Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Senate Bill Would Make Clandestine Video Taping Illegal

chrisd posted more than 12 years ago | from the no-hidden-cameras-in-the-capitol-building dept.

United States 880

happyclam writes "CNN says that Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) is announcing a new combination bill that would do two things: (a) outlaw filming someone via hidden camera without their permission except in public places, and (b) provide for an adult-only domain such as .prn where all non-child-safe sites (pr0n, hate speech, etc.) would be relegated--the sites would have to give up their .com/.org/.net domains they own today. The first part makes sense, but the second clearly treads on free speech to some extent and will have a hard time going through, I imagine." I wonder if having an actor at the press conference is a new requirement for a bill to be introduced in congress.

cancel ×

880 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

oh my (-1)

trollercoaster (250101) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360227)


Thanks bone-o-matic!

Re:oh my (0)

Ralph Malph Alpha (551824) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360233)

Looks like someone's been eating his Fasty-Os breakfast cereal. I mean, HOT DAMN!

CLIT reaffirms reverence of Trollercoaster (-1)

TrollBridge (550878) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360264)

Once again, the CLIT (Community of Logged-In Trolls) bows before you.

Illegal goatse.cx (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3360231)

* g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x *
g g
o / \ \ / \ o
a \ a
t `. : t
s` \ s
e \ / / \\\ -- \\ : e
x \ \/ --~~ ~-- \ x
* \ \-~ ~-\ *
g \ \ .--------.___\ g
o \ \// ((> \ o
a \ . C ) ((> / a
t /\ C )/ \ (> / t
s / /\ C) EMAD (> / \ s
e ( C__)\___/ // _/ / \ e
x \ \\// (/ x
* \ \) `---- --' *
g \ \ / / g
o / \ o
a / \ \ a
t / / \ t
s / / \/\/ s
e / e
x x
* g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x * g o a t s e x *

Re:Illegal goatse.cx (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3360318)

It's great to see the goatse.cx ASCII art back on Slashdot. But you must tell me, how are you able to get it past the lameness filter?

What about (5, Insightful)

Pxtl (151020) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360237)

other countries? Could still end up with exotic asian scat porn on .com or .org domains. The internet is not .USA.

Perhaps automatically offerening free transfer .prn so sex.com becomes sex.com.prn would help. But still, this would be messy.

Re:What about (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3360263)

...messy... nice porn pun...

Re:What about (3, Funny)

LordKariya (195696) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360286)

What is this chick thinking ? What's next, appointing a $95 million committee to study the effects of AnalSluts.com vs AnalSluts.prn ?

They are Still Anal Sluts !

Re:What about (3, Insightful)

MonkeyBot (545313) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360302)

Yeah, but Verisign IS in the USA--everything that they don't control would have a country's extension (.uk, .de, etc.) after it.

Stupid. (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3360238)

That means I can't set up video tape surveillence inside my house?

So now my house has less privledge than a public place.

I guess its not my "castle" anymore. Its just a nuisance to this numbskull.

Re:Stupid. (2, Informative)

Pxtl (151020) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360298)

Yes, you can - you just have to have a sign out front informing any visitors that they're being watched. If they don't like it, they shouldn't enter.

This prevents you from legally being able to blackmail visitors with things that supposedly occured in privacy. Imagine a sex-toy shop - costomers want to feel safe knowing that they are not being taped as they enter and exit the store.

Really, I'm still worried about public places - I mean, I don't like the idea that "insert bank name here" knows every time I walk by (not into) one of their machines, which they could do with face recognition.

Re:Stupid. (1)

u01000101 (574295) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360311)

That means I can't set up video tape surveillence inside my house?

No, it means perverts won't be able to *legally* tape you in your own house; it's a *good* thing, lighten up...

Re:Stupid. (1)

filbert009 (564686) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360375)

I agree.... you come in my house, you are going to see a plaque (if this goes thru) Warning Video Cameras Active Here IF you have a problem with it DONT enter

Free speech (4, Informative)

blankmange (571591) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360239)

So once all the porn and everything else that isn't wanted is relegated to the .prn domain, what then? Conveniently, DNS serves begin losing their registrations? And who decides what goes into the .prn category? Definitely a free speech issue..... and I won't even start on the video issue......

Re:Free speech (2)

gregfortune (313889) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360272)

But understand that the video idea is much simpler to pass. By piggybacking the .prn issue onto the same bill, they might actually get the .prn issue through into law. Pretty common tactic, I think...

