Senate Bill Would Make Clandestine Video Taping Illegal 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.
What about (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps automatically offerening free transfer
Re:What about (Score:3, Funny)
They are Still Anal Sluts !
Re:What about (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What about (Score:5, Insightful)
If this passes, whats to stop me from registering my xxx
And what about links to sexual content?
If linking to explicit content makes a site explicit, just about any discussion site would immediately have to be in the
Theres so many problems with this concept it's rediculous. I'm all for a
Re:What about (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What about (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean, come on. When you're surfing for porn, you look for the 1000-popup American sites and stay away from that Asian Scat stuff right?
What about activists and undercover reporting? (Score:5, Insightful)
The "public space" exemption is too narrow as a lot of the current space used generally by the public is actually held in private hands. Furthermore, the public has a right to know a lot about what happens in supposedly "private" places that actually produce products for public consumption.
We should not be naive here. Angie Harmon and concern about voyeurism is not what laws like this are really about. If we want to ban just voyeuristic films of private citizens in various states of undress, then a law should be written that narrowly targets that.
Re:What about activists and undercover reporting? (Score:4, Informative)
Hoplessly retro-active! (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm looking forward to the future of cheap, tiny and pervasive video recording devices. This bill is raising "privacy" expectations where there are none. It's already illegal to publish someone's image without their consent. Making it illegal to create such images in your own home is the thin wedge of outlawing such devices in public places, except for "official" or "impartial" and "privacy protecting" government devices. Fight this now.
Get it straight people, if you don't want to be embarrased of your behavior DONT DO EMBARASSING THINGS! People have memories, video devices are simply memory enhancers. Right now, I can tell anyone I want about the expressions you make on your face and other sensations no video device will ever capture. Telling others makes me a cad, remembering might make me happy, forgetting is impossible.
Re:What about (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, the article does not explicitly mention porn. The new domain would be for "material harmful to minors".
So my site that explains how there is no Santa Claus and that there never was an Easter Bunny would be forced to move to the new domain.
Re:What about (Score:5, Interesting)
By whose definition? The tyope of material I would not want my child to see is:
Somehow I very much doubt that this is the type of material that congress considers harmful to minors.
What this really comes down to is that the Republicans are affraid that their children might ask them awkward questions they don't want to answer. To which I say tough titties, how do they think we all feel when we have to explain GWB to our kids?
Re:What about (Score:3, Funny)
Stupid. (Score:4, Interesting)
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. (Score:2, Informative)
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. (Score:5, Informative)
Not true, you don't need a sign if you are taping in your house, as long as it is not for "lewd and lascivious" purposes. Read the article.
Do you really think you are not being taped when you enter an adult shop? Why would it be any different than walking into a drugstore or convenience store, etc. Most stores have security cameras of some sort.
Free speech (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Free speech (Score:2)
Re:Free speech (Score:2)
Another case of "how do we filter"? (Score:5, Interesting)
If I show pictures of breasts, am I
Re:Another case of "how do we filter"? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Another case of "how do we filter"? (Score:2, Interesting)
Worried about number one (Score:2, Interesting)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:2)
More legitimate use for secret taping (Score:2)
You want to make sure a maid isn't stealing from you.
Set up a hidden camera and leave some small amount of money out.
See if they steal it. Then you can fire and prosecute them.
Make it so they could conceivably steal without you noticing. A dozen $1 bills would work. Maybe they'll take one or two from the pile, thinking you'll never notice. You could also leave out a larger amount - more risk - but you then you might be able to get them nabbed for a felony.
Hopefully that will still be legal after this bill passes, there should be a provision for something like that.
Of course... (Score:2)
Those unfair cocksuckers! (Score:2, Funny)
teenpussy.prn! What's next: restricting
Re:Those unfair cocksuckers! (Score:2)
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.
Re:Those unfair cocksuckers! (Score:5, Insightful)
Thought it already was.. (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
Legal to videotape, but only without sound.
Re:Thought it already was.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Thought it already was.. (Score:5, Informative)
distinctions? (Score:2, Insightful)
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...
