Bill seeks to put porn block on computers sold in SC

It's not the first time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-chip

(Apparently this is still in production, and therefore presumably in today's modern "Smart TVs". Haven't heard anything about it for years)

>The mindset that would even produce such an idea is incredibly dangerous.

To be fair, politicians and computer policy has always been poor and the USA just voted someone in who asked a foreign power to find his opponents emails and uses the term "the cyber" frequently. In other words, I suspect its going to get worse before it gets better.

>a Central Authority that somehow dictates what must, and what cannot....

Append "be done" and that's the very definition of government. Typically humans without government is a recipe for failure, so its not the existence of government per-se that's the issue. The larger question is why government in many countries, including the USA, are failing on such an abysmal level for what should be basic tasks like regulating computer issues. The elephant in the room here seems to be a strong anti-intellectual atmosphere and strongman politics taking root and winning elections of late worldwide. Voters are seeking this stuff out. That's the problem.

I don't believe the politicians either; however, I still don't know why every computing device must have a color screen that plays videos. I'm led to believe that computers of our day serve the vendors' need for profit more than the consumers' need for focus.

Also, Alan Kay said we have the same problem with books, and it's not a very important problem, etc.

Sigh.. I wish legislators would stop telling us what kind of porn we are or aren't allowed to watch.

For one thing default porn filter installed on all laptops doesn't make any kind of sense given most of the population is over 18.

Opt in makes a lot more sense than opt out in this case.

Plus the fact that they are asking for money from the manufacturer and the customer to opt out makes it look like just another scheme to make money under the theme "it's for the children".

Honestly I'm calling BS on this. It's just some greedy politicians trying to squeeze money out of people for stupid reasons.

This is just grist to keep the religious people fired up and to get some good press hits in that community.

In Brazil the dystopia is reality:

1. The law requires certain amount of Brazillian made bloatware stuff to be shipped with all phones. "Coincidentally" the software never ends being actually useful stuff, and is always the work of some company owned by a politician or by the friends and family of a politician.

2. To sell games in Brazil (physical board games and rpg books included) you must submit paperwork (of the dead tree kind) to the Ministry of Justice asking permission and asking for age rating. The government argues it is not censorship, only regulation, but it CAN legally refuse giving an age rating, de facto banning the game.

3. Possession, storage or even giving away games also fall in the previous point. It don't happened yet, but theoretically anyone can get up to two years in jail for owning a game that isn't rated by the Ministry of Justice.

4. Because of points 2 and 3, Brazil for many years didn't had the games categories in mobile stores (iTunes for example) and still to this day have less content than other countries in digital games platforms (Steam, Xbox Live, PSN...)

5. Brazil constitution banned censorship, and has freedom of expression explicitly protected, yet Brazil has more games judicially banned than China, usually on "morality" grounds, for example EverQuest was banned because it allowed players to do evil quests.

I would hope computer manufacturers would simply stop selling to SC to set an example. I can imagine the cost involved for them to have a SC-customized sales and build process would be substantial.

> Stallman's worst dystopian nightmare: a Central Authority that somehow dictates what must, and what cannot, run on your computer.

For some people, that's not a dystopia, it's a feature.

It would be like passing a law that manufacturers must sell cars that cannot be driven to strip clubs or porn shops.

Funny that he didnt suggest the computer have a blocking function for anything that mentions guns either ... I'm sure there's a big problem with that upstate too...

And then once they have these controls into place, just defund the office that gives you the key to unlock the filter.

This law will actually cost the Attorney General's office as they spend money to defend a law which will inevitably be found unconstitutional.

>I have no doubt North Carolina PC stores are excited, though.

Can you clarify what this means?

$20 is not enough to get people to go to another state on a $500 purchase. Sales tax is more than that, and there aren't a lot of people buying stuff in other states to avoid that.

Interestingly, the difference in SC sales tax (6%) and NC sales tax (4.75%, but county/city taxes make it ~6.75%), effectively come out to nearly $20 on a $2000 laptop.

Hey man, it's all for the protection of kids and to prevent human trafficking! I mean, it's in the name: Human Trafficking Prevention Act. It doesn't matter that we're stepping on the toes of other citizens and their right to browse the Internet freely. It's for the sake of protecting the helpless and, most of all, the children!

Note: For the sake of Poe's Law, this post is scathing sarcasm.

> Why not just tax all computers sales for $20?

Because SC didn't invent computers, the internet, or anything related to this. This isn't their territory, and they should quickly and apologetically "back off".

When in doubt, follow the money. $20 per device to a "task force" that you may or may not believe in is theft, a shakedown, or whatever variant someone may refer to it as.

The effect: "You want a computer? Pay for it, and give me $20: you have no choice."

...or England?

North Korea forbids all Internet access. South Korea is a better example, since they block pornography.

What ever happened to parental responsibility?

