SB 568 now law, designed to allow California to prosecute gun business website owners
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18

Thread: SB 568 now law, designed to allow California to prosecute gun business website owners

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    326

    SB 568 now law, designed to allow California to prosecute gun business website owners

    None of the gun control bills of the California Legislature have yet been signed into law by the Governor as of Monday Sept. 23, 2013 at 5:00 PM.

    However, today the Governor did approve a bill that should concern many of you.

    It was SB 568, Privacy: Internet: Minors. This bill, authored by Steinberg, one of California's most anti-gun legislators, has now been signed into law.
    What does it do, you wonder?
    Well, it tries to make California a regulator of internet content, and is written in such a way that it would "allow" the State of California to try and prosecute anyone in the world across the global internet who has content on their site that could be visible to minors.
    What is the content which the State imagines it should be able to regulate across the global internet?
    There are 19 categories:
    (1) Alcoholic beverages, as referenced in Sections 23003 to 23009, inclusive, and Section 25658.
    (2) Firearms or handguns, as referenced in Sections 16520, 16640, and 27505 of the Penal Code.
    (3) Ammunition or reloaded ammunition, as referenced in Sections 16150 and 30300 of the Penal Code.
    (4) Handgun safety certificates, as referenced in Sections 31625 and 31655 of the Penal Code.
    (5) Aerosol container of paint that is capable of defacing property, as referenced in Section 594.1 of the Penal Code.
    (6) Etching cream that is capable of defacing property, as referenced in Section 594.1 of the Penal Code.
    (7) Any tobacco, cigarette, or cigarette papers, or blunt wraps, or any other preparation of tobacco, or any other instrument or paraphernalia that is designed for the smoking or ingestion of tobacco, products prepared from tobacco, or any controlled substance, as referenced in Division 8.5 (commencing with Section 22950) and Sections 308, 308.1, 308.2, and 308.3 of the Penal Code.
    (8) BB device, as referenced in Sections 16250 and 19910 of the Penal Code.
    (9) Dangerous fireworks, as referenced in Sections 12505 and 12689 of the Health and Safety Code.
    (10) Tanning in an ultraviolet tanning device, as referenced in Sections 22702 and 22706.
    (11) Dietary supplement products containing ephedrine group alkaloids, as referenced in Section 110423.2 of the Health and Safety Code.
    (12) Tickets or shares in a lottery game, as referenced in Sections 8880.12 and 8880.52 of the Government Code.
    (13) Salvia divinorum or Salvinorin A, or any substance or material containing Salvia divinorum or Salvinorin A, as referenced in Section 379 of the Penal Code.
    (14) Body branding, as referenced in Sections 119301 and 119302 of the Health and Safety Code.
    (15) Permanent tattoo, as referenced in Sections 119301 and 119302 of the Health and Safety Code and Section 653 of the Penal Code.
    (16) Drug paraphernalia, as referenced in Section 11364.5 of the Health and Safety Code.
    (17) Electronic cigarette, as referenced in Section 119405 of the Health and Safety Code.
    (18) Obscene matter, as referenced in Section 311 of the Penal Code.
    (19) A less lethal weapon, as referenced in Sections 16780 and 19405 of the Penal Code.

    I sense (more) lawsuits coming. Pretty soon the State of California is going to draw up a list of websites that it doesn't like and will try to prosecute website owners under this new law. Part of what will happen, quite clearly, is that people will no longer host websites in California - they'll just host them elsewhere, quite frankly, and rightly so, outside of the US jurisdiction. (I have a blog for which all of its content resides on servers completely outside of US jurisdiction, so I've already "left" the US in terms of where I am willing to have my content be hosted.) But another part of what happens is that the State is preparing to attack 2nd Amendment advocates for their 1st Amendment expression on the web, and the State of California will certainly be targeting firearm-related business websites.

    I'm not a lawyer but my initial impression to this is: Don't comply with anything the State tries to impose with respect to these digital content restrictions. The 1st Amendment trumps the State of California madness. And if you own a business that relies upon a website presence and your content is hosted on servers in the US, then consult a lawyer -- California will be trying to shut down websites soon.

    The full text of the law is here: Bill Text - SB-568 Privacy: Internet: minors. Click on "Today's Law as Amended" once at the site to view the text of SB 568 (it has just been signed into law by the Governor).

    Oh... also, don't forget to go to http://demandrights.com/ - like NOW.

    Act now to protect your rights.