Re:Free speech (1)

sootman (158191) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360376)

By piggybacking the .prn issue onto the same bill, they might actually get the .prn issue through into law.

or, more likely, kill the whole thing because of the stupidity of the .prn part. *that* is what happens all the time. someone tacks on a dumb, unrelated 'rider' and the whole thing dies.

Re:Free speech (2)

Hiro Antagonist (310179) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360303)

Slippery slope; it doesn't follow that the top-level name servers will just start "losing" undesirable domains. After all, look at the wealth of crap that just seems to keep existing in the ".com" namespace...

Join the Navy! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3360250)

Your mother and I have had it up to here with your lying around the house. You must take responsibility for your life. Son, you need to get up off your backside and join the freakin' Navy!

The word "monkey" is of uncertain origin; its first known usage was in 1498 when it was used in the literary work Reynard the Fox as the name of the son of Martin the Ape. "Monkey" has numerous nautical meanings, such as a small coastal trading vessel, single masted with a square sail of the 16th and 17th centuries; a small wooden cask in which grog was carried after issue from a grog-tub to the seamen's messes in the Royal Navy; a type of marine steam reciprocating engine where two engines were used together in tandem on the same propeller shaft; and a sailor whose job involved climbing and moving swiftly (usage dating to 1858). A "monkey boat" was a narrow vessel used on canals (usage dating to 1858); a "monkey gaff" is a small gaff on large merchant vessels; a "monkey jacket" is a close fitting jacket worn by sailors; "monkey spars" are small masts and yards on vessels used for the "instruction and exercise of boys;" and a "monkey pump" is a straw used to suck the liquid from a small hole in a cask; a "monkey block" was used in the rigging of sailing ships; "monkey island" is a ship's upper bridge; "monkey drill" was calisthenics by naval personnel (usage dating to 1895); and "monkey march" is close order march by US Marine Corps personnel (usage dating to 1952). [Sources: Cassidy, Frederick G. and Joan Houston Hall eds. Dictionary of American Regional English. vol.3 (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1996): 642; Wilfred Granville. A Dictionary of Sailors' Slang (London: Andre Deutch, 1962): 77; Peter Kemp ed. Oxford Companion to Ships & the Sea. (New York: Oxford University; Press, 1976): 556; The Oxford English Dictionary. New York: Oxford University Press, 1933; J.E. Lighter ed. Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang. (New York: Random House, 1994): 580.; and Eric Partridge A Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English. 8th ed. (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company): 917.] "Monkey" has also been used within an ordnance context. A "monkey" was a kind of gun or cannon (usage dating to 1650). "Monkey tail" was a short hand spike, a lever for aiming a carronade [short-sight iron cannon]. A "powder monkey" was a boy who carried gun powder from the magazine to cannons and performed other ordnance duties on a warship (usage dating to 1682). [Source: The Oxford English Dictionary. New York: Oxford University Press, 1933.] The first recorded use of the term "brass monkey" appears to dates to 1857 when it was used in an apparently vulgar context by C.A. Abbey in his book Before the Mast, where on page 108 it says "It would freeze the tail off a brass monkey." [Source: Lighter, J.E. ed. Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang. (New York: Random House, 1994): 262.]

It has often been claimed that the "brass monkey" was a holder or storage rack in which cannon balls (or shot) were stacked on a ship. Supposedly when the "monkey" with its stack of cannon ball became cold, the contraction of iron cannon balls led to the balls falling through or off of the "monkey." This explanation appears to be a legend of the sea without historical justification. In actuality, ready service shot was kept on the gun or spar decks in shot racks (also known as shot garlands in the Royal Navy) which consisted of longitudinal wooden planks with holes bored into them, into which round shot (cannon balls) were inserted for ready use by the gun crew. These shot racks or garlands are discussed in: Longridge, C. Nepean. The Anatomy of Nelson's Ships. (Annapolis MD: Naval Institute Press, 1981): 64. A top view of shot garlands on the upper deck of a ship-of-the-line is depicted in The Visual Dictionary of Ships and Sailing. New York: Dorling Kindersley, 1991): 17.

"Brass monkey" is also the nickname for the Cunard Line's house flag which depicts a gold lion rampant on a red field. [Source: Rogers, John. Origins of Sea Terms. (Mystic CT: Mystic Seaport Museum, 1984): 23.

Smoked a little crack this morning did ya? (-1, Offtopic)

Boiler99 (222701) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360312)

I think I'll pass on navy.yourcountry.prn, that brings up too many nasty things altogether.

interesting (0)

djcatnip (551428) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360251)

I think they're going to sink themselves because they're trying to do two things with this bill at the same time. If they'd focus on one issue at a time, they'd be able to get what they want eventually. You're never gonna get every porn site to move to a .prn domain without a fight. If they wanted to outlaw surveilance, they should have run it without this rediculous second part.

