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" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 12:14:31 -0700 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: U.S. senator plans to make secret videotaping a federal crime To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 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" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 16:18:10 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
