McCain Proposal and You (the individual blogger)

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by nbs2, Dec 12, 2006.

  1. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #1
    Normally I don't think much of articles on CNET, but I'm too lazy to look elsewhere for verification.

    Anyway, my concern is that this legislation would either significantly increase the cost for sites like MR to operate if collection services were provided or would force a significant increase in the workload for the gods. And that doesn't even begin to hit the concerns for those of you who allow comments in your blogs. Maybe Apple was prescient in developing iWeb....
     
  2. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #2
    how long until "illegal images" becomes about something other than child porn, like copyright violation? maybe MR would have to report me for making a work derivative of south park in my avatar.
     
  3. nbs2 thread starter macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #3
    I haven't looked into that Colorado case, so it could have been pretty bad stuff, but the government building a prosecution because a picture was too "provocative" for the US Attorney could be applied to a photo in the paper of some kid on the swim team.
     
  4. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #4
    The bill is more specific than this, only images that can be deemed ''child pornography" should be submitted to the National Center For Missing and Exploited Children.
    C|Net is also wrong about 'obscene' images which are not decribed in this bill. I'm not sure about the actual enforcement of this bill, but it's remarkably specific in what images are problematic. As for gods and someone like Arn, I think if someone put up something really obscene he'd probably follow most of the reporting guidelines on his own, including recording the IP address and send it to the relevent authorities, this just codifies it into law, and creates a punishment if Arn failed to do something about it.

    The C|Net article does mention the Pierson case which is a good example of the system going awry. Rather than another bill for the internet, maybe we need a good definition of 'child porn' beyond the Dotes test.
     
  5. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #5
    i can't imagine that disney and playboy, who are notorious for pursuing those who use their images, would not try to expand such a bill to suit their own ends.
     
  6. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #6
    Take a look at the bill (the .PDF is available from the C|Net story) it's remarkably specific about what kinds of images require reporting. Perfect 10 for example might have a hard time bending this to their whims without getting into other kinds of trouble.

    The hard part will be enforcement for people who have blogs on something like Blogger, there you can see who commented, but you don't have a great deal of information, either Blogger (Google) is going to report the image to NCMEC or there's going to be a problem.
     
  7. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #7
    i get the specificity angle. but that won't stop the disney lawyers from referencing it in court, or disney lobbyists pushing legislators to enact a similar but more broad bill.

    i run a number of websites, and the last thing i want is to liable to the tune of $300k because some yahoo puts up the wrong image, be it porn or mickey mouse riding a John Deere. i police my own and do it for the users, not for the gov't.
     
  8. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #8
    I hear what you're saying, the bill does have problems, I just disagree with C|Net about what those problems really are, and I don't like to use EFF's slippery slope argument. That this bill could be used as reason for future bills doesn't necessarily make this a bad bill.
    I'm sure if you had a known image of child porn on one of your websites you'd report whomever posted it and then ban them if you could, you don't need a law to hammer you into policing your sites.

    But, somebody does.
     

Share This Page