I posted your article at my workplace (the library) and everyone was floored at the bill.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080205-former-sco-chair-behind-utah-wifi-age-verification-proposal.html

This whole anti-porn movement in Utah has got something seriously wrong with it. It and the anti-terrorism movement have something in common: the lunatic idea that we can control this stuff.

“We can’t keep weapons out of prisons; we can’t possibly expect to keep them out of airports.”

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/08/prison_shivs.html

It is obvious that laws can’t keep drugs away from kids. So instead of making every possible drug ingredient illegal, the schools try to educate students of the ill affects of drugs and hope the students choose the best. Why don’t we take a similar tact with porn? I think the fundamental flaw in these guys’ thinking is that they don’t believe kids can say no to porn. If they don’t believe kids abstain from porn, these are clearly not the people who should be making laws concerning kids or porn.

First, in response to a comment that Dave made “the bill doesn’t apply to private or residential internet access.”

This bill most certainly will apply to a great number of private or residential wireless networks. Let’s read this very carefully:

“(3) This section does not apply to a person who maintains a wireless network within the person’s private residence to provide personal wireless Internet access.”

If you are providing wireless access (intentionally or not) to anyone other than yourself, even from your home you can be held liable under this proposed law.

Second, Matt Nelson asked “I wonder how other providers of wireless internet access, such as AT&T wireless, Verizon, Sprint, etc. feel about this bill.” I would say this is a perfectly reasonable question as it would most certainly apply to these and other carriers. There is no limitation on the type of wireless access, in other words it is not limited to WiFi.

I agree that the unintended consequences are substantial, and this is putting it lightly. Not only will it affect XMission’s free wireless, any owner of an open wireless network, etc., but it may also have a dramatic impact on the many conventions and business meetings that are held in the state each year. Scare away even a few conventions and there is a potential tax revenue loss (not to mention impact on local businesses) that could reach well into the millions.

Personally, and as an Information Security Consultant, I have many concerns about open internet access by any means, including wirelessly. The solution is not to create new laws that limit the people; the solution is for parents to take some responsibility, and ultimately the child to be responsible for his or her own actions.

The bill appears to have several legal problems, most importantly some First Amendment issues. Note that the total aggregate fine is $25,000. This substantial amount of money, but not unlimited liability either.

Also, I wonder how other providers of wireless internet access, such as AT&T wireless, Verizon, Sprint, etc. feel about this bill. I suspect the bill is intended to apply to IEEE 802.11 based networks, but nothing in the bill specifies this. (Perhaps the “big boys” can just pay the $25,000 tax (fine) and not worry about the hassle of fighting it.)

I plan to stop by the senate building Thursday afternoon to see what unravels. Best of luck.