Another case of "how do we filter"? (5, Interesting)

zorba1 (149815) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360255)

This reminds me of the recent story of libraries filtering adult content (or not, as the case may be). How does one really determine if something belongs as a .prn versus a .org?

If I show pictures of breasts, am I .prn automagically? What if I run a site on breast cancer? Am I automatically .org?

Re:Another case of "how do we filter"? (5, Funny)

mosch (204) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360284)

and what if you run a site on how to detect breast cancer, by lubricating the breasts, then placing a penis between them and squeezing them together, feeling for lumps?

Re:Another case of "how do we filter"? (2, Interesting)

egad_man (532232) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360305)

Who considers what is porn too, does nudity make it a porn site, and what's the difference between nidity and art?

Re:Another case of "how do we filter"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3360322)

How does one really determine if something belongs as a .prn versus a .org?

I think it is very clear what belongs to a .prn domain. Having something like breast cancer on a site belongs is health related not porn, and what the hell is .prn, I guess it's pronounced dot porn.

Re:Another case of "how do we filter"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3360324)

HTTP Proxy.

Proxy sees an HTTP request of a .prn site? Fuck no, you ain't getting that, junior.

Sure, it's easy to get around, but most people can't do that.

Re:Another case of "how do we filter"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3360364)

I don't think the domain is anywhere to be found in a typical HTTP request... But then how does virtual domain hosting work?

Worried about number one (2, Interesting)

TimeTrip (254631) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360256)

While this applies for only "lewd or lascivious purposes", it might lead the way for more restrictive stuff...

looking at extremeties:

What if you're worried about your babysitter not treating your child right.... Does that mean you can't videotape their behavior because their in your own home?

What about all those "worlds worst employees" video tapes too...

Re:Worried about number one (1)

Grunschev (517745) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360337)

Well, judging by the language of the press release, these wouldn't be affected. Unless you call any of these things "intimate" situations.

Igor

Re:Worried about number one (3, Insightful)

gallen1234 (565989) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360339)

The second to the last paragraph of the article states that the law applies to recordings made for lewd and lascivious purposes. I think that secretly videotaping babysitters for the purpose of monitoring their performance doesn't fall into that category.

An exclusion for public places would seem to permit workplace monitoring.

Re:Worried about number one (1)

Spectrale (572402) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360372)

I was wondering about that myself when I saw a bit about this on TechTV this morning. Nanny cams, parties, security cameras... the list goes one. Seems to me they'd have trouble passing a bill that restricted what you did in your own home, as long as the images weren't published. Now, putting these restrictions on recording in other people's homes and hotel rooms and or/public restrooms makes sense to me. I'm surprised that's not illegal already.

Of course... (2)

damiangerous (218679) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360258)

watch it pass now, because of varying penalties for minors. No matter what other inanity is attached that one provision makes it "for the children."

So (1)

madenosine (199677) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360260)

would they have to ask for permission before taping them or after taping them offter to film over the tape?

Those unfair cocksuckers! (2, Funny)

Profane Motherfucker (564659) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360261)

Holy fucking shit! I'm on the telephone to my reps as soon as I get this profane fucking tirade hammered out.

teenpussy.prn! What's next: restricting .mil and .edu domains only to legitimate military and educational institutions? The nerve of these scatmongers.

Re:Those unfair cocksuckers! (2)

sqlrob (173498) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360355)

Nothing wrong with making .prn porn only IMHO. Doesn't offend me in the least.

Forcing stuff there on the other hand...

In your example: .mil is only for legitimate military sites. So why is the US Marines [marines.com] main site a .com? Those dirty rotten military people - why are they taking valuable .com space. They should stay in their own .mil.

Thought it already was.. (2)

flewp (458359) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360262)

illegal to videotape people without their knowledge/consent. (unless it's in public, IE: at a festival, company picnic, etc)
For instance, if someone comes in for an interview for a job, and a camera is hidden for the purpose of taping the interview, I thought the interviewee had to be notified.

Nope (2)

epepke (462220) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360304)

Legal to videotape, but only without sound.

