supreme court has already held it's okay to put small reasonable restrictions on certain types of speech so long as you don't forbid it altogether. Putting a small fee on obscenity to prevent access by minors and fund human trafficking is well within the bounds of the first amendment. Free speech is not some pure beautiful ideal concept. It exists solely as a creation of the constitution as interpreted by the Supreme court. And there is strong precedent from the Supreme court that these types of restrictions are perfectly compatible with the first amendment.

billpg 10y ago

Okay, so I'm shipping my hypothetical computers with a HOSTS file entry that directs Playboy to an invalid IP. Am I conforming with the law?

sandworm101 10y ago

Dont take this seriously. It cannot survive judicial review and they know it. Remember that many legislators just do these things to make conservative bones. The freedom of speach arguments, not to mention the impact on interstate commerce, write themselves.

petiepooo 10y ago

The lady doth protest too much, methinks. -- Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 2 How often have we seen politicians champion an issue only to find out that it's over-compensation for the presence of that issue in their personal life... cough Foley cough

callinyouin 10y ago

This reminds me of a recent conversation I had with a friend. We were discussing some of the crazy things politicians do (corruption, sex scandals, etc.) as well as some of the batshit crazy legislation they come up with (such as this bill), and this led to a discussion on what type of person runs for political office (at least in the US). We generally agreed that many, if not most, politicians probably suffer from some form of megalomania mixed with a strong desire for power over others. These are not positive personality traits in general, but especially not for people in positions of power. Intelligent, well-meaning, balanced people generally do not seem to suffer from these traits and perhaps that's why we seem to have a lack of them in office (since they don't run in the first place). This seems like a fundamental problem at the very core of US politics, and I'm not sure what could be done about it. We obviously can't restrict people from running for office on the basis of personality faults, and we certainly can't force people who would make better candidates to run (especially given how subjective that is). Disclaimer: This is all obviously conjecture, and I don't have any sort of extensive knowledge in political science or anything related.

impendia 10y ago

As a South Carolina resident, I'm confident this won't happen. Right-wingers introduce nutty bills all the time here (example: Lee Bright introduced [1] a bill to have South Carolina make its own currency), and they get a fair amount of attention, but for the most part they don't have enough clout to run the state. If this bill gets any traction, lobbyists from BMW (factory in Spartanburg, SC), Boeing (Charleston), and other big business interests will see to it that it is defeated. [1] http://www.goupstate.com/news/20110212/sen-lee-bright-sc-should-coin-its-own-money http://www.goupstate.com/news/20110212/sen-lee-bright-sc-sho...

dv_dt 10y ago
I think there is a problem relying on big business to fight such fights. I wouldn't think they would care except that it would be a tax on equipment they might use, but that could be sidestepped in a number of ways. The businesses could just get a commercial exemption written into the law or just import their compute gear from a remote division.

andrewclunn 10y ago

Is it horrible of me to hope that this means that popular porn sites will soon harass users from South Carolina, telling them to try Linux?

LinuxBender 10y ago

Would this not hurt SC more than it helps? If everyone is forced to purchase electronics online, then will local stores not suffer? How will they enforce this for online purchases? Maybe Amazon would eventually give in. There are many places to buy computers online. Am I missing something?

OliverJones 10y ago

C'mon people. We're trying to use facts to negotiate. In the USA post 2017, everybody is entitled to their own facts, but not their own opinions. So, it's entirely pointless to use facts (such as the fact that the internet is hard to censor even with Great Firewall of China scale infrastructure) in conversations with elected officials. Facts are in the eye of the beholder. Facts are just "smart" people yakking away spouting stuff that's contrary to established opinion. So, our facts are wrong. Get over it. We can't convince people whose livelihood depend on sticking to established opinion. How do you counter this kind of stuff? 1. Say yes. 2. Do whatever you were doing before. 3. If a jurisdiction imposes some kind of tax on some kind of product, just say that it's contrary to established opinion for businesses to collect new taxes for governments. 4. Do whatever you were doing before. I lived for a while in an open-town-meeting town in New England. Occasionally the townspeople would vote in two contradictory articles, giving contradictory instructions to the town manager or public works department. In those cases, the moderator often said, "It's possible the town manager won't be able to obey article 7 without violating article 8. Do you want to do anything about that before we adjourn tonight? Do I hear a motion to reconsider?" THAT's the way to deal with this stuff: let the legislative machinery deal with conflicts in established opinion.

DennisP 10y ago

What does the bill say about wiping your hard disk and installing Linux?

tyingq 10y ago

Confusing tweet from the bill's sponsor: https://twitter.com/BillChumleySC/status/702746882385248256 https://twitter.com/BillChumleySC/status/702746882385248256

bovermyer 10y ago

Even if passed, this would be unenforceable. Pornography is notoriously difficult to define in a legal context; see Jacobellis v Ohio. Miller v California further explores the issue and attempts to lay some kind of groundwork for definition, but it's still very subjective.

a3n 10y ago
> Pornography is notoriously difficult to define That's the beauty of such a scheme, you can go after anyone just by making a "pornography" case, without being constrained by definitions. It widens prosecution and control tremendously.

tdy721 10y ago

It's not the $20 taxes that worry me. It's the government mandate that software be installed on my devices. It seems like a new thing to me, forced software?

mikebay 10y ago

Bill, why not "fake news" block also ? Bill, you start to be late from train, mate. China did that 40 years ago!

ChrisLM 10y ago

For the record, Bill Chumlee is not a terribly bright man. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/24/bill-chumley-charleston-shooting_n_7653182.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/24/bill-chumley-charle...

philip142au 10y ago

Isn't violence worse than porn?

thrillgore 10y ago

Having just gotten back from South Korea, a country with a massive, state-run filter for "porn," all I can keep thinking is that such ideas are always subject to abuse. The mechanisms to protect "the children" already exist as third party software and alternative DNS. Shit, how would South Carolina IMPLEMENT such filtering?