Want To Know How Ridiculous The Omnibus Bill Is? It Has A Meaningless Porn Filter Clause Four Times
from the say-what? dept
Following Congress passing the Omnibus spending bill, it of course did not take long for President Obama to sign the bill, meaning that the fake cybersecurity bill/actual surveillance bill, is now law. Particularly ridiculous is that in his little speech about it, Obama talked about how he "wasn't wild about everything in it" but that he was happy that it was a bill "without ideological provisions." Except, you know, for the many ones that did get in there.But, what do you expect with a 2000+ page bill that Congress was only given a couple of days to look at before voting on. Zach Carter, over at Huffington Post has examples of a couple of ridiculous provisions in the omnibus, starting with a ban on giving any funding to ACORN, the organization that was the target of scorn from Republicans a few years back. So what's so ridiculous about that? Following the pile on against ACORN years ago the organization shut down. It hasn't existed in years. Preventing funding for it seems, you know, kinda pointless, as it doesn't exist.
But it's the other wacky provision that caught my attention. Apparently this provision is in the omnibus no less than four times in different places:
"None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to maintain or establish a computer network unless such network blocks the viewing, downloading, and exchanging of pornography."Apparently, this little clause has become so standard, you can find it in earlier funding bills as well. It's the 2013 funding bill the the 2012 funding bill and many more, I assume.
And, as Carter notes, this language is "completely meaningless," but it's still in there four times. Just because.
So Congress can't seem to get much of anything done, but it does pass an omnibus bill that includes a weird meaningless porn filter requirement four times... and a damaging surveillance bill. And you wonder why people dislike and distrust Congress.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cisa, cybersecurity, omnibus, president obama
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Farewll, freedom. We hardly knew ye
Yeah, now I'm on the watch list. Whatever, fuck it.
And you know, I've only been alive for twenty years and this is horrifying. Not just the porn part, but the entire situation. Fuck the oligarchs who want to become the next - and only - kings of the land. Fuck them, their piles of 'donations' and their fucking smug faces that I want to shove into shit. Literal shit. I want to slam the fuckers that approved of this face first into a heaping pile of the freshest, nastiest, most putrid shit on the face of the planet. It wouldn't make anything better, but it would be utterly cathartic.
What of the next generation? Will that grow up to believe that this is just how things are, should be and always have been? Will they grow up to believe that this is the best possible thing that could happen?
I'm done. I just...
Damn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Farewll, freedom. We hardly knew ye
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Farewll, freedom. We hardly knew ye
And if the majority would agree with you, Obama would not have gotten a second term, and congress would look quite different. Which would completely alleviate the need for any insurrection in the first place.
Of course, this is assuming you want to achieve any goal that can be classified as something involving more freedom.
If you just want to enact some totalitarian state, you don't need the support of a majority. You only need enough forces to overthrow the governments forces. See ISIS.
So the only option really is to get people to think, and to value freedom more than they're getting made fearful by government propaganda.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Might as well round up the people who are aware and go start a new society somewhere else.. it would have much better chances of succeeding than trying to convince the masses to pull their heads out of their asses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Farewll, freedom. We hardly knew ye
I often wish I had the power to control other people and make them do what I want. If I had that power, I wouldn't use it to force Obama and the politicians to do what I wanted, I'd use it to give them one simple command; "From this point on, you can not lie." Then I'd sit back and watch the fireworks as the government implodes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Farewll, freedom. We hardly knew ye
Corporations aren't people.
Money is not speech.
Government cannot be bought.
Then force them to "serve their constituents", you know, the "REAL" people, not the corporations.
Then, program them with Aasimov's 3 laws of robotics.
Get rid of Osamacare, replace it with an exact replica of Canada's healthcare system.
End H1B Visa's.
Make it illegal to outsource any jobs outside the U.S.A.
Place all funds dedicated to government health care and retirement funds as well as perpetual paychecks, as they will all get the following from the lowest government pleeb to the potus:
Military style barracks for housing.
Military chow with retired drill instructors telling them how fast they have to eat.
Standard American health plan.
Social Security as their only retirement plan.
No limos, jets, trips, free postage, etc...
