Gonzales Wants ISP Data Retention To Curb Child Porn 454
$RANDOMLUSER writes, "The AP is reporting that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testified before the Senate Banking Committee today and called for Congress to require ISPs to preserve customer records, asserting that prosecutors need them to fight child pornography. 'This is a problem that requires federal legislation,' Gonzales said. He called the government's lack of access to customer data the biggest obstacle to deterring child porn. 'We respect civil liberties but we have to harmonize this so we can get more information,' he said." Gonzales added that he agrees with a letter sent to Congress in June by 49 state attorneys general, requesting federal legislation to require ISPs to hold onto customer data longer.
Privacy for the Incidental (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm all for catching the distributors of child pornography. I hope they find all the freaks exploiting these children.
However, I know that they never stop there. If they have the information they won't use it for just investigating cases of child pornography. Furthermore, I don't trust their techniques of catching the predators.
Many years ago (1998, or 1999) there was a crackdown on the alt.binaries.erotica.* groups to catch distributors of child pornography. Instead, what they did is arrest hundreds of people victimized by the distributors. Sure, many of those hundreds were intentionally seeking pictures of children. But many others were falsely accused because they blindly downloaded "all new articles."
The way this happened was quite simple... Much like the spambots of today, these distributors taint many, many groups with their filth. It's a sort of scorched earth policy, perhaps. Regardless, I don't trust the government to know the difference between the incidental versus the intentional.
The primary reason being the weapon they would potentially wield against people that choose to speak out...
"Oh, look, in 2002 you downloaded DSC_1000.JPG from a newsgroup, and it was depicting an unclothed child... LOCK 'EM UP!"
Privacy protects the innocent too, you know...
Re:Privacy for the Incidental (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Privacy for the Incidental (Score:5, Interesting)
After all, it's not as if Gonzales has anything to hide, right?
Re:Privacy for the Incidental (Score:5, Insightful)
If you arrest people simply for clicking links, and not the people who actually put the links on the internet, what stops a person from putting up links which say one thing but take you to somewhere else, then you get arrested? I mean a spam bot could arrange it so that everyone gets spammed with bogus links and then what?
The way the internet is designed, you don't really know what you'll see at a link until after you see it. The only person who really knows, is the one who actually created the link in the first place.
You may be correct, it likely is not just for kiddie porn, because if people can be arrested for just clicking on a link or downloading a file, it becomes impossible at that point to use the internet safely without falling for some sorta trap or clicking on some sorta link that is illegal to click on, hell a script could make you click on it, a virus could download stuff onto your computer and use it for storage, so you see this is basically ridiculous. This does not mean people will not try to make it the law, as laws don't have to make technical sense whatsoever, but due to how the internet is designed and the culture of the net, if a law like this passes everyone would be guilty, have you ever downloaded an mp3? Of course. Ever downloaded a movie without paying for it?
You see, it's impossible to not be guilty when the crime is downloading. If the crime is uploading, then yes you should be guilty if distributing it is illegal.
Re:Privacy for the Incidental (Score:5, Insightful)
By simply having checked their mail that day, every member of congress will have violated the law about recieving and posessing. Under the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 that subjects all of congress to a MANDATORY minimum sentence of 15 years.
That, at least, would do a great deal of good for the country.
Re:Privacy for the Incidental (Score:5, Interesting)
Someone committed a crime, verified by a lawyer, and the evidence was encrypted and emailed to the Home Secretary. He now was in possesion of evidence of a crime that was encrypted and he didn't know the decryption key.
Unfortunately, he wasn't arrested and put in prison!
It seems it's one rule for politicians and another for the rest of us!
5th Amendment and Encryption Keys (Score:4, Insightful)
It seems like this has to have happened before, so there's probably precedent on it somewhere. If you know that by revealing the key, you're going to be incriminating yourself, it seems like you might have grounds for refusal. That would keep you from being charged with contempt. That would also probably allow your spouse(s) to refuse to incriminate you, as well.
I could also see how a court could rule that an encryption key or password isn't "protected speech" though, in the same way that they've curtailed the First Amendment. IMO, I would think that the encryption key is a pretty big piece of evidence in itself, since it's the only way to show that the plaintext came from the ciphertext; thus disclosing a password or key really is testifying against oneself. Not that logic really plays any great role in modern jurisprudence, as far as I can tell.
I've seen discussions about this on sci.crypt and other places, but never a definitive answer.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Prima Facie" possession (Score:5, Informative)
It's like drug possession -- if the cops toss your car and find a kilo of China White or a handgun with the serial number scratched off in the glove compartment, your insistence that it's not yours may not keep you out of trouble. Just having it, in a place that was under your control, is the crime. A demonstration of intent is not necessary. In effect, it means that the burden of proof is shifted to the defendant to explain themselves, and if they cannot provide a justification for the evidence, they're guilty.
Frankly I think "prima facie" laws in general are a travesty of justice; we ought to abolish the whole philosophy and get back to a more intent-focused jurisprudence. But of course if you tried to do that, you'd be keelhauled for being supportive of crime and criminals, because in the short term it would make the work of the police harder.
In general, a lot of "possession" laws (drug possession, weapon possession, pornography, "burglar's tools") are intentionally written this way so that a demonstration of intent is unnecessary, and many laws include the phrase "prima facie" verbatim. (See this Montana weapon law [state.mt.us], for example.)