  2.   
  3. #2
    I thought the state of Kalifornia was broke, bankrupt. Just where are they going to get the money to prosecute all these web sites? It amounts to censorship and historically it's taken some really deep pockets to take on major web sites and even then they rarely win. But if I remember right, that idiot Feinstein is trying to get rid of the 1st Amendment along with the 2nd. So we'll see.
    Do Not Meddle In The Affairs Of Dragons ~ For You Are Crunchy And Good With Ketchup

  4. #3
    ezkl2230 Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Peggy Reist View Post
    I thought the state of Kalifornia was broke, bankrupt. Just where are they going to get the money to prosecute all these web sites? It amounts to censorship and historically it's taken some really deep pockets to take on major web sites and even then they rarely win. But if I remember right, that idiot Feinstein is trying to get rid of the 1st Amendment along with the 2nd. So we'll see.
    It is amazing how states that cannot find the money to meet their Constitutional obligations can always find money to advance their agendas.

  5. #4
    ezkl2230 Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Peggy Reist View Post
    I thought the state of Kalifornia was broke, bankrupt. Just where are they going to get the money to prosecute all these web sites? It amounts to censorship and historically it's taken some really deep pockets to take on major web sites and even then they rarely win. But if I remember right, that idiot Feinstein is trying to get rid of the 1st Amendment along with the 2nd. So we'll see.
    It is amazing how states that cannot find the money to meet their Constitutional obligations can always find money to advance their agendas. Don't forget, Feinstein is part of the crop of government officials who believe that our Constitution is one of the worst in the world because it doesn't guarantee freedom from poverty or fear, it doesn't guarantee you the right to food or free education through college or free medical care.

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,556
    This reminds me that I have to get a shirt that says: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Founded by Geniuses Governed by Morons!
    NRA Life Member
    GOA Life Member
    NRA Certified RSO

  7. #6
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    326

    They can't take care of themselves but they will always find ways to prosecute others

    Quote Originally Posted by ezkl2230 View Post
    It is amazing how states that cannot find the money to meet their Constitutional obligations can always find money to advance their agendas.
    It's very true. California is just one of those states that can't prioritize its spending to take care of itself, but instead, goes about finding more and more ways to prosecute others that it disagrees with.

  8. #7
    Moving web sites off shore may do little but take money and jobs out of the US. Remember: The US, one nation under NSA.

  9. #8
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by alternety View Post
    Moving web sites off shore may do little but take money and jobs out of the US. Remember: The US, one nation under NSA.
    If you had researched much about US laws that have been adopted and the way they have been enforced under this administration, CFAA prosecutions just being part of the problem, you'd be offshoring your content too.

    But it's not just me that has done it, and not just because fascist entities like the State of California or the current US administration are doing what they are doing. The system-wide abuse is driving business away.

    Consider this:

    "A Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) survey found that 10% of 207 officials at non-U.S. companies have canceled contracts with U.S. service providers following the revelation of the NSA spy program last month. The alliance, a non-profit organization with over 48,000 individual members, said the survey also found that 56% of non-U.S. respondents are now hesitant to work with any U.S.-based cloud service providers.

    In the full survey, more than half of 456 representatives of companies in the U.S., Europe and Asia said they are less likely to use American cloud service providers because of concerns over U.S government access to their data."

    Link to story:
    U.S. Cloud Firms Face Backlash From NSA Spy Programs - CIO.com

    But how much money could the US really lose over this, you ask? Not so much, right? I mean, who cares about a "little prosecution" of gun website owners, or spying on people because we don't like them? What might be the economic impact of this? Surely it can't be that big, right?

    Well...

    "The U.S.' dominance in the cloud space may soon be challenged by rival countries, particularly those in the European Union, as the global surveillance scandal threatens to wipe up to $35 billion off the U.S. cloud slate.

    A new report by non-profit group the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation claims that Europeans are attempting to nudge away from their American counterparts in a bid to distance themselves from U.S. electronic surveillance and eavesdropping."

    See: http://www.zdnet.com/u-s-cloud-indus...ut-7000018974/

    This is a 20 percent loss in US cloud business by 2016.

    Did I forget to add that the State of California is now about to contract with Verizon to transmit data about gun owners across the web, as part of an administrative law / regulation it plans to adopt to delay transfers, completely outside any legislative process? Yes, you are right if you remember that Verizon is one of those companies implicated in illegal spying and "sharing" of your information, including the content of your calls, with the federal government, as part of the fallout from the PRISM scandal. If you want to read up on this, google "Proposed CA DOJ regulation 11 CCR 4210 et seq" or look up that regulation at oal.ca.gov - I believe the public comment period for it has now ended.

    Don't blame me and others because we have already moved our content outside the United States' jurisdiction. Blame California for its stupid policies and laws. Blame the current United States administration for its endless prosecution of law-abiding people -- that's what's driving us away.

    But what does this have to do with the 2nd Amendment, you say?

    Everything.

    Take, for example, SB 568, the subject of this thread. California seems to think it can police the global internet to keep people from exercising their 1st Amendment right if they either own a gun business or host content that has to do with the 2nd Amendment. But what luck will they have if we no longer host content on servers that reside in California?
    The answer is none. They won't have any luck attempting to enforce their laws, which are unconstitutional anyway. But if your content isn't even there, it's a non-starter.