Oh yeah, and their finances (along with family and friends) will be audited from 10 years before office til death after office and any signs of impropriety will earn them a life sentence at Gitmo without possibility of parole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Farewll, freedom. We hardly knew ye
Corporations aren't people, is the 3rd party doctrine used for spying on you to begin with. It allows the government to have completed control over your digital and commercial life because they will dictate YOUR life through them. No matter how much abuse a corporation can do it still should have every last protection that a person does, so yes, corporate person-hood is absolutely necessary for a free society. If you don't agree, that is fine, just admit that you are a communist and that you think a corrupt government NEEDS a good control mechanism.
I do like your last statement, but it is going a bit far to put family members under such an umbrella. There are a lot of cases where it would be totally legit to be working with a company you once helped out legislatively while you were in office. The only thing this is likely to create is just another government bureaucracy that picks winners and losers along the political lines of who is in power at the time, and this is something we never need to allow government to do.
Every idea you have sounds good on paper but would only in reality serve to entrench corruption and ruling elites further.
The government should NEVER be in the business of health care of any kind. It is insane that everyone says abortion should be a private decision for the woman only but on the other hand what happens to your own organs OR the food you can put in your body IS a job for government... that is pure political dogshit right there. If you really wanted to fix healthcare, you would instead completely outlaw insurance completely. People literally sitting around cooking up rules on how much people should be paid to save your life, but only using these tools, is insane. We have the already corrupt AMA that could serve in this roll, we don't need a phat cat rich bitch to work in league with a like of the next Obama or Bush!
The founding principal of the USA is Liberty. The moment you think it is okay to step on liberty to push your own special brand of fucked up politics, be it conservative (blue laws) or liberal (health care)... you deserve a bullet, or at the very least lost the right to even vote or participate in government discussion where only people whom have learned to act like Adults should be allowed.
People & businesses have to be allowed to destroy themselves, and a Free Market which we absolutely do not have these days, along with very strong anti-monopoly laws would serve us best. Our current economy is no longer capitalistic... its more of an oligarchy now which is what capitalism becomes without strong anti-monopoly laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Farewll, freedom. We hardly knew ye
You just condemmned everyone except the 0.1% to early death with those two statements. Modern healthcare is not affordable by ordinary people at the stages of their lives where they need it most. (Infancy and old age). Some kind of insurance scheme is inevitable and the government is best placed to provide it universally.
BY the way do you REALLY mean that governemnt is not involved in ANY healthcare - including wounded soldiers on the battlefield?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Farewll, freedom. We hardly knew ye
The history is there go read up on it. It's simply the law of greed. I will give you a quick example of things.
Dr: That will be $50.
Patient: I have insurance.
Dr: Oh, then that will be $500.
Insurance: Whoa, wait WTF? Sorry Patient we cannot pay for that!
Dr: Your insurance didn't cover shit, you owe me $500!
Any based on the current VA complaints maybe you should consider that the government should not be handling healthcare for solders either because there are a lot of veterans being fucked over by the system which is not even a secret right now, but no one seems to even fucking care!
Getting rid of insurance will be painful for a bit this is true, but would result in bringing the cost of healthcare down. I currently have health insurance and I also visited the ER, they said I was not covered for shit! Tell me what good this is? It's a fucking game and a lot of people have become blind to how to fix it. We are in a boat with a lot of holes and we just keep adding the holes!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Farewll, freedom. We hardly knew ye
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes they will. Most kids these days aren't even aware of a world outside their iPads; Easy made serfs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hell it grew even further when I got access to a smartphone that gives me internet while I explore the world outside.
As a kid I was always stuck inside librarys or my room to get access to even less knowledge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Farewll, freedom. We hardly knew ye
I hate to tell you this but it is your generation raising a fuss on college campuses to get rid of or curtail the 1st amendment. So they don't seem to care about rights and freedom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ah! The Good-Ol' Days...
"Yeah, right, grandpa! Pull the other one."
Is this to be the legacy we leave our children? Forcing them to buy porn in stores, wearing sunglasses and funny hats so that no one recognizes them? It's an OUTRAGE, I tell you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ah! The Good-Ol' Days...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ah! The Good-Ol' Days...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When the Zadroga Act to cover health care costs for 9/11 first responders needed to be reauthorized two months ago, but GOP leaders largely ignored it and it expired. It was then supposed to be included in a transportation bill, but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) stripped the Zadroga provisions from the larger package.
