FC: Sen. Mary Landrieu wants to force ICANN to create ".p0rn"

From: Declan McCullagh (declanat_private)
Date: Thu Apr 18 2002 - 17:35:21 PDT

  • Next message: Declan McCullagh: "FC: Privacy villain of week: HIPAA & Dept of Health and Human Services"

    An anonymous Politech member (thank you!) sent along the PDF version of 
    this bill. It is not yet on thomas.loc.gov, so here you go:
    http://www.politechbot.com/docs/landrieu.s2137.bill.pdf
    
    I have co-authored an IETF Internet Draft warning against this approach:
    http://www.politechbot.com/p-01772.html
    
    Here's the meat of the bill: "Any operator of a commercial Internet web 
    site or online service that has as its principal or primary business the 
    making available of material that is harmful to minors shall register such 
    web site or online service with the new domain and operate such web site or 
    online service under the new domain."
    
    Previous Politech message:
    http://www.politechbot.com/p-03411.html
    
    -Declan
    
    ---
    
    From: "White, Sam" <Sam.Whiteat_private>
    To: "'declanat_private'" <declanat_private>
    Subject: RE: U.S. senator plans to make secret videotaping a federal crime
    Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 15:49:44 -0400
    
    Hi Declan -
    
    I've actually looked at this bill (S. 2137) myself, and it also has a couple
    other provisions that the politech folks might be interested in.
    Specifically, it would require ICANN to create a new TLD for sites with
    content deemed "harmful to minors" and would require sites that have such
    content to register under that tld.  It would establish civil penalties for
    violations of that part.
    
    The bill would also require spammers and others to include "marks or
    notices" in emails containing a sexually oriented advertisement if sent to a
    minor.  It would make it a criminal offense to knowingly send email "without
    mark or notice" to a minor.
    
    These two provisions actually make up the vast majority of the bill - the
    video voyeurism part is only about 4.5 pages (of 18).
    
    Regards,
    Sam
    
    ---
    
    Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 15:18:20 -0400
    From: "Charles Sims" <CSimsat_private>
    To: declanat_private
    Subject: Re: FC: U.S. senator plans to make secret videotaping a
      federalcrime
    
    Landrieu's surreptitious videotaping bill would seem to be well beyond 
    Congress's power to enact, given the Supreme Court's recent decisions 
    striking down the law barring guns in schoolyards and sanctioning violence 
    against women on commerce clause and federalism grounds.
    
    Charles S. Sims
    Proskauer Rose LLP
    1585 Broadway
    New York, NY 10036
    212.969.3950  tel.
    212.969.2900  fax
    csimsat_private
    
    ---
    
    Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 12:14:31 -0700
    To: declanat_private
    From: [deleted]
    Subject: Re: FC: U.S. senator plans to make secret videotaping a federal
      crime
    
        In addition, the bill would set up an Internet domain (such as .prn)
        for material harmful to minors and requires all websites containing
        such material to register on that domain name. Any websites currently
        on other domains (such as .com, .org, etc.) would be required to close
        down those sites and move to the new domain.
    
    Gee, what a brilliant idea to segregate material that is "harmful to 
    minors."  That's so easy to recognize!  I look forward to the day when 
    McDonalds, tobacco manufacturers, Planned Parenthood and sites exposing the 
    non-existence of Santa Claus are banished to .prn  and my child once again 
    is safe in her childhood innocence . . .
    
    ---
    
    Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 12:29:03 -0700
    From: David Brownell <david-bat_private>
    Subject: Re: U.S. senator plans to make secret videotaping a federal crime
    To: declanat_private, politechat_private
    
     >        Under the bill, any person who
     >     uses a camera or similar recording device to record another individual
     >     either for a lewd or lascivious purpose without that person's consent
     >     is in violation of the law.
    
    But why only for "lewd or lascivious purpose"?  It's not like
    it should be OK for other purposes either.
    
    It's odd how only prurient applications of technology seem
    to get any attention on privacy grounds (pro or con).  That
    makes for weaker protections overall, since it makes the
    question "was intent prurient" not "did it violiate privacy".
    
    ---
    
    From: "Robert V. Zwink" <rzwinkat_private>
    To: <declanat_private>
    Subject: RE: U.S. senator plans to make secret videotaping a federal crime
    Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 15:22:26 -0400
    
    Did you read the final paragraph of this article?
    
         "In addition, the bill would set up an Internet domain (such as .prn)
         for material harmful to minors and requires all websites containing
         such material to register on that domain name. Any websites currently
         on other domains (such as .com, .org, etc.) would be required to close
         down those sites and move to the new domain."
    
    What's this all about?  Have I been asleep or something?  I thought this
    kind of stuff was for parents to decide, not the federal government.
    
    -Rob Z.
    
    ---
    
    From: tkkat_private
    Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 16:18:10 -0400
    To: declanat_private
    Subject: Re: FC: U.S. senator plans to make secret videotaping a
       federal crime
    
    At 10:49 AM 4/18/02 -0700, you wrote:
    >    [In addition, the bill would set up an Internet domain (such as .prn)
    >    for material harmful to minors and requires all websites containing
    >    such material to register on that domain name. Any websites currently
    >    on other domains (such as .com, .org, etc.) would be required to close
    >    down those sites and move to the new domain.]
    
    Declan -
    
    This part is a joke, right?  A domain .prn as in pr0n ,,, and what is the 
    penalty for not meeting the requirement to this portion of the bill; not to 
    mention that it doesn't define exactly what it is that is harmful to these 
    "minors".
    
    Re: "Video Voyeur" -- I don't have teevee so sadly can't watch Lifetime. Is 
    there a synopsis of the story somewhere?  Maybe at the good Senator's office...
    
    Cheers
    ~~tkk
    
    ---
    
    
    
    
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
    You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
    To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
    This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
    Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sign this pro-therapeutic cloning petition: http://www.franklinsociety.org
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Apr 18 2002 - 17:44:20 PDT