Re:Thought it already was.. (3, Interesting)

jgerman (106518) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360386)

Hmmm, I thought it was too, at least as far as bathrooms are concerned. There was a special on 60 minutes or something, about upskirting. Some woman was talking about how some guy behind her was filming up her skirt with a camera, and how she called the authorities. Of course it it legal to do that in a public place, as long as he wasn't moving her clothing aside or anything. Just because the visible angle is straight up, doesn't make it suddenly illegal. But that's beside the point. What they didn't seem to address is the practice of filming people in public restrooms, that would seem to me to be on another level. Yes it is a public place, but ostensibly a place provided for privacy in public. I'd be pretty shocked to hear that it's legal to video someone, without sound or no in a public restroom, dressing room ect. As far as taping an interview goes, I can't see how that's a problem though.

Re:Thought it already was.. (5, Informative)

damiangerous (218679) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360391)

It depends on the state. Here's [about.com] a summary of voyeurism laws by state, as well as federal laws.

Re:Thought it already was.. (1)

davburns (49244) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360392)

IANAL, but I think this varies state-to-state;
This would make it illegal everywhere in the USA.

Free speech? (1, Offtopic)

swordboy (472941) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360266)

The first part makes sense, but the second clearly treads on free speech

This does nothing to revoke the freedom priviledges of adults. It only serves to protect minors. What negative outcome could this possibly have other than domain name disputes (which are easily solved)?

Re:Free speech? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3360296)

"This does nothing to revoke the freedom of priviledges of adults"

Say who? You?

Well then, I guess its okay. As long as its okay with YOU.

distinctions? (2, Insightful)

dryueh (531302) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360267)

Under the bill, any person who uses a camera or similar recording device to record another individual either for a lewd or lascivious purpose without that person's consent is in violation of the law

Does anyone else think it's weird that this policy only covers 'video voyerism' when used for lewd or lascivious purposes? If I want to set up a camera to spy on my neighbor's house just to keep tabs on what they're up to, is this allowed or am I just confused?

That seems weird...

Link breakage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3360269)

Free speech? Meh. But domain changes, that would mean all those TGP archives wouldn't work anymore!

Fits right in with the current theme... (1)

eaeolian (560708) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360270)

Isolate the pornographers! Leave cladestine videotaping to the pros! Trust that your representatives in Washington will not abuse their power! (Ok, maybe the last one went too far.)

The .prn idea isn't really bad.. (2)

antis0c (133550) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360271)

.. but the forcing all Porn/Hate Related sites to switch to it obviously is. Who determines what is Porn and what is Hate? Who's going to police this? No one to date has been able to successfully police any of the Internet to effectiveness. If I say I hate the public school system, would the public school system consider that hate speech and request my site be moved to .prn so they can easily filter it? I highly doubt .prn will make it through..

I can see the connection... (5, Funny)

richlb (168636) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360274)

You've got your hate speech in my porn!
You've got your porn in my hate speech!

Introducing new ArianBabesInBondage.prn.

Seriously, who would benefit from this? Serious adult-only sights wouldn't want to be identified with the KKK, and "hate speech" sites wouldn't want to be "adult only".

this is not a federal issue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3360278)

This is one of the areas where addressing this at the federal level oversteps the constitutional authority of the federal government. This should be handled at the state level.

As to forcing the .prn domain, I have no problem if they want to legislate it into existence, but it is a MAJOR issue if they force sites to relocate into it.

der fhrer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3360279)

gnome sucks.

shit (-1)

IAgreeWithThisPost (550896) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360280)

how am i going to videotape all the chicks im boning

.prn (4, Insightful)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360283)

I think that is a bad tld. .adult would be better. This isnt DOS. If a good way to categorize this comes about, I'm for it. The problem is, even victoria's secret magazine is porn to a 14 year old boy from suburbia. But about videotaping... I should be allowed to tape my babysitter in my own house.

Re:.prn (2)

56ker (566853) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360328)

Yes but who decides what's porn and what's not? Can I have the job please? :o)

Re:.prn (1)

TRACK-YOUR-POSITION (553878) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360329)

Yeah, but shouldn't you have to tell the babysitter that you're doing so? I mean, maybe not exactly where you put cameras--but taping someone using your bathroom without their knowledge should be illegal, IMO.

Re:.prn (2, Insightful)

ProfMoriarty (518631) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360351)

I should be allowed to tape my babysitter in my own house.

Totally agree ... however ... to be safer from lawsuits, you may want to inform her that you are taping (whether you tape or not) ... the effect of that may be worth more than showing a video tape (now illegal?) in court.

(Also, don't encourage her to take a shower)

Re:.prn (2)

garett_spencley (193892) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360366)

But about videotaping... I should be allowed to tape my babysitter in my own house.