With Jon Stewart again rallying public support for it, it went into the Omnibus bill. But that was likely the plan all along:
No matter how awful the other provisions of the Omnibus spending bill, no matter how well they understand them, Democrats don't dare vote against it. Obama dare not refuse to sign it. Because otherwise the big story - replacing BENGHAZI! BENGHAZI! BENGHAZI!!! - would be how Obama and the Democrats voted against Zadroga and cut off medical care to 9/11 first responders.
That's what Omnibus and Defence Authorization bills are for. Obama won't sign a bill allowing indefinite military detention of Americans without trial? Congress makes it part of 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, which HAD to be passed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Because here in most European countries (apparently not the EU), it's usually mandatory that a law only pertains to a certain matter. You can't put a gun control law into an act aimed at guaranteeing pensions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The other problem here is that so many "requirements" are implemented by way of funding. The nationwide speed limit of 55 MPH (since adjusted) was implemented by way of funding--Congress knew it didn't have the authority to directly impose a speed limit, but it could (and did) require the states to impose one in order to get their highway funding from the federal government. Congress may not have the authority to keep the President from closing Gitmo, but they can make sure he has no money to do so. And so on. So even if there were a single-subject rule at the federal level, a lot of the stuff that goes in these omnibus acts might still be valid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Most judges and courts it seems will trust the government on their word that the law actually says A.
There are a few that stand up to illegal prosecutions but very few.
What the law itself says matters little. It only matters what those in charge say it says.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If Obama was against indefinite detention, why did he ask for the removal of amendments that would have prevented the law from being used against American citizens? When a federal court ruled that indefinite detention was unconstitutional, why did the Obama administration appeal the ruling within 24 hours? Why are there videos of Obama defending indefinite detention?
Keep kidding yourself that Obama cares about the Constitution, the evidence plainly says otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Presumably it wasn't designed this way originally (the founders of the US were mostly decent and honourable). When did the rot set in?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The year after the original design went into action.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You repeated yourself there. These days there's no notable difference between the two.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because "we" is congress, and they go higher in the congressional pecking order based on volume of bills they help create/pass. The more places they sign their name, the better they look, the cushier roles they get, and the more funding they get.
Why would they have any incentive to vote "no"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am so... so... SO sick and tired of pornography being the bane of all existance, while murder, violence, abuse, weapon use, alcoholism and more are considered perfectly fine and valid inclusions in media.
I'm not even talking about in pg-13 media... I mean period. Seriously. The sharing of a wonderful, blissful moment between two consenting adults is something that must be purged from all viewing publics, but go ahead and look up videos of mass murders and torture.
I do NOT want to live in a country where the numerous SAW movies are perfectly fine, so long as we don't have to see a penis or vagina.
I can't even get outraged about the anti-privacy provisions, because at least that makes a degree of sense to me. I don't agree with it, I think it's horrible, but I understand their reasoning and logic.
Porn? Makes no sense to me. Even if... EVEN IF we make the 'for the kids' argument... why is two people engaging in an activity most kids will eventually some day strive to perform themselves so horrible when compared to things no right-minded person should ever even consider doing in reality without a lifetime in jail get a free pass?!
Disclaimer : I'm not against violent movies and such. I am just SO SICK of this anti-porn mentality!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Dec 19th, 2015 @ 9:18am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Too many religious inspired people in politics, whose believe it is their duty to tell other people how to live their lives. Its not about what is reported, but rather about telling people how to live their lives, and making porn and alcohol illegal aid them in achieving that.
Reported crimes just give them an excuse to gain more power to control society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I've seen otherwise secular individuals jump on the anti-sexuality bandwagon for reasons as stupid as 'Pornography is a gateway to socially unacceptable behavior and violent deviancy'. In short, porn leads to more porn.
It is unhealthy and dangerous.
Teenagers being put on sex offender lists as pedophiles for being in love before they are 18, people mocked and ridiculed because their sexuality isn't 'normal' and in line with pumping out babies every year, I even personally witnessed a couple harassed by police because the guy's 25 year old girlfriend 'looked to young', which according to her happened often enough to have cost her relationships in the past.
This isn't even getting in to how retarded the idea of marriage has become. I don't mean abstinence before marriage, I just mean marriage. The idea of monogamy and marriage leads to stupid pressure to never find any person but the person you are with attractive, and to stay in broken homes long after you realise the spark is gone.
