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

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

________________________________________
From: Brock N. Meeks [bmeeks@cox.net]
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 12:03 AM
To: David Farber
Subject: Re: [IP] Re:  House vote on illegal images sweeps in Wi-Fi, Web sites

As along as we're getting into the weeds here, I think it should be noted
that the phrase below, "...is that it has some retention rules that forces
the private sector to retain child pornography images even after they
they've turned over the obscene material" isn't correct, if by "obscene
material" the writer is referring to child porn.

Obscene material is a very fluid subject, one that turns on community
standards. Indeed, the old war horses here have fought this battle (and won)
back when we had the Communications Decency Act struck down (or the majority
of that Act).

While child porn may very well be obscene, it is most certainly criminal and
should be referred to as "criminal material."

On 12/6/07 10:17 PM, "Dave Farber" <dave@farber.net> wrote:

>Posted by George Ou @ 7:52 am Categories: Mobile/Wireless, Networking,
 > News, Technology policy Tags: Bill, Child Pornography, George Ou

[snip]

> So as you can see, no one is going to be required to monitor their
> infrastructure.  You simply need to report any incidents of child
> pornography if you happen to come across it.  So they only
> controversial part of the bill that I can see is that it has some
> retention rules that forces the private sector to retain child
> pornography images even after they've turned over the obscene
> material.  These provisions probably need to be reexamined but we all
> need to calm down and read the bill before we freak out.


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