Tell me about it! Mine is so hot! As long as the wife doesn't find out...

Oh wait. You were talking about something different.

(on a serious note I completely agree. If it's your house you should be able to do whatever you want).

--
Garett

Re:.prn (1)

u01000101 (574295) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360377)

I should be allowed to tape my babysitter in my own house

You are allowed... just prey to God she doesn't take her blouse off. ;)

.prn is a great idea (5, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360288)

Free speech does not give you the right to trick someone or mis-represent yourself..

Granted hoteensluts.com is obvious whitehouse.com IS NOT and is there to only decieve and misrepresent in-order to trick people into their site.

I agree with the .prn part... but we need to Expand it.. FORCE businesses into .biz and .com schools into .edu and only groups and orginazations get .org while internet services providers are forced with .net

Yes... slashdot will have to become a .com because it is a BUSINESS.

it's about damn time someone suggested forcing TLD's to be used correctly.

Re:.prn is a great idea (2)

56ker (566853) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360397)

I'd just like to point out that slashdot.com already redirects to slashdot.org here!

DOH ... (1)

ProfMoriarty (518631) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360289)

Should have dumped my X10 stock yesterday ...

Uh (4, Insightful)

Dr. Ghastly (572776) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360294)

What about video taping babysitters to make sure they don't molest your children? Making it illegal for someone to video tape you in YOUR house who is NOT the owner, ok. Saying the owner can't do what he wants in his own house? I don't think so.

Re:Uh (1)

SlamMan (221834) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360352)

Why would you hire someone you had slightest inkling might molest your children? You've hired someone to be alone in your house with your kids, I'd have hoped you checked into them ahead of time. I know I wouldn't have baby sat for anybody who was taping me, just like most people here wouldn't work at a place where thier boss read theri mail.

Re:Uh (2)

Pxtl (151020) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360384)

You just need permission. Make it clear to the babysitter that they will be taped, and that if they don't like it they should seek employment elsewhere. Of course, you might have to make some concessions (yeah, you can raid the fridge, yeah, you can watch TV) in order to get babysitters that don't mind being watched, but otherwise it should be fine.

Who would police this? (2, Insightful)

al_d (472085) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360295)

Who would be responsible for policing .com websites, to ensure that they remain adult-content free?

If someone posts a linke to goatse on a kiddie's chatboard, would that site be 'relegated' to .prn?

I wonder if they understand the scope of this problem; there are so many grey areas.

Would it be easier to set up a .kids, .family or something domain name, that was guaranteed 'clean' from the start?

Free the nanny cam!!!! (2, Insightful)

DShor (127100) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360297)

Not surprised about this bill at all. You aren't allowed to audio tape someone without prior conscent, why would you be allowed to video tape someone...

This does impact the nanny-cam issue. Far too many bad nannies will get away with beating kids because of this bill if it passes.

As far as the .prn thing, I don't know why people are so against this. If it's porn send it there, it will make it easier for people to find the porn they need, and make it harder for kids to find it.

The third bit... (2)

56ker (566853) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360300)

"the sites would have to give up their .com/.org/.net domains they own today." - it's very unlikely that any webmaster would agree to do that!

Re:The third bit... (2, Insightful)

prizzznecious (551920) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360308)

That's obviously why they're considering passing a bill rather than just asking nicely. Are you braindead?

X10 Cam (3, Funny)

Joe Jordan (453607) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360310)

I'm all for it if this bill makes the X10 advertisements illegal (since they display images of unsuspecting females in private places).

Sounds good to me... (1)

xonker (29382) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360315)

I don't see a problem with relegating porn sites and so forth to a special top-level domain. I've been advocating that for years, though .xxx would be a better one.

I fail to see how that would trample on free speech. I realize that there might be some issues over implementation - which sites are considered "porn" and which are not? If Salon.com runs a article that has a few nude pictures, does that make it porn? What about fictional stories? When do they cross the line from R-rated to X-rated?

However, despite the potential implementation problems, I'd heartily support having a top-level domain exclusively for commercial "adult" content. If it goes through it'd be trivial to block adult sites that comply with this convention, and I'd be fully in favor of prosecuting any sites that intentionally publish obscene material with the intent to allow it to be seen by minors. This is not trampling on free speech any more than requiring adult theatres not to allow people under 17 or 18 (I forget which...) to see X-Rated movies or not allowing kids into nudie bars.

What about links? (2, Insightful)

dachshund (300733) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360316)

Of course, the purpose is to make it easier for the world to block adult sites. The question is, what can they do about people who link to adult sites by IP address, from within an otherwise harmless .com/.net/org site? Seems like that'd be the business of the day, if this thing ever got through.

