Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology IT

House Bill Requires Pornography Filter on All Phones, Computers Purchased in Kansas (cjonline.com) 268

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
Two bills introduced in the Kansas House on Wednesday generate funding for human trafficking programs by requiring all new internet-capable telephones or computers sold in the state to feature anti-pornography software and by mandating adult entertainment businesses charge a special admissions tax. From a report: Sabetha Rep. Randy Garber sponsored legislation requiring the software installations and dictating purchasers would have to pay a $20 fee to the state, and whatever cost was assessed by retail stores, to remove filters for "obscene" material. No one under 18 would be allowed to have filter software deleted. "It's to protect children," Garber, a Republican, said in an interview. "What it would do is any X-rated pornography stuff would be filtered. It would be on all purchases going forward. Why wouldn't anybody like this?" He said it wouldn't be surprising if the bill, if adopted as law, generated legal challenges.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

House Bill Requires Pornography Filter on All Phones, Computers Purchased in Kansas More

House Bill Requires Pornography Filter on All Phones, Computers Purchased in Kansas

Comments Filter:

  • Guarantee you this dude has a kiddie porn stash (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 17, 2019 @05:19PM (#58136702)
    They're all hypocrites. Everyone in Kansas will just buy their phones someplace else dumbass.

  • Easier (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Sunday February 17, 2019 @05:19PM (#58136706)

    To just stop selling phones in Kansas.

    • That's basically what's gonna happen now.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Am from Kansas. Without a phone how would I call my sister to arrange for sex?

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        just speak to someone from your local GOP , they know all the hookers.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        "Won't someone think of the children?"

        They are thinking of the children. Very much so. Also the animals, various items of clothing and numerous pieces of machinery.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Why, when they can make $$$ out of this?

      First they get to charge the customer extra because of "local legal requirements", and then they get to pre-install unremovable spyware that oh yeah blocks about 50% of porn. Naturally it has to report your actual porn viewing habits to "improve the filtering" and also build up a detailed profile of your sexual preferences for marketing purposes.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday February 17, 2019 @05:20PM (#58136710)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: "Why wouldn't anybody like this?" (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      This sounds like the work of Mark Sevier. He's an insane dude who is a bit of a rabbit hole to go down, but has been connected to legislation like this across the country.
      https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2018-03-27/man-who-tried-to-wed-laptop-pushes-anti-porn-bill-across-us

      • Or any one of about fifty different pressure groups which include anti-pornography among their objectives.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by notaspy ( 457709 )

        It is indeed another legislative stunt orchestrated by Chris/Mark (he uses both) Sevier. He's been doing it (and other nonsense) for years. Keep in mind that this is just a bill. It has no chance of passing either house and even if passed would be summarily vetoed by the (D) Governor. It's just another big "HEY, LOOK AT ME!!!"

        See, e.g., https://jezebel.com/man-with-b... [jezebel.com]

    • "Vote for me, at least I tried to stamp out porn unlike my competitor is is in big-porn's pocket!"

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I don't want this for several reasons:

      1) I don't trust the software. That kind of software must phone home, and basically everything that phones home snoops on me. I don't want to be snooped on! Especially not by some third-party crap that I didn't get to vet. Furthermore, this kind of software often makes mistakes and filters out stuff that doesn't qualify, thus blocking me incorrectly. That sucks. It's just another heap of spyware, security holes that put me at risk, and a big fat waste of my hard d

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gl4ss ( 559668 )

      It's just a fucking 20 bucks tax to let you watch xvideos.com, pornhub and a few other high profile xxx sites.

      never mind how in the F*** can it even work? you download a 3rd party browser and use a vpn and how it can work? this just makes it a whole lot of more expensive to sell phones in kansas. why wouldn't anyone like this? because it can't work, wont work and will not work, but it makes it prohibited to sell unlocked rootable phones! FFS!

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Tuidjy ( 321055 )

        The $20 is for removal. You, or rather Kansas residents, will have to pay for the filter in the first place, and phoning home is not free, either.

  • Sigh (Score:3)

    by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Sunday February 17, 2019 @05:21PM (#58136722)

    Conservative or Liberal - we need more tech-savvy congressmen and congresswomen who don’t waste everyone’s time dreaming up new rules which will be trivial to circumvent by most eight year olds.

    • Let them. At least as long as they don't have a clue they don't try something that could actually damage the flow of information.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jythie ( 914043 )
      The problem isn't congressmen, the problem is voters. They don't come up with this stuff randomly, they come up with these laws because the primary voters they need to stay in office love them. This type of law exists purely to add to 'things I tried to accomplish FOR YOU' campaign flyers.

