House votes to block access to JREF Forums!

[zakur]

Story (http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6099414.html?part=3Drss&tag=3D6099414&sub=)

Web sites like Amazon.com and MySpace.com may soon be inaccessible for many people using public terminals at American schools and libraries, thanks to the U.S. House of Representatives.

By a 410-15 vote on Thursday, politicians approved a bill that would effectively require that "chat rooms" and "social networking sites" be rendered inaccessible to minors, an age group that includes some of the Internet's most ardent users. Adults can ask for permission to access the sites.

"Social networking sites such as MySpace and chat rooms have allowed sexual predators to sneak into homes and solicit kids," said Rep. Ted Poe, a Texas Republican and co-founder of the Congressional Victim's Rights Caucus. "This bill requires schools and libraries to establish (important) protections."

Even though politicians apparently meant to restrict access to MySpace, the definition of off-limits Web sites is so broad the bill would probably sweep in thousands of commercial Web sites that allow people to post profiles, include personal information and allow "communication among users." Details will be left up to the Federal Communications Commission.

The list could include Slashdot, which permits public profiles; Amazon, which allows author profiles and personal lists; and blogs like RedState.com that show public profiles. In addition, many media companies, such as News.com publisher CNET Networks, permit users to create profiles of favorite games and music.

"While targeted at MySpace, the effects are far more wide-ranging than that, including sites like LinkedIn," said Mark Blafkin, a representative of the Association for Competitive Technology, which counts small- to medium-size technology companies as members. "Nearly any news site now permits these types of behaviors that the bill covers."

[Darat]

This is an interesting one.

I note the side bar quoting I presume direct from the legistlation:


Defining off-limits sites

DOPA does not define "chat rooms" or "social networking sites" and leaves that up to the Federal Communications Commission. It does offer the FCC some guidance on defining social networking sites (though not chat rooms):

"In determining the definition of a social networking Web site, the Commission shall take into consideration the extent to which a Web site--

(i) is offered by a commercial entity;

(ii) permits registered users to create an online profile that includes detailed personal information;

(iii) permits registered users to create an online journal and share such a journal with other users;

(iv) elicits highly personalized information from users; and

(v) enables communication among users."


My view would be that a forum wouldn't fall under that defintion of a "social networking sites ".

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

I don't have a problem with schools restricting the use of school computers for educational/school purposes only. It strikes me as bizarre and somewhat disturbing, though, that they are trying to legislate that at the Federal level...

[gumboot]

Another bullet in the corpse of individual responsibility...

Hoorah.

-Andrew

[Katana]

I don't have a problem with schools restricting the use of school computers for educational/school purposes only. It strikes me as bizarre and somewhat disturbing, though, that they are trying to legislate that at the Federal level...

I was wondering the same thing. Why haven't schools made the move to do this themselves?

I certainly don't agree that public libraries should do the same. Sometimes they are people's only link to the internet. People without the financial resources to have their own computers, perhaps because they are unemployed, would lose access to things like on-line support groups and informational networks about career opportunities. That would be unfortunate.

[Cylinder]

The federal government pays for the pipe.

[Belz...]

Another bullet in the corpse of individual responsibility...

Hoorah.

-Andrew

Ditto.

They'd never think of leaving that responsibility to parents, oh no!

[Suddenly]

This is an interesting one.

I note the side bar quoting I presume direct from the legistlation:


My view would be that a forum wouldn't fall under that defintion of a "social networking sites ".

My view is that there is a possibility someone is going to go sideways on this one and the moderation on this board is going to hop up another level.

Remember the nanny-bots and dirty words? How about posts not strictly on topic as to keep the "non social networking" status? Kinda like the 97% thing...

Just a thought...

[Darat]

My view is that there is a possibility someone is going to go sideways on this one and the moderation on this board is going to hop up another level.

Remember the nanny-bots and dirty words? How about posts not strictly on topic as to keep the "non social networking" status? Kinda like the 97% thing...

Just a thought...

Er... right... :boggled:

[JamesDillon]

My view would be that a forum wouldn't fall under that defintion of a "social networking sites ".
It's a close call, but I think a case could certainly be made that a forum like JREF would be included in the definition.

