Sophos Cloud Optix
Proposing a bill that requires computers sold in a state to block access to online porn on the grounds that it “would be another way to fight human trafficking” is an interesting approach to crime prevention. That’s what Bill Chumley, Republican state representative, is suggesting in South Carolina.
But if you’re an adult who might want to enjoy legal adult entertainment in the privacy of your own home, you can, under the provisions of the bill, pay a $20 fee to remove that lock.
Outwardly, Chumley’s Human Trafficking Prevention Act resembles morally intentioned ransomware that would be a pain in the neck to administer but easy to bypass.
If the bill became law, every computer sold in the state capable of accessing the internet (ie all new computers) would by default have to “install and operate a digital blocking capability that renders obscenity inaccessible”. It’s not clear how software blocking would filter pornography from other content, although large social media sites would be exempt.
Buyers over the age of 18, sellers and manufacturers could have the blocking deactivated for a one-off fee.
Chumley explained the scheme: “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. We felt like that would be another way to fight human trafficking.”
It seems unkind to point out the bill’s flaws, although they are numerous.
Installing a block on any product that “makes content accessible on the internet” would require software to be written for a wide range of operating systems. That implies costs beyond the suggested $20 unblock fee.
It’s also hard to see how legislators could stop buyers ordering equipment in other states and driving back over the border. In all probability, putting a software barrier between buyers and computers would turn into an inconvenience for ordinary consumers that crackers would quickly find ways around.
The bill’s complexity is unendearing. Manufacturers and vendors must not only make sure the content filter works but ensure there is a way for users to report false positives and false negatives.
Vendors must administer the process of de-activating filters if requested (in writing), carry out age verification to that end, and issue a written declaration warning of the dangers of turning it off.
It’s sounds like a recipe for the sort of procedural bureaucracy that would have had the functionaries of 10th century Byzantium ordering in extra parchment and ink, not to mention that penalties for non-compliance include serious jail time.
More charitable interpretations of the bill are possible: might this really be a sneaky way of taxing computer sales to fund anti-trafficking and prostitution programs by the back door?
If so, however well-intentioned, it is unlikely to become law when the inevitable challenge arrives for violating the US constitution’s right to freedom of speech and expression.
How exactly would blocking online porn for under aged people help fight human trafficking?
Well might you ask. It’s a classic prohibitionist tactic to conflate legal, consensual porn with illegal, evil and non-consensual human trafficking.
Actually, scientific studies have come out showing that consumption of pornography alters a person’s brain chemistry and patterns of behavior. It is correlated with an increased incidence of sexual violence, and drives demand for prostitution, which is generally the human-trafficking endgame. (I would direct your attention to websites such as Porn Kills Love, which I have found presents both scientific and sociological evidence very clearly.)
That being said, the proposed legislation is not only shortsighted but also unconstitutional, and would solve absolutely nothing. And that’s before you get to the technical difficulties of implementing such a thing. Do these guys just think the world revolves around them?
Bingo, ultimately it would fail a First Amendment Challenge in the Courts.0
Does Bill Chumley even have the equivalent of a 6 year olds working concept of the internet? How do such incompetent people get into office? (never mind, I know – money from puppet masters)
You’d be amazed at how many intelligent professionals have absolutely no understanding of the concepts behind web filtering systems and the basics of how they work. Actually no, you probably wouldn’t.
I did not read the bill, but it seems the easiest way around it is selling devices which by default can not access the internet. IE desktops w/out a motherboard ethernet port or phones without built in carriers’ sim cards (or disabled by default in UEFI or other firmware settings). Then the manufacturers just reply, ‘When I sold the device, it could not access the internet. What the customer did with it is their business.’
It sounds like a tax based on the article.
Another poorly conceived attempt to legislate morality. What scientific study, intelligent research, or human trafficking authority can Mr. Chumley cite to support his assumption? I’ll bet on None.
Chumley,,,,, Isn’t that the lazy dumbo on Pawn Stars?
The chap out of Pawn Stars is “Chumlee”, though apparently he’s named after Chumley the Walrus. (I got that from Wikipedia, so YMMV).
Since I have worked with a variety of different filters to comply with the US CIPA standards, I have noticed a range of effectiveness, one even blocked “naked” security. (You could change the name to scantily clad security,) I guess the people who’d buy the computers are not techies.
It’s what has become popular. That if we make it illegal it will fix any problems associated with something else. Since prohibition has started (1909), it’s been proven a failed exercise. Even though the attempt is veiled as a help with trafficking, it’s obviously a moral interpretation… Another religious person that thinks America is driven that way. I hope they realize that Thomas Jefferson stated in Virginia that the “separation of church and state must be absolute”.
I agree with all that it will cause more problems that it will fix (typical using that tool.)
Obviously un Constitutional, but that hasn’t stopped them before. Hope they think about what Freedom is.