I vaguely remember reading about a similar effort in China many years ago --- that failed silently.
Trying to tie this into "human trafficking" is a cruel diversion, just like pornography, terrorism, and drugs.
"Let's make the world safer" seems to be the common thread in all of these anti-freedom bills, with the implicit intent of branding those who are against them as supporters of human traffickers, pedophilia, terrorism, or whatever else.
There are two memorable quotes which will become very relevant in the near future:
"If you outlaw freedom, only outlaws will have freedom."
"Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither."
Couldn't help but think of Malcolm Reynolds and his group from the Firefly series, given that I was re-watching it last night.
so, this is generally attributed to Franklen, and makes a lot more sense in context:
"those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
It's not really that there's a problem with trading freedom for security; we all do that. But mind the exchange rate!
More than that, it's downright frustrating. Human trafficking is a very real problem in America. It's not even just a problem that applies to illegal Asian or Latin American immigrants either (which might sound like a strange distinction but I've met people with this view). Teens are immensely vulnerable as well and it's ridiculous that something this serious is being used as just another tool in the war on pornography that some groups have been waging for decades.
Wait, what? Why should a fee to opt out exist?
They encourage retailers and manufacturers to charge more than the $20 and pocket the difference. They are marketing the bill as pro-business.
> the retailers can set the amount to be what it feels the market can bare.
I'm hoping that wasn't intentional.
I disagree. Authoritarians are always obsessed with being able to control peoples access to sex. Because that's a powerful lever you can use to control people.
For instance dominionist evangelicals and polygamist Mormons are obsessed with taking sexual rights away from women and commoditising access. Keeping young people and especially young men from access to porn, same deal.
If your state happens to be listed, please remember to vote in November. There has to be serious electoral consequences for every politician who thought it was a good idea to put their name on such an abhorrent piece of legislation.
Freedom of speech is not an in-app purchase.
Not US Rep. "McCarthy was an American Hero" Steve King? https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/steve-king-iowas-embarr...
Not giving gun permits to the blind? https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/08/iowa-g...
Not the Iowa State Basketball Coach making out with the coeds? http://www.iowastatedaily.com/news/article_37ac54e3-06c1-563...
THAT... THAT embarrasses you about Iowa?
Assuming that the device manufacturers do not actually want to participate in this, is there anything that stops them from making the removal code be some simple function of the serial number, and throwing up a website that will compute that function for $20? It will quickly get cracked, of course, and for the most part won't serious inconvenience anyone during the time it takes to get the stupid law overturned.
Similarly with computers - with a law like this in place Linux cannot exist.
A near-future dystopian fiction could involve the opposite, with people being required to show their ID and aver that they've been shown a "written warning regarding the potential dangers" of installing censorship software on their devices, abrogating the decision of what's decent to either the state or to the device manufacturer, and paying $20 for the privilege.
Just like the laws against cryptography. Lawmakers are not stupid, they know they can't stop bad actors from using crypto. They don't care about bad actors, they care about you and me.
This is a serious issue and while the OP bill is obvious censorship, all parents want more easy control.
That's still a bad idea, unless we want to criminalize a whole lot of existing software. Suppose I have a Python script that parses HTML from a URL and downloads all the images it finds. Would that be illegal to distribute unless I hook into the OS-level filters? For that matter, what about Python itself?
Refuted. I am a parent. I do not want 'more easy control'.
Alright, I guess "all" is little hyperbolic. But I think the sentiment stands firm.
I also think we need to avoid censorship as much as possible, and ensure parents have more control by default is the best path forward. Otherwise we'll end up with a solution like the UK has where age registration has to be done by everyone.
A lot of Apple users aren't too bright (1000+ Mac Mail TS issues while serving a stint at a major shitty hosting firm owned by EIG), and would be lost without their apple devices.
Device manufacturers could instead sue on grounds that it's not their responsibility that the local govt will need to come up with their OWN apps and force consumers to install them, or local telecoms. There will be lots of court battles for sure...
1. Enforce OSHA workplace safety law on all u.s. porn sets. 2. Enforce international trade rules against labor safety arbitrage, and or create new ones. 3. Enforce copyright law against tube sites that have made a mockery of d.m.c.a 4. Unionize all porn workers
Of course this will never happen... Porn is a symptom of the underlying I'll of our society.. where the accumulation of wealth and power are the only denominators of worth or virtue, then things like OSHA, labor rights, copyright law for small producers, and unions, are all seen as enemies of ,if not progress then the system itself.
If the u.s. loses a war to China because China infiltrated our computers with free porn, while they had mass censorship which prevented it, then American capitalism will have lost the Mandate of Heaven.
In other words... If porn destroys society, it might be a natural feedback loop, a self correcting mechanism whereby unrestrained , brutal greed is kept in check, by the society that glorifies it the most , collapsing in on itself.
I did not think of this myself. A young porn star aka victim made a documentary a few year back, about the disgraced CMU professor who began the true mass industrialization of porn. She called it "McDonald's for sex" or something like that. The point is that you can't apply Harvard business school brutalistic to every human process and expect a positive result.
If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns.
Well, I was being sarcastic and don’t actually believe it would work that well for US. But gun control laws certainly saved many lives in China, and there is at least hope that it could actually save some American lives. It would make it much harder for new outlaws to obtain guns at least
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/national/assaul...
In any case, it is reasonable that states have no interest in trying to enact some kind of "assault weapon" ban, because that would be contrary to the United States Constitution: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed". Just like this "human trafficking" law would be obviously contrary to the Constitution as well. I can't imagine how any lawmaker could seriously consider introducing a bill like is mentioned in the article - I guess it goes to show how corrupt some politicians can be.
No one should expect state legislatures to infringe the rights of the people that are protected by the Constitution. If someone wants to amend the US Constitution to take away either of these safeguards of peoples' rights, then let them propose that honestly instead.
