Rhode Island Bill Would Impose Fee For Accessing Online Porn (providencejournal.com) 503
If a recently introduced bill passes the General Assembly this session, Rhode Island residents will have to pay a $20 fee to access sexually explicit content online. The bill, introduced by Sen. Frank Ciccone (D-Providence) and Sen. Hanna Gallo (D-Cranston), would require internet providers to digitally block "sexual content and patently offensive material." Consumers could then deactivate that block for a fee of $20. The Providence Journal reports: Each quarter the internet providers would give the money made from the deactivation fees to the state's general treasurer, who would forward the money to the attorney general to fund the operations of the Council on Human Trafficking, according to the bill's language. If online distributors of sexual content do not comply with the filter, the attorney general or a consumer could file a civil suit of up to $500 for each piece of content reported, but not blocked, according to the bill.
ludicrously and patently unconstitutional (Score:5, Insightful)
ludicrously and patently unconstitutional
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And before people start with the whataboutism and Republicans, I don't see them as terribly much better as neither party seems to give a fuck about the 4th amendment as of late and both have been quite happy to overstep the 10th for a
Sex = Guns? (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Oh great so the secret Service, FBI, CIA, SWAT, PD, ATF aren't allowed to own guns now? Hint none of them are "government controlled militia". This should be fun to watch!
Re:ludicrously and patently unconstitutional (Score:5, Informative)
Even if the 2nd were interpreted to only apply to well regulated militias that would not mean nobody else would be allowed to own a gun.
The Bill of Rights isn't a short list of what we are allowed to do. They are specific limitations on what the government cannot do.
That's why there are phrases like "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", "shall not be violated" sprinkled throughout.
Re: ludicrously and patently unconstitutional (Score:2)
According to the most current interpretation by our conservative Supreme Court, the second amendment only allows for civilians to posses handguns inside their homes for self-protection
What ruling was that??
Re: ludicrously and patently unconstitutional (Score:4, Informative)
No, they did not throw the orgininalist view of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights out the window, rather they stuck very closely to the original intent of the founding fathers.
Re: (Score:3)
People, collective via regulated militias.
Both the originalists and the courts over time have ruled that the Second Amendment did not mean things like the national guard. The United States was founded on the notion that the entire private citizenry was the country's defense force. We've moved a bit beyond that now, so it might be time for an amendment.
Fuck the federalist papers. It's one set of opinions from one set of elitist proto-wingnuts, nothing more, nothing less. They aren't words handed down by Alan Rickman [youtube.com] from god herself.
That's fine, but those are the men who crafted our system of government. If you want to know what they meant, it's a good resource. You don't have to agree with their conclusions, but the solution is
Re: (Score:2)
Both of your statements are entirely false.
Refer to 10 U.S. Code  246 (Score:3)
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
Re: ludicrously and patently unconstitutional (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think you know how to read. The amendment says "the people", not "the militia".
And strictly speaking, restricting missile launchers and grenades is unconstitutional. It's just really hard to find many people who think those restrictions aren't reasonable..
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Such things were rather on the mind at the time because the discipline, equipment, and training of the British regulars made them formidable opponents compared to the farmers and hunters that made up the American army.
The term "regulation" here has more to do with rules and discipline than with restraint, curtailing, or limiting.
Re: ludicrously and patently unconstitutional (Score:4, Informative)
The second amendment does not represent an individual right, but a collective right for members of a well-regulated militia.
Otherwise, out would be unconstitutional to have limits on other arms like missile launchers and grenades.
Uh, the constitution set up the federal government and its powers, and anything not mentioned is reserved for the states or the people.
Shit got hairy quickly, so we slapped on 10 new items that explicitly call out some bullshit. #2 explicitly states that people have the right to keep and use weapons.
And yes, strictly speaking, preventing someone from owning a missile launcher is unconstitutional. If you disagree, change the constitution.
Re: (Score:3)
Leaving out the missile launcher (and tanks, artillery, land mines, bomber aircraft, etc.), ...
I once visited a ranch in Nevada that had a privately owned tank and several howitzers. AFAIK, there is no law against that. Why would there be? Private tanks and artillery caused zero deaths last year, so a ban would be silly.
Re: ludicrously and patently unconstitutional (Score:4, Insightful)
Lets try parsing the 2nd a bit shall we?
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," Subordinate, participial clause. Absolutely meaningless without-
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed Main clause. Very clear, very direct, very not open to interpretation.
Or how about putting the 2nd into a less emotionally charged context?
A well balanced breakfast, being necessary to the health of the nation, the right of the people to keep and eat cereal, shall not be infringed.
So, who has the right to eat cereal: a well-balanced breakfast, or the people?
Most of the preceding text is not mine but from comments made by other posters on various forums over the years.
My view:
It always amazes me that the people who scream that we should just ignore the 2nd amendment are the very same people who would be screaming about their right to free speech, or their right to not have their homes searched without a warrant, or their right not be held without trial being ignored by anyone else.
You don't like the 2nd, fine, the 1st protects your right to express your opinion. But if you want to overturn the 2nd then you need to push for a 28th Amendment that just states "The 2nd amendment no longer applies." That is all it would have to say. And when that happens I will give up the
But until that happens you don't get to pick and choose what parts of the Constitution you get to follow anymore than any other person can. I will continue to seek to uphold and defend the Constitution, as a whole, against all threats foreign and domestic. Even if it means wasting time dealing with people like you.
Re:ludicrously and patently unconstitutional (Score:4, Insightful)
"quaint idea that guns can protect you from tyranny."
Guns are the ONLY protection from tyranny != guns are a protection from tyranny.
Pro tip: whenever ANY tyrannical régime is enforced, it is done so with the aid of weapons/guns.
Pro tip #2: whenever freedom is defended against a tyrant, it is done so with weapons/guns (even democratically created laws are enforced by guns).
This is because tyrants do not respect democracy, morality, general opinion, etc.. They respect the rule of force. This does not mean you cannot effect tyranny without personally using firearms. Martin Luther King Jr is an example of this (maybe not the best). He didn't personally use guns. However all the progressive laws passed because of his ideals have to be enforced by someone with a gun.
Bottom line: responsable gun owners want the ability to defend against tyranny themselves rather than rely on others who may be influenced by that very tyranny.
Re: ludicrously and patently unconstitutional (Score:2, Insightful)
Move to Venezuela then I hear itâ(TM)s a liberal paradise.
Re:ludicrously and patently unconstitutional (Score:5, Informative)
Other countries like Venezuela, and Australia removed guns from the plebes... and mysteriously the mass shootings stopped. Gee whiz.
Strange, it looks like the number of homicides rose [crimeresearch.org] steadily after the gun ban in Venezuela.
Oh look, Maduro is giving guns to his supporters [breitbart.com]
Here's an example of responsible government gun usage [cnn.com]
And another [jamaicaobserver.com]
It's a good thing that they have a ban in Venezuela, it keeps candidates in elections from getting shot [go.com]
The Gun ban is working so well [cbssports.com] with petty crime too.
Re:There were only muzzle loading gun at that time (Score:5, Insightful)
By your logic the freedom of speech does not apply to any of our modern communication methods. No phones, no computers, no Radio, no TV or interweb. Not even multi-color high speed presses capable of producing thousands of newspapers an hour.
If the 2nd only applies to muzzle loaders, then the 1st and 4th are equally limited to protecting our rights via the technology of the 1780's.
Re: (Score:3)
Venezuela is an authoritarian government.
You are correct, like all Communist countries, Venezuela is has an authoritarian government. Obviously, authoritarianism doesn't require Communism, but Communist countries have authoritarian governments.
Re: (Score:2)
#nobully #IStandWithTankMan
Re: (Score:2)
Call the police?
;-)
Re:ludicrously and patently unconstitutional (Score:5, Insightful)
Then there are those who used arms to defend escaping slaves from slave hunters. And to protect those on the Underground railroad. There was John Brown's failed raid. There was the use of arms in bloody Kansas before the war fighting to keep slavery out (and on the other side fighting to bring it in). Gun control in this country was started by southern Democrats to keep freedmen from trying to force the release of the slaves and after the Civil war to keep the black man subservient to the whites. (in fact the NRA was founded to help defend the rights of black Americans to keep arms for defense against the likes of the democrat created KKK.
Then there was the battle of Athens after WWII, when citizens did in deed fight a corrupt loal government off to defend the free election.
In more recent times, while I disagreed with their cause, it can be argued that the Bundy stand-off in Nevada was just such an action. The cattle in question are still grazing on those lands today, and all those who refused to accept a plea deal have been acquitted of all charges.
No our history isn't always pretty, earlier on we were far more selective over who we allowed the rights we supposedly claimed belonged to all men. But your claim of never using them to defend against tyranny is false.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Children's lives > your cars.
Hell, while we're at it, what about everyone's lives? Heart disease, diabetes, etc are the leading causes of death in the US. We should ban all unhealthy foods and lifestyles.
