I'm looking forward to the weekend. The forecast here is for hot weather and I'm looking forward to some summer fun. Yes I've got research, but it is segregated from the network and can be done anywhere. However, I've seen a few things on which I have to comment.
Showing some skin and exposing some liability
Disclaimer: I am not an attorney, I don't practice law, I am not a student of the law; I am capable of spelling the word law and have an opinion about lawyers buried somewhere in here.
The first of these things is 18 U.S.C. 2257. The lower cased one just posted on this here . Normally I allow my moral compass to dictate the content in my writings, but this cannot go unnoticed. Evidently, section 2257 has been recently modified. Yes, I'm discussing lewd or naked or *** or whatever name you give it. The Armed Geometer gave me some great background information (thanks Andy) . Read this here for the basics and further links. There is an article on Wired here . So if I read this correctly, the records of the names and ages of the performers in any displayed material must be made available to law enforcement on demand. Skip the moral implications and move to the practical implications. The enforcement of the changes seems to have taken effect June 23rd, 2005. Some parties that are unaware will become aware fairly quickly of the real impact of the law. The following excerpt is from J.D. Obenberger's site on the changes to section 2257:
(2) A secondary producer is any person who produces, assembles, manufactures, publishes, duplicates, reproduces, or reissues a book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, a computer-generated image, digital image, or picture, or other matter intended for commercial distribution that contains a visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct, or who inserts on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise manages the content of a computer site or service [JDO: No "commercial" purpose included here.] that contains a visual depiction of, actual sexually explicit conduct, including any person who enters into a contract, agreement, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing.
Does this mean that if you run a forum, allow anonymous upload of content in the form of pictures or video, you are subject to section 2257? This includes all public forums and galleries. I use Community Server from Telligent and they allow for these activities as part of their core package. I have disabled forums and galleries as a matter of policy on JJBResearch.org as this site is about a great many things that don't require these services.
Continuing on J.D. Obenberger's site on the changes to section 2257 we find:
(3) The same person may be both a primary and a secondary producer.
(4) Producer does not include persons whose activities relating to the visual depiction of actual sexually explicit
conduct are limited to the following:
(i) Photo processing;
(ii) Mere distribution;
(iii) Any activity, other than those activities identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section, that does not
involve the hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the depicted performers;
(iv) A provider of Web-hosting services who does not manage the content of the computer site or service; or
(v) A provider of an electronic communication service or remote computing service who does not manage the content of the computer site or service.
This still does not clarify the question. Those with commercial interests, i.e. producers of *** are subject to section 2257, secondary producers are subject to section 2257. If a secondary producer chooses to display the explicit material on their site, they are bound to provide records for the names and ages of those in each production. I'm fine with those that are in the business of selling these products having to abide by these changes. The demand for this material will not be reduced because of legislation. I'm trying to recall if in economics, these practices were exempt from the concepts of supply and demand.
Looking at 4(ii), Mere distribution, I'm further confused. If I consider 4(iv), a provider of web-hosting services who does not manage the content of the computer site or service, I see some distinction. I mentioned that I host Community Server. My friend runs the web hosting service. Since I manage my site's content, if I allowed anonymous upload of this type of content, he would be exempt, but I may incur some sort of liability if I am unable to comply with section 2257. That is a clear separation.
But what about MSN, Yahoo 360 and other large providers of services where they are both the web hosting provider in some form and also the manager of content for the site. Microsoft MSN Spaces has come under considerable public scrutiny for their handling of the issues of censorship in China. I'll assume that Microsoft Legal is all over this issue and has found that Microsoft has no exposure.
So the question of the day is simple: If those with commercial interests, "the producers", are subject to these rules and the rest of the world isn't, is section 2257 effective? If section 2257 is to be enforced for producers and also for the rest of the world that is capable of displaying this material in the absence of proof of age, etc., is there liability to those that run forums, galleries and other types of services? Those that run forums and galleries clearly have content management authority. I don't know. Ok, I admit, there is more than one question of the day here.
