Web Hosting Talk : Web Hosting Main Forums : Web Hosting : i2C - Internet Infrastructure Coalition : Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act

[mrcjdawson]

Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act


This bill was named specifically so that it is hard to stand against. But take a look at it, because it:

• Requires hosts to “securely” maintain network access logs for 18 months.

Here's the bill:

Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...112s1308is.pdf

How will that work? What are the security concerns? Who would foot the bill? These are just some of the many questions we should be asking.

This bill may come to the Senate floor at any time. We NEED to be talking about it!

[Sinoco]

What's the governments definition of securely? How secure is secure? So they're saying if the government takes down the site, we need to have 18 months worth of logs so they can put everyone in jail who viewed the site in the last year and a half?

[mrcjdawson]

I'm not sure if that's what they are saying - as best as I can make out it's something sort of like that, yes. The big problem is that there really isn't anybody from the web hosting industry talking to people in Congress explaining how any of this actually works and how insane an idea like that actually is.

[mrcjdawson]

One other thought is that the easiest thing for the government to do would be to not define what they mean by 'securely' putting the onus on hosts to define and comply. I believe that when we're talking about legislators, we're talking about people who need input from all sides to get things right. We aren't talking about malicious people - they are trying to solve problems that are being brought to them - but the easiest thing to do is to solve problems on the backs of people who aren't in the room and talking - and it's even easier if you leave the hard parts up to them to figure things out.

This bill is a classic example of why I think hosting providers need to be talking with one another and figuring out how to mobilize - which is what we're trying to do with the Save Hosting initiative.

[AvamWeb-Luke]

Glad that us UK companies won't have to do this, keeping data for 18 months for even some of the smaller companies would take up a lot of space!

[kpmedia]

"Think of the children" is political gaming.
I'm curious who penned this bill, and what their knowledge on web hosting is.

[nibb]

Of course you all can maintain the 18 months of logs.

Just bill the government for the costs. I don't think its legal to propose a bill which will suddenly increase the costs of some companies without having the parties that are suppose to take this costs involved in the discussion. But I'm not a lawyer.

Or you could all send the bills for keeping the logs to the senators home address

Someone will need to pay this, for sure, and its not going to be the end customers, as some of you have customers outside the US, example Canada, and why should this customer pay for a US law.

And I don't think the hosting companies will just adsorb the costs themselves either, unless the senator wants every single hosting company moving outside the US, things are bad enough with the economy and proposing bills that will even punish companies more is just absurd

[VicToMeyeZR]

The bill is designed to get rid of all us "small" or "medium" hosting companies. Currently we can compete in the pricing game, but not in the infrastructure. I'm sure godaddy is somehow behind this. Usually that's the case when you see bills like this anyways.

[Flapadar]

This will never pass. It should be the parent's responsibility to prevent children viewing porn, not the governments.

[nibb]

Originally Posted by VicToMeyeZR

The bill is designed to get rid of all us "small" or "medium" hosting companies. Currently we can compete in the pricing game, but not in the infrastructure. I'm sure godaddy is somehow behind this. Usually that's the case when you see bills like this anyways.

Why would Godaddy want to increase their costs?

The bigger the company, they probably will need to maintain bigger logs records.

I dont think this comes from any big company, as like I said, hosting companies outside the US will not apply to this creating a huge market outside the US and leaving US business less competitive then they are right now.

[nibb]

Originally Posted by Flapadar

This will never pass. It should be the parent's responsibility to prevent children viewing porn, not the governments.

Agree. I also dont see how logs would help here to prevent children looking porn. Logs are for people that already visited the sites, its more to track down the visitors which is not to prevent the issue in the first place.

A system where age should be verified is ratter a better solution, like the adult industry has done for years, like verifying your credit card, usually children doesn't have access to credit cards, that was one solution. Phone check or any other system could partially work and this responsibility of the adult industry.

If such a bill is implemented hosts will opt for the easiest solution ever. They would not accept adult content anymore, at all! Which means they would need to maintain the logs in the first place.

This would not stop porn sites either, there would be created other specific markets like adult hosts just with higher costs. I mean this bill is a lie. I don't see how maintain logs can prevent this or help in any way, instead of doing a massive damage.