    And what of the United States government and its reaction to 1st Amendment expression about the 2nd Amendment on the web?

    The US government has become far more aggressive against the internet than many realize — even to the point that it attacks public distribution of certain encryption technology (in turn, which limits the viability of the technical infrastructure upon which the government itself relies). In a recent (July 26 2013) announcement from Defense Distributed, it was stated that “The International Traffic in Arms Regulations (“ITAR”), administered by the Department of State Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (“DDTC”), requires prior DDTC authorization for exports and temporary imports of “defense articles” and “technical data” described on the ITAR U.S. Munitions List (“USML”) unless an exemption or exclusion from the ITAR applies.” However, it went on, “DDTC does not recognize information on the Internet as per se within the public domain exclusion. Instead, DDTC focuses on whether such information was validly placed on the Internet, emphasizing that prior approval from the U.S. Government is required prior to transmitting technical data into the public domain regardless of whether the information is privately generated technical data, technical data subject to government contract restrictions on dissemination, or national security classified information.” In other words, the US government has come to believe that it can actually control what can be placed on the internet, and continues to try to do so. In the case of Defense Distributed, this had to do with plans for weaponry which people could build at home. (One can legitimately make the argument that information should be free, and not constrained by geography or the politics of the state, regardless of what the information is that is being transmitted, and in the case of Defense Distributed, this just shows that individual sovereignty and technology will ultimately have greater influence than state controls.) You can continue to find 3-D plans online - the Defense Distributed packages and numerous others - in many sites throughout the web, even though the US government actually shut down the Defense Distributed website.

    And what agency of the government now considers itself able to shut down your website? What is the federal government agency that the State of California is likely working with as it prepares to try to shut down gun-related websites that are hosted in California? Well, it's the same one that shut down Defense Distributed: The Department of State, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance. In other words, a bunch of clowns who don't respect the 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, or due process, IMHO.

    Do you need any more reasons to take your content and host it overseas?

    Here is an interesting article on Sealand and HavenCo (the encrypted data startupt that promised to host your data securely away from _any_ governmental jurisdiction): http://illinoislawreview.org/wp-cont...rimmelmann.pdf

    Interestingly, HavenCo is back. I hear they are starting up now via https://www.havenco.com/ but I haven't tried it out. If you want to offshore your content, there are a lot more options than floating platforms -- you've got to do your research and due diligence, and you've got to be able to maintain control over that content, and whoever is providing you a service should offer what is known as a 'Zero Knowledge' standard, like how https://spideroak.com/ does. In this 'Zero Knowledge' system, the only thing the service provider knows for sure about your data is how many encrypted data blocks it uses (which they typically have to know to bill for the appropriate amount of storage). On the servers, they only see sequentially numbered data blocks -- not your foldernames, filenames, etc. They cannot reset your password in a true 'zero knowledge' process, as the setup process happens on your computer and your password is never stored as part of the data sent to the provider's servers. When you are planning to offshore your content and choosing your provider, don't buy into their service unless you have confirmed they operate based on the 'zero knowledge' process.

    Good luck out there... these are tough times with states (like California) as well as the federal government trying to prosecute us for our mere defense and exercise of constitutional rights (online and off)! You've got to get tough, including when it comes to your data.
    Last edited by freethink; 09-25-2013 at 12:35 PM. Reason: added link ref to cloud study and content

  10. #9
    I do see your point, but the NSA's reach goes far beyond U.S. cloud companies. In fact, I'd go as far to say that there are few, if any, countries they haven't hacked data from. Whoever can come up with an NSA proof system will probably get rich.
    Do Not Meddle In The Affairs Of Dragons ~ For You Are Crunchy And Good With Ketchup

  11. #10
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    326

    I recommend you read up on perfect forward secrecy implementation

    Quote Originally Posted by Peggy Reist View Post
    I do see your point, but the NSA's reach goes far beyond U.S. cloud companies. In fact, I'd go as far to say that there are few, if any, countries they haven't hacked data from. Whoever can come up with an NSA proof system will probably get rich.
    This surely goes outside the scope of this thread... but since you brought it up (in terms of systems that help to prevent hacking from governments, and since I have already alluded to how one might do that in part by offshoring and in part by looking for providers that implement 'zero knowledge' proofs and systems) I also recommend you examine perfect forward secrecy implementation, a little known protocol that really frustrates governmental entities.
    Here is an article on it.

    Perfect Forward Secrecy can block the NSA from secure web pages, but no one uses it | Computerworld Blogs

    Once you've read that, you may want to go ahead and look at some further implementation details, here:

    https://community.qualys.com/blogs/securitylabs/2013/06/25/ssl-labs-deploying-forward-secrecy


    Have fun (and take care) out there.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast