Interesting approach out of Utah. Here’s the bill in pdf and here is another copy.
Utah’s governor signed a bill on Monday that would require Internet providers to block Web sites deemed pornographic and could also target e-mail providers and search engines.
The controversial legislation will create an official list of Web sites with publicly available material deemed “harmful to minors.” Internet providers in Utah must provide their customers with a way to disable access to sites on the list or face felony charges.
Technology companies had urged Republican Gov. Jon Huntsman not to sign the bill (click for PDF), saying it was constitutionally suspect and worded so vaguely its full impact is still unclear.
The measure, SB 260, says: “Upon request by a consumer, a service provider may not transmit material from a content provider site listed on the adult content registry.” A service provider is defined as any person or company who “provides an Internet access service to a consumer,” which could include everything from cable companies to universities, coffeeshops, and homes with open 802.11 wireless connections.
This is obviously an attempt to allow parents to have some additional peace of mind regarding the content available to their children online, and since it is impossible to regulate every website (read: international, etc), they are trying to regulate it on the ISP end. While this may be a nice idea, it is simply not going to work.
First of all, the burden on the ISP’s is too great, unless the government provides some sort of list of what web sites are harmful, and that is not an idea that has much merit at all. Second, including “homes with open 802.11 wireless connections” in the definition of service providers dooms this bill to failure. I would venture to guess that the vast majority of people with wireless internet connections have no idea whether their network is open and how to secure it.
Once again, we’re back to the issue of parental responsibility. If a parent doesn’t want their kid to see bad stuff online, they need to monitor their activities. There are lots of ways to do this, ranging from high tech keystroke loggers (yes, you can do this in your home, they’re your kids using your internet connection), to low tech “put the computer in the living room” and the even lower tech and more extreme “don’t let them online when you’re not with them.”
It is a parent’s job to ensure that their children are not harmed while in their home. It is not the job of the State. While I applaud the effort of the State of Utah to protect minors from harmful materials such as pornography, does anyone really think that a parent who does not manage their kids’ web usage will bother to ask the ISP to block the bad stuff?
Eric Goldman’s deconstruction:
The basic structure of the bill is that the Attorney General is responsible for preparing a database of sites that do not restrict minor access to material that is harmful to minors. It’s unclear if the AG is supposed to go on a witchhunt or just wait for people to call the AG’s attention to a site. Then, IAP subscribers can ask their IAPs to block their access to harmful to minor materials and any websites in the AG’s database. The IAP can comply with this request by using network-level filtering software or by giving filtering software to the consumer (the IAP can’t charge requesting consumers more for the service/software, though they can raise prices generally). I use the term “IAP,” but the law also refers to “Internet service providers,” and this could be interpreted to include websites, email service providers, etc.
No True Bill says:
If you live in Utah and have a wireless home network, you are now required by law to block all pornography from entering your home. And installing Net Nanny on your computer won’t cut it. You have to make sure the smut never even reaches your router.
Paul Chenoweth has some comments on the digital divide between parents and children, and children and their respective representatives.