On 07 Feb 2008, at 10:04, Thad Van Ry wrote:
The bill says:
(4) "Restrict access" means to use a reasonable method for
ascertaining the age of a
person using wireless Internet access or preventing the display of
material harmful to minors
over the wireless local area network, including:
(a) visually inspecting a government-issued identification document;
or
(b) requiring the provision of a valid credit card number.
In my reading of this, it means you have to either verify the age
using one of the two methods OR filter access to prevent the display
of material harmful to minors over the wireless LAN.
BTW, I wrote to my representative (Roger Barrus) about this bill. He
said that it probably has a good chance of passing because of the
"protect the children" theme.
If our legislators are dense enough to fall for the emotional factor
of something without considering the full effects of a bill then we
are all lost. Of course, the problem may not lie with the
legislators, but with the people who know about it and are ignorant to
how useless it is and become squeaky wheels that push the legislators
into doing something because they are the only ones that are being
heard.
I am glad that some of us have already stepped up and showed some
opposition. Go Team!
Pass anything just because it appeals to emotion is ridiculous. How
about a bill that suggests we, "Kill all adults because adults are
harming children".
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
Don't fear the penguin.
*/