I'm reminded of this scene in the Simpsons ("Won't somebody please think of the children?"): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo

I live in South Carolina and I'm trying to find way to get this into the news. It starts with this, and then other things get added. I think before the state can introduce a bill such as this, they need to prove their claims beyond a shadow of a doubt. I agree that human trafficking is a huge deal, but this isn't the solution. I hate to invoke the gun owners argument but I think it could hold weight here--People are going to find out a way to get around this if they intend to traffic humans, this stops nothing.

The reality is that this state has bound many laws to the ideals of the church for far too long and deep down I feel that this is what it's really about. Taking the approach of "guilty until proven innocent" is ridiculous.

Offtopic but related to this brand of republican: These are some of the same politicians that are freaking out because Charleston, SC is being more and more blue. They have openly started legislating to try and keep population boom from turning the state blue in future elections.

First quote shows Chumley has no idea of how tech works, the costs involved, and the negligible effect it will have on the problem he is trying to solve.

> “If we could have manufacturers install filters that would be shipped to South Carolina, then anything that children have access on for pornography would be blocked,” Chumley said. “We felt like that would be another way to fight human trafficking.”

What? I guess he thinks child pornography is "porno for children". So he wants manufacturers to install filter that would block children from viewing porn by blocking access. Which by the way does not help prevent human trafficking at all.

That's probably not what's happening in this case (this is just good, old-fashioned puritanism), but what you're referring to is exactly what a certain party did in congress for a few decades with flag-burning bills and amendments.

I don't think it's that only reason. However, it serves as a great talking point when campaigning against an opponent.

Imagine having to defend against, "Candidate X voted against the Human Trafficking Prevention Act!" when you and other privy voters know it's stop the turd hidden underneath the polished gold.

I assume the bit where individuals would have to pay to have the filter removed would immediately put them on a list.

> What does plain vanilla adult materials have to do with child trafficking????!

Yea, it's basically a morality tax wrapped in child-protection language. To a certain puritanical set, the difference is indistinguishable. It's a similar rhetorical strategy to saying that anti-gay laws are for the protection of children, or anti-trans laws are for the protection of cis women.

How about smartwatches?

If you build your own PC, does this apply? If so, which PC component does the fee apply to? The hard drive, the motherboard, the CPU...? What if you want to build a PC and install a flavour of Linux, without a proprietary OS? Do you need a special flavour of Linux that's patched especially for South Carolina?

How about Alexa / Echo / Dot / Tap?

I'll know pr0n when I see it, well, what if its a speaker?

Another fascinating question is cat-5 ethernet cables.

They know that. They just hate porn. But banning porn has been found unconstitutional so many times they know it won't work. Thus they label it "anti-human trafficking" in hopes it will pass constitutional muster. Sort of like labeling creationism "intelligent design."

You trust the industry too much, or you're naive. All of them will do whatever it takes to make money. See Cisco and the GFW, for example.

You may disagree with the method and whether it is effective or not, but if the goal is to stop sex trafficking then that indeed should be a high priority.

FTFA:

> The bill also would prohibit access to any online hub that facilities prostitution and would require manufacturers or sellers to block any websites that facilitate trafficking, Chumley said.

At this point, I'm thinking to myself, "South Carolina is a hotbed of human trafficking?!"

> “The human trafficking thing has exploded. It’s gotten to be a real problem,” Chumley said.

> State officials have categorized the Upstate as a hotbed for human trafficking due to its location on Interstate 85 between Atlanta and Charlotte, N.C., two cities that consistently rank among the top 20 for human sex trafficking in the U.S.

Oh.

Yeah, it's a stupid solution, but he says that's not the point. It's to draw attention to the problem.

The article wasn't even long.

Conservative southern politicians aren't exactly worried about what makes sense past what gets them re-elected. Vigorous hand-wringing about nebulous moral issues due to the self-righteous nature of their constituents is one of the issues that checks that box. Pay no attention to the fact that this is one of those regulations that will unduly burden businesses. Or the fact that every PC already has a hosts file of sorts. The only thing a porn filter has in common with sex trafficking is that they both have something to do with sex.

I moved to SC (somewhat unfortunately I suppose) a couple of years ago and I have been quite surprised at the many Stop Sex Trafficking bill boards and things I've seen around. It seems to be a fairly big issue in the state (or at least the upstate area). I lived up in PA most of my life and spent about 4 years in Southern CA and I don't really ever recall seeing sex trafficking billboards anywhere else that I've traveled or lived. So when I first saw that a bill was introduced about combating sex trafficking, I thought - man this must REALLY be a big problem here. And maybe there are some pieces of it that make sense. But they always seem to bury in and hide so much extra bullshit that it starts to make zero sense what they are trying to really achieve.

tl,dr: not surprised SC trying to pass stop sex trafficking law; not surprised bill contains extra bullshit tactics for raising more money to fund said law.

I think there is a problem relying on big business to fight such fights. I wouldn't think they would care except that it would be a tax on equipment they might use, but that could be sidestepped in a number of ways. The businesses could just get a commercial exemption written into the law or just import their compute gear from a remote division.