(i) is offered by a commercial entity;
JREF is a non-profit organization rather than a "commercial" (presumably meaning for-profit) entity, so this factor does not apply.

(ii) permits registered users to create an online profile that includes detailed personal information;
The forum does permit this. Notwithstanding the fact that most users' profiles don't include a lot of personal information, they nevertheless could.

(iii) permits registered users to create an online journal and share such a journal with other users;
Arguably does not apply to JREF, although users are able to start threads on any subject and a user could conceivably start a journal-like thread in the Forum Community section.

(iv) elicits highly personalized information from users; and
Depends on how you define "highly personalized," but JREF does require submission of users' names. I haven't looked at the membership application in a while, but does it require the prospective user's location, email address, or phone number? This is a close call but a plausible case could be made that the JREF forum does elicit highly personalized information.

(v) enables communication among users.
Obviously, this one applies.

Like I said, it's a close call, but if I were an attorney advising a public entity on the scope of the law in light of these criteria, I would err on the side of caution and prohibit access to the JREF forum.

[Upchurch]

Depends on how you define "highly personalized," but JREF does require submission of users' names. I haven't looked at the membership application in a while, but does it require the prospective user's location, email address, or phone number? This is a close call but a plausible case could be made that the JREF forum does elicit highly personalized information.Current required info is a valid email address (may be a free and otherwise anonymous one), fill first and last names (no initials), and country of origin checked against registration IP address. Everything else is option.

I also don't know what they mean by "highly personalized". We don't elicit credit card information, social security numbers, phone numbers, mailing addresses, or mothers' maiden names, for whatever that's worth.

eta: I'd say we meet 2-4 out of the 5 criteria.

[Darat]

Current required info is a valid email address (may be a free and otherwise anonymous one), fill first and last names (no initials), and country of origin checked against registration IP address. Everything else is option.

...snip..

And none of that is publicly available - indeed there is no way (because of how we have forum set up) to share that info via a member's profile.

[Dave1001]

As someone who owns and moderates a message board, this is non-trivial. I have minors that are members of my message board, but I usually ask them not to put their age or identifying information in posts or their profile. I am a little nervous about a predator picking up a minor from my message board. It does seem rather easy. True child "predators" must be having a field day in the current environment, which makes it very easy for adults to get all sorts of identifying information about minors and contact them. Not just on myspace -there are social networking sites specializing in even younger kids, and where access is even easier.

[JamesDillon]

And none of that is publicly available - indeed there is no way (because of how we have forum set up) to share that info via a member's profile.
Looking at the "Edit Profile" fields, couldn't a member post any personal information that he or she wants in the "Biography" section? Or could even include it in a signature, for that matter. I don't think that's ever actually happened, but unless the forum has a policy prohibiting the posting of such personal information, it seems like it easily could.

I'm not suggesting that there's anything wrong with this; I'm fine with it, and I think the House bill is a bad idea. I'd be a bit surprised if it survives a First Amendment challenge. But I do think that the JREF forum probably falls within the definition of "social networking site" as provided.

[zakur]

"Elicits" is very different from "requires." The JREF forum profile allows one to provide DOB, home page URL, ICQ/Yahoo!/MSN/AIM/Skype handle, biography, location, interests, and occupation. I don't see how this is very much different from MySpace, which is the primary site targeted by this legislation.

[Upchurch]

The JREF forum profile allows one to provide DOB, home page URL, ICQ/Yahoo!/MSN/AIM/Skype handle, biography, location, interests, and occupation. I don't see how this is very much different from MySpace, which is the primary site targeted by this legislation.
Touche. This may very well be a matter of that will effect this board after all. And I don't see a way around it since there is no way to prevent people from publishing that information on our board, should they choose to do so.

[Darat]

"Elicits" is very different from "requires." The JREF forum profile allows one to provide DOB, home page URL, ICQ/Yahoo!/MSN/AIM/Skype handle, biography, location, interests, and occupation. I don't see how this is very much different from MySpace, which is the primary site targeted by this legislation.

True.

Couple of thoughts - does the word "elicit" have a specific legal meaning when used in legislation? Also considering the word "elicit" - the purpose of the site isn't a "social network" (although of course people do do that) so our profiles aren't here to "elicit" people to do that.

[JamesDillon]

True.

