Print this article | E-mail this article | Comment on this article

House votes to tighten net child porn regulations

By BetaNews Staff, BetaNews

December 6, 2007, 8:40 AM

The US House of Representatives late Wednesday approved a measure by a vote of 409-2, to expand the responsibilities of ISPs to reign in child pornography on their servers.

Under the new law, Internet service providers will be required to preserve child pornography images as evidence, and report to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children the online screen names and locations of suspected child predators, along with the times when the images in question were accessed.

Fines would be levied on ISPs that do not cooperate. If an incident is not reported, an ISP could be fined $150,000 per image per day, which would increase the penalty by three times. If the ISP fails to do so again, the fine would double. The bill will now be passed on to the Senate for approval, where it is expected to pass.

Add a Comment (15 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

By xyzcb1

posted Dec 7, 2007 - 6:48 AM

This is getting me sick. I thought this is a free country, aka for people. Why do we need the government tell us how to live our life? We don't need a big government, we need a small government like how it is intended for. Just let free market to work it out. This "enhancement" doesn't do a damn thing, except make our life (in this case, ISP) miserable. The predators can always host it with some off shore host.

Score: 0

By Ruf

posted Dec 6, 2007 - 9:30 PM

Looks like the ISPs will risk heavier penalties than the child predators. $150,000 per image per day? Thats nuts.
Might as well require the US Postal Service to inspect every piece of mail for child porn.

Score: 0

By Scary Guy

posted Dec 7, 2007 - 4:01 AM

Stop giving them ideas. They're already eroding away most of our rights as it is and it's always under the banner of "Child Pornography" or "Anti-Terrorism". Makes me sick to my stomach.

Score: 0

By Galway

posted Dec 6, 2007 - 3:18 PM

I feel sorry for the person sifting though all this crap, they must really need therapy.

And what about all the thumbnails attached to all too many sites containing dubious content, they constitute having it stored on the computer unless you take precautions.

Warez and crack down loaders will show up like a millionaire in a wh*** house.

Would be a database worth some money.

Score: 0

By zridling

posted Dec 6, 2007 - 2:39 PM

I'm thinking the only people who know more about porn and prostitution than anyone else is republican congressmen. Between the DC madam and "wide-stance" Larry Craig and serial molester Mark Foley, maybe we should start by arresting that bunch of pervs first.

Score: 0

By Scotch Moose

posted Dec 6, 2007 - 12:07 PM

Congress has found the root password to the constitution: child porn.

Score: 0

By Silentmaster101

posted Dec 6, 2007 - 11:48 AM

i would like to read this bill myself, because although child porn is horrible, unless the government is paying the ISP's to monitor it and making sure that privacy isnt imposed upon, the bill must be bulls***, either to increase abilities to monitor the internet by the feds or as a ploy to get whoever proposed it elected.

Score: 0

By NULLedge

posted Dec 6, 2007 - 10:30 AM

everyone can agree that child porn is bad. closer and closer to election year, who wants to be the guy on the ballot that complained this was stupid. 2 people i guess. probably the only two that read the thing.

that said, i havent read the damn thing and im not an ISP but after the 2257 reversal i'd be really interested to see what the hell they're trying to do with this one and how they plan to make it stick. 2257 was ridiculous for web hosts. i hope they learned something from the last flop.

Score: 0

By dhjdhj

posted Dec 6, 2007 - 9:14 AM

I have no problem with this in theory - people involved in child pornography need to be put away for multiple lifetimes.

Having said that, how exactly is an ISP supposed to preserve such images without first finding them? And how do they FIND them without capturing and keeping EVERYTHING, essentially permanently, and then having that information available for any "legitimate" requester, i.e. a significant impact on privacy?

As for child pornographers, they will simply encrypt everything (if they're not already), making this law useless.

Score: 0

By Galway

posted Dec 6, 2007 - 3:20 PM

Credit card transaction and accessing it is enough, at least it is here in the UK.

Score: 0

By Budgie29

posted Dec 6, 2007 - 9:24 AM

Big Brother again ..... but i do nthink the penality is abit steep .. how can they monior all the traffic

I do agree they should be locked up and only come out in a wodden box and should be catrated

or better still swing them from the gallows then it would not cost £2000 a week just to keep them

Score: 0

By DataWeasel

posted Dec 6, 2007 - 8:57 AM

Who are the 2 who voted against it and do they want to be re-elected next year?

Score: 0

By ehn

edited Dec 6, 2007 - 7:24 PM

I side with the two Republicans that voted against the bill, Rep. Ron Paul and Rep. Paul Broun.

Nobody here is against protecting the young, and there are already laws out there that provide such protections. Not only is this bill redundant and therefore provides no real protection, it is unconstitutional.

The bill is forcing providers to report cartoon images of all things.

(...obscene visual depictions including a "drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting.")
http://www.news.com/8301...-38.html?tag=nefd.pulse

Damn what the Constitution says, just push forward bills with awesome sounding acronym names and claim they are to protect the children. It takes no thought or effort, nor does this law actually protect the young because, as stated, there are already laws in place.

The ones that voted for the bill aren't doing it for you, they are only preying upon your vulnerabilities to serve themselves.

The ones that voted against the bill, they are the ones fulfilling their sworn duties to uphold the Constitution.

Score: 0

By Scotch Moose

edited Dec 6, 2007 - 10:54 AM

Ron Paul was one of the two. He voted against it because it is unconstitutional and outside of the authority of the congress.

Not only is he running for reelection he is also running for President. You can register republican and vote to restore the authority of our Constitution by voting for Ron Paul.

Score: 0

By dvferret

posted Dec 6, 2007 - 9:55 AM

Yea im wondering what their reasonings for thier votes are.

Score: 0

Sep 5 - 7:10 PM ET Red Hat buys virtualization specialist Qumranet

Sep 5 - 7:06 PM ET Analysts: Online news viewers rising as newspaper readership falls

Sep 5 - 6:55 PM ET Where does Sarah Palin stand on technology issues?

Sep 5 - 6:51 PM ET Adobe Flash to deliver NFL games in full

Sep 5 - 4:29 PM ET Exclusive beta invitation from GameTap and BetaNews

Sep 5 - 4:09 PM ET Report: OLPC buy one, give one deal returns

Sep 5 - 3:45 PM ET No ruling yet in TiVo vs. EchoStar patent case

Sep 5 - 3:37 PM ET Google Analytics starts tracking Chrome, with intriguing results

Sep 5 - 2:14 PM ET Comcast challenges FCC's authority in sanction appeal

Sep 5 - 2:06 PM ET An ad about nothing: First Seinfeld + Gates ad omitted Vista