      • The problem is gawkers. They know this stuff won't fly past a federal court.

        But every gawker that reads the headline will start thumping their chests, blurting out all sorts of stuff, which is exactly the response that this bunch of nitwits want.

        100% of us know this won't get past first base. But we'll yell all sorts of missives about it, decry the dullards that foisted it, and behind all of your backs, they're snickering, knowing they raised a ruckus.

        Best remedy: ignore the simpletons, and move on. They th

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mentil ( 1748130 )

      Notice how the 'think of the children!' adults seem more upset about children seeing porn than the children themselves seem to be? If it's not traumatizing then calm down, at least.

  • When will they learn Blockers don't work most will find a way around them in 3,2,...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mentil ( 1748130 )

      How exactly are they going to preinstall a software filter on iDevices, anyhow? A DNS filter is more likely, and someone can change DNS without paying for any 'removal fee'.

  • rainbows and unicorns (Score:5, Insightful)

    by markdavis ( 642305 ) on Sunday February 17, 2019 @05:23PM (#58136734)

    >"Sabetha Rep. Randy Garber sponsored legislation requiring the software installations and dictating purchasers would have to pay a $20 fee to the state, and whatever cost was assessed by retail stores, to remove filters for "obscene" material. No one under 18 would be allowed to have filter software deleted. "It's to protect children,"

    Wow- rainbows and unicorns! Save the children! It is so easy, why didn't anyone thing of that before? Perhaps that software can magically also stop all spam Email and spam telephone calls and fraud and poverty and hatred too?

    >"Why wouldn't anybody like this?"

    Oh.... because it won't work. It is costly. It restricts freedom. It interferes with proper use. It requires locked-down devices. It will be abused. When it fails and filters something it shouldn't, it is an effective government ban on the first amendment. It will grease the palms of only certain vendors. I could go on...

    • You left out product liabilities.

      When children's eyes are blinded by porn that jumped the wall, who's responsible?

      It will be fun, because all the pockets are deep.

  • Why I wouldn't like this? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Sunday February 17, 2019 @05:31PM (#58136774)

    Because I like porn. It's less slimy, gross and outright nasty than any politician I know, so why don't you demand filters for political spam?

    Next question?

  • And this is how we get the year of Desktop Linux, via porn, like with many other advances in technology. ;-)

  • some where over the rainbow... (Score:4)

    by e**(i pi)-1 ( 462311 ) on Sunday February 17, 2019 @05:35PM (#58136796) Homepage Journal
    When this passes, there will be many in that state who feel: "Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore." Seriously, how can this be enforced? You would have to leave the state to buy a phone? And how much more expensive would the modified devices become, running a government mandated filter. How much safer would these devices become? Would anybody really selling phones in Kanas any more? Some politicians live in a dream world. "Somewhere over the rainbow. Bluebirds fly. And the dreams that you dare to. Oh why, oh why can't I?"

    • I sadly live in that state...

      Personally, I think I will just get an increase in the number of people who want me to remove the bullshit for them.

      When they ask why this was installed by default, I will just point out how our state government decided that seeing boobies and dicks was so terrible that it necessitated installing bullshit on their devices to prevent it.

      Makes me wonder how these idiots feel about people taking a shower. "OH NO! I SAW MY OWN NAUGHTY BITS!"

      Really, this is just premium dumb-assery r

  • I guess not. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AlanObject ( 3603453 ) on Sunday February 17, 2019 @05:36PM (#58136806)

    You would think Kansas might have learned something after Brownback and his Laffer-curve nonsense destroyed the state's finances.

    Anything conservatives want to do -- if you do the exact opposite you are almost always close to a decision that is consistent with good government if not outright necessary for it.

    • Anything conservatives want to do -- if you do the exact opposite you are almost always close to a decision that is consistent with good government if not outright necessary for it.

      And... you're fifty percent correct, give or take.

  • These are the folks running your life... ROFL... May I suggest an Exit Bag... helium works the best. :)

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Z80a ( 971949 )

      You could also take the exit exit, you know, that one where you go to a saner state.

  • Uhm, perhaps because it is blindingly stupid? Possibly unconstitutional?

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday February 17, 2019 @05:40PM (#58136822)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • The new porn filters will no longer let you say "SCOTUS".