Re: (Score:2)
How are licenses and fees ludicrously unconstitutional? Government at all levels has plenty of them. This is a case of "good luck with enforcement" not "unconstitutional",
Re:ludicrously and patently unconstitutional (Score:5, Funny)
This will go over like a turd in the punchbowl. An if you live in Rhode Island it will only cost you $20 to see that.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Looking at the actual text of the law rather than the Providence Journal's story, actually, not "ludicrously and patently" unconstitutional.
It is, of course, ordinarily unconstitutional under First Amendment case law to regulate (including by differential licensing or taxation) based on content.
But this bill explicitly references RI Â 11-31-1 to define the content being regulated, and that is the bit of Rhode Island law that outlaws obscenity (not merely sexually-explicit material), in the same words t
Re: ludicrously and patently unconstitutional (Score:5, Insightful)
Children can't consent to being in pornography. So no.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, depends, and sometimes requires some mental gymnastics.
If a 12yo takes nude selfies and posts them on the net without her parents knowing... since she didn't consent, and did it of her own volition (say, "wanting to be cool like the porn stars"), but she can't consent, did the porn generate itself? Or did she produce pornography - able to consent to being the creator but not to being the subject? Or is it "involuntary production of porn", akin to the distinction between manslaughter and murder?
Oh, you
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's NOT APK. It's someone posing as APK.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:ludicrously and patently unconstitutional (Score:5, Insightful)
oh, you think the constitution actually is relevant to laws passed in the US?
Yes. It is unlikely this bill will ever go before the full legislature for a vote. If it does, it will almost certainly be voted down. If it passes, it will be immediately challenged in court and struck down as unconstitutional.
This bill has zero chance of being enacted and enforced.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But leave it up to Democrats to try to impose a nanny state upon those who elected them.
The RI lawmakers are Idiots. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The lawmakers are Idiots.
FTFY
Re: (Score:3)
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
- Mark Twain
All Congresses and Parliaments have a kindly feeling for idiots, and a compassion for them, on account of personal experience and heredity.
- Mark Twain
Re:The RI lawmakers are Idiots. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Eventually that model runs out of other peoples' money - like in Venezuela.
Venezuala has had significant social and economic problems since the 80s. The introduction of social policies in an attempt to rectify some of these failed. That says nothing about social policies in general, or how they are applied in dozens of different societies and economies.
This Democrats=socialists and social policies=bad is the sort of simplistic 'us and them' mentality that allows political parties in the US to ignore the wants and needs of the majority of the population. It doesn't matter how bad t
Democrats have been doing this shit for years. (Score:2, Interesting)
While this is an egregious example both of why the R's are 'on paper' against taxes, there have been similiarly stupid shit by D's in other places, the most hilarious being California, like that one Representative, Asian-American, in the Bay Area who was pro gun control... because he was helping with illegal gun trafficking in the region...
There are also Boxer, Pelosi, Feinstein and co with their pro-surveillance security theatre while also being pro-privacy for themselves (I don't remember the specifics bu
Re: (Score:2)
At this point in time people really need to purge the partisanship and then purge the partisan politicians. If America is to survive it needs its people focusing on the issues we CAN agree on and getting legislation on them enacted, then revisit the hot button issues once we have other parts of our house in order
Thank you AC. I don't normally post 'me too', but I'm out of mod-points, today, and this message is heard all too infrequently in the midst of a lot of partisan name calling.
Well now! (Score:2)
I wonder who's definition of explicit material they use as well. We had a group locally that defined pornography as anything at all that is internded to arouse a person sexually. Which by the way, included the Sears catalog ladies section. Regardless, that second thing is the real problem. I could care less about porn, but patently offensive material could be banning the letter N in a short time.
Re: (Score:3)
This isn't about censorship, this is about getting votes-- nothing more or less. It has no chance of becoming law. It's laudable to attempt to stop human trafficking, but porn sites aren't necessarily the source of human trafficking, just as correlation != causation.
Nothing to see here, just more politician flatulence.
Re: (Score:2)
Illegal Immigration is a larger percentage of human trafficking. Rich Republicans who want cheap labor don't care. Rich Democrats who want an ethnic wedge issue don't care.
Should be Fun (Score:2)
Ohhhhh, patently offensive material! That could be like bleeding heart politicians and bullshit bills.
Oh, I don't know I think it might be quite amusing at the moment given that your current president is someone who a good fraction of your country finds patently offensive and attempting to ban every mention of him on the internet will be a fun exercise to watch from a safe distance, especially when he finds out what they are trying to do. With a bit of luck it may distract him from his usual business of stirring up a nuclear/trade/cold/... (depending on the flavour of the week) war.
Question! (Score:2)
How do they plan on imposing a filter across state lines? I get how they can essentially tax online porn but it doesn't work like going down to your local gas station or adult store and picking up a few skin mags or videos. Especially all the free stuff.
I'd like some details as to how they're asking the ISPs to implement this. I need a good laugh.
Re: (Score:3)
Not their problem.
It doesn't have to work, it's just that "something must be done", and this is "something", therefore it must be done.
Re:Question! (Score:5, Insightful)
And if you point out how absurd their idea is; you're against 'doing something', and supporting human trafficking + child porn.
It really is a genius rhetorical device that works surprisingly well.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the time your ISP is in the same state as you are, and the mandate is for the filtering at the ISP level, not the site level, so the aren't imposing a filter across state lines. Now it could be argued that they are interfering with interstate commerce where the the site is located outside of the state, however that's different than applying a filter across state lines. That said, taxes are allowed on out of state goods, so I'm not completely sure this is different from that. (In fact that may be why
Re: (Score:3)
Headquarters are irrelevant, they're only asking for them to implement things at the local level. This is not different than the multitude of other local laws that these organizations must follow, or do you not think that the ISP has to get local permits to dig up the local streets, or local registration for their vehicles based in a certain state, or pay local taxes on their office buildings, and collect local sales taxes on their products?
This is just one more local law they have to implement in one place
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't this a violation of both net neutrality AND 1st amendment.
YES. The concept is absolutely unconstitutional, and a violation of both.
State governments can tax on paid content for sale in their state through sales tax, but cannot charge a tax discriminating based on subject matter of the speech.
"Filtering" or "Blocking" any message using technological filters would also be a prior restraint on free speech.
This is what you call a poorly-conceived, UNLAWFUL, and Unenforceable bill.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but not for the reason that you think - this has very little to do with people commenting on porno, and everything to do with a content-discriminatory tax on pornography.
You can try to dress it up any way that you like, but content-based taxes are unconstitutional. This way [cnsnews.com], > that way [watchdog.org], and especially when adding mandatory filters [go.com].
But it's not as if politicians have sworn to uphold the constitution or anything...
Re: (Score:2)
But it's not as if politicians have sworn to uphold the constitution or anything...
Yep, this should be an impeachable offense. They all know it's a violation of the Constitution on numerous levels, but they don't care because there are no repercussions for violating our Constitution.
And yes, I know that most of our lawmakers would be impeached between the start and end of their swearing in, but I don't consider that to be at all a bad thing. Constitutional violations should have sever punishments to deter the type of action in the article.
Re: (Score:2)
can't be a problem with net neutrality.. we repealed that.. and the as for the bill of rights.. The first amendment starts out referencing religion, so ya know. freedom of speech is only applicable to religion. Just like the second states only militias are allowed to own firearms, and the third only covers soldiers.. etc etc
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't this a violation of both net neutrality AND 1st amendment.
It's not a violation of net neutrality for two reasons: (1) There is no more net neutrality any more and (2) net neutrality applies to ISPs and backbone providers; it does not place restrictions on legislatures. It MAY be a violation of the 1st Amendment, however. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the courts if it passes.
Re: (Score:2)
NN is not a law but a regulation that the FCC wrote to enforce a law in their opinion of what it means. There are already taxes on TV and internet content so its not a 1st amendment violation either. Free speech is speech against the government.
This should work well (Score:4, Insightful)
And like the Australian blacklist, 'somehow' content that has nothing to do with that listed on the bill will end up blocked. Like rival businesses. Or political opponents.
Or is the list of banned content going to be made available for public ... scrutiny? Ahem.
I'll be fascinated to see how they expect this to be implemented.
Legal and hypocritical (Score:5, Insightful)
Legal because I have no doubt they can create a tax or fee on anything they want to.
Hypocritical because Rhode Island claims to also be in favor of "Net Neutrality"
http://www.providencejournal.c... [providencejournal.com]
Re:Legal and hypocritical (Score:5, Informative)
Negative on both counts.
It isn't legal because it runs afoul of the Interstate Commerce Clause. Internet regulation is a federal concern. States do not have authority.
It isn't hypocritical because Net Neutrality says nothing about content type. It is about content providers. It says you can't treat one porn provider differently from another porn provider. Blocking all porn providers is entirely consistent with the principle of Net Neutrality.