The .prn idea isn't really bad.. (Score:2)
Re:The .prn idea isn't really bad.. (Score:3, Insightful)
I can see the connection... (Score:5, Funny)
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".
Re:I can see the connection... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:You got egg nog in my goat's milk (Score:3, Interesting)
Ummm. For example?
It's pretty easy to censor at the TLD level. As long as you also require that these sites IP's properly reversed, legal ones are in a box and illegal ones will be shut down by anyone who doesn't want law enforcement up their butt.
I'm curious to see just how far the Supreme Court will let them go in regulating free speech. Is creating
.prn (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:.prn (Score:2)
Re:.prn (Score:5, Funny)
Seriously, one of my professors at the University of Texas, Scot Powe, clerked for William O. Douglas. At that time lawsuits about what was and was not obscene were being filed individually, and the justices (or their clerks) had to watch each one to write a brief on it for the decision.
Powe said the best part was walking out of one particularly bland showing with Thurgood Marshall, who turned to him and said, 'I think we need to send that one over to the FTC for false advertising.'
Re:.prn (Score:2, Insightful)
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 (Score:2)
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:Property Surveillance (Score:3, Insightful)
The flip side of your argument is that someone who films house guests using the shower could say "I was only trying to protect my property from criminals."
Here [squidge.org] is a rant from a woman who stayed at a friends house, and later found that he was secretly videotaping all his female guests.
.prn is a great idea (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Yes... slashdot will have to become a
it's about damn time someone suggested forcing TLD's to be used correctly.
Re:.prn is a great idea (Score:2)
Re:.prn is a great idea (Score:3, Interesting)
To hell with you! (Score:5, Funny)
C-X C-S
I also have a
I'll have collected the whole set!
Then they will all combine to form Voltron, and I'll rule the world!!
won't work (Score:3, Interesting)
So under your system when would they forced to give up the
Ooh, sorry, someone else already owns slashdot.com, a company which sells razors to sadist cartoonists, guess Taco & Co. can kiss their branding goodbye. Oh well, if people are really interested in them, they can find them through Google.
Re:.prn is a great idea (Score:3, Interesting)
What if a non-profit become for-profit? What about the other way around? (Yes, both happen). And
Anyway, your whole plan is stupid, because drawing these lines is extremely difficult. Especially the
What about Martin Luther? Remember that
Yeah, categorizing is too hard.
(BTW, what makes you expect a government site at whitehouse.com?)
Uh (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Uh (Score:2)
Who would police this? (Score:2, Insightful)
If someone posts a linke to goatse on a kiddie's chatboard, would that site be 'relegated' to
I wonder if they understand the scope of this problem; there are so many grey areas.
Would it be easier to set up a
Free the nanny cam!!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
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
The third bit... (Score:2)
Re:The third bit... (Score:2, Insightful)
X10 Cam (Score:3, Funny)
What about links? (Score:2, Insightful)
I can see where this is going... (Score:2, Funny)
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 (Score:2)
Hate speech? (Score:2)
.PRN domain would be like NC-17 (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Re:.PRN domain would be like NC-17 (Score:3, Informative)
It was created because the MPAA had lost control of the X rating to the porn industry, which had been labelling its own stuff with 'X' and 'XXX' for years without respect to the MPAA ratings board -- that is, the vast majority of stuff labelled 'X' had never passed through an MPAA review. So the MPAA created and trademarked -- or copyrighted, or whatever -- the NC-17 label. I don't think the MPAA was much concerned over whether the new rating became associated with porn -- which would clearly fall under an NC-17 rating -- just with regaining control over its ratings.
Jurisdiction (Score:2)
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
I can see it now (Score:2, Funny)
"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 (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Infringing Free speech my ass (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Infringing Free speech my ass (Score:3)
Not having a real dictionary on me this is from
here [techtarget.com] since it was handy:
"Granularity is the relative size, scale, level of detail, or depth of penetration that characterizes an object or activity"
Good for them! (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
...clap, clap, clap... (Score:2)
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?
Haven't the courts already ruled... (Score:2, Interesting)
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.)
