Interesting report…my thoughts follow the story…
The Kentucky Legislature on Tuesday voted to outlaw the practice of using the Internet to fire remote-controlled rifles at live animals. A spokeswoman for Governor Ernie Fletcher said the governor intends to sign the bill banning internet hunting. No such facilities exist in the state, but all Kentuckians would be banned from hunting on such sites, even if the target is in another state or country. At least 10 other states have passed similar measures. State Representative. Robin Webb, a Democrat who sponsored the bill, said she considers internet hunting unsportsmanlike. The flurry stems from a Texas website that let users fire at animals from the privacy of their homes. At the urging of sportsmen’s groups, Texas banned such operations last year."
Holy cow! Or, considering I live in the country in Iowa and know the capabilities of largely city-living "hunters" coming out to the country to hunt with no knowledge of animals outside of a zoo, I should say HOLEy Cow! I never even thought about this possibility before; using the Internet in conjunction with a webcam to fire a rifle or shotgun.
And, yes, it certainly is unsportsmanlike. Beyond that, it is just downright dangerous. I’ve seen many people new to nature (putting it kindly) shoot at cats mistaking them for rabbits and shoot at cows and horses that they only had a glimpse of through the woods or grass thinking they were deer. And then of course there are those who are trigger happy and will shoot at anything that moves. Can you imagine how many accidental shootings could possibly occur if all it took was the press of a computer key from miles away to fire a gun (yes, I thought of several snide remarks about Cheney, but I’ve suppressed them.), not to mention potential premeditated shootings.
Now I don’t know what is involved with these Internet hunting "sites", and you may wonder what the heck this has to do with information security or privacy. However, as I read this I thought of how this type of gun-shooting surveillance is really melting technology more and more into the material world and not only creating new privacy concerns, but also physical safety concerns at the same time. Shooting a gun through the use of a webcam placed who-knows-where (I get MANY hunters wanting to hunt on my private land…which I don’t allow) on private property, where the people could be using cams could see people within their own homes and on their own property, really does present a privacy and safety risk to the people; the many children that play outside, and the pets and livestock that are on the property, just to name a few.
Guns in the hands of firearms-ignorant people is dangerous…guns under the control of whomever happens to remotely pull the trigger, accidentally or on purpose, from miles away by depending upon the fuzzy images they see through a cam is very, very, very dangerous…and a very real privacy concern to boot.
In case you’re curious, at least 10 states (Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, South Carolina, Vermont, Kentucky and Wisconsin) and possibly up to 12, ban Internet hunting, and a Federal law H.R. 1558 prohibits "certain computer-assisted remote hunting, and for other purposes." Here is an excerpt from that short bill:
"(a) PROHIBITION.—Whoever, using any instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly makes available a computer-assisted remote hunt shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(b) EXCEPTION.—Providing an instrumentality of commerce, such as equipment or access to the Internet, is not a violation of this section unless the provider intends the use of the equipment or access for a computer-assisted remote hunt.
(c) CONSTRUCTION WITH OTHER LAW.—Nothing in this section limits the power of State and local authorities to enact laws or regulations concerning computer-assisted remote hunting facilities.
(d) DEFINITIONS.—In this section—
(1) the term ‘computer-assisted remote hunt’ means any use of a computer or any other device, equipment, or software, to allow a person remotely to control the aiming and discharge of a weapon so as to kill or injure an animal while not in the physical presence of the targeted animal; and
2) the term ‘instrumentality of interstate commerce’ means any written, wire, radio, television, or other form of communication in, or using a facility of, interstate commerce.’’
Well…does that give you the warm fuzzies…? Seems to only apply to using Internet hunting capabilities across state lines.
Maybe I’m making a mountain out of a mole-hill, but such a scenario that merges privacy, safety, surveillance, and gunfire, sure seems like a frightening possibility down the road if we are not already at the crossroads…
Technorati Tags
privacy
law
surveillance
Internet hunting