Comment: Around 8 years ago Wired

(See in situ)


Around 8 years ago Wired

Around 8 years ago Wired Magazine (I'm nearly certain it was wired mag) had an article about what was nicknamed the "Fritz Chip" (after Senator Fritz Hollings). The article made this technology sound quite horrible. The industry & government made it all out to appear as though it was simply a way to ensure commercial software is legitimate on computers & to help improve the security of computers, however there were many other devious applications.

The article explained how the chip could be used by the government to proactively scan your computer for content that the government deemed to be illegal. Not only would this Fritz chip be able to delete content from your computer but it would also have the ability to notify law enforcement regarding content it found on your computer.

As far as I know, this did not become law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Broadband_and_Digital_... But, the computer hardware part of it is apparently installed in tens of millions of computers but not currently activated for use.

Imagine how these Fritz Chips could have been used against Ron Paul supporters when the MIAC Reports came out in Missouri. The chip could have been used to identify computers with ron paul content, label the computer owner in the way that the MIAC reports labeled Ron Paul supporters then report this info to the local law enforcement or even whatever law department would be building such a list of Ron Paul "suspects."

So how would Mitt Romney put this hardware into computers? It might actually already be there, in the form of the Fritz Chip. Romney would simply be activating the chips within software to begin scanning for undesirable content.

And if the gov can scan for porn what would they not be able to scan for? What would prevent the gov from searching & scanning your computer without your knowledge & without authorization from a court as was done with the telecom datacenter wiretapping scandal during the Bush administration years.

What if you did not agree with the government and software was developed to scan your computer and report you for that?

Software already exists that parents can use to block porn from their kids computers.

Network hardware already exists with the same exact ability.

Some Internet service providers have such systems available for parents to use.

DNS providers, such as opendns.com, have options to block porn site DNS lookups through their service.

Parents who want to block porn can use one or even all of those services to ensure their kids do not access porn on their computers.

BUT, even though all of this porn filtering technology already exists, Romney still feels it necessary to legislate the technology be installed (or maybe just activated) into all of our computers via government force.

Could it be that Romney simply wants to open this doorway for the government into our computers?

None of this is necessary. There is an EASY & EFFECTIVE solution to all of this if the government mandates porn filtering despite many types of porn filtering already being available.

The solution: Mandating that porn websites use domain names ending in .xxx for their websites. The websites could still use their existing domains, but only to redirect to their .xxx domain name. Then, all that a parent would need to do is setup with their Internet provider, DNS provider or even use a software program to block any and every website that uses a domain name that ends in .xxx

I'm not saying here that it would be constitutional to do this at the federal level. All I'm showing is that there is a much easier and much more effective technical solution than to have these government filters/scanners installed into all of our computers.

The ONLY reason the government would want to install these filters/scanners into our computers is for other reasons that they might use the technology for in the future.

...