Couple of thoughts - does the word "elicit" have a specific legal meaning when used in legislation?
Not to my knowledge. There's no entry in Black's Law Dictionary for the word, and I've never seen it used in a technical sense in the law. It might be defined elsewhere in the bill, but it probably isn't. Frequently Congess leaves it to the courts to decide exactly what terms in a statute mean.

Also considering the word "elicit" - the purpose of the site isn't a "social network" (although of course people do do that) so our profiles aren't here to "elicit" people to do that.
You could make that argument, but whatever the primary purpose of the site is, the profile editor does seem to "elicit" personal information about a user. Also, the fact that the site isn't a "social network" in the usual sense of the term doesn't mean that it doesn't fall within the definition of the term as defined by the bill. Moreover, since the concern addressed by the bill is sexual exploitation of minors on the Internet, the fact that this site is more educational than merely social is probably not an important distinction, since a predator could still obtain personal information about minors and use this site to contact them.

Also, as I said before, the final decision about whether JREF falls within the meaning of the statute isn't likely to be made by a court or by Congress; it will be made for practical purposes by the librarians and school boards of the world in implementing the statute (if it is signed into law). In close cases like this one, those individuals are likely to err on the side of exclusion, because it's safer to do so than risk being found in violation of federal law.

Edit: A further thought-- implementation of this thing is going to be a huge pain. It would be easy enough to identify and block big sites like Myspace, but how can a librarian be expected to identify every site that falls within the parameters of the federal law? Maybe the government will publish a master list of sites to be blocked?

[Darat]

I suppose forums like this one could remove all profile fields.

[JamesDillon]

I suppose forums like this one could remove all profile fields.
You could do that, if you're really that concerned about it, but I'd hate to see it happen. Hypothetically speaking, if I were running a forum like this, I'd wait to see if the law is passed, and then see if it survives the inevitable First Amendment lawsuit before making any changes to the forum.

Edit: And even then, I think you'd want to consider very carefully whether public access to the forum from schools and libraries in the United States is really worth eliminating users' ability to share personal information with each other in the forum. How many people really access JREF from school or from a public library? Some, I'm sure, but I would expect that the majority are probably using private computers that would not be affected by the statute in question.

[senorpogo]

Is there a big collection of goofs, losers, and weirdos than the US House of Representatives? They make the locker room of the WWF seem respectable.

I see them on TV and they're saying something stupid. I read about them on the net and they're saying something stupid. I look at the resolutions being passed and they're something very stupid.

[Dave1001]

Is there a big collection of goofs, losers, and weirdos than the US House of Representatives? They make the locker room of the WWF seem respectable.

I them on TV and they're saying something stupid. I read about them on the net and they're saying something stupid. I look at the resolutions being passed and they're something very stupid.

In all seriousness, perhaps the ABA should ascertain the worthiness of congressional candidates the way they do for supreme court nominees.

[Camillus]

From a pessimestic point of view doesn't the fact that this forum has a section called "Community" make it de facto a social networking site? Could it not be argued that if the JREF forum had no networking purpose then it would not have such a sub-forum?

[Dark Jaguar]

Just out of curiosity, WHO are adults supposed to ask this permission from? Do they call a special government office every single time they need to get access to a new forum? Wouldn't that be massively inconvenient? Wouldn't that be something our taxes would have to pay a MASSIVE amount for? Wouldn't that line be so busy all the time that the only way to actually get through would be to create an alterante universe where you were already through? Is this supposed to be done on a special web site instead? Does it need to be confirmed by a human being or is it automated? Would the site be able to handle that level of traffic?

Wouldn't this be a MAJOR cut into private lives? I like anonimity online. It's one of the major selling points to me. I do not enjoy the idea of having to tie my real world self to various online personas. It's not that I think the government is suddenly going to leap into action because I'm visiting some Nintendo forum somewhere, but why do they need to know that?

And, what sort of work do all these sites need to do in order to make their sites work with whatever system they put in place? Will there be a fee required for it? Will it require some level of extra cost anyway? I say this because I know more than a few places that are just put up for a very small amount of money by the web master's own generosity and they will likely be shut down if they need to pay any more.

