Utah lawmakers condemning open WiFi networks

We've already seen where mooching off an open WiFi signal can land you in Singapore, but are we really to that point here in the US of A? Apparently, Utah lawmakers are considering "penalizing those who leave their wireless networks open" as they trial "various methods of quelling free speech controlling questionable internet content." The paranoid officials are seemingly attempting to "reward ISPs that self-police access to pornography," as the primary concern seems to stem from open signals leading to unmonitored porn surfing by kiddos under 18. Interestingly, one proponent of the plan actually goes so far as to criticize the "unregulated internet," presumably suggesting that a world of controlled, censored, and dictated material would create a much more amicable environment. Still, one (level-headed) local ISP owner stated that shutting down free WiFi zones would damage Utah's reputation, as it would appear as a locale that "is restricting technology rather than expanding it." Truthfully, we tend to agree.

[Via Wired]

[JTM @ Apr 21st 2007 7:52PM]

Retard

[Randall Bennett @ Apr 21st 2007 5:52PM]

Can you say... pandering to constituents? Not the best idea, but instead they can point to this law when trying to get re-elected.

Annoying? Definitely.

[SRG @ Apr 21st 2007 5:52PM]

What's next? Are they going to tell me I can't marry 5 women at the same time? Crazy Utah....

[Zorque @ Apr 21st 2007 6:07PM]

Sometimes I really hate living in Salt Lake.

[kingofwale @ Apr 21st 2007 6:19PM]

so.... apparently you can marry your cousin, but you can't get free wifi?

Well, What do I know, Internet is a series of TUBES!!!

[Mickey Jones @ Apr 21st 2007 6:24PM]

How did the Taliban make it to Utah?

[ChillyWilly @ Apr 21st 2007 6:30PM]

As a current resident of Salt Lake, I respect Pete Ashdown's responses to these dumb-ass legislature sheep.

And this fight against pornography comes up every so often here. If parents like this Yarro freak would do their job, they wouldn't be making dumb assumptions that kids surf porn all day long.

I hope enough of us here that see things differently can help stop this from happening.

[rodan32 @ Apr 21st 2007 7:02PM]

I live in Utah, in waaaaay conservative Utah Valley. While I'm no fan of pornography and will try not to let my kids anywhere near it, I have to rate this idea pretty high on the idiocy list. I never told my legislator it was his job to police the intertubes in my home. I'm perfectly capable of doing that myself. I built a little Smoothwall, installed a URL filter, and offered to do that for anyone else in my neighborhood who would like a little help keeping unwanted stuff out of their homes.

That way, I'm not telling anyone else what to do with the internet. If my neighbors want to surf porn, that's their call, and they can use the same ISP I do to find it.

As for open WiFi networks giving my kids access to pornography, there's not a lot I can do. A curious kid is going to find porn to look at if he wants to. I can keep it out of my home, and I can teach my kids what I expect from them. Another silly law isn't going to prevent that, and more than gun laws keep nutjobs from getting guns.

[JTM @ Apr 21st 2007 7:55PM]

I guess I should say something related to the story too. I live in Salt Lake City and this is the first I've heard of this. I think if you want to share your internet, you should be able to. And if you want to borrow, that too should be unrestricted.

[mOe @ Apr 21st 2007 8:04PM]

Living in Utah, this doesn't surprise me in the least. After all, this is the state where they rejected a seat belt law because they felt larger families might not be able to abide by it.

[oschmucko @ Apr 24th 2007 12:50PM]

Actually, the seat belt law passed. It is now legal for the police to pull you over for not wearing a seat belt.

[Greg @ Apr 22nd 2007 1:07AM]

I'm not quite sure what you're referring to. Utah has a seatbelt law, I know people that have been ticketed under it. http://www.highwaysafety.utah.gov/seatbelts.html

[mOe @ Apr 22nd 2007 2:51AM]

The utah seatbelt law states that only an adult passenger can be ticketed, not a child.

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=238&sid=815024

[tchiseen @ Apr 21st 2007 8:12PM]

I like how they're trying to enact a law to prevent an activity that isn't even a crime. I guess in Utah there just aren't better things to do with your time.

[Chuckles McGee @ Apr 21st 2007 9:42PM]

Wait..their concerns are children looking at porn as opposed to children in porn??? They need to get their priorities straight. Kids really have to try to find pornography, maybe it's not a lot of trying, but it still involves clicking the banner ad or typing a query into a search engine. The kids have to want to see porn in order to find it. It's parents' responsibility to install whatever webfiltering software to stop their children from looking at porn, not the lawmakers.

[Anand @ Apr 21st 2007 10:35PM]

Wow. Utah allows polygamy, but wants to ban open WiFi.
Am I missing something here?

[scott @ Apr 22nd 2007 12:05AM]

You're an absolute idiot... Utah as a state has never allowed polygamy, in fact that was the main barrier to Utah becoming a state and the LDS church saw that fact and banned it accordingly.

This was 110 YEARS AGO!

[Donner73 @ Apr 21st 2007 10:45PM]

Okay, first of all, to clear this little tid-bit up for (in particular) kingofwale and SRG, just because we're in Utah dosen't mean we're all inbred, Mormon, and/or polygamist's, I am NONE of these, and am SOOOOOO glad, because Mormons bug me. So why don't you try and AT LEAST get your info right okay? But anyways, since I live in Utah (and hate it with a passion) This has got to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard, way to go Utah, you just make life even worse.

[mOe @ Apr 22nd 2007 10:31AM]

I take offense to that. As it so happens, I am both an inbred and a polygamist (although not a mormon).


:D

[Mickey Jones @ Apr 21st 2007 10:57PM]

Surf Nazis!

[Jebediah Obiadiah @ Apr 22nd 2007 12:20AM]

On paper, polygamy is illegal in Utah. But law enforcement rarely gets involved unless it involves minors

[scott @ Apr 22nd 2007 12:46AM]

oh, so Texas and Canada did so much about the polygamists in their respective jurisdictions?

[mhatch5 @ Apr 22nd 2007 12:19AM]

parents installing filters on their internet connection is not going to help the problem if their child can just get on through the neighbors unprotected (and unfiltered) wifi. Maybe that is the point of this law

[Turtle @ Apr 22nd 2007 12:42AM]

You know, I used to think that California was an island off the coast of Murka, but now I am fairly sure that Utah is the only such example of a rare landlocked island, devoid of any meaningful connection to modern Murkin culture and technology.

[coffeepot64 @ Apr 22nd 2007 1:33AM]

Utah is the only state in the nation where it is against the law to have fun. The law makers there spend more time thinking up ways to limit the daily activities of their constituants than doing anything really important, like focusing on the education children are getting in school. This narrow minded aproach to wifi is another way they are letting Utah's children down. Some of them can't get internet anyother way. Way to go Utah.

[desertfox7266 @ Apr 22nd 2007 12:22PM]

Thank God there are 49 other states...

[James @ Apr 22nd 2007 1:31PM]

There's a phrase that applies particularly well to Jake's comment above: "the tyranny of the majority".

People misunderstand the problem, and come up with solutions like this. You don't want *your home's internet* filtered, you want *your kid's computer* filtered. The filtering software should go at the "end point", which would remove the argument for laws like this.

And the problem with the federalist argument is that if this law is allowed to stand, it will be cited as precedent for other states (possibly where it is only favored by a vocal minority) or even federal regulation of the internet. The "slippery slope" argument holds more weight than most people give credit for.

There's several problems with this law: one, it puts the onus on AP owners, who might not know *how* to close it off; two, it dictates a new requirement to the consumer electronics industry, that all hardware must support whatever method of AP access control the law deigns "proper", possibly rendering legacy hardware useless; three, it artificially constrains the development of Internet-access business models. There's more I could probably come up with, but the aforementioned are more than enough argument against this sort of thing. But the polis won't care; they just want a law with their name on it that's "about the children" when re-election time comes round.

I don't care if you support the idea of controlling 'net access for kids or not, this is an indefensible piece of legislation. Yet again, somebody wanted the government to parent our kids for us; yet again, it's a terrible idea.

[jakemikey @ Apr 22nd 2007 2:46PM]

@James:

"People misunderstand the problem, and come up with solutions like this. You don't want *your home's internet* filtered, you want *your kid's computer* filtered. The filtering software should go at the "end point", which would remove the argument for laws like this."

No, you are misunderstanding the problem. I *do* want my home's internet filtered. I have multiple computers at home. I want to dictate what content is allowed and what is not on all of them, regardless of who is using it. To that end, I have a box that acts as the router for my entire home network and runs Dansguardian, which works well while not interfering with legitimate use. Control at the local computer level is easily defeated (...ever heard of a Live CD or Tor?) and difficult to manage properly without severely impairing the use of the PC, and is therefore not a suitable solution for my home. This box isn't a replacement for active parental involvement and a more holistic approach to objectionable content - it is an important part, though, and a response to how pervasive and easily accessible this content has become. It's just too easy to get. I'm trying to make it much more difficult to get within the walls of my home. Open APs that tresspass into my home take away my ability to do that, so I see this as something that definitely needs regulation.