More information you might want to read:
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p078.htm [lectlaw.com] (deals with torts, specifically in employment law, but discussed the general concept)
http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=1
Re:Privacy for the Incidental (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Privacy for the Incidental (Score:5, Insightful)
Or hey, how about you just get a court order to search the suspect's computers? Kiddy porn is far too hard to come by for those guys to just delete it after three wank sessions, and chances are you'll even find photos and magazines stashed away somewhere at his place. Same logic applies to the distributors btw; you can't distribute what you don't have.
So there's really no reason to ask for longer data retention for the reasons quoted. That's just a cover story; I wonder what the real story is though...
You're missing the point (Score:5, Informative)
I'm completely against legislation like this, but in the interest of having a full discussion, I'll explain why they want this legislation.
They don't intend to use this against people that they already suspect. Instead, they will identify sites containing illegal images/information and then subpoena the major ISPs for lists of users that have accessed any of those sites. This becomes their probable cause and then they resume normal investigation techniques to solidify their cases.
Re:Privacy for the Incidental (Score:4, Insightful)
Even child porn/abduction/abuse is not so awful that it trumps any conceivable objection to a law that might in some way reduce it. For example, why not pass a law that allows a parent to kill any adult who looks at their child. Don't you know that 99% of child molesterers have seen their victim in the presence of a parent before they molester them?? It's for the children! But, no, of course, that is ridiculously out of proportion and no one would ever seriously propose such a thing. It's not even a good example of humorous legal hyperbole, but it illustrates one thing -- no one is willing to go "to any length" to save the children. There is some cost at which it is no longer worth it.
Exactly how much we're willing to "spend" (maybe "give up" is a better word) to prevent these crimes is up for some debate, but you can't ignore the analysis based on the nature of the crime. Personally, I believe that an abusive oppressive government is a frightening enough thing that we need to keep it on a very tight leash, even at the cost of some heinous crimes going unpunished. "Better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be punished" is the doctrine -- note that it doesn't go on to say "unless a politician with an agenda believes that innocent man might have abused a child; then let him fry."
If it's really about CP, they'd say it in the law. (Score:5, Insightful)
Child Porn My Behind (Score:5, Insightful)
There are a few boogiemen that never seem to fail those that would take our freedoms. Terrorists, Kiddie Porn, Welfare Moms, Liberals and Bill Clinton are some of the most reliable. A few decades ago it was "Satan Worshippers" "Communists" and "Castro" that were the standbys.
Anybody else sick of this BS?
Re:Child Porn My Behind (Score:5, Insightful)
"Jim Davis voted AGAINST a bill that would have protected CHILDREN from dangerous preditors and pedophiles..."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Child Porn My Behind (Score:5, Interesting)
They usually have numbers. They should be referred to only by their number. Slapping a name on a bill is a dishonest labelling for the purpose of marketing.
Re:Politics != Marketing? (Score:4, Funny)
Marketing is a honest task.
Re:Child Porn My Behind (Score:5, Insightful)
It is meant to be an unbelievable lie. It is meant to cause a reaction. Then Ken Mehlman can send out emails to the party faithful telling them how the evil, evil Democrats support child pornography. It was designed to get you riled up so they can use your reaction to inflame their base.
If you think this sounds far fetched, I encourage you to get on the GOP email list. The person who had my email address before me was on it and I haven't unsubscribed. The only thing the Democrats have going for them is almost every single issue and that may not be enough. Things are bound to get very, very ugly.
Re:Privacy for the Incidental unneeded by Party (Score:2, Funny)
Are you questioning the God Emperor?
Re: (Score:2)
Woah, woah, woah, there, pal. You're confusing Orwell and Herbert. What the hell does the Tyrant have to do with Big Brother?
Why not just put a chip in all cameras? (Score:3, Funny)
However, if it's just about searching all ISP's in the world, I just don't think that it's believeable that it would be for child porn. Child porn comes from cameras, not the internet itself, so whoever is putting these pictures on
*What* child porn? (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree. I'm all for catching the scumbags who exploit children.
However, there's a question that keeps nagging me every time I see mentions of this so-called "child porn" in the internet. What's exactly that "child porn" people keep mentioning? I get hundreds of unwanted emails every day. I have lost count of all the pornography I have seen in the internet. Yet I never saw one single picture of a child engaged in sex!
Well, I have seen plenty of images that some people call "child porn", but those are merely pictures of young women who could be of any age between 15 and 30 with shaved pubic hair and small breasts. Anorexic women who have their pictures taken when they are 25 years old do not count as "child porn" in my book.
Here's one simple rather provoking concept: what if the true perverts are smart enough to avoid putting the images of their acts on the internet? How many videos of bank robberies and drug sales get published in the internet? What makes you feel that paedophiles would be more stupid than other criminals?
I think the police would be more successful in catching perverts if they tried to investigate the typical acts of perverts instead of insisting on that rather sickly curiosity about the acts of honest internet citizens...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Naked kids!?!? That's absolutely horrible! No child should ever be naked, because the naked human body is a disgusting, vile thing.
Re:Privacy for the Incidental (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/05/girl_char
Why, yes. Yes you can. Pretty insane, no?
Re: (Score:3)
Yes it does, so stop minimizing the threat.
Define obscene and then define lascivious. If the genitals or pubic area of any person is in the photograph, either will get you arrested.
Being the Supreme Court can't define what these two words mean do you really think an honest discourse with the arresting officer, who's up for promotion, will have any effect?
First, the arresting officer isn't the determining factor defining the above. With todays zero tolerance and his desire to make detective if he
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Privacