Domain name tricksters may land in jail

[Mike AI]

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105-994201.html

Domain name tricksters may land in jail

By Declan McCullagh
CNET News.com
March 26, 2003, 12:05 PM PT






WASHINGTON--The U.S. House of Representatives is scheduled to vote Thursday on a proposal that would criminalize using misleading domain names to lure unsuspecting people to sex sites.
Under the proposal, a last-minute amendment to an unrelated child abduction bill, people who knowingly use an innocent-sounding domain name to drive traffic to a sexually explicit Web site could be fined and imprisoned for two to four years. An example of an innocuous-sounding domain name with pornographic content is WhiteHouse.com, which is not sponsored by the Bush administration.

A second amendment that is scheduled for a floor vote at the same time renews Congress' campaign to outlaw "morphed" or virtual child pornography. Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court slapped down Congress' first attempt to ban nude images of computer-generated minors and underage teens, saying the 1996 law violated the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of expression.


The current proposal would ban the creation or possession of "a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image" that is "indistinguishable" from a real minor.

The House Rules committee late Tuesday adopted a procedure that permits both amendments, and six others, to be considered during debate over an unrelated bill to create an "Amber Alert" notification network for child kidnapping cases. The Amber Alert bill encountered modest opposition when House Judiciary chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisc., decided to turn it into a broader proposal addressing criminal penalties, sex tourism and wiretapping.

The amendment related to domain names is sponsored by Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., and is similar to a bill he introduced during the last session of Congress and reintroduced this year.

Pence's amendment says that anyone who uses a misleading domain name to try to lure people into visiting an obscene Web site faces up to two years in prison, and anyone who tries to lure a minor to a sexually explicit site that is "harmful to minors" faces up to four years in prison. It applies to any Internet domain name, including those in non-U.S. country codes like .uk or .nl, and a congressional source predicted it would pass easily during the expected floor vote.

Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, says his organization has not taken a position on the Pence amendment.

Johnson said, however, that the ACLU has reviewed the child pornography amendment and believes it to be unconstitutional. "It still allows prosecution for virtual child porn," Johnson said. "That flies in the face of Ashcroft vs. Free Speech Coalition."

In that case, decided in May 2002, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Congress' attempt to ban any image that "appears to be" an unclad youth was akin to prohibiting dirty thoughts. "First Amendment freedoms are most in danger when the government seeks to control thought or to justify its laws for that impermissible end," the majority said. "The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought."

[sextoyking]

What a bunch of BS, thanks to the republicans and the admin. I hope everyone wants another 4 years of republican rule.

I said many years ago, if you want adult sites to goto .xxx well then do that, but now someone could be the judge and jury to decide if your .com is right for adult or not.

This won't make it through the courts.

[RawAlex]

Actually, i think of it as a little legal bomb put in to invalidate the entire law... it will never fly in the courts (after all, a domain name isn't a brand, it is just like a phone number according to NetSol)... I sometimes think laws like that are passed just to make sure that the court has some reason to snag them, sort of like passing the buck without looking like you are passing the buck.

Get the senate to pass the same, get the president to sign, give it some lead time, get a first case, pass the lower courts, get to the supreme court, well... COPA took 4 years...

Alex

[Almighty Colin]

I hope Alex is right.

Better watch this one .. I might have to redirect a buncha domains.

[SykkBoy]

I hope to fuck that Shok's domain sultrysixyearolds and my domain nunsgettinggangfuckedbydogs don't get flagged under such a law (if it were to pass)

[Bama]

I might be in the minority on this one - but I wouldn't mind something along this line coming into effect.

The problem is that both sides will immediately run off to the extreme different sides of the problem.

I know there were (some time back) domains such as barney.com going to porn sites and sure that still goes on to this day and anyone worth their salt shouldn't have to resort to such measures to get a signup. Send it to a ppc engine sure - but not to a porn site.

Even the blindest man shouldn't have a problem distinguishing that line in the sand and not crossing it.

Little Lucy 6th grader doing her homework assignment doesn't need to look at a cock being shoved into a wet snatch by going to whitehouse.com expecting to get whitehouse.gov

You don't blame the child for their ignorance - you blame the adult who reg'd the domain for that exact purpose

[*KK*]

I dont agree with it at all.

[RichC]

"An example of an innocuous-sounding domain name with pornographic content is WhiteHouse.com"

Haha .... not so sure about this one ... Clinton got mad oral sex in the White House .... what's so misleading :rolleyes:

[Peaches]

Originally posted by Bama@Mar 26 2003, 08:49 PM
Even the blindest man shouldn't have a problem distinguishing that line in the sand and not crossing it.
So why have the government make that line? Kids don't buy porn so they're not profitable. When someone's had one of these sites, they've usually been reamed by their peers and taken it down or redirected it to the proper kid site. Not to mention that NOT EVERYONE'S IN THE US! :(

And if my name was Barney, and I wanted to put up an adult amateur site, I'd want to be able to name it after myself. :okthumb:

[*KK*]

Establishing a .kids domain would go a long way towards solving this problem... think about it, parents could put blocks on their kids browsers to where that was all they could access, and kid oriented companies like nickelodeon and disney can certainly afford 15 bucks for a new domain name...

[gigi]

Originally posted by *KK*@Mar 26 2003, 06:38 PM
Establishing a .kids domain would go a long way towards solving this problem... think about it, parents could put blocks on their kids browsers to where that was all they could access, and kid oriented companies like nickelodeon and disney can certainly afford 15 bucks for a new domain name...
I agree KK, I always thought a .kids extension was the best way around the Internet situation with children...

[Vick]

.kids if the way to go
I laid out a business plan here for .kids some time ago that would be profitable ...

[Torone]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Mar 26 2003, 05:22 PM
Actually, i think of it as a little legal bomb put in to invalidate the entire law... it will never fly in the courts (after all, a domain name isn't a brand, it is just like a phone number according to NetSol)... I sometimes think laws like that are passed just to make sure that the court has some reason to snag them, sort of like passing the buck without looking like you are passing the buck.

Get the senate to pass the same, get the president to sign, give it some lead time, get a first case, pass the lower courts, get to the supreme court, well... COPA took 4 years...

Alex
Er, uh, I wouldn't quote NetSol as an authority (on anything!).

[sarah_webinc]

.gov ....use it.

also, how are they going to enforce this to non US sites?

[Torone]

Originally posted by sarah_webinc@Mar 27 2003, 09:13 AM
.gov ....use it.

also, how are they going to enforce this to non US sites?
Excellent question!

[RawAlex]

That's the miracle of .kids - enforcement is simple, really, because companies will be tripping over themselves to get in. You don't have to force other sites NOT to be porn, rather, they have to qualify and maintain a site aimed at kids.

Torone, much of the fighting between netsol and sex.com has been about the fact that netsol wants domain names treated like phone numbers, not like property. They are trying to avoid the legal issues that come with the rights of ownership (or leaseholding, as is the case)

Alex

[Almighty Colin]

I thought .kids domains were already available.

[RawAlex]

Colin. there are, but they are a 2nd level on us - .kids.us - not a worldwide toplevel domain... not much support for this, from what I can see.

Alex

[Mike AI]

http://news.com.com/2100-1028-994460.html

House votes to curtail Net porn


By Declan McCullagh
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
March 27, 2003, 5:27 PM PT


WASHINGTON--The House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly on Thursday to ban pornographic Internet sites with misleading addresses and computer-generated child pornography.
During a debate over a bill to create a notification network for child kidnapping cases, House members added two technology-related amendments to the legislation. The first measure, which was approved by voice vote, says anyone who knowingly uses an innocent-sounding domain name to drive traffic to a sex site could be fined and imprisoned for two to four years.

The second amendment, which the House agreed to by a 406-15 vote, represents Congress' second attempt to outlaw "morphed" or virtual child pornography. Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court slapped down Congress' first law banning nude images of computer-generated minors and underage teens, saying the 1996 measure violated the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of expression.



After amending the bill, called the Child Abduction Prevention Act (CAPA), the House then approved it by a vote of 410-14.

"The Internet can be used to deceive children into viewing inappropriate material," said Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., who drafted the domain name amendment. "These Web sites use legitimate-sounding domain names to lure children to sites with sexually explicit material. Imagine your own child visiting a Web site with a domain name that sounds like it contains educational or child-related materials, only to have a lewd image pop up on the monitor."

CAPA originally was intended to create an "Amber Alert" notification network for child kidnapping cases. The name refers to Amber Hagerman, a 9-year-old girl abducted in Arlington, Texas, and later found murdered. The proposal encountered modest opposition after House Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisc., decided to transform it into a broader proposal addressing criminal penalties, sex tourism and wiretapping.

