Crack down on "illegal images"

[Jenn! 918]

Senator: Illegal images must be reported

John McCain proposes law to force Web sites to report unlawful activity and delete posts by sex offenders.

By Declan McCullagh

Staff Writer, CNET News.com

Published: December 8, 2006, 6:40 PM PST

Millions of commercial Web sites and personal blogs would be required to report illegal images or videos posted by their users or pay fines of up to $300,000, if a new proposal in the U.S. Senate came into law.

The legislation, drafted by Sen. John McCain and obtained by CNET News.com, would also require Web sites that offer user profiles to delete pages posted by sex offenders.

In a speech on the Senate floor this week, the Arizona Republican and former presidential candidate warned that "technology has contributed to the greater distribution and availability, and, some believe, desire for child pornography." McCain scored 31 of 100 points on a 2006 election guide scoring technology-related votes.

After child pornography or some forms of "obscenity" are found and reported, the Web site must retain any "information relating to the facts or circumstances" of the incident for at least six months. Webmasters would be immune from civil and criminal liability if they followed the specified procedures exactly.

McCain's proposal, called the "Stop the Online Exploitation of Our Children Act" (click for PDF), requires that reports be submitted to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which in turn will forward to the relevant police agency. (The organization received $32.6 million in tax dollars in 2005, according to its financial disclosure documents.)

Internet service providers already must follow those reporting requirements. But McCain's proposal is liable to be controversial because it levies the same regulatory scheme--and even stiffer penalties--on even individual bloggers who offer discussion areas on their Web sites.

"This constitutionally dubious proposal is being made apparently mostly based on fear or political considerations rather than on the facts," said Kevin Bankston, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco.

According to the proposed legislation, these types of individuals or businesses would be required to file reports: any Web site with a message board; any chat room; any social-networking site; any e-mail service; any instant-messaging service; any Internet content hosting service; any domain name registration service; any Internet search service; any electronic communication service; and any image or video-sharing service.

Kate Dean of the U.S. Internet Service Provider Association said her members appreciated McCain's efforts to rewrite the current procedures for reporting illegal images, which currently are less than clear.

McCain's proposal comes as concern about protecting children online has reached nearly a fever pitch in Washington. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales gave two speeches this week on the topic, including one on Friday in which he said "we must do all that we can to protect our children from these cowardly villains who hide in the shadows of the Internet."

But the reporting rules could prove problematic for individuals and smaller Web sites because the definitions of child pornography have become relatively broad.

The U.S. Justice Department, for instance, indicted an Alabama man named Jeff Pierson last week on child pornography charges because he took modeling photographs of clothed minors with their parents' consent. The images were overly "provocative," a prosecutor claimed.

Deleting sex offenders' posts

The other section of McCain's legislation targets convicted sex offenders. It would create a federal registry of "any e-mail address, instant-message address, or other similar Internet identifier" they use, and punish sex offenders with up to 10 years in prison if they don't supply it.

Then, any social-networking site must take "effective measures" to remove any Web page that's "associated" with a sex offender.

Because "social-networking site" isn't defined, it could encompass far more than just MySpace.com, Friendster and similar sites. The list could include Slashdot, which permits public profiles; Amazon.com, which permits author profiles and personal lists; blogs like RedState.com that show public profiles. In addition, media companies like News.com publisher CNET Networks permit users to create profiles of favorite games, gadgets and music.

"I think there is an irrational hysteria surrounding these social-networking sites and the threat to youngsters on these sites, so I don't see these measures being justified," said EFF's Bankston.

A McCain aide, who did not want to be identified by name, said on Friday that the measure was targeted at any Web site that "you'd have to join up or become a member of to use." No payment would be necessary to qualify, the aide added.

In this political climate, members of Congress may not worry much about precise definitions. Another bill also vaguely targeting social-networking sites was approved by the U.S. House of Representatives in a 410-15 vote.

And in July, for instance, Congress overwhelmingly approved a bill that made it a federal felony for Webmasters to use innocent words like "Barbie" or "Furby" to trick minors into visiting their sites and viewing sexually explicit material.

Next year, Gonzales and the FBI are expected to resume their push for mandatory data retention, which will force Internet service providers to keep records on what their customers are doing online. An aide to Rep. Diana DeGette, a Colorado Democrat, said Friday that she's planning to introduce such legislation when the new Congress convenes.

Cathy Milhoan, an FBI spokeswoman, said on Friday that the FBI "continues to support data retention. We see it as crucial in advancing our cyber investigations to include online sexual exploitation of children."

In addition, Sen. Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, and McCain said this week that they'll introduce similar legislation dealing with sex offenders and social-networking sites in January.

CNET News.com's Anne Broache contributed to this report

http://news.com.com/Senator+Illegal+images..._3-6142332.html

[almaty 19]

hmmmm..big brother...

[mmb 0]

Just wondering what the implications might be for VJ?

[mawilson 2,133]

What's an "illegal image", anyway? How does a sequence of numbers (R, G, B pixel values) become illegal?

It's just as stupid as the idea of an "illegal substance".

[Ban Hammer 13,336]

What's an "illegal image", anyway? How does a sequence of numbers (R, G, B pixel values) become illegal?

It's just as stupid as the idea of an "illegal substance".

an illegal image in the above case would be one of child porn. if you think the rgb pixels in jpg format won't get you in jail and on a sex offender list, try it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What's an "illegal image", anyway? How does a sequence of numbers (R, G, B pixel values) become illegal?

It's just as stupid as the idea of an "illegal substance".

an illegal image in the above case would be one of child porn. if you think the rgb pixels in jpg format won't get you in jail and on a sex offender list, try it.

Considering what you can do with photoshop now - it is entirely possible to take a perfectly innocent picture and "pornolize" it. If we're talking child porn here - should it be illegal because of the depiction itself or because of the reality of the events behind it?

Edited December 12, 2006 by erekose

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

If we're talking child porn here - should it be illegal because of the depiction itself or because of the reality of the events behind it?

Because kiddie porn images are generated by illegal and exploitative activities and feed demand for further illegal and exploitative activities.

On a purely technical level, I think it is silly to go after images because, well, pixels can be manipulated quite easily. But to track trafficking in such images as a means of identifying people and entities engaged in the exploitation of minors is the right thing to do. I'd just want to see more than just images as the evidence to actually prosecute, that's all.

[mawilson 2,133]

Because kiddie porn images are generated by illegal and exploitative activities and feed demand for further illegal and exploitative activities.

How exactly does an existing image feed demand for further images?