From the folks who don't want to invade terrorst privacy rights

Cnet:

The U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday overwhelmingly approved a bill saying that anyone offering an open Wi-Fi connection to the public must report illegal images including "obscene" cartoons and drawings--or face fines of up to $300,000.

That broad definition would cover individuals, coffee shops, libraries, hotels, and even some government agencies that provide Wi-Fi. It also sweeps in social-networking sites, domain name registrars, Internet service providers, and e-mail service providers such as Hotmail and Gmail, and it may require that the complete contents of the user's account be retained for subsequent police inspection.

Before the House vote, which was a lopsided 409 to 2, Rep. Nick Lampson (D-Texas) held a press conference on Capitol Hill with John Walsh, the host of America's Most Wanted and Ernie Allen, head of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

Allen said the legislation--called the Securing Adolescents From Exploitation-Online Act, or SAFE Act--will "ensure better reporting, investigation, and prosecution of those who use the Internet to distribute images of illegal child pornography."

...

It sounds like big brother to me. Lampson is representing Tom Delays old district and has a line of Republicans eager to run against him. Perhaps he thinks this nanny state non sense will help him.

One thing is very clear. The Democrats who voted for this would not approve of a similar sweep to catch al Qaeda. Just look at what they have done with the new FISA bill. In the House they were trying to require warrants for listening to phone conversations by al Qaeda operatives in Pakistan.

But, if al Qaeda sends someone to down load some porn from a wi-fi site they could get in real trouble here. This is just another example of how unserious Congress can be when it comes to national security, and how serious they can be when it comes to dirty pictures. Which is the bigger threat?