humantraffickingpreventionact.com/ ^ US Govt site about new acts being pushed across many states. Read Florida's as it was my state but most states are this way.
Picture is from Florida's but all states have similar wording.
TLDR: ALL COMPUTERS, PHONES, GAME DEVICES, THAT ACCESS THE INTERNET. Must, MUST have a FILTER INSTALLED. Hardware filter or software.
THIS FILTER ACTIVELY WATCHES YOUR CONTENT to search for "illegal material" such as Child Porn or "Sexual Harassment Photos." That isn't the issue. Good, fuck those people.
The issue is they are INSTALLING HARDWARE ONTO ALL DEVICES SOLD FROM OCTOBER 1st, 2017, THAT WILL ACTIVELY CENSOR YOUR INTERNET.
This is an ATTACK ON FREE SPEECH in the guise of "protect innocents!"
CALL UP YOUR REPS AND STOP THIS. THIS IS MORE IMPORTANT. BOTNETS ARE A DISTRACTION! SHILLS ARE ALL A DISTRACTION!]
I mean Sup Forums if you literally care about yourself just think for a moment what this means.
>The Human Trafficking Prevention Act would amend the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 to require training for federal government personnel related to trafficking in persons to include at a minimum: (1) a distance learning course on trafficking-in-persons issues and the Department of State's obligations under the Act, targeted for embassy reporting officers, regional bureaus' trafficking-in-persons coordinators, and their superiors; (2) specific trafficking-in-persons briefings for all ambassadors and deputy chiefs of mission before they depart for their posts; and (3) at least annual reminders to all such personnel and other federal personnel at each diplomatic or consular post of the Department of State located outside the United States of key problems, threats, methods, and warning signs of trafficking in persons specific to the country or jurisdiction in which each such post is located, and appropriate procedures to report information acquired about possible trafficking cases. wtf i hate trump now
Christopher Walker
>bumping
Camden Gray
>you're either with us or with the terrorists and child pornographers I fucking hate statists, the day of the rope couldn't come soon enough.
Sebastian Perry
Look on the bright side, this will definitively kill the internet of things. IE we no longer have to worry about internet connected toasters carrying out DDOSes
Aaron Foster
I can't read a god damn thing from that picture
Dylan Stewart
>humantraffickingpreventionact.com/ >^ US Govt site about new acts being pushed across many states. Read Florida's as it was my state but most states are this way. if that was a us gov't site, it'd end in .gov. i think you might be getting rused
Kevin James
fucking commie faggot
DON'T LIKE IT, GET THE FUCK OUT
Cameron Long
The EFF hasn't said anything about the issue, so it's probably not real.
Sebastian Young
I bet it'll be passed under a false flag
Ryder Torres
WHAT!
Dylan Cook
>Although a consumer will have to at least pay a $20 fee to have the filter deactivated, which will go to the state to help it offset the secondary harmful effects of pornography and prostitution hubs, the retailers in this state can charge an additional deactivation fee of their own – if they wants to – the retailers can set the amount to be what it feels the market can bare. That is, the retailer can charge a filter deactivation fee also to offset any of the costs of compliance with this act. For example, the retailer could charge an additional $40 filter deactivation fee on top of the $20 fee. Anyone who supports this bill should know that they are supporting business and economic development. Manufacturers and retailers of products that distribute the internet have no duty of loyalty to child pornographers, human traffickers, and pornography content providers. What the fuck am I reading? Literally who thinks this is reasonable? If they think this is actually preventing abuse, what's the point of a "you must be at least this rich to rape the children" bar? If they admit that it's just a cash grab, how do they expect it to fare any better than SOPA?
Grayson Lee
Are you fucking serious??!?
I like Trump but I'm not about to rubber stamp fucking control of the interwebs. He better fucking cut that shit out.
Unfortunately pedo's and lolicucks will always exist bit that doesn't mean Avery internet connected device needs to be filtered. For fucks sake.
Elijah Allen
Reminder this is how people on the deep government see themselves.
If you don't trust this picture to be real do your fucking job and google it.
Samuel Mitchell
It's an independent info site
Jason Davis
What if I build one from parts? All new of course?
Carter Fisher
You going to build your own motherboard? Do you have your own foundry too?
Benjamin Collins
You can solder out the security filter if you want I think.
James Rodriguez
I see nothing on any news websites about this, not even infowars.
Evan Foster
Why do all the links go to some dropbox with pdfs?
Eli Sanders
Same reason OP is a thumbnail
Y'all getting hacked
Evan Harris
>Spend billions of dollars on measure people will circumvent in a month Fake and gay
Carter Ortiz
this. it's not even legal so why bother.
they already have your OS running in some nonfree Intel/AMD, or other hardware SoC, hypervisor; they don't need another SoC add-on that will magically spy on you.
>all the libertards who believed the op and went to the website are mining bitcoins for dmitry as we speak
Cameron Diaz
That bill is definitely going nowhere. Just another political stunt
Julian Anderson
It's completely infeasible but it spooks me that there are people that even think that's a good idea.
Kevin Kelly
This was written by the dipshits you voted into office, you idiot
Nicholas Phillips
No you voted for them, idiot
Cooper Hill
>DON'T LIKE IT, GET THE FUCK OUT Isn't that, like, the opposite of everything American Democracy stands for?
Ryder Butler
The people who thought this up are seriously mentally ill and should be in mental hospitals and not elected office. Crime is inherent in a capitalist society due to the requirement for acquisition of wealth. Oppressing the common people only encourages more crime while not stopping the professional criminals. People who think that filtering and logging everyone's actions and speech is good because it could stop some minor amounts of crime should not be holding office in the United States, a nation founded on the ideal of freedom. Even if this oppression can catch criminals there is no point as through implementing the oppression they are far worse than the criminals.
Kevin Cox
No?
Otherwise people would be voting to rip up the Constitution
Nathaniel Martin
God dammit Drumpf, why did you put a literal pajeet (Pai Ajit) in charge of this shit
Easton Thompson
Calling bullshit. This would be absolutely impossible to implement. Fake news.
Jordan Powell
You faggot trump shills from Sup Forums need to stop. Trump is a human being and he CAN do wrong, the sooner you get that through your thick skull the better. You didn't want a corrupt political elite in the office so what did you do? Instead of voting for a third party candidate you just vote for another one of America's elite class but somehow convince yourselves that he's different because he says stupid shit occasionally. WAKE UP, TRUMP IS NOT GOD, HE CAN DO WRONG.
Tyler Baker
>a communist on this website wew
Adam Young
I never said I was a communist, I'm just pointing out that capitalism will inevitably lead to some level of crime.
Logan Roberts
>wahh everything bad is cuz of drumpf
learn to google you fucking autist, nothing to do with trump.
>The driving force behind the legislation is a man named Mark Sevier, who has been using the alias “Chris Severe” to contact legislators. According to the Daily Beast, Sevier is a disbarred attorney who has sued major tech companies, blaming them for his pornography addiction, and sued states for the right to marry his laptop.
Oliver Morris
If Trump would crash US economics with socialist regulations, would you then approve this or say "This isn't real communism/socialism"?
Benjamin Morgan
Wanting to improve one's own life is human nature and no amount of commie oppression can change that.
Carson Brown
If they were actually socialist regulations (which I doubt trump would implement) they probably wouldn't crash US economics, and I would approve. Trying to use socialist as a dirty word instead of arguing my points doesn't make you any more right though.
Isaiah Taylor
then stop making up fake bullshit and maybe people will actually believe you delusional retards
Logan Morris
You don't need to earn money to make your life better if we eliminate money. Don't you think it would be better if everyone was able to follow their true calling instead of being forced into jobs they hate because they will starve otherwise?
Connor Allen
>it spooks me that there are people that even think that's a good idea. That's what eternal vigilance is about, user. The cost of liberty is not cheap. Lots of people will accept these kinds of things because they don't imagine that it will affect them, and they may very well be correct. People are shortsighted and would rather have someone else deal with the repercussions in the future. Passing the buck is a human tradition.
Gavin Jenkins
What about my post was fake? Trump is a rich American who has funded many politicians, he is practically the definition of the American elite. I'm not saying that Hillary was any better, she was also a corrupt political elite candidate and who knows maybe she would have been worse than Trump.
Easton Sanchez
I'm not talking about you specifically you stupid nigger. It's turning every single bad thing in your mind on Trump and somehow acting like it's the end of the world, when in actuality not much has changed at all. If you're the faggot crying about capitalism, well fucking newsflash humans are pieces of shit and they commit crime regardless of whatever political system they're living under.
>(1) requests in writing that the capability be disabled; >(2) presents identification to verify that the consumer is eighteen years of age or older; >(3) acknowledges receiving a written warning regarding the potential danger of deactivating the digital blocking capability; and >(4) pays a one-time twenty dollar digital access fee.
>disburse the funds collected to the Attorney General to help fund the operations of the Human Trafficking Task Force and the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force. >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.
land of the free boys, thats it pack it up.
Isaiah Long
Yeah they totally haven't been spying on everyone before this
Hunter Rogers
The issue isn't just spying, it's censorship that you have to opt out of by paying the government and identifying yourself for some list that "totally won't be leaked". The government should be run for the people the people shouldn't have to fucking pay the government for freedoms that are set out in the bill of rights.
Kayden Baker
I emailed my rep about it. Told her I'd vote Jon Ossof or whatever his name is and shill him to my friends if she didn't stand up for people like me who voted for her. I'll phone her up tomorrow. It's currently 12:05.
Jose Sullivan
This. Maybe anons should get together and start teaching their communities about crypto-communications.
Isaac Perry
already posted. went un noticed / ignored. archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/114878272/ Oklahoma State Rep. Travis Dunlap, R sat down Monday with the Examiner-Enterprise to discuss the eight bills he has filed for the legislative session. Preventing obscene material on electronic devices Dunlap has proposed House Bill 1472 Under the legislation, businesses that provide devices that can access the internet in Oklahoma would be required to have a “digital content blocking capability” to prevent obscene material, child pornography, sexual images and prostitution-related sites from being available. Under Dunlap's proposed bill, the digital blocking can be lifted if the consumer pays a one-time $20 fee per device to have the block removed. According to Dunlap, similar bills are being filed in other states that are proposing similar restrictions on devices providing internet access. “The bill is planned to be introduced in 30 other states,” he said. Dunlap concedes if the bill would pass, devices bought in Oklahoma but used in another state where the content-blocking capability is not required, the user would still have to pay to have the blocking disabled. examiner-enterprise.com/news/20170131/dunlaps-bills-focus-on-societys-ills
would require porn-blocking software on all internet devices
Thomas Walker
>eliminate money Are you suggesting we should go back to good old-fashioned trade,like in the Stone age?
Ayden Johnson
How can these reps be so stupid to not realize that this is a blatant violation of free speech? Also how the fuck do they think they are going to get this to pass when the main audience for porn is adults which happens to be the main voter population? If this somehow passes then even then the supreme court will hopefully just rule it as unconstitutional.
Nicholas Miller
Whats the bills name? An "act being pushed" doesnt mean anything. I need to know the name of the bill, and how far along on congress it is. There isnt even a bill is there?
Ian Thompson
Because it's not?
freeze peach =/= the constitutional right to download and post CP you degenerate fuck.
Luke Anderson
this is impossible and not real
Jack Clark
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_United_States#State_laws In December 2016, Bill Chumley, member of the South Carolina House of Representatives, introduced a bill that would require all computers to be sold with "digital blocking capabilities" to restrict access to pornographic materials. Users or manufacturers would be required to pay a $20 fee in order to lift the blocks.[51]
I wasn't arguing that, I am saying that making a law that forces manufactures to put a blocker that blocks all pornographic material unless you pay the government $20 is a blatant violation of free speech as it prevents consenting adults from expressing themselves in the form of pornographic video.
I can't beleive you guys have your nuts in a twist about this. This will never pass. Its a bill to implement fine and government control over the internet. I couldnt imagine the freedom caucus would ever vote for it, and dems wouldnt vote for it because its a republican bill. Its just a bill in the houses, these things almost always die. It only has one co-sponsor
Ryder Nelson
I mean it wouldnt effect me. I always use a vpn because i dont think it has a snowballs chance in hell of passing
Kevin Gonzalez
This is a pathetic attempt to create a dichotomy. Hang yourself.
Hunter Mitchell
digitaltrends.com/computing/south-carolina-porn-blocker-installed-new-internet-connected-devices/ The state of South Carolina may eventually start generating revenue by blocking residents from accessing pornography. State Representative William “Bill” Chumley (R-Spartanburg) intends to make a change to the state Human Trafficking Prevention Act (HTPA) that requires all new internet-connected devices to automatically block obscene, adult content right out of the box. The proposed change to the HTPA will require manufacturers or sellers of new computers, smartphones, tablets, and other internet-connected devices to install digital blocking capabilities. “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,”
What is the end game with your pic? I get that you can basically automate content being pushed to distributed social media stemming from a more anonymous online ID.