Basically your argument against this law is that "it would be too hard". That's a weak argument against any law. I'm not against public, open APs (I'm thinking commercial), but I think they should be regulated and certified and allow up to PG content, no further. That would meet the needs of road warriors (IMing, emails, VoIP, basic surfing, etc.) without infringing on individuals' abilities to control their home traffic in *any* way they see fit. As far as I'm concerned, if the AP is secured, the owner can run anything they want through it. If you leave it open, regulation is needed. There's just no way to avoid this issue.

These are the same types of standards applied to network television, so I don't see why they should be any harder to swallow when applied to open internet access.

[KerryB @ Apr 23rd 2007 10:41AM]

"Basically your argument against this law is that "it would be too hard". That's a weak argument against any law. "

Well, actually, no, that's not really what he said. What he said is that the broader costs of passing such a law outweigh the actual (as opposed to the percieved) benefits. You're welcome to disagree, but not mischaracterize his statements.

I won't deny that it's easier and easier to get to porn on the 'tubes these days. Back in my day (not *that* long ago) one pretty much had to shoplift, or at least gank some magazines from someone's dad who was less zealous about keeping them secure (though I will say that anything less than lock and key is insufficient... there's no such thing as hiding something from a kid).

I won't make any arguments about the proper way to handle this kind of thing from a parent's perspective, though I certainly have my own opinions. Rather I'll just agree with James that the real costs in terms of enforcement (cops roaming with laptops to locate open ap's?), opportunity costs, and required infrastructure upgrades -- not to mention further disincentivizing visitation of the state -- outweigh the actual benefits.

Censorship really never has worked very well and I'm even more doubtful that porn can be kept out of the hands of 11-18 year old males.

post script : I wonder if the liquor laws in Utah prevent underage drinking. The last time I was in the state, aged 12 or 13, my family was effectively denied service at a restaurant because the one table they had for "families" was occupied. The table had a large wall around it, preventing wandering eyes from seeing the bar that otherwise would have, apparently, lured my weak will in with it's promises of blissful intoxication and frivolity. My dad eventually argued our way into a back corner with a limited view, and I had to sit with my back to the bar and not turn around. I hate to say this, because I'm sure there's more to the state, but my enduring memories are of that event, and some pretty good skiing.

[john @ Apr 22nd 2007 4:58PM]

say it aint so utah! i was out there for a month traveling among the canyons and i actually had better luck finding a loose internet connection than i did finding phone service in may cases! skype and ichat kept me in touch with the outside world and the trip would not have been the same without it...

[B @ Apr 22nd 2007 5:55PM]

Ah, Utah. Land of salty lakes, mormons, and a great many people with a stick up their ass.

[Sam @ Apr 22nd 2007 6:32PM]

could someone explain to me why pornography is bad for a 16 year old kid to see? good lord, these kids see worse stuff at their high school dances! but why is that bad? its the human body, deal with it! have you been to europe? their commercials would be considered "pornography" here... these socially conservative morons that are in power are ruining this country..

[david @ Apr 22nd 2007 7:32PM]

Right wing extremist BS. If it wasn't for freedom of religion, Mormons wouldn't exist. Now those same extremist few want to stop freedom of speech. Why? Porn doesn't have caffeine! (You'd only get that if you knew Mormons).

[Zak @ Apr 22nd 2007 7:40PM]

Good to see that bigotry is still alive and well.

[Hezekiah @ Apr 23rd 2007 12:24PM]

Wow, the comments in this post amaze me. If the things said about Mormons in this post were said about other groups, there would be a cry of outrage.

And for the people who live in Utah and hate it, why not move elsewhere? If you're under 18, fine, you're probably stuck. But if you're older than 18, why not just leave. What's the big deal?

As you have probably surmised, I do live in Utah. I love it. I am Mormon. I love it. You're not Mormon. That's equally cool. Whatever suits you is fine with me. I respect that. I'd ask the same of you.

[KerryB @ Apr 23rd 2007 3:51PM]

Wow, um, ok.

I don't recall making any reference of any kind to Mormons, the edicts of their religion, or any other specific practice.

I made note of the laws and practices of the state of Utah, which may or may not be based on Mormon religious doctrine. I made some general comments about what I find logical and germane to the discussion at hand. I readily admit to not knowing much about Mormonism, which is why I made absolutely no reference to it.

I respected your religion by not bringing it into the debate in the first place. I can't speak for others on the list, with whom I'd say you have a legitimate grievance.

[James Lyon @ Apr 23rd 2007 12:55PM]

I was ready to submit a lengthy comment, but since nobody likes reading those, I'll just say this:

In other words, parents who aren't committing the necessary time are getting an added sense of security while the problem (if any) continues. I don't disagree with the high values of LDS church members, just with some LDS parents/lawmakers who don't address the real issue.