"I commend the House for acting today on legislation that will help expand, enhance, and coordinate the successful Amber Alert system across our nation," President Bush said after the vote. "I look forward to the legislation reaching my desk as quickly as possible so that I may sign it into law."

One obstacle standing in the way of a speedy presidential signature is the Senate, which already approved the Amber Alert proposal without the additions the House glued onto it at the last minute. Because the two bills are different, a conference committee will be appointed to draft a compromise proposal.

The domain name amendment is similar to a bill that Rep. Pence introduced during the last session of Congress and reintroduced this year.

Pence's amendment said that anyone who uses a misleading domain name to try to lure people into visiting an obscene Web site faces up to two years in prison, and anyone who tries to lure a minor to a sexually explicit site that is "harmful to minors" faces up to four years in prison. It applies to all domain names around the globe, even those in other countries and ending in suffixes such as .nl or .uk.

The other amendment, which free speech advocates like the American Civil Liberties Union argue is unconstitutional, would ban the creation or possession of "a digital image, computer image or computer-generated image" that is "indistinguishable" from a real minor. It was drafted by Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Tex.

"The Internet has proved a useful tool for pedophiles as they distribute child pornography, engage in sexually explicit conversations with children and hunt for victims in chat rooms," Smith said. "These predators will be a mere click away from a lengthy prison sentence if my amendment becomes law."

In May 2002, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Congress' previous attempt to ban any image that "appears to be" an unclad youth was akin to prohibiting dirty thoughts. "First Amendment freedoms are most in danger when the government seeks to control thought or to justify its laws for that impermissible end," the majority said. "The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought."

[originalheather]

I remember Barney.com going to a porn site. I also remember the stink when that guy opened Whitehouse.com. I saw someone sitting in a booth in Vegas with a Whitehouse.com banner behind him.

Perhaps it's not for the government to outlaw these kinds of actions, but it's extremely irresponsible on the part of people using those kinds of domain names to drive traffic to porn sites. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find out that a child typed in whitehouse.com, it's logical and most people to this day don't know there's anything BUT .com out there.

If we as an industry policed ourselves a little better, maybe the government wouldn't be getting involved.

Non-adult domains per se sending traffic to porn isn't bad, I even had one in Spanish driving to a site, but you have to draw the line with names that are obviously going to be typed in by children doing their homework or names of popular children's characters. I would be mad as hell if my kid typed in snowwhite.com or something like that and ended up with a pic of a pussy, and I think that most of the parents here would feel the same way.

Of course, KK and others will say that morals have no place in this business, lol

[slavdogg]

Originally posted by originalheather@Mar 29 2003, 03:17 AM
it's logical and most people to this day don't know there's anything BUT .com out there.
Mike, what % of directnic domain registrations are non dotCOM ??


Heather the awareness of non dotCOMs has never been higher, but you're right that dotCOM will always be the most logical and first try for most.

[cj]

combine disney, nickelodeon, and the olsen twins fortunes, and i'm sure they can afford to create a separate internet on a domain extension just for kids. the solution is more simple to do this than it is to rid the internet of material that isn't suitable for children.

unfortunately, these laws aren't decided on logic ... so we'll just have to sit back and wait for this to happen (it will eventually) and be ready to work around it ... or move on!

i'm off to set up a porn vendor in iraq!!!


mr bush, can i have the entertainment contract?!?!?!

:bjump:

[Dianna Vesta]

Originally posted by cj@Mar 29 2003, 05:07 AM
combine disney, nickelodeon, and the olsen twins fortunes, and i'm sure they can afford to create a separate internet on a domain extension just for kids. the solution is more simple to do this than it is to rid the internet of material that isn't suitable for children.

unfortunately, these laws aren't decided on logic ... so we'll just have to sit back and wait for this to happen (it will eventually) and be ready to work around it ... or move on!


I'm really suprised they haven't forced a filtering, so to speak. Because of free speech, yadda yadda, they can just as easy create a sub-internet or alter-net, kid-net, or whetever, reqiring new extensions and making sure every browser set-up had child protection that could be password for protected. I'm sure it's a major pain in the ass, so forcing these smaller laws is an attempt, no doubt to shake up the industries and perhaps prepare them for the big wammy bammy. Or perhaps they continue to tst the waters to meter public reaction?

Who fucking knows?