My theory why government choose to be ignorant about technology is that for them technology too often dictates its own terms (or the developers behind tech). Tech often drives societal change faster than politicians can (cars, mobile phones, internet, antibiotics, are a few examples). This is very uncomfortable for politicians so they prefer to dictate how tech should work instead, regardless if it is a good idea or even feasible.

We're concerned about the children, but for enough money, you know, whatever.

I'm just SURE that there won't be any FOIA'able lists of everyone who pays to look at porn. Surely something like that would NEVER be abused in any way... right?

And, don't forget that the first book printed was the Bible. Of the next ten thousand, many were smut. Civilization survived.

Reading the article was upsetting. Reading the actual law being proposed, however, is even worse. Gobsmacked. I am not sure how any lawmaker or attorney viewing this bill would be able to press ahead with this.

"What about the first amendment?" "Oh, nevermind that - they can pay to remove the filter." "...?! I guess Freedom isn't free after all, but I didn't think that's what that meant. Are you going to manage the filter?" "No, the companies will manage it - it won't cost us a thing to block the traffic of the whole state. People will just do it for us, you know, because we tell them so." "...?"

> COMPANY MUST: "make reasonable and ongoing efforts to ensure that the digital content blocking capability functions properly, including establishing a reporting mechanism such as a website or call center to allow for a consumer to report unblocked obscene content or report blocked content that is not obscene"

This is far more than the $20 cost it purports to be.

OK, let's do this.

"A business, manufacturer, wholesaler, or individual that manufactures, distributes, or sells a product that makes content accessible on the Internet is prohibited from doing business in this State unless the product contains an active and operating digital blocking capability that renders any obscenity, as defined in Section 16-15-305, inaccessible.

The business, manufacturer, wholesaler, or individual must:

(1) make reasonable and ongoing efforts to ensure that the digital content blocking capability functions properly, including establishing a reporting mechanism such as a website or call center to allow for a consumer to report unblocked obscene content or report blocked content that is not obscene;

(2) ensure that all child pornography and revenge pornography is inaccessible on the product;

(3) prohibit the product from accessing any hub that facilitates prostitution; and

(4) render websites that are known to facilitate any trafficking of persons, as defined in Section 16-3-2010(9), inaccessible."

What is "a product that makes content accessible on the internet"? A computer? A router? A telephone line? Or does the computer simply access things which are already accessible, in which case we're talking about webservers and the like?

Since this applies to an individual too, does this mean you can't sell your old computer unless you set up a method for people to report things they shouldn't see on there?

Leaving aside the practical fact that it's impossible to do, given that it is (presumably) illegal to access child pornography, how is somebody supposed to "ensure that all of it is inaccessible" without breaking the law?

How would one report blocked content that isn't obscene? How can you know it's not obscene if you can't access it?

I can't face reading the rest of it. The first paragraph is already making my brain hurt.

> (2) ensure that all child pornography and revenge pornography is inaccessible on the product;

This is literally impossible, short of monkey-wrenching the operating system to prevent it from displaying images altogether.

> (3) prohibit the product from accessing any hub that facilitates prostitution; and

Where is a list of these hubs? Will each manufacturer have to keep their own list, or can I just call and ask Mr. Chumley for his personal one?

Hanlon's razor?

I think in the case of many politicians it's necessary to invoke the 'adequately' and look for the malice.

> Pornography is notoriously difficult to define

That's the beauty of such a scheme, you can go after anyone just by making a "pornography" case, without being constrained by definitions. It widens prosecution and control tremendously.

You don't know South Carolina...

While I've had a hard time finding good information about this source, the bill is real.

http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess122_2017-2018/bills/3003.htm

>The guy that wants this is a Republican? WTF?

Is this feigned surprise or real surprise? This kind of thing always comes from republicans (for an approximate definition of "always").

$20 for a chastity belt seems like a bargain to be honest.

I use k9, too, but that doesn't mean I want the state government enforcing my use of it. That is censorship, and censoring at the hardware/manufacturer level seem very wrong to me. What if it was not about porn? What if they said you could not research your religion? What if you could not visit political sites? It is a worrisome precedent.

> we can create a new norm by which people come with a much safer internet experience

Is this a direct quote from Fahrenheit 451? It sounds like the same mentality that led to the destruction of all books.

> In churches they often promote software like covenant eyes, which is useless crap,

How do you know that the mandated software wouldn't be useless crap as well?

This doesn't explain why everyone must be forced to have their internet access censored by the state.

If people want to filter their internet access, those people can buy and install filtering software.

> By creating a new default, and insisting on filtering as the default, we can create a new norm by which people come with a much safer internet experience.

Again, why must this option be forced upon everyone?

You're certainly entitled to your opinion but

> Also internet porn and certain types of internet directories are some of the biggest contributors to human trafficking

...this claim boggles the mind and needs some evidence IMO. Are you really making a claim that "if porn then trafficking"? Please clarify.