I can see where this is going... (2, Funny)

Liora (565268) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360320)

This will eventually mean that in the event that /. is deemed unacceptable material or material that could potentially be harmful for minors, and in the event that all .prn sites are fire-walled at my office, I won't be able to read anything interesting during lunch.

Would this make it easier (2)

flewp (458359) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360321)

to track visitors viewing habits? I'm sure it would, but I just don't know how much easier. With this new system, going to .prn sites would automatically mean you were looking at porn or hate-related sites, whereas with .com and the others, it could be anything. www.bigbreasts.com is going to most likely be a porn site, but some of the other names aren't so obvious, unlike sites with a .prn stuck at the end.

Hate speech? (2)

Decimal (154606) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360325)

Hate speech? On a .prn domain? I'm not saying I agree with the idea of moving these around at all, but wouldn't .adu be more appropriate if you're going to file these under the same section? Or perhaps seperate them into .adu and .xxx?

Another politician oversteps her boundaries... (1)

hotgrits (183266) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360327)

Why didn't this Louisiana resident petition her state government for a video surveillance law? This sounds like something that should rightfully be handled by the states.

This - and that wacky adult-domain idea - just goes to show how misguided some politicians can be.

Is .prn censorship? (1)

mckelveyf (263317) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360332)

I'm curious whether .prn would be considered censorship, in terms that is only grouping adult only sites under some common domain name. Isn't that a more effective way of allowing people to avoid adult sites and there by censoring the internet on an individual level. So long as they don't try to control .prn sites I don't see how it is an attack on free speech.

fenn

Damn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3360334)

That's bad news for the city of New York [appliedautonomy.com] .

.PRN domain would be like NC-17 (4, Insightful)

scotch (102596) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360336)

The effect of forcing all porn, hate speech and other undesirables to a new TLD will hava chilling effect on free speech. I think it might turn out a bit like what happened with NC-17 movie ratings. IIRC, the NC-17 movie rating was invented as a label for movies inappropriate for children separate from stigma of X-rated porn movies. However, movie theatres and movie goers still associate porn with NC-17, and movie theatres are reluctant to show these films no matter what the subject matter. Movies with legitimate subject matter (read non-porn ;) ) suffer when they get that rating, and the ratings board uses this power to snuff ideas willy-nilly (see rating of "Requeim for a Dream").

Anyway, a .prn TLD would automatically be associated with porn. ISP and other would be pressured to not even carry this domain. Other non-porn sites and speech placed there would lose exposure and audience.

Who decides whether something is hate-speech? There are many problems with this idea, and few benefits, IMO

Jurisdiction (2)

nick_davison (217681) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360341)

Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) ... (b) provide for an adult-only domain such as .prn where all non-child-safe sites (pr0n, hate speech, etc.) would be relegated--the sites would have to give up their .com/.org/.net domains they own today.


Well, thank God they had the foresight to ensure that the internet was run by the US senate, with the US government having complete jurisdiction over all domain naming issues! Oh, you mean they didn't?


So, what's next, all non government approved stuff has to give up their domains and move to the new .lies domain? Does China get to do that too, or would it be unethical if those evil Communists did the same as patriotic US senators?

Free Speech (1)

estoll (443779) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360343)

How are they going to classify certain sites as being unfit for child viewing without treading on the first amendmant? I don't think the federal government has the right to classify free speech, do they? Or can that fall under some category like movie or video game ratings? What would classify as non-child-safe? Is it fair, if something can be classified as unfit for child viewing, to be furthur classifed in the .prn domain even if it has nothing to do with pornography?

I can see it now (2, Funny)

Joe U (443617) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360344)

But your Honor, we had a notice on display about the videotaping.


"But the plans were on display....."

"On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."

"That's the display department."

"With a torch."

"Ah well, the lights had probably gone."

"So had the stairs."

"But look, you found the notice didn't you?"

"Yes", said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked
filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying
'Beware of the Leopard'"!

- Douglas Adams

Infringing Free speech my ass (3, Informative)

t0qer (230538) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360345)

A long long time ago, in a internet far away..

TLD's were originally MEANT to separate entities on the internet. Then along came the big bad internic who decided what a great idea it would be to WHORE out TLD's to anyone willing to pay the price. Remember when.

