Mandatory Wi-Fi Logs for Citizens?

[XnavxeMiyyep]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10168114-38.html


Republican politicians on Thursday called for a sweeping new federal law that would require all Internet providers and operators of millions of Wi-Fi access points, even hotels, local coffee shops, and home users, to keep records about users for two years to aid police investigations.

Because obviously home users should be mandated to record all of their internet activity for two years, and have the money and technical knowledge to do so.

How could they justify BS like this? Oh wait...

"While the Internet has generated many positive changes in the way we communicate and do business, its limitless nature offers anonymity that has opened the door to criminals looking to harm innocent children," U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, said at a press conference on Thursday. "Keeping our children safe requires cooperation on the local, state, federal, and family level."

THE CHILDREN! THINK OF THE CHILDREN! It seems that no one is scared of terrorists anymore, so politicians are reverting to tried and true methods of using children to scare people into authoritarian laws.

The bill is even called the "Internet Stopping Adults Facilitating the Exploitation of Today's Youth Act," or Internet SAFETY Act, for short.

Call your representatives today to help explain why this is both unreasonable and unfeasible. This bill has been introduced in both the senate and the house.

[és:]

THE CHILDREN! THINK OF THE CHILDREN! It seems that no one is scared of terrorists anymore, so politicians are reverting to tried and true methods of using children to scare people into authoritarian laws.


The problem is that it works. It really seems to work.

[Gelfin]

Fears of Internet predators unfounded, study finds (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/28029.html)

To summarize, if your child is going to be unwillingly assaulted, it's going to be while she (usually "she") is out in public, not at home typing on the computer. There are practically no pedophiles (defined as predators who target prepubescent children) online. Sex acts between teens and adults facilitated by the Internet fall overwhelmingly into the "statutory rape" category. The teen, usually already troubled otherwise, knows he or she is meeting an adult for the purpose of consensual sex.

If you are worried about your children being molested, don't worry about strangers online. Worry about your father, your brother, your neighbor or your priest, because by the numbers that's almost always who does it -- somebody you trust. If you are worried about your child being abducted, take a careful look at your estranged spouse, because that's where that comes from.

A truly dangerous child abductor doesn't need to hatch a complicated plan involving the Internet when going to the park and claiming to have a lost puppy would still get the job done, but this sort of assault is vanishingly rare. When it happens it makes news, but news is by definition something that happens rarely. You hear about practically every stereotypical child abduction that happens anywhere. You don't hear about the approximately one in three (http://www.womenofsubstance.org/sexabuse.htm) girls who are molested by a family member or acquaintance before eighteen.

This is yet another instance of an idiot believing that technology is simultaneously the cause of and the solution to all life's problems. This isn't where the problem is, as demonstrated. The solution would require re-engineering the devices, and even so, if I were going to use a Wi-Fi access point for Evil™, I'd use a device that let me assign a random MAC address every time I connected anyway. Are we going to expensively rearchitect an entire industry to prevent something that almost never happens and, in most of the cases when it does, could have been better prevented by better parental communication?

[XnavxeMiyyep]

The problem is that it works. It really seems to work.
Yeah. :( At least they have to keep changing the imaginary enemy, but they can continuously reuse the children.


To summarize, if your child is going to be unwillingly assaulted, it's going to be while she (usually "she") is out in public, not at home typing on the computer.

Exactly. You can't physically hurt a child over the internet (and identity theft doesn't really apply here, since children tend not to have credit cards). When a child is outside, s/he can be physically harmed by predators. Obviously, this means that we should be required to keep track of every single person who walks on the sidewalks!

[jonbravo77]

, could have been better prevented by better parental communication?

This is what it boils down to. Let the government parent this children because the parents are unwilling or sadly incapable to do it themselves.

Just a side not to this (and identity theft doesn't really apply here, since children tend not to have credit cards) Identity theft using kids is becoming more and more common because no one thinks to check and make sure the kids identity is safe.

[XnavxeMiyyep]

Just a side not to this Identity theft using kids is becoming more and more common because no one thinks to check and make sure the kids identity is safe.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/15/earlyshow/living/ConsumerWatch/main1210020.shtml

I stand corrected. I guess it is becoming a problem for teens.

Regardless, this legislation won't magically protect kids from all the "child predators" on the internet.


This is yet another instance of an idiot believing that technology is simultaneously the cause of and the solution to all life's problems.

Or it is a power grab by the government. Laws that are impossible to follow make everyone a criminal.

[Counterfit]

This is yet another instance of an idiot believing that technology is simultaneously the cause of and the solution to all life's problems.

Agreed. All reasonable people know that distinction belongs to beer.

[mactastic]

Agreed. All reasonable people know that distinction belongs to beer.
Actually, I thought it was alcohol in general...

[stevento]

such a mandate on home users sounds unconstitutional.

[iJohnHenry]

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g158/MouseMeat/Picture1-28.png

:p