[IP] Re: House vote on illegal images sweeps in Wi-Fi, Web sites

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

________________________________________
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

-------------------------------------------