.org was for non-profit
.com was for companies
.edu was for schools
.net was for network providers

It's not a free speech issue as much as it's a zoning issue. I don't mean DNS zones, i'm referring to the type of zoning cities do that dictate what kind of businesses go where. You have your industrial zones, your retail zones, your suburban zones, and yes, there are even zones for strip clubs. This kind of zoning doesn't infringe on anyone's right.

One more thing, the Internet is like our public roads, their use is a privilege, not a right. Anyone that abuses that right get's reported to their upstream provider and they disappear off the net faster than you can say "goatse.cx" I'm all for regulating these sites because Iâ(TM)m sick and tired of being tricked into a ZILLION popup ads from these fruity porn sites. Their methods have become more sinister over the years and they need to be put in check. Just because I accidentally or purposefully click a link, it's not a license to take over my computer with popup after popup.

Good for them! (2, Interesting)

Dysan2k (126022) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360346)

I have to admit, I have absolutely NO problem what-so-ever about regulating porn to it's own domain. I mean, geez people. They can already track your sessions via proxy, so it's not like theres any additional security problems there. You could (heaven forbid) start blocking .porn sites at the firewall level to keep even more of those damnable pop-ups from flying all over the place when you're making a legitimate lookup! I'm sorry if I don't see a "Freedom of Speech" restriction here by ANY stretch of the imagination.

And are you REALLY believing that your ISP will choose simply not to resolve those type addresses? Sure they will. Same reason why stuff like alt.binaries.erotica.teen exists still.

I say let's do it. As for the video taping, that was bound to happen. Good thing, too! If it's not for security, it's mounted (wireless connected) to a remote-control car to run around the office and annoy people. :) It's fun, yet creative! Put a small transiever on it, and join the meeting from the privacy of your cubicle. No more interrupted Tribes 2 matchs!

Filming on "prinvate property"... (1)

Reeses (5069) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360347)

So, I guess this means it will no longer be legal for Wal-Mart and Toys "R" Us to film you as you walk through the store.

Although, I wonder if "Proper notificiation" just means a small sign in 1/2" letters saying "Patrons may be videotaped at any time. By shopping here, you agree to this".

Sadly, it'll probably take less than that.

I don't forsee the porn half going through though.

all your opinions. (1)

bpb213 (561569) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360348)

All of your dissenting opinions are being classified as Hate of the government.

Please buy a .prn domain now, or face legal charges.

Tread on free speech? (1)

The Wooden Badger (540258) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360357)

I'm curious. Exactly how does this tread on free speech? It still allows those who want to get there and it simplifies controlling access so little Johnny doesn't see what mom and dad don't want him to see.

...clap, clap, clap... (2)

brogdon (65526) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360359)

Way to go, Congress. You take a good and decent idea for a law that needs to be created (hiding video cameras in Nancy Wilson's shower should have been illegal when it occurred and the fact that it still isn't is appalling), and you throw a rider onto it that is totally outside the scope of your power and a flagrant violation of the First Ammendment, virtually guaranteeing its demise. Spiffy.

So not only will the law not pass a judicial review for Constitutionality meaning the good aspects of the law go bye-bye, but you'll be completely ignored by the internet anyway, which is an international construct.

You're on a roll now, why not vote yourselves another raise?

Second class speech (1)

UNFAIRMAN (470301) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360361)

All speech is equal but some speech is more equal than others.

Haven't the courts already ruled... (2, Interesting)

davburns (49244) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360362)

Haven't the courts already ruled that forcing somoene to label their speach is an infringement on free speach? (otherwise, it'd be much simpler to require and "adult" meta-tag.)

I think a TLD specifically for porn is a good idea, just like we have r- and x- rated movies. (Of course, those are run by industry groups, not mandated by congress.)

How long till we see Slashdot.prn? (1)

Kasmiur (464127) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360365)

"material harmful to minors"

Well shucks. Slashdot has been linking to sites that offer ideas on how to disrupt a train. Also the various goatse.cx links that you see. And who knows what Cowboy neal will link to next on the front page.

Important exemption: (1)

jaysones (138378) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360367)

The Senate has added that Britney Spears will be granted immunity to this law.

talking about broad (1)

avandesande (143899) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360370)

Under the bill, any person who uses a camera or similar recording device to record

If the bill has this wording I won't even be able to take single pictures in private without notifying someone.

Good. Very Good. (1)

geddes (533463) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360373)

(a) outlaw filming someone via hidden camera without their permission except in public places, and

I have always found the whole x10 thing quite disturbing, even benign uses such as "nanny watching" are downright rude! This law would require that Nanny to be informed that she is being watched, which means she'll behave better anyway. My question is - does this apply to security cameras watching employees at a store counter? is that a public place?

