The explosive idea of forcing Internet providers to record their customers' online activities for future police access is gaining ground in state capitols and in Washington, D.C.

Top Bush administration officials have endorsed the concept, and some members of the U.S. Congress have said federal legislation is needed to aid law enforcement investigations into child pornography. A bill is already pending in the Colorado State Senate.

Youch! I think the sheep are primed and ready for this step.

ISP snooping gaining support | CNET News.com

Peter J. Biondi, NJ Assemblyman for District 16, has introduced A1327, a bill to force every ISP and website with comments/forums to demand user identification from every single poster (called an "information content provider" in the bill). The bill also forces all ISP and websites to turn over that information upon demand to anyone who claims to have been defamed, without any legal process or protections:

Well, it appears Seigenthaler's stupid campaign to remove due process protecting the identity of Internet posters, based on the inane assumption that claimants are always good guys who always have a legitimate claim, has gotten traction in the New Jersey legislature. MemeStreams users in New Jersey ought to contact their local representatives and calmly and respectfully explain that for every human problem there is a solution that is simple, neat and wrong.

Talking points:
1. Anonymous and pseudononymous speech has a long history of political significance in our country.
2. People seeking to identify Internet users do not always have a legitimate claim. Sometimes they are stalkers or other criminals.
3. Having a court decide whether Internet Services are required to turn over personal information about their customers creates a process which validates the legitimacy of a claim before personal information is forcibly disclosed.
4. Internet message boards are often informal things run by hobbyists. Information collection and reporting requirements create barriers to entry for those seeking to operate message boards, which has a deleterious effect on the free flow of discourse critical to our democracy.

LawGeek: New Jersey Assemblyman introduced bill to force online identification

Apple Computer appears to have invoked the Digital Millenium Copyright Act to stop the dissemination of methods allowing Mac OS X to run on chips from Intel and Advanced Micro Devices.

DMCA axes sites discussing Mac OS for PCs | Tech News on ZDNet

The Global Online Freedom Act is sponsored by Smith and five of his colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans. It would make the free exchange of ideas on the Internet a central concern of US foreign policy.

For example, no US firm could locate its Internet server computers inside one of these countries. Smith said that China or other repressive countries would still be able to subpoena an American Internet provider. But the subpoena would pass through the US legal system.

In addition, the bill would make it illegal for any US company to censor Internet information hosted on a US government website. Thus, Google Inc., which offers censored Internet searches inside China, would be barred from blocking access to the website of the Voice of America or Radio Free Asia.

The bill could mean trouble for US firms like Cisco Systems Inc., which sell Internet switching hardware. It calls on the Commerce Department to set up export controls on such equipment.

Bill aims to fight Net censorship - The Boston Globe

There is not now nor has there ever been any correlation between economic and political development in China.

The cDc's comments aren't bad, but the hearing is the criticism they seem to be asking for. My problem with this whole thing is that I'll bet some of the legislators who held this hearing voted for the Communications Decency Act. How can Congress get its panties in a bunch about political censorship in China when they voted just a decade ago to imprison people for saying fuck on the internet? We sowed these seeds, and China knows it.

There is a correlation between economic development in China and peace. A healthy, interconnected, global China is less likely to start bombing stuff then a poor, angry, isolated China. I don't think Google really had a choice here. They either comply with various national demands or they are liable locally or in the case of China they simply get banned. I don't blame them. I do blame the telecommunications companies who went in there and built China's firewall. They didn't have to take that business. I do think we should be engaged. I don't think we should take opportunities that we shouldn't support when we don't have to. And if we have to, we should take them like a C student.

CULT OF THE DEAD COW on China hearings

Chinese Google filter only works if you can spell

For future reference...

The post points to broadcast flag draft legislation sponsored by Senator Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) that contains provisions which appear to limit digital broadcast media reception devices to "customary historic use of broadcast content by consumers to the extent such use is consistent with applicable law and that prevents redistribution of copyrighted content over digital networks."

U.S. Senate moves to ban innovation outright.

Big Content would like to outlaw things no one has even thought of yet

On the Internet, of course, it is readily available from any computer terminal, and a lot of minors today are a lot more sophisticated in the use of computers than their parents. The ability of parents to monitor and supervise what they are doing is greatly impaired by this difference in computer aptitude.

"I can't say much more than that, but it is a difficult question. And I think there needs to be additional effort in this area, probably by all branches of government, so that the law fully takes into account the differences regarding communication over the Internet and access to materials over the Internet by minors.

Mike DeWine (R. Ohio) has been quizing nominees about Internet Porn. Thats interesting in and of itself. DeWine seems to be of the opinion that its a shame that the CDA was overturned. He makes the typical deciet of saying "pornography" in reference to legislation that actually says "indecency." The two concepts are very different. Roberts didn't really say anything substantive in response to this question. Alito, on the other hand, seems to be of the opinion that because old people are less likely to understand computers then young people (is that really still true, last I checked I'm nearly 30...) perhaps the First Amendment shouldn't be as broadly applied to the Internet as it is in environments where adults are more comfortable. This stands in contrast to the Court's view that because the Internet is a medium where the user gets to control what they see, and anyone can publish, it deserves better protection then media like broadcast Television, not worse...

Alito Weighs in on Internet Porn - Broadcasting & Cable

Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime.

Thats annoying.

Create an e-annoyance, go to jail | Perspectives | CNET News.com

And so we live in a universe of new media with phenomenal opportunities for worldwide communications and research — but populated by volunteer vandals with poison-pen intellects. Congress has enabled them and protects them.

A prominent Nashvillian comes out against the requirement that Internet complaintants actually demonstrate that they have a valid legal complaint before getting access to the identities of Internet users. If he didn't have a valid legal complaint then I wonder what he intended to do with this person's identity? Attack them personally??

John Seigenthaler, a retired journalist, founded The Freedom Forum First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University.

What irony. Frankly, its wikipedia, just edit it, and if you worked with Kennedy try not to take your personal involvement in people's conspiracy theories seriously. RELAX. ITS JUST A BUNCH OF ONES AND ZEROS.

USATODAY.com - A false Wikipedia 'biography'