    • This bill is unlikely to ever pass. It looks like a bill to pander to the Republican base.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        This bill is unlikely to ever pass. It looks like a bill to pander to the Republican base.

        No, it's a common legislative tactic. You introduce a bill, call it something like "Protect the Innocent Children," fill it full of idiotic bullshit which guarantees it will never pass. Then when the Election Cycle starts, you can "truthfully" claim that not only did you attempt to "Protect the Innocent Children," but that your opponent Actively Voted AGAINST Protecting the Innocent Children.

        This type of shit gets eaten up like candy by voters on both ends of the political spectrum, trying to throw shade at

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mentil ( 1748130 )

        Considering Kansas just passed a new anti-abortion bill a couple days ago (which will almost assuredly be tossed by a supreme court), you're right on the money.

  • Shouldn't it be MY choice to determine whether my children watch porn?

    • There's a lot you don't have any choice about when it comes to raising your kids. "Shouldn't I be able to let them play in the front yard alone?" It might seem reasonable but it also might get CPS called on you.

  • Funny thing is... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Funny thing is he's also co-sponsored legislation banning censorship lol, this guy is a retard.

    http://kslegislature.org/li/b2... [kslegislature.org]

  • In other news.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Rick Zeman ( 15628 ) on Sunday February 17, 2019 @05:47PM (#58136866)

    ...the Kansas House is redefining pi as 3.0, and wants warning signs at the edge of the earth lest anyone falls off.

  • Welcome to the Censored State. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AHuxley ( 892839 ) on Sunday February 17, 2019 @05:52PM (#58136892) Journal
    Blasphemy sites? Things that cults and faith groups dont want published?
    Sites that allow people to find another faith, see the history of their faith?
    Sites about history? Art? Culture? The history of monuments and statues all around Kansas?
    Anything local politics?
    Funny memes and political cartoons?
    Can China put in a request about not showing 1989 and the Tiananmen Square protests, that Taiwan is real China? No bear cartoons.
    Anti war sites?
    Sites that respect the US freedoms and rights?
    Can Spain add a request not to see anything on Catalonia?
    Can the UK make a request to not allow Irish political sites and forums?
    Could a Germany add sites and history it does not want Germans to find?
    City and state health officials have some sites they want banned?
    City and state officials who dont want a 1st amendment audit video to be seen in Kansas?
    The right to repair and what is the import and sale of counterfeit parts?
    Talk about DRM?
    Crypto and removing DRM?
    P2P index sites?
    No finding sites about undercover filming/photography of farms.
    No accessing sites about pollution levels and the results of mining.
    Sites that have 3D printing files.
    Funny cartoons and memes about local, city and state politics?
    Once a gov steps in to ban art and culture, everyone will have a topic to ban and money to support such a real time filter.

  • "Driving with Colorado license plates" is already probable cause in Kansas and Nebraska thanks to their anti-weed stance, now this. Selling your old phone on eBay? Better exclude sales in KS.

  • The end of phone sales in Kansas (Score:3)

    by chromaexcursion ( 2047080 ) on Sunday February 17, 2019 @06:06PM (#58136934)
    You'll only be able to get a phone out of state, or through the internet. No one selling phones will deal with this.
    There is 3rd party software, already available. It's not free. And, a one time $20 will not cover it. Plus, Apple is causing problems for everyone who does content filtering.
    I know. I work for a company that sells content filtering software, and I work on the iPhone product.
    These bills were written by tech ignorant legislators. As they refuse to try to understand the issue, they are blind and stupid.
  • the party of small government.

    Also, Kansas, like most of the flyover states, is facing an economic crisis because they've slashed taxes so much companies don't want to set up shop there and college grads leave first chance they get. I suppose crap like this though is better than actually trying to solve those problems. Beats the hell out of trying to convince the folks who bankrolled your campaign that their taxes need to go up.

    • It seems like companies would be rushing to set up shop in a state with super low taxes. Is the problem high corporate taxes, or a lack of skilled workforce, or poor government services (infrastructure and the like), or what?

      • Re:Wait (Score:4, Interesting)

        by jeff4747 ( 256583 ) on Monday February 18, 2019 @12:20AM (#58138024)

        Low taxes work for factory jobs where you only need to finish high school (or even elementary school) to do the work.

        Low taxes do not work when you require a much more educated workforce. Because that workforce demands things like schools, colleges and universities that do not suck, roads that are not riddled with holes, tap water you can drink safely, and so on. Those government services cost money, and when you race-to-the-bottom on taxes you can't afford to do them. This leads to a large recruiting and retention problem for employers, so they don't want to move. Plus the business frequently benefits from the better services that higher taxes can pay for.