What is that used for? Shit posting? Propaganda?
Nicholas Cox
>“The bill is planned to be introduced in 30 other states,”
Jaxon Ross
People would find a way around it.
Brody Sanchez
>that image Jesus christ
Anthony Davis
>implying they can do shit i use Software that defends my freedoms you cucks
Adam Green
>being planned >to be introduced >in 30 states I wouldnt worry about it, its very unlikely to get anyway
Adam Allen
We have to make the public aware of it somehow. That it's not about human trafficking, but to steal their freedom, rights and the last tiny bit of privacy we all still have.
Easton Green
Boy who cried wolf over every stupid bill that wont pass is not a good strategy
Landon Kelly
Sorry I don't give a shit because free software is politics immune.
Nolan Martin
Sooo... fake news?
Parker Kelly
>$500 per image
>be me >work on product that can access the internet >forget to block google servers >tfw google has millions of pornographic images indexed and cached >mfw
Jace Gray
I do think this censorship is a problem but is right in that by making a fuss about every proposed bill you will tire the normies leaving them less likely to care when a bill is actually up for vote. When it is going to be voted on is the time to take action.
Brandon Lewis
cool987fm.com/proposed-north-dakota-bill-would-ban-pornography-on-digital-devices/ Representative Klemin has reached out to Townsquare Media to inform us that the bill has been withdrawn states that anyone who “manufactures, distributes, or sells a product that makes any content on the internet accessible may not sell the product unless the product contains an active and operating digital blocking capability that renders obscene material or obscene performances, as defined by section 12.1 – 27.1 – 01 inaccessible.” The proposed bill also states that, “An internet service provider’s router, or a cell phone, laptop, computer, gaming device, or other product that distributes the internet or makes the content on the internet available is classified as a pornographic vending machine and must be treated as such under this chapter” If the law passes, it would only apply to devices manufactured or sold after August 1, 2017. Technologically speaking, this would be a very hard feat for technology companies to pull off as it would basically require them to have a database of every single website on the internet that has ‘obscene material’ and block it.Of course the filter would have to stay up-to-date on any new websites that are created as well. the $20 fees consumers can pay would go to the state. Manufacturers would be able to charge an additional filter deactivation fee on top of the $20 fee. Rep Klemin says this would be a great money maker for manufacturers. Rep Klemin then reached out to me himself and added, “HB1185 is referred to nationally as the Human Trafficking Prevention Act (HTPA) and is in the process of being introduced in 28 states this year, so far. It is directed towards obscenity, child pornography, human trafficking, and revenge porn, It is about protecting children.”
Levi Lewis
Lol this is the dumbest bill i have ever seen. Would probably be cheaper to pay the fine or not sell the phone in that state then do this bullshit as a phone and isp provider. Even if it did pass it would likely be deemed unconstitutional by the supreme court
Ian Nguyen
Reminder: pcworld.com/article/3044594/open-source-tools/tp-link-blocks-open-source-router-firmware-to-comply-with-new-fcc-rules.html TP-Link blocks open-source router firmware to comply with new FCC rules Other manufacturers are quietly blocking open-source firmware, too. FCC Software Security Requirements document, issued the following instruction to router manufacturers applying for a license to sell their devices: “Describe in detail how the device is protected from ‘flashing’ and the installation of third-party firmware such as DD-WRT.” The FCC insisted it wasn’t banning open-source router firmware It instructs router manufacturers to: Describe, if the device permits third-party software or firmware installation, what mechanisms are provided by the manufacturer to permit integration of such functions while ensuring that the RF parameters of the device cannot be operated outside its authorization for operation in the U.S. Unfortunately, as Kathy Giori, senior product manager at Qualcomm Atheros, told Ars Technica: “The easiest way [for router manufacturers] to comply is to lock down the whole platform. Just lock down the whole thing and the FCC is happy.” Router manufacturers haven’t wanted to comment on the record about this, but it appears that TP-Link, Rosewill, and Netgear, at least, have quietly rolled out updates that prevent unauthorized firmware installation on existing routers. TP-Link is now the first router manufacturer to come forward and say it’s “limiting the functionality of its routers” in the United States to comply with FCC regulations. Open-source firmware installation won’t be allowed. TP-Link even posted an official FAQ on the subject, noting that “the regulation affects all manufacturers marketing routers in the U.S.” I wouldn’t be surprised to see other router manufacturers confirm the same thing soon—or just not comment as they begin shipping locked-down routers.
