I so wish this was a joke. Unfortunately, it's serious. Take a minute and read the article.
This is a great example of legislators wanting to do something positive, but doing something very negative instead. The desire here is to limit human trafficking (a noble goal) but the method is through porn filters on computers sold in the state. There are so many things wrong with this, I don't even know where to begin. Obviously there's no causal relationship to speak of. Porn doesn't cause human trafficking or vice versa. So there's that important tidbit.
Then there's the Constitutional aspects of the proposed legislation. It's unlikely this law would ever survive a Constitutional challenge, and if that's the case then passing it just takes resources away from the state (resources used in a likely futile attempt to uphold the legislation in court could better be spent elsewhere).
But my real concern is that the impact to computer security would likely be significantly negative. To be effective, the porn filters would have to integrate with browsers and would be unlikely to meet the same security standards as other software. Then there's the issue of telemetry and big brother, securely updating block lists, etc. Further, the proposal allows end users to pay to remove the porn filter. I can already see the underground "free porn filter remover" economy popping up, similar to illicit keygen programs, most laced with malware.
I have no love of porn (I see way too much of it in forensics cases) and don't live in the state of SC. But I bring these thoughts forward because far too often we experience a disconnect between intent and reality in infosec, particularly when legislators get involved. Take time over the holidays to educate your family members that many pleas of "save the children" or "stop human trafficking" have negative implications for infosec.
This is a great example of legislators wanting to do something positive, but doing something very negative instead. The desire here is to limit human trafficking (a noble goal) but the method is through porn filters on computers sold in the state. There are so many things wrong with this, I don't even know where to begin. Obviously there's no causal relationship to speak of. Porn doesn't cause human trafficking or vice versa. So there's that important tidbit.
Then there's the Constitutional aspects of the proposed legislation. It's unlikely this law would ever survive a Constitutional challenge, and if that's the case then passing it just takes resources away from the state (resources used in a likely futile attempt to uphold the legislation in court could better be spent elsewhere).
But my real concern is that the impact to computer security would likely be significantly negative. To be effective, the porn filters would have to integrate with browsers and would be unlikely to meet the same security standards as other software. Then there's the issue of telemetry and big brother, securely updating block lists, etc. Further, the proposal allows end users to pay to remove the porn filter. I can already see the underground "free porn filter remover" economy popping up, similar to illicit keygen programs, most laced with malware.
I have no love of porn (I see way too much of it in forensics cases) and don't live in the state of SC. But I bring these thoughts forward because far too often we experience a disconnect between intent and reality in infosec, particularly when legislators get involved. Take time over the holidays to educate your family members that many pleas of "save the children" or "stop human trafficking" have negative implications for infosec.