        Which is why there's a whole lot of dying industrial towns that keep slashing their taxes, sure that someone will move their high-tech company from a high-tax state any day now. Any day. Maybe if we cut taxes a little more. Here they come. Any time now.

  • So for "Internet-capable" computers, is that just another lame piece of bloatware on the pre-installed Windows OS (how naive of me to think people still purchase desktop or laptop computers)? What if a person wants to install a free and open source operating system? Are they legally obligated to find whatever replaced Dan's Guardian when it went defunct?

  • At the very least this could prevent the internet of things and all the security issues arising from it. Good luck convincing manufacturers to update all their software to filter pornography if it's being sold in Kansas. Perhaps they will even ban internet enabled lightbulbs because they can be used to flash badly written erotica in morse code

  • ... where there's a "Kansas, China?"

  • Should all calls be automatically monitored and whenever the software determines that the conversation is getting X-rated replace the voice with a masking sound?

  • ... for Trump to tap for his wall.

    ... funding for human trafficking programs ...

  • Well, for one, I'm an adult and the odds are no kid will be using my phone. I use it when I'm out and about for work and I'm quite capable of behaving professionally without a nanny.

    I would be concerned that it might block such dreadfully raunchy XXX rated porn as a news item about a corrupt politician or about how the porn filter blocks a lot more than just porn. This has actually been discovered in internet porn filters in the past, I don't see any provisions for stopping it from happening again.

    As briefl

  • "big government", and the "too much regulation".

    Oh that's right, it's just code for freedom for business to do whatever it wants - not individuals.

    Just look at what people do in their bedrooms. We need to control them.
  • Those who don't are mentally challenged and become lawmakers in Kansas.
  • I believe that human traffickers need to be castrated, however a fee of $20 per device won't fund or be effective against human trafficking. Legalizing sex work between consenting adults will go farther to reduce it.

    • Legalizing sex work between consenting adults will go farther to reduce it.

      Yes, and if you say to most conservatives you can actually watch their blood pressure go up. Laws against prostitution are universally about controlling women's sexuality. 100%.

      • Not always. They are also about controlling men's sexuality, by trying (ineffectually) to make sure they only have sex within the religiously-proscribed boundry of marriage.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Clearly and objectively government censorship. That's the first thing that'll kill this.
    If that doesn't kill it for some reason, there's the clear, objective truth that 'net nanny' software never works for one reason or another. It either censors the wrong content, allows the wrong content, or usually both. Then there's the little matter of someone else's sensibilities (such as they are in some people's case) dictating what 'is' and 'is not' pornographic. Someone could theoretically censor all access to Am

  • How would this not be a 1st amendment violation?

    • Under US law, 'obscenity' as legally defined does not have first amendment protection. If the filter was perfect in operation (an impossibility) then it might even survive a court challenge. In reality, it'd probably be struck down for placing an undue burden on free speech due to the filter over-blocking.

  • What About computer parts what = an computer and wore case each part will need it's own $20 fee? Or will places like newegg not sell in Kansas so they don't have to deal with paper work?

  • Time and time again, it is conservatives who show they want real control over people's lives.

  • "What it would do is any X-rated pornography stuff would be filtered."

    Yes, of course. Why not pass a law so that guns don't work when being used by thieves and murderers, while we're wishing for fantasy magical stuff with no basis in reality.

    https://xkcd.com/1425/ [xkcd.com]

  • Human Trafficking is a almost fiction, made up crime to allow the government to deny the rights of citizens. Their are many laws already on the books that deal with kidnapping and all the crimes associated with "Human Trafficking".

    Their are many special interest that have organized around this buzz word and virtually non-existent crime to allow them get money, power and influence for all sorts of unrelated projects.

    Adult entertainment has nothing to do with "Human Trafficking". Zero. This is an att

  • I consider Kansas to be obscene and want to censor it from my internet experience.
  • Last I heard, there was no filter that could tell if a random file on some upload site was porn. So ,,, ban access to all upload sites? Ban the Tor browser (if that still exists) since you couldn't tell what it was accessing? Ban reddit since it has included some porn? (though last I heard they were trying to crack down on it)

    Even with some sort of AI, I don't see how it could work.

Slashdot Top Deals

The unfacts, did we have them, are too imprecisely few to warrant our certitude.

Close