"Hate? We meant 'advocating against...'" (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:2)
Celebrity Appearance (Score:2)
How are these together? (Score:2)
FIFTH amendment problem in .com to ".prn" ? (Score:2)
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]
Let's say it again, all together now: (Score:2)
The second half of this bill would have NO impact on what the rest of the world could do on the Internet, and therefore be completely without edge. Everybody else would be free to use www.fuckfest.com, www.dick.net and www.teensluts.org. Of course, Americans would be able to access these sites, but not set them up. So what's the point? Nothing gained in terms of protection, something lost in terms of freedom.
Not opt out! (Score:2)
NC-17.prn (Score:2)
This reminds me of the MPAA's infamous NC-17 rating. They wanted to create a rating for very-adult-but-not-explicity-pornographic films, but it never went anywhere, because theatre chains refused to screen NC-17 films. As a result, American consumers have no choice to view these films in a theatre, even if they want to.
The same thing would happen here. If all possibly-objectional content were segregated into its own top-level domain, nine out of ten ISPs would drop access to
Few people would actually have access to the
All in all, a lousy idea.
Angie Harmon (Score:5, Insightful)
Message to Slashdot trolls (Score:3, Funny)
This is a time of great chaos. But there is a threat even greater than terrorism and the CPDPTPDTA (sp). Yes, and that is goatse.prn
What about "goatse.prn"?
Well, think about the effectiveness as a new
Send a letter to your congresspeople and senators asking to vote against this bill! Remember, "People come for the goatse.cx, not the goatse.prn!"
For your convenience (probably to busy hitting "refresh", looking for first post, huh?), here is a sample letter.
Dear congressperson,
I am a pathetic loser who appreciates diluting valuable content with disgusting images. This gives me pleasure, and by passing this bill, you will be hurting my very livelihood. So when the time comes for you to vote, remeber:
Think of the trolls, not the children.
Thanks for your valuable time.
Depends on your definition of "makes sense" (Score:5, Insightful)
This is handled at State level just fine already. Even the congresscritter mentioned on the radio that something like 40+ States do not have the law she proposed.
Said another way, something less than 10 States find a need for a law like this, they were perfectly capable of passing these laws without any help from the busybody DC crowd. For example, in TN I can record (audio, video, both) any conversation that I am party to and do not have to inform the other parties, i.e., one party concent. In Maryland, all parties to the conversation need to be informed (unless there is a warrant) that a conversation is being recorded. This proposal is just a federal extension of the same theme.
Apparently, in some States, one person can legally train a camera through the open window of another person's home. In others you can not. Sounds fair enough to me. I close the shades when I do not want others to see what is in my apartment and do not need a law to alleviate me of my responsibility.
If someone enters my place and plants a camera, I believe that every State has a dozen or so laws that the perpetrator can be charged with (breaking and entry, illegal entry, etc), that is if the cops bother to stop writing speeding tickets long enough to catch the criminal. Don't forget all of the civil charges.
Now, since States can and do pass laws like this one, what "makes sense" about the feds passing it for the whole country?
Re:Prosecute thin air! (Score:3, Interesting)
In Louisiana tresspassing is not illegal?
The house was being rented. The owner was the videotaping sleezebag.
This is an important law to pass, but it's one that should be passed by the states. The federal government has very little authority to govern what I do in my own house.
Why do it backwards? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why do it backwards? (Score:3, Interesting)
What you propose is a step in the wrong direction. And please don't assume that people think in "such convuluted ways" just because they've been elected.
Re:Why do it backwards? (Score:3, Interesting)
But it doesn't need an act of congress to set it up. All it needs is for the DNS servers to agree. Or even just some of them. AOL could probably do this all on it's own, certainly if it collaborated with Earthlink and a couple of others big names.
Getting congress involved at all is proof that something else is up.
Only one law per bill (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Only one law per bill (Score:3, Insightful)
we need: one bill, one law NO riders.
Banning riders would do more for this country then any other single thing.
once I began eading about bills that(to me) where good bills that should have and probably would have passed that where killed because a rider was attacht to it, or bad riders that where passed because the original bill was popular, it made me sick. This is far to abused to have any good any more.
Re:Only one law per bill (Score:4, Insightful)
Senator 1: I propose a law that states that only one law may be introduced in each bill. This would cut down on pork barrel legislation and ridiculous associations between laws.