Try eating nothing but tuna sandwhiches every day (no pun intended), and see if you still like them in a year and a half. Some people will, I'm sure, but I bet most of you will be sick enough to eat dirt just for a change.
Government thinks it is the new religion, not content to dictate what we need for a functional society but rather intent on going above and beyond to define individual normalacy.
This country is horribly repressed, dangerously pent up, fed violent imagery their whole lives, denied any reasonable outlet, downtrodden in impovershied consumerism, and people wonder why American's are so violent and aggressive! I feel for my fellow countrymen, assholes they may be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If it's not obvious, I'm not advocating flashing children.
I'm just saying nudity is a problem only where PEOPLE have made it a problem. The universe has no opinion on the matter / shame about nudity is morally relative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bills of attainder
Isn't such a provision unconstitutional?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bills of attainder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bills of attainder
Go ahead, read the wikipedia entry on it. Conservative agents sank it with selectively edited video.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obama speaks truth...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The bill's a McGuffin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Except as expressly provided otherwise, any reference to “this Act” contained in any division of this Act shall be treated as referring only to the provisions of that division."
The porn provision is only listed once in each of divisions B, F, H, and J, meaning it will only apply to the appropriations in each of those divisions. So the provisions aren't redundant, but they do target some agencies and not others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Truth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who needs freedom when you've got entertainment like that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Truth
To paraphrase a quote from Army of Darkness;
We're in control of exactly two things; Jack and shit, and Jack left town.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
porn filter or encryption ban?
1. accurate/effective filtering requires dpi.
2. encryption defeats dpi.
Is this "porn filter" really ban porn, or encryption?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also please stand still until one of our officers can shoot you... I MEAN, assist you :) :) :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Contact your congress-critters
His ignorant e-mail stating how it was a vote to promote freedom and privacy was a total joke.
I referred him to the EFF to get what JWB would call "an edumacation" on what the fuck he really just voted for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe it's because they already know that he doesn't give a shit about privacy (See: Google) and that he's only worried about his VPN being compromised.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Review Time
2000 pages - 40 days
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vote counts are wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sadly not as meaningless
This line goes to agencies that need to pay to maintain their networks. They must pay to install filters and have someone maintain the blocks so that some of their workers might actually get bored during the day without porn and do some fucking work! Wouldn't need this language --or to shell out more for a 'porn free' network if the untrustworthy people using the network were no longer allowed to...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The moral high ground, for bottom dwellers.
"For the children", is an awesome political response, that nearly always shuts up your opposition.
Its in there five times because most of these assholes in office don't bother to read the whole thing and this way its probably near enough to the section they do read - they're own pet money-maker or freedom-killer clause - that they'll notice it.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.inquisitr.com/1392168/government-workers-caught-watching-porn-says-its-not-their-fa ult-they-were-bored/
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2015/03/02/cbs-exposes-porn-watc hing-government-employees-who-cant-be-fired
Basically, some government workers are watching porn all day instead of doing their jobs, and amazingly their superiors are unable/unwilling to fire them. So someone who wrote the language of the spending bill has decided to introduce this anti-porn language as a mandate that either the government IT admins block porn, or else they don't get funding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Terrifying.
Congress desperately needs to make some procedural changes to the legislative process. One of the most badly needed changes is to do separate votes for each attachment to a bill. That way, even if someone attaches a rider to a "must-pass" bill, the bill itself can still pass even while the rider is voted into oblivion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Damn, it's funny to read
Each of the parts was likely written by different people, by a different committee, or by a different individual. In order to make it all work out, there is exclusionary language that limits the application of terms in a section to that section. That is some sharp eye lawyer doesn't take terms from one section and try to apply it to another to get legal advantage.
The Republican party in general tends to throw in morals clauses every chance they get. To meet legal challenges, they are careful to use the exact same text each time they toss that clause in. So in 4 sections of this bill they got to toss in their usual morals clause, nothing more.
There really is nothing unusual about it. Taken out of context ("hey, dem idjuts sed the same thing 4 times mama!") it can seem funny, but once you understand context and how the law is written, it's not only not funny, it's reasonable.
It's why most newbie politicians full of great aspirations end up stopped cold once elected: They come to realize how a law is written, the time required to do it, and how each and every phrase and paragraph has to be very careful crafted. It's nowhere near as easy as it appears on a blog... :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What it really means
Actually means:
"None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to maintain or establish a computer network ."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]