(b) provide for an adult-only domain such as .prn where all non-child-safe sites (pr0n, hate speech, etc.) would be relegated--the sites would have to give up their .com/.org/.net domains they own today.

Also a good thing. It would make filtering extremely easy (and believe it or not there ARE some good uses for filtering. A family computer that young children would use desperatly needs internet filtering). It doesn't violate freedom of speech - the porn sites would still be allowed, just relegated to .porn or wharever, it is no different then relgating porn to cable channels like HBO, or banning porn from bilboards in new york city. The internet is just as public as a busy street, and there should be decency standards, and this is a good way to make an online "red light" district that is easy to avoid but also easy to find if you are looking for it.

"Hate? We meant 'advocating against...'" (4, Insightful)

tapin (157076) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360374)

As seen in another post [slashdot.org] , Google has decided that xenu [xenu.net] is promoting hate... oops, we meant advocating against Scientology [google.com] .

Does this new bill mean (if it were in the US) it would have to be xenu.prn?

As the Usenet thread points out, does this mean the Democratic Underground would have to move to democraticunderground.prn?

What's ICANN got to say about all this, since (I thought) they turned down .sex, .xxx, and .porn?

(Nevermind, scratch that last part.. I couldn't care less about what ICANN has to say about this.)

This seems to me to be one-upping the legislation that tries to redefine SMTP [spamlaws.com] . Yikes.

Internet USA (2)

PineHall (206441) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360378)

I like the idea of moving "adult" sites to a new domain, but who decides what is "adult" and is not the Internet international? It is another case of stupid bill which assumes that the US government is in charge of the Internet. (It may only be stupid political grandstanding, but it is stupid.)

Celebrity Appearance (2)

Ledge (24267) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360379)

I would assume that Angie Harmon's appearance was due to her role in this [imdb.com] .

Actually... (1)

raddan (519638) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360382)

Pornography as speech is already restricted in various ways - and these restrictions have been upheld as consitutional (e.g., age restrictions on viewing it, etc.), so IMHO there should be no constitutional issues with a .prn domain. And that seems like a relatively elegant way of marking that material as potentially offensive, that, say, parents would want to prevent their kids from viewing.

I can't imagine anyone (excluding perverts) having a problem with the clandestine video taping part of the bill. Considering that unauthorized audio tape recordings are illegal in most states and that unauthorized airing of telephone conversations are illegal on the federal level, I'd say that video recordings have been a long time coming.

Would make it easy to block pron etc from schools (1)

brodiedreamyou.ca (542180) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360383)

I have wished for many years that porn sites where forced to use .xxx domains. I dont see how it would effect their business at all. And it would make it very easy to firewall out all .xxx domains to places that didnt want their users to have access to porn. such as schools and offices. And dont complain that blocking .xxx would be unfair, office workers and schools are useing someone elses internet connection, and should have to live by it's rules

Treads on free speech? (1)

SashaM (520334) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360385)

I really don't see how limiting adult oriented websites to specific domains hurts free speech. These sites would still be allowed to exist and operate, but they will be easily identifiable as adult oriented.

There are already many limitations on free speech which don't really hurt it and are considered "good" by practically everyone. Limiting porn (both selling and making) to 18 comes to mind.

Actors and press conferences (1)

abh (22332) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360387)

Some of us are still waiting for Alec Baldwin to leave the country as he claimed he would [bbc.co.uk] if Bush became president...

For obviously porn sites... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3360393)

I think the .prn thing is a good idea. What is the difference in requireing the disclaimers they have now and making their URL's clearly show that they are a porn site.

The question arises as always at the point where art and pornography meet. Some materials aren't as easily classified. As someone who looks at a lot of porn, I know I wouldn't want my kids having the access to it that I do and this would be a good way to keep them from it.

How are these together? (2)

n-baxley (103975) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360396)

Here is a big problem with the way that the US policy is made. Things are combined together on one bill when they have no correlation. This forces people to vote for something they might not have sepratly. If I believe that taping someone without thier knowledge is wrong and vote against the bill, come election time, the ads will run. "Senator Baxley voted against a bill to segregate porn on the internet! He's so bad!" Let's have these two be seperate bills and vote on each as it's merit lends.

FIFTH amendment problem in .com to ".prn" ? (2)

Seth Finkelstein (90154) | more than 12 years ago | (#3360398)

Hmm, there might be a fifth amendent problem here. The .com addresses are generally thought to be most valuable. This might be difficult, aside from the free-speech issues, as a 'taking' i.e. private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>