Senator 2: I propose an amendment to said law, that each Senator in this committee is entitled to a $30 million Christmas bonus this year. For business purposes, of course.
Senator 1: Agreed!
.prn type sites adult-verify anyway (Score:4, Interesting)
From the District Court CDA decision [epic.org]
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]
The second part is unacceptable (Score:3, Interesting)
Something similar already happened with the movie industry in the US. The rating for 18+ (i forget it) is considered pronography so nobody is willing to make movies that will get rated that way even if they are serious movies. If some one does make a movie that is rated adult it will be treated as porn and not shown in most theatres even if it is not porn but a serious adult movie.
Thus the US in the embarrassing position where most if its movies, and thus a big part of its culture is made for adolescents.
Protecting children is fine, but it is really sad if the whole cultural discource is reduced to adolescent level in order to protect children. Then it is the adults that suffer - they do not have a chance to grow up mentally and spiritually.
If you think that an adult can lead a full life while only participating in culture that is suitable for children conside that even the bible is not really suitable for children.
And if you think that this law will prevent a child that really wants porn, you are mistaken, there is always a way to go around circumvension measures - all you need is a friend on the outside that can access the adult site and send it to you encrypted, so no one sees what it is.
Poorly thought out... (Score:3, Insightful)
In principle, both ideas have merit. It is already illegal to secretly record audio without a warrant (i.e. bugging or wiretapping). It makes sense for the same rules that apply to audio apply to images and video as well. But, in this bill, it is only illegal if it is for a "lewd or lascivious purpose." What about videotapes that violate your privacy in non-lewd ways? Shouldn't those be illegal too? And it doesn't apply in public places! What about public restrooms? What about "upskirts"? Those are two things they specifically want to stop, and it's not clear at all if those are covered.
Fortunately, this law would not prevent, for example, taping of your babysitter to be sure s/he's not beating your kids (it's not a lewd purpose).
The
This is clearly NOT a privacy bill at all, but simply a porn/speech regulation bill. OK ideas drafted into lousy legislation.
consider the implications. (Score:3, Insightful)
no "nanny cam" to catch the nanny abusing your child or stealing your stuff.
the only people allowed to use hidden cameras will be law enforcement/entrapment agencies.
who decides what is adult? (not her I hope).
the democratic party should be ashamed to have a legislator who would sponsor this kind of crap in their ranks.
What if... (Score:3, Interesting)
.prn (Score:3, Interesting)
I would rather it was
It would behove the legitmat Adult film industry to push for there own domain as well. It makes them look good, it does not prevent people over 18 from viewing them, it gives parents an easier way to prevent there under age child from seeing something there parents don't want them to.
To put an adulkt mgazine behind the counter, but still let people know where they are, doesn't impact free speech. The publishers to publish and there readers can still buy there mag.
For propriety sake, I would also like to say that I like adult sexual entertainment, Believe it should be allowed. It has problems, but so does the non-sex entertainment industry.
Who determines hate speech? (Score:3, Insightful)
However, who is going to determine whose hate speech will be required to use the ".prn" domain? Hate is not absolute, it is very subjective to the observer and comes and goes with societal fashion. Personally, I think "Hate Speech" deserves the most protection possible and should not be regulated by Government. Its every American's right not to like people for irrational reasons and be able to shout it at the top of their lungs. I like it when I hear hate speech because it makes it easier to determine the folks I want to avoid.
ACLU v. Reno (Score:3, Informative)
The idea of using a PRN domain was probably motivated by that concurrance. Whether it would survive Supreme Court review is another matter. Justice O'Connor was only joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist.
X10? (Score:3, Funny)
Mmm... Riders (Score:3, Funny)
Speaker: Then it is unanimous, we are going to approve the bill to evacuate the town of Springfield in the great state of --
Congressman: Wait a minute, I want to tack on a rider to that bill: $30 million of taxpayer money to support the perverted arts.
Speaker: All in favor of the amended Springfield-slash-pervert bill? [everyone boos]
Speaker: Bill defeated. [bangs gavel]
Kent: I've said it before and I'll say it again: democracy simply doesn't work.