Interesting People mailing list archives
Re: House vote on illegal images sweeps in Wi-Fi, Web sites
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 03:35:27 -0800
________________________________________ From: Declan McCullagh [declan () well com] Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 3:40 AM To: David Farber Subject: Re: [IP] Re: House vote on illegal images sweeps in Wi-Fi, Web sites Dave, My colleague George Ou (who works down the hall from me) is correct to say that there's no mandatory reporting requirement; nobody ever said there was. Well, okay, there was a Slashdot headline that may have been less than precise. But that headline shouldn't let make us conclude that this bill is entirely benign. It amends existing law, which already contains some reporting requirements, to make them significantly more extensive. Anyone who offers an "electronic communication service" or "remote computing service" to the public who learns about the transmission or storage of information about certain illegal activities or an illegal image must (a) register their name, mailing address, phone number, and fax number with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children's "CyberTipline" and (b) "make a report" to the CyberTipline that (c) must include any information about the person or Internet address behind the suspect activity and (d) the illegal images themselves. One of the odder things in it -- which appeared at the last minute without any committee hearings -- is its requirement (punishable by fines of up to $300,000) for an ISP, email provider, social networking website, etc. to retain all the suspect's personal files if the illegal images are "commingled or interspersed" with other data. If it would create an "undue hardship" to provide those files to NCMEC, then those data must be retained indefinitely for eventual police inspection. The bill also authorizes NCMEC to share its database of child pornography images with ISPs and e-mail providers to be used in a way that would "stop the further transmission of images." One way that would work would be to scan e-mail attachments and, where technologically possible, network connections. Neither that nor the "commingled" storage requirement seem to be unworthy of discussion. Here's a response I posted this evening from the bill's author: http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9830648-38.html -Declan ------------------------------------------- Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Current thread:
- House vote on illegal images sweeps in Wi-Fi, Web sites Dave Farber (Dec 06)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: House vote on illegal images sweeps in Wi-Fi, Web sites Dave Farber (Dec 06)
- Re: House vote on illegal images sweeps in Wi-Fi, Web sites David Farber (Dec 07)
- Re: House vote on illegal images sweeps in Wi-Fi, Web sites David Farber (Dec 07)
- Re: House vote on illegal images sweeps in Wi-Fi, Web sites David Farber (Dec 07)
- Re: House vote on illegal images sweeps in Wi-Fi, Web sites David Farber (Dec 07)
- Re: House vote on illegal images sweeps in Wi-Fi, Web sites David Farber (Dec 07)