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

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren@vortex.com>
Date: December 7, 2007 1:16:21 PM EST
To: dave@farber.net
Cc: lauren@vortex.com
Subject: Re: [IP] Re: House vote on illegal images sweeps in Wi-Fi,  
Web sites


Dave,

The fact that the legislation doesn't require proactive monitoring by  
the
service provider doesn't eliminate the inherent overreaching.

The bill would require a whole set of actions by a service provider
whenever they were "informed" that materials covered by the
legislation were being displayed.

So, using the Google Images example again, if a group of people went
digging through the million-plus hentai images present there, and
started sending bulk notices to Google about thousands of cartoon
images that the group deemed to be in violation, the manual
administrative burden on Google (or other services) could be
enormous, even if most of the drawings in question were later
determined not to actually be in violation.

Google might take the tack that their thumbnail images as search
results references are exempt from such a law, but this takes us
into a complex area that has already seen litigation and is likely
to see much more.  The chilling effect on services like Google
Images from the risks involved from the new legislation (if it
becomes law) could likely be very significant nonetheless.

Good intentions (stopping actual child abuse and c-porn) can rapidly
escalate into a range of presumably unintended negative consequences
when the associated legislation is written too broadly and without
significant prior input from the Internet community and the public
at large.

--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein
lauren@vortex.com or lauren@pfir.org
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
http://www.pfir.org/lauren
Co-Founder, PFIR
  - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
Co-Founder, NNSquad
  - Network Neutrality Squad - http://www.nnsquad.org
Founder, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com

- - -

> ________________________________________
> 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
>
> -------------------------------------------


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