Re: (Score:2)
Legal because I have no doubt they can create a tax or fee on anything they want to.
Tens of millions of people break laws every single day.
Legality doesn't mean jack shit unless you have the resources to enforce it.
Need to know anything else? (Score:2)
Hypocrites (Score:3)
"Rhode Island just joined the list of the states with net neutrality legislation"
https://www.fastcompany.com/40... [fastcompany.com]
Ah, so those are the same people who now want the government to "filter" and "restrict" the Internet unless you pay more for certain parts of it. Doesn't sound very neutral. Doesn't sound like freedom. Doesn't sound like keeping ISP's from interfering with accessing of information.
That is completely independent of the total impossibility of an ISP being able to figure out how and which sites serve "porn" and exactly what constitutes "porn" and what happens when things are misfiltered.
Rhode Island- you must really like just PARTS of the Bill of Rights. But which parts? We know you dislike the 2nd Amendment, but I guess the 1st Amendment is now not to your liking, either? Which of the remaining 10 is next? Maybe the 4th?
Re: (Score:2)
None of those states' politicians bleating about supporting "net neutrality" actually know what the heck it is, except for the fact that Obama set up some regulations and the Trump administrations tore them down. This shows you can be right, but for all the wrong reasons. And this proposed legislation is the result.
Hilarious that they're talking about "patently offensive material." These days, I find many patents to be much more offensive than the vast majority of online pornography.
Fortunately, this is
Re: (Score:2)
That is completely independent of the total impossibility of an ISP being able to figure out how and which sites serve "porn" and exactly what constitutes "porn" and what happens when things are misfiltered.
This is actually the easy part. There's already a number of CIPA compliant solutions and services (Netsweeper, for instance) that can quite accurately filter routine traffic (http/https/streaming/etc.) -- complete with whitelisting and feedback mechanisms. An ISP could easily hang their hat on "we're using a CIPA compliant solution for filtering". Torrent/Tor/VPN/etc. traffic would be another matter, but that just highlights how poorly thought out this bill is.
For the record: I think this is an AWFUL
Coming soon... (Score:2)
No doubt the bill will include exemptions for elected officials and law enforcement. And then there's the next step: a $30 fee to access websites critical of elected officials and law enforcement.
The "Council on Human Trafficking" (Score:3)
might indeed have worthwhile goals, but they demean their name and their cause by being associated with a shakedown operation.
How long (Score:2)
Before we find out the legislators have exempted themselves....?
Re: (Score:2)
How long
A goodly length in times past ...
W. Shakespeare.
comment subject (Score:2)
> would require internet providers to digitally block
> If online distributors of sexual content do not comply
Which is it? "Who" rather.
Onus on local ISPs is at least vaguely plausible, assuming a magic demon sits on ye Series Of Tubes and does what judges have failed to do (criteria of porn) for centuries. Perhaps the burden is on lewd content to identify itself (binarily, despite an obvious spectrum).
Whatever, putting a price tag on it will only further encourage the surface dwellers to support the V
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps the burden is on lewd content to identify itself (binarily, despite an obvious spectrum).
We could extend IPv4 and IPv6 to include a porn bit [ietf.org].
Re: (Score:2)
wait I think that is for packets with "evil intent", i.e. that wants to make you horny, which might be accomplished with packets that have merely suggestive, revealing, lewd or naughty content as opposed to pornographic.
pornography is (Score:2)
Jewish writings and the Bible (if someone smuggling them) were categorized as pornographic in the Soviet Union, and in South Africa black liberation works were. Maybe the swimsujit issue of Sports Illustrated is pornographic in parts of the Bible Belt....
Angry consumers in 3...2...1... (Score:3, Funny)
Porn is almost half the Web. Putting a fee on it is almost like having a hamburger fee at Burger King.
Re: (Score:2)
Bloody hell, no... this is a gold mine.
Don't pay the fee for porn, find it, report it, collect $500, repeat.
You'd probably have enough to retire on within a month.
Reading about this, I really wish I was a RI resident.
Re: (Score:2)
Would this be covered? (Score:2)
https://lolzombie.com/3977/bac... [lolzombie.com]
priorities (Score:3)
Immoral earnings? (Score:2)
Each quarter the internet providers would give the money made from the deactivation fees to the state's general treasurer, who would forward the money to the attorney general to fund the operations of the Council on Human Trafficking, according to the bill's language
So this council would then be directly profiting from the sex-trade?
Is that really how they want to be funded.
This is censorship (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Y'know, I have never heard of anyone being injured by looking at a gun. I suppose it's possible that someone was looking at his gun while crossing a street and didn't notice the bus that ran him down, but I don't recall ever reading about that happening....
Why is Rhode Island Even a State? (Score:2)
Width - 37 miles
Length - 48 miles
Population - 1,057,000
The city of Los Angeles is bigger.
How about (Score:2)
we tax guns to pay for the health care of people injured by them!
What if the porngirl is 16 but it's before curfew? (Score:5, Interesting)
Pretty sure Rhode Island still has that law that it's ok for a stripper to be as young as 16...as long as she's home before curfew.
Yep, there it is : http://abcnews.go.com/Business... [go.com]
Ah, America.
As someone with puritanical leanings (Score:2)
I subscribe to the sort of puritanical, prudish beliefs that many here frown upon, but even I don't understand or support this misguided attempt at a bill.
If companies with vested interests in keeping sexually explicit content off their platforms can't do so (e.g. Nintendo's Miiverse app was aimed at children and was apparently rife with users sending drawings of exactly the sort you'd expect in the days immediately prior to its recent shutdown), how are ISPs supposed to make that happen across every single
Will be "held for further study", I guarantee it (Score:2)
This bill is going nowhere. It's absurd. Those clowns that introduced it are two of the more worthless members of the GA, and that's quite a feat in itself.
The Pirate Bay, arrrrrrrr (Score:2)
will have to change HBO, MAX, and more (Score:2)
will have to change HBO, MAX, and more
Re: (Score:3)
A VPN that is connecting through some other state, or some other country would easily defeat this.
Re: (Score:2)
A VPN that is connecting through some other state, or some other country would easily defeat this.
Not necessarily. Analysis of packet sizes, timing, etc. can identify which sites are visited with surprising accuracy. Failing that, the state could simply charge the $20/quarter charge for anyone who uses a VPN service, or make the penalty for accessing pornography through a VPN in order to avoid the charge so ridiculously great that no one would take the chance. People who use VPNs for accessing child porn get busted all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Opera Browser has built in VPN. Amazon has Silk. There are other browsers with other similar technologies. Are they literally just going to hit up ANYONE not using Chrome/Edge at this point?
Re: (Score:2)
This is a money grab, and it is not criminalizing anything, so your examples are too extreme for this scenario.
Re:Impossible to enforce. (Score:5, Informative)
Good luck proving in court that "because his packets were this size, he *must* have been viewing porn". If that's so accurate, VPNs would be worthless in repressive states like China and Iran (and apparently Rhode Island now, too, lol) because they could just *tell* that you're visiting a site they don't like, and shut you down.
But VPNs are still very effective in many countries if your endpoint isn't a "known" VPN operator. The other option is for the ISP operator to maintain a strict whitelist of which IPs/websites are reachable from their network; a few countries have begun to think that this is the only true way forward, because if you default to routing any traffic, it's still trivially easy to bypass just about any filtering or deep scanning attempts using standard crypto like TLS.
Sure, you can probably inspect the timing and bandwidth utilization of an encrypted connection to distinguish between streaming video, working in an online office suite, uploading a video to a streaming service, or viewing a restaurant's menu, with high accuracy of being able to at least rule out one or more of those categories. But being able to tell which actual *website* is being visited, or what content is being consumed? That seems very unrealistic to me. The degree of confidence you'd have in your assertions would be, at best, around 50% or so, and almost always much lower than that. This sort of "suspicion-based reasoning" wouldn't fly in most courts in countries that uphold basic human rights.
Oh, and any timing based traffic analysis deductions can be easily defeated client-side by inserting random, non-deterministic jitter into all outbound packets. Since the server endpoint's send rate is also dependent on your client's responses (TCP ACKs), you can effectively control the delay in your server endpoint's responses by introducing small amounts of random latency into your own client's ACKs. Then you can further muddy the waters by having the endpoint pollute the encrypted tunnel with nonsense data. The most accurate conclusion that could be claimed with a high degree of certainty thereafter would be "They seem to be using a lot of throughput for some reason".
Indeed, any justice system that would allow such leaps in logic based on packet size and timing analysis (while having no idea of what the actual contents of the datastream contained) is not a justice system I'd want to be subjected to. That's getting dangerously close to guilty until proven innocent.
Re: (Score:3)
If the VPN is not based in the USA, then it doesn't matter that an overreaching state fee exists.
Re: (Score:2)
Rhode Island Red (Score:3)
C'mon, it's in the name.