Seriously, why is THIS the step they need to take? I have a much easier solution. Schools are government run institutions right? Simple, just require all SCHOOLS to have a simple access denial list right in the router the various machines are connected to. The students will only be able to access sites allowed on that list. A lot of schools ALREADY do that.

This is stupid and I hope it gets revoked as soon as possible.

[Katana]

Even if this passed, it likely wouldn't affect most of us unless (ahem) somone is of school age or using a public library. I'm not happy about the public library part, in particular, as I said, but the bottom line is I suspect that it would affect the majority of us minimally to not at all.

[senorpogo]

Just like with online gambling, any serious legislation against MySpace-like sites is just going to force users - underage kids and normal users alike - onto message boards and social sites that are being run on servers located outside the United States. There will still be online predators and the legislative branch, which apparently shows no forethought what so ever, will do nothing but hurt American businesses and create huge annoyances for honest citizens.

[CapelDodger]

Ditto.

They'd never think of leaving that responsibility to parents, oh no!
Parents can control the home environment, they can talk to parents in other homes where their kids go online, they can ban their kids from InterNet-cafes, but this legislation applies to schools and libraries, environments which they can't control.

[Meadmaker]

Ditto.

They'd never think of leaving that responsibility to parents, oh no!

Isn't that what they are doing?

By blocking access to those sites via a public terminal, they are basically saying that if you want to use those sites, you have to do it where mom and dad might be able to see you.


If my son can only access JREF through his home computer, I'm having a hard time figuring out what's the downside to the law.

[Meadmaker]

Wouldn't this be a MAJOR cut into private lives? I like anonimity online.

I've left enough clues that if you really wanted to, you could find my real name.

Of course, it would be a pain in the neck, and would be of very little value. Unless, say, I was the target of a criminal investigation.

I don't know if this is good legislation or not. I don't have enough details to make that judgement. However, the end of online anonymity is not necessarily a bad thing, especially when it comes to social networking. I want to know who my kid is chatting with. At the very least, if someone encourages him to hook up in the real world, I want to be able to find out that someone's name. Is there a downside to wanting that? I can't see one.

[ImaginalDisc]

The federal government pays for the pipe.
And it has to abide by that pesky First Ammendment.

[JamesDillon]

Just out of curiosity, WHO are adults supposed to ask this permission from?...

Seriously, why is THIS the step they need to take? I have a much easier solution. Schools are government run institutions right? Simple, just require all SCHOOLS to have a simple access denial list right in the router the various machines are connected to. The students will only be able to access sites allowed on that list. A lot of schools ALREADY do that.
It's not entirely clear from your post, but I think you may be misunderstanding the proposed bill. It wouldn't block access to social networking sites from all computers; only from public terminals in schools and libraries. No one would have to get government approval to access such sites from their home computers, and adults could request access on library computers from the local librarian. It wouldn't be that cumbersome, and it isn't as much of an infringement on privacy as you seem to think. Like Katana, I'm not crazy about it, and I'm rather skeptical that it could survive a First Amendment challenge, but it isn't as big a deal as you make it sound like.

Edit: Does anyone know how big a problem online stalking of minors actually is? It seems like every year or two there's a story in the paper about some 13 year old lured to meet a dirty old man she met online, but if it's no more common than that, this seems like an overreaction. If it is a serious problem, then I could probably be persuaded that we can all live with this kind of restriction for the sake of kids' safety.

[Dave1001]

Edit: Does anyone know how big a problem online stalking of minors actually is? It seems like every year or two there's a story in the paper about some 13 year old lured to meet a dirty old man she met online, but if it's no more common than that, this seems like an overreaction. If it is a serious problem, then I could probably be persuaded that we can all live with this kind of restriction for the sake of kids' safety.

I have no idea how big the problem is, but I suspect it's much, much, more than one or two per year. What I think is unique (as opposed to pre-internet) is how easy it is for underage people to manufacture their own illegal media content (just takes a camera phone or a chat cam and a free image hosting site) and how easy it is for adults who stalk minors to to contact them.

However, I like the idea of schools and local institutions making their own internet access regulations.

