[OT] Re: HB 139 Meeting Today ?
andrew.jorgensen at gmail.com
Wed Feb 6 14:40:24 MST 2008
On Feb 6, 2008 2:18 PM, Shane Hathaway <shane at hathawaymix.org> wrote:
> I just had a thought... if a bill like this says filtering is required,
> how accurate must the filter be? Let's say I set up a web proxy that
> blocks URLs based on some hand crafted regular expressions. The
> accuracy might be low, yet my proxy technically qualifies as a censoring
> filter. Does it qualify for the requirements of the bill? Let's say I
> put some real effort into making a good filter on my own; at what point
> is the accuracy good enough that I am no longer liable when the filter
> lets bad stuff through?
> We must not have a law that mandates filtering for the public unless we
> have a way to measure filter accuracy. Is anyone attempting to find a
> way to measure it? If we pass a bill before there is some reliable way
> to decide whether a filter is compliant, we'll just end up with a lot of
> wasteful litigation.
This bill does no such thing. Go read the text. I'm not in favor of
the bill but you should all know that it applies only to access points
operated by businesses and only requires that they attempt to verify
age by a method (valid credit card) that can't actually verify age, or
by visually inspecting a gov't ID.
It also has some mumbo-jumbo about retailers labeling devices as being
wifi capable. Absolutely nothing about filtering of any kind.
I've been curious to listen to the meeting in question to see how much
people have misunderstood this bill. It's hard to fight something you
don't understand. I was very sad to hear Pete Ashdown misrepresent it
on the radio. It seems that he didn't take time to read the bill
Now having said that it's clear that this bill won't accomplish what
it purports and it seems that for-pay wireless providers may be behind
it's inception. T-Mobile (or whoever) must know that Xmission is
providing a free alternative to their service and Pete has said that
he'll back down if this bill passes so it's logical to conclude that
someone is lining Rep Daw's pockets (or at least wispering lies in his
More information about the PLUG