Zachary Robinson
That's exactly what happens in Communism. Except you work AND starve at the same time. When will you idiots understand that collectivist egalitarian systems have no incentives to improve your life, because there are billions of people who are living in conditions below baseline which you'd consider abhorrent and they would logically be the ones brought up to standard at your expense.
TP-Link says the change will go into effect for routers produced on and after June 2, 2016, a date set by the FCC in guidance issued in November. "All devices partially or completely approved under the old rules cannot be marketed starting June 2, 2016 unless they meet the requirements of the new rules in all the bands of operation," the FCC guidance says. TP-Link says the changes it is making mean that "users are not able to flash the current generation of open-source, third-party firmware." TP-Link's FAQ points out that "the regulation affects all manufacturers marketing routers in the US." Eric Schultz, a free and open source software advocate who is involved with the Save Wi-Fi coalition, is not optimistic about open source developers being able to rewrite their software. "As for whether the open source community can meet the requirements, not without moving the entire radio controlling software to a separate processor like on a cell phone," says that hardware makers should “implement well-defined measures to ensure that certified equipment is not capable of operating with RF-controlling software for which it has not been approved."
Thomas Richardson
theregister.co.uk/2015/09/13/openwrt_gets_update_in_face_of_fccs_antiflashing_push/ FCC which late in August issued a proposed rule-making that would demand Wi-Fi “lock down”. specifically proposes requiring Wi-Fi vendors to lock down their firmware and names OpenWrt as a problem. vendors selling kit in America would have to answer “What prevents third parties from loading non-US versions of the software/firmware on the device? Describe in detail how the device is protected from “flashing” and the installation of third-party firmware such as DD-WRT”.
arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/09/fcc-open-source-router-software-is-still-legal-under-certain-conditions/ Despite an FCC guidance to router manufacturers that seems to ban open source firmware such as DD-WRT and OpenWRT, FCC spokesperson Charles Meisch told Ars that there is in fact no such ban. The FCC is considering additional rule changes that could further restrict router modifications, but the most immediate cause of concern in the open source community is a guidance released in March that describes how manufacturers should comply with new security requirements for devices The guidance says, among other things, that hardware makers seeking equipment certification should ensure that “only properly authenticated software is loaded and operating the device,” and they should describe to the FCC “how the device is protected from ‘flashing’ and the installation of third-party firmware such as DD-WRT.” While that sounds like a ban on DD-WRT and similar software, FCC officials say it must be viewed in context Eric Schultz, community manager at the Prpl Foundation and a free and open source software advocate, believes that the FCC is making it very difficult to install third-party router firmware despite having "the best of intentions”
Landon Jones
>first poojeet fucks the internet >now hw big brother TRUMPĆŪCKS ON SUICIDE WATCH
Xavier Butler
> (4) the act creates a new revenue stream for manufacturers and retailers who can charge a filter deactivation fee of their own, in fulfilling a duty of care owed to their customers, at the expense of human traffickers and predatory pornographers
so you can pay to be unfiltered... wtf america, why is it so easy to take your money?
Eli Lewis
SOorry, sir. I'll just move along, now.
Isaiah Robinson
I think this is being done at the state level, not the federal.
Angel Flores
Yet you could barely name your state or local representatives if asked.
David Butler
Pornography between adults has already been ruled as protected by the first amendment, all this bill will do is waste hundreds of thousands of dollars in court fees.
Dylan Mitchell
Because he was approved by Obama, duh.
Hunter Kelly
Astounding the web is my guess.
Take any bullshit ideology, run a thousands of these bots, now google is filled with hits on the topic.
John Martinez
Nope. See Intel management engine
Benjamin Reyes
you can wipe parts of the amt
William Edwards
>website has the default squarehost/bluehost favicon
yeah i don't trust this at all
Adrian Jones
Fuck that let the bill pass
EVERYONE ON JEE LISTEN TO ME RIGHT NOW GO BUY ALL THE TECH YOU CAN THAT IS POPULAR BEFORE THIS BILL PASSES Sell the tech after as unbugged for 10x original price It's time to make some money
Carson Moore
what u working on user
Matthew Walker
>.com >government site
Lucas Miller
>Potential danger of deactivating the digital blocking capability.