[Conda @ Apr 23rd 2007 1:56PM]

im in utah too, i havent heard of this yet, but its kinda whack

[Matt @ Apr 23rd 2007 7:25PM]

It's shocking what kind of "hate speech" and misinformation has been stirred up here. If similar things were said about Jews or Muslims, most people would be outraged to hear it. Why is it okay with Mormons? What happened to open-mindedness and tolerance? Posts like that belong on KKK/Arian Nations and other terrible sites, not here.

Anyway, I love free wi-fi, but I also understand parents' interest in keeping smut out of their homes. They are not trying to shut down the internet. I don't think it would hinder free speech in in any way. Besides, the right of free speech does not extend into our private homes, where parents have the right to raise their children how they like. In a way, open wi-fi limits parents' rights. If they want to give their kids unfettered, filtered, or no access to their children, that's their call. That's one of the many great things about our country.

[GtRl @ Apr 25th 2007 1:19PM]

Amidst the typical jokes and slander--which has been correctly identified as hate speech--there have been a few great points made.

But the reality of the situation is that eventhough disney.com and nickelodeon.com exist on the Internet--the Internet is for adults.

The lack of ability to truly manage your environment for you and your family, makes it so.

Yes you can sort of lockdown you environment. But, lets face it, if you son borrows his friends PSP, sneaks it up to his bedroom where he can access your neighbor's Wifi, what does it matter that you have secured your home computers tighter than Fort Knox.

The number of devices that are Wifi enabled is exploding, the costs are shrinking and the Internet will soon be everywhere. So what does it matter if you lockdown you home system.

Which brings up one very interesting fact about the Internet: If a community has already decided on and supports a standard of decency, what legal right does the Internet have to defy that standard.

If a community has deemed that a child cannot buy a porn magazine or rent a porn dvd, then why does any one think it is okay for that kid to access it over the Internet.

And for the record, the porn on the Internet is not centerfolds and girls gone wild. It also includes dark, violent and disturbing forms of pornography that can and does ruin the lives of adults and children.

So let's not pretent that the Internet is family friendly, because it it's not. It is an adult playground and should be treated and regulated as such.

[Joe @ May 14th 2007 10:46PM]

Since murder is worse than looking at naked ladies, maybe they should ban guns instead? How many people die from guns vs looking at porn? I guess you could die if you looked at porn while driving.

Instead of trying to send Utah back into the dark ages, if you really feel the need to filter the internet, how about having a free registration process that involves going somewhere where you have to show a form of ID like a driver's license? Or to make it convenient, certify different locations to do this for people like coffee shops, copy shops, universities, city services buildings, etc. Have kiosks maybe for registering too. Give them a unique username/pw and have the registration involve listing of a MAC address. Users can be assigned usernames and passwords. Depending on your age, the content can be filtered or unfiltered.

Now, I'm not saying I prefer the registering, but hey, at least make some effort to let adults think for themselves. I barely took a couple of minutes to think of this. Why can't our "leaders" think of something like this? It doesn't seem like they are providing a service but more like keeping us under submission. Remember, they work for us, not the other way around.

[jake.michaelson @ Sep 14th 2007 3:41PM]

I have to say I'm disappointed with the tone of this post and most of the comments. One of the beautiful things about the US is the fact that the setup of the state governments accommodates a wide variety of value systems. One can live in Massachusetts in a gay marriage. If the environment is at the top of your list, you can live in California. If protecting family life is important to you, you can live in Utah, etc. That's not to say that these are the only states that support these values, but you get the idea. The state governments MUST respond to the values of their constituents. That's the whole point of a representative government, people! A majority of Utah's constituents would support this legislation, so I don't see the point of people from other states boo-hooing this. Would you rather that every state in the Union be identical in values and legislation? People seem to only like diversity when the diversity agrees with them (I'm looking at both conservatives AND liberals).

Secondly, this issue is inevitable. One of the main things that has prevented Congress from having grounds to regulate the internet (think the whole .xxx domain issue) has been the existence of filtering software that individuals can use to protect their home networks. Open access points, which will have blanketed every square foot of most areas in the next decade, make filtering software absolutely useless, which will then force the revisiting of mass internet regulation.

I'm not in favor of regulating the internet itself, but we have to choose between regulating the internet at large or regulating access to it. If there is no regulation whatsoever (at large or access), then this infringes on individuals' rights/abilities to regulate the internet within the walls of their own home, which, I hope we can all appreciate, would not be a good thing. Controlling your own home network is pointless when 8 other neighbors' open networks are overlapping into your own space.