I do agree that children hitting porn in the Internet is just to easy, you land on a website and suddenly there are porn ads all over it. The problem is not the hosts, or the network, or the software that is used to design this sites, or the domain registrar for allowing registration. No. The problem is how easy it is for children to access the content because this website dont put any measure at all to verify age. This is the problem.

But that is not an easy problem to solve in the first place, because to identify age you need to probably identify the person and visitors or porn websites don't want to be identified. Else how would Obama and all the senators access their own favorite porn websites in the Internet?

And yes, I think this senator access porn websites as well. The logs are ratter to track who is accessing them, not to prevent children accessing them. Maybe they want to track terrorist accessing porn websites but this is definitely not to stop children.

[kpmedia]

Originally Posted by nibb

you land on a website and suddenly there are porn ads all over it.

I'm not a prude, but this does aggravate even me. One minute I'll looking up info for a new TV show, and the next minute I have tits all over my screen. (This happened just a few days ago.) I add new sites to my router's HOSTS file weekly. Same for certain ad networks that want to add those double-underline links (hate those), as well as auto-playing videos (hate those even more, especially if I had speakers up loud).

Logging doesn't do diddly.

[nibb]

Originally Posted by kpmedia

I'm not a prude, but this does aggravate even me. One minute I'll looking up info for a new TV show, and the next minute I have tits all over my screen. (This happened just a few days ago.) I add new sites to my router's HOSTS file weekly. Same for certain ad networks that want to add those double-underline links (hate those), as well as auto-playing videos (hate those even more, especially if I had speakers up loud).

Logging doesn't do diddly.

Wow, I hate those ads as well, you are reading a page, and I tend to hover on the text as I read and each time a popup appears with the ad. I tend to leave those websites immediately.

Video ads are not so bad, except that they make the page load slow. If they have audio off by default its ok but video ads with audio are impressive annoying. I think they are intrusive because they don't have the right to send audio to your device if you don't approve to hear it first.

Lets say you are in a very quite place and suddenly BUM audio pops up and everybody looks at you, you start to look for the mute button immediately and are pisses off by this.

About the porn ads I find them very problematic. If you happen to be with an older person (grandma) or maybe with your kid showing him something in the computer suddenly you land in a website with a a big ass and tits on it and of course the other persons looks at them which is very uncomfortable because the web is 24/7, its not like TV where there are safe hours. On the web anyone will land on porn eventually, its a matter of just a few hours and sometimes minutes of browsing.

Since everything is linked together, going from one site to another will get you eventually to a website hosting adult content and from there its just 1 click to porn.

Dont get me wrong. I don't hate porn sites, I think the Internet is a free place and this business have the right to be there, its just sensitive content, but if they are there its because people want them and visit them. The problem is how easy its to land on them and even if you leave them right away you are already invaded with every possible picture and video of naked persons, their tours tend to be already very explicit.

Its a very complicated subject, putting software filters in the computer will not work as today anyone has computer devices, putting filters in the DNS or router is better, but today everyone has access to the Internet on multiple places, so it may be safe at home for your kids but the minute they connect from another place, like their cell phones they have a free road to porn already.

I think cell phones should not be allowed to minors, or kids under 16 just in case because they are like computers this days, and they use them for allot of things and most of them are not for calling or receiving calls. I also don't understand why a seven old boy needs a cell phone in a world where communications are in every corner.

Parents should be more responsible. Governments have nothing to do with this, it comes with education. And lets not forget how kids are, the more they cant have something the more they want it.

[VicToMeyeZR]

Originally Posted by nibb

Why would Godaddy want to increase their costs?

The bigger the company, they probably will need to maintain bigger logs records.

I dont think this comes from any big company, as like I said, hosting companies outside the US will not apply to this creating a huge market outside the US and leaving US business less competitive then they are right now.

Gee I don't know... Maybe the SAME reason FORD would be in congress fighting for them to increase the rules and laws on saftey programs with their cars. It would increase their production costs, and they could do it on their OWN, so why ask for a law change? BECAUSE it would increase the cost also on other manufacturers, and then they wouldn't be the only one doing it. Large companies do this crap ALL the time...

[VicToMeyeZR]

I would note, that they are saying it only applies to ISP, not to web hosts.