my predictive prowess
23 July 2005, 2:32 pmPages: 1 2
Last year I started writing an “if this goes on. . .”-style short story about the dangers posed by content control technologies. It foundered for good reasons: partly because I couldn’t choose between Swiftian absurdism (e.g., crayons are outlawed because content created with crayons can’t be effectively controlled) or whether to stay more naturalistic, but mostly because I didn’t have a story so much as a platform.
But like all my abandoned children, it had a couple of things I was fond of in it. My favorite may have been the moment when one of my so-called characters snorted derisively and said, “You’re crazy. There was never any porn on the Internet.”
And new laws — one that just took effect last month (link probably not work-safe) and another whose language is being wrangled on currently — could be the first steps toward bringing about that future.
Here’s one angle on the problem:
- In most of the United States it’s generally legal for an adult of legal age (18 or 21, depending on where you are) to possess a sexually explicit photograph of a person who is at least 216 months old, (provided the image doesn’t violate obscenity laws and/or document the commission of a crime).
- It’s a felony if the same image depicts a 215 (or less) month-old.
- It’s not practically possible for most people to tell the difference.
- This is exacerbated by the porn industry’s current self-destructive mania for selling nymphet-oriented fantasies. (To be fair, the industry is repsonding to market demand as well as creating it.)
- The proliferation of digital cameras makes it much easier to produce and distribute images that are intrinsically illegal.
- Photo-developing and printing accomplices aren’t required.
- Web sites that allow images to be uploaded by un-authenticated users facilitate distribution with near-anonymity.
- So do computers that are “zombified” by trojan horse, viral, or spyware programs.
- Looking at an image once, even by accident, will probably be deemed tantamount to possession by the courts.
- Web browsers store the information which is displayed on the computer (temporarily) in cache files.
- Deleted files can be retrieved by forensic specialists.
- It may not be practically possible to distinguish between a person who deleted files in an attempt to avoid prosecution and someone who deleted unwanted files in the normal course of use.
So if you:
- Go to one of the many weblogs that publish links to sexually explicit photographs
- (maybe even involuntarily, if your computer is infected by spyware), or
- Accidentally open an email that contains a sexually explict image
You could be committing a felony without knowing or intending it. And the fact that you didn’t knowingly commit the crime may not necessarily constitute a sufficient defense. I’ve been worried about this for years (as a network adminstrator I have encountered a couple touchy situations). It turns out, not surprisingly, that the judicial and legislative branches have been worried about this too.
(If you do trip across something nasty while surfing or in your inbox, you can at least report it to the proper authorities. You can do so anonymously if you like.)
I’d like to stress that I’m in complete agreement with the fundamental aim of the new Title 18, Section 2257 regulations. I think the expanded requirements for record keeping will reduce the risk of people innocently or accidentally acquiring illegal content. I’m all for that.
I’m also completely in favor of finding, shutting down, and jailing all those who produce content with underage victims and those who knowingly consume it.
My concern is with the implementation of the new regulations, some of the potential consequences, and what I think is their underlying agenda.
continued. . .
Pages: 1 2
Not much to add here other than “I agree”. I’m all for the more stricter enforcement of 2257 if it, y’know, actually helped and if the people behind it were really interested in protecting people instead of furthering a political agenda. As it is, the “legitimate”, high profile distributors already probably do what they can do to comply and don’t usually mess up. And the more underground sellers and producers are just going to ignore it and keep doing what they’re doing anyway. So it’s really just penalizing the wrong people by making them add staff and jump through more hoops, and it’s not doing anything to solve the real problem.
hmm, maybe I wasn’t too clear. I do think the current status quo requires legislative action; the old standards are (imho) inadequate for enforcement on the ‘net. I don’t think “probably do what they can do to comply” and “don’t usually mess up” are acceptable standards — I think it’s got to be zero-tolerance. I also don’t equate not being “high profile” with criminality or illegitimacy. In fact, I think non “high profile” businesses like small websites have a slightly better chance of making stuff that free speech advocates will be a little less embarrassed to defend. And just like in the indie rock world, I’m opposed to something that threatens to put law-abiding little guys out of business while leaving the big businesses alone.
In fact, maybe that’s why I thought this was writing about in the first place — it pushes both my stick-up-for-small-businesses and my first-amendment buttons.
No, it was me who wasn’t being clear. I don’t wish to wallow in the muck longer than necessary, but my usual inability to clarify my thoughts in writing caused me to use some unfortunate wishy-washy wording. I wish we were discussing this in person.
Yes, I’m all for zero tolerance. Everyone must comply completely. I’m certainly no expert on this issue from what little I’ve read - I tend to stay away from TGPs and porn sites in general (though, to be truthful, that is probably more because I’m fearful of adware/spyware than I am uninterested in the content - I’m a lonely single guy after all). But I believe that the people it is hurting the most, the legitimate, discrete retailers who sell the (legal) stuff and display images from it on their website, are already complying, hard documentation or no. Forcing them to keep documentation on file is not going to do anything to stop the illegitimate sites (of which I assume there are some) from continuing to flout the regulations. It seems to me like it should be enough that the producers of the work keep the documentation on file, not the sellers. I just wonder where it all ends - will it eventually spread to all links in the chain? If I buy a copy of Nice Rack #7 from DVD Empire, will they have to provide me with all the age-related documentation for it? If I then sell that to you, will I have to provide you with the doco? The scenario does not seem far-fetched to me. Again, the whole thing just feels like a political agenda for pushing a particular point of view, without doing anything to stop the actual problem. Bog them down with bureaucracy. But hey, if it stops just one criminal, then it’s worth it. Hopefully it can be done in such a way that the rights of others will not get trampled in the process.
I have some point about how do you draw the line between what’s a little less embarrassing for free speech advocates to defend and what’s not, but I’m not sure how to put it. Content is supposed to be a community standards issue rather than something that is federally mandated.
Also, I think your point about the privacy issue is a good one. Since that doco is likely to include real names and such, it seems dangerous for just anyone to get their hands on it.
While there are real problems with the porn industry (I assume) - I mean, problems that aren’t problems only to puritans - it’s pretty apparent that the thrust of these actions is to shut down or limit pornographers generally. Not many people want to stand up for porn, I guess. One comment on the “communicty standards” thing: I’ve always thought that’s an absurd and nebulous idea. First, the idea that an object, image, or idea can be legal in one place, and then become illegal by (say) the act of walking ten feet across a county line, is inherently silly - but more importantly, there’s never a legitimate means of truly determining what any given community’s standards are. Or rather - if the moralizers wouldn’t be so schizo with their free-marketeer side - there is, and it’s called “what do people buy?” Here’s an article that mentions the case of Larry Peterman and Provo, Utah…whose “community standards,” as measured by the number of prudish loudmouths, would seem conservative…but as measured by porn purchases and rentals, are evidently rather more libertine. And of course there’s the whole question of why “community standards” should apply to what someone downloads from some other place in the privacy of one’s own room.
The real problem is that most people, it seems, simply don’t care about free speech as such. They want it for themselves - because they are, of course, decent people - but it’s a problem when indecent, disagreeable, or dangerous people want to avail themselves of it.