[69dodge]

Also, as I said before, the final decision about whether JREF falls within the meaning of the statute isn't likely to be made by a court or by Congress; it will be made for practical purposes by the librarians and school boards of the world in implementing the statute (if it is signed into law). In close cases like this one, those individuals are likely to err on the side of exclusion, because it's safer to do so than risk being found in violation of federal law.Suppose a librarian would like to allow access to JREF but doesn't want to risk being found in violation of federal law. Is there any way for him to get an "official" answer from someone (who?) as to whether it's legal or not, so that if he gets a 'yes' answer, he's guaranteed not to be prosecuted? It would be odd if the only way to find out whether something is a crime or not is to go ahead and do it, and see if a court finds you guilty. It's too late, then! You've already done it!

[Meadmaker]

Edit: Does anyone know how big a problem online stalking of minors actually is?

There are some commercials playing in Detroit on the radio saying that 20% of teenagers report being sexually solicited by strangers on the internet last year. I don't recall what the ads are for, but they are PSA type announcements encouraging greater awareness of the problem, not mentioning any product or service.

I am guessing that the 20% number is greatly exaggerated. Perhaps "being sexually solicited" might mean getting a spam i-message wanting to hot chat or directing them to a porn site, but unless the number is just totally invented, it seems like a big problem to me.

[JamesDillon]

Suppose a librarian would like to allow access to JREF but doesn't want to risk being found in violation of federal law. Is there any way for him to get an "official" answer from someone (who?) as to whether it's legal or not, so that if he gets a 'yes' answer, he's guaranteed not to be prosecuted? It would be odd if the only way to find out whether something is a crime or not is to go ahead and do it, and see if a court finds you guilty. It's too late, then! You've already done it!
It would depend on how the bill is structured, and I have no idea what the answer is. Frequently, acts of Congress will delegate enforcement to a specific executive agency (or to "the President," meaning an agency that will be designated by the executive branch), and the agency then issues regulations with much greater specificity than the statute itself provides. If an agency is designated to enforce this act (assuming it passes), it would probably issue more specific criteria for making the determination of what needs to be blocked, and it might or might not be available to offer answers in specific cases. However, to the degree any ambiguity exists as to a particular site's status, the school or librarian would be well advised to err on the side of caution and block the site.

I am guessing that the 20% number is greatly exaggerated. Perhaps "being sexually solicited" might mean getting a spam i-message wanting to hot chat or directing them to a porn site, but unless the number is just totally invented, it seems like a big problem to me.
That reminds me of a statistic I once heard somewhere that 50% of women have been "sexually assaulted," but on further investigation it turned out that "sexual assault" was defined to include things such as unwanted sexual advances, so anyone who has ever been hit on in a bar would qualify. Not saying that's what's happening in this case, but the 20% figure sounds suspiciously high if we're just talking about instances of direct contact from a creepy old man looking to hook up with a 13 year old.

[Darat]

It would depend on how the bill is structured, and I have no idea what the answer is. Frequently, acts of Congress will delegate enforcement to a specific executive agency (or to "the President," meaning an agency that will be designated by the executive branch), and the agency then issues regulations with much greater specificity than the statute itself provides. If an agency is designated to enforce this act (assuming it passes), it would probably issue more specific criteria for making the determination of what needs to be blocked, and it might or might not be available to offer answers in specific cases. However, to the degree any ambiguity exists as to a particular site's status, the school or librarian would be well advised to err on the side of caution and block the site.
...snip...


It's the "Federal Communications Commission" that has been delegated to enforce this act.

I've had a brief email exchange with an ex-colleague (heads-up the USA legal division of a multinational I used to work for) and he's been looking at it in case he needs to give any advice - his summary of the legislation is that it's "piss poor". :)

[luchog]

There are some commercials playing in Detroit on the radio saying that 20% of teenagers report being sexually solicited by strangers on the internet last year. I don't recall what the ads are for, but they are PSA type announcements encouraging greater awareness of the problem, not mentioning any product or service.

I am guessing that the 20% number is greatly exaggerated. Perhaps "being sexually solicited" might mean getting a spam i-message wanting to hot chat or directing them to a porn site, but unless the number is just totally invented, it seems like a big problem to me.
Not to mention, from the last time I saw this debated, it doesn't account for the fact that the majority of those "sexual solicitations" are from other teenagers.

[zakur]

The ALA's response to DOPA. (http://www.ala.org/ala/washoff/WOissues/techinttele/dopa/DOPA.htm)