I'm really confused on this issue. So I'll give a little rant on a personal perspective. Rah, rah, rah freedom of speech. How about a little personal responsibility? There is a common belief that the freedom of speech allows for everything everywhere without responsibility (see my disclaimer, because I know that this is a simplistic view). I cannot drive my car at 110mph on the way in to work (although I try very hard to do this), because there are rules that enforce social responsibility for the general good of all. I'm not arguing that section 2257 enforces social responsibility for the general good of all. I don't have an informed opinion on this matter as I've demonstrated above. Everyone wants a web site. Everyone wants a blog. There are walls on my house and my neighbor's house so that I am unable to witness my neighbor's activities of daily living without their permission. For all that I know, there could be all sorts of activity that is illegal that the walls block (although this is unlikely, because this neighbor happens to be a local cop; wait . . .). I love the proliferation of ideas in free and open communications. I enjoy the fact that I've been writing publicly for about a month and have made considerable connections and friendships because of my presence out here. But at some level, I must as an individual, take personal responsibility for my actions and writings that are in the public forum. I'm definitely not a model citizen, but everyone has a moral and ethical compass of varying degrees. Some exercise this compass in their sites; others leave the compass buried in their homes.
Now to the issue of possible solutions to this mess. There appear to be two difficulties. The first difficulty is compliance with section 2257. Some enterprising person or entity could stand to make a reasonable living here. Provide a solution in a network environment to allows for the automatic pairing of section 2257 required information with the content. This sounds like functional dependence from relational theory. Seems to me, that this problem has already been solved technically, it just needs to be implemented anywhere that content is provided. The *** industry found that the Internet was a successful channel for marketing. I doubt that this well-funded group has genuine concerns about its ability to overcome a relatively simple technical issue. If you are in the *** business and consider this matter technically difficult, contact me here. There are operational issues associated with this. The primary producers must realize that if there is distress in one of their distribution channels and requires a simple technical solution (with minimal operational impact) to repair it, the ROI can be measured and considered. This is just standard business practice and likely of no consequence.
The second difficulty is under the assumption that section 2257 is enforced for the masses. If this is true, then all anonymous content (actually all content) needs to be moderated so that the appropriate information is made available with it's required section 2257 information. This is an extraordinary cost to bear for many that host these types of services. It will likely test the limits of law enforcement and their ability to enforce this. The lower cased one also mentioned that section 2257 will likely make it easy to prosecute those who share this type of material on P2P networks, but I'm still uncertain of the bounds of section 2257.
Is there a solution in "skin/***" recognition? Is it unlikely that this is available at this point in the history of computing? Even with the state of Neural Nets, Genetic Programming and other types of AI that are capable of pattern recognition, this is a difficult problem. At JJBR, the primary problem in discussing this issue and testing any hypotheses is the lack of content. It would be an interesting problem to address, but the JJBR servers are all running full blast on other experiments.
Note to law enforcement officials: Consider an implementation of the honey monkeys where the identification of the material in question can be automated and then striders/spiders can hit the questionable sites. If you have questions on this topic, contact me here. I have to think about this further, but there is likely something that can be automated about the discovery process.
One thing puzzles me about this issue. The producers of this material comprise a formidable market and are well financed. Changes to laws like this do not happen without sponsorship from some interest group. Apparently, there is little in the media to cover this aspect (Hey Wired guys, how about some further digging?). This suggests that either there is no other interested party in the form of a lobby, or the lobby is well funded, well organized, and has hired some very good PR firms (or other parties of information enforcement) to manage this situation. Follow the money.
Pharmico-steganography?
Do not ask me where I got this other idea and link. I guess it is floating around on a few blogs, though. It would appear that drug dealers are not capable of trusting each other in shipping policies. The picture here shows a shipment of cocaine that has hidden within it a smaller amount of heroin. I've been discussing Steganography (and here and here ), i.e. the hiding of information in plain sight of adversaries, and found this a little ironic. Hiding drugs within drugs? Apparently, within the drug trade, it is cheaper to ship cocaine than to ship heroin. Tell me that the drug dealers have a quantitative model of risk for transport costs. Economies always emerge and prices are set based on market conditions. Somebody has to make the moola . . .
Life is still good
On a more positive note, I don't recall that any of these issues were pertinent to my world when I was 10 years old in 1973. My parents shielded me from many of the dangers in life. I believe that as I get older, the woes of the world become worse. It is impossible to show that these difficulties in any way existed in 1973. This is just not possible. My model of consciousness does not permit this in any form.
I miss those younger days (even though my math and programming skills were much less developed; I've been programming since age 3). I just hope that I've given my daughter the equivalent protections and perspectives to lead a good life.
-------------------------------------
As usual, keep your myopic opinions to yourself. If you have absolutely no self-control and somehow feel that I would be enriched by your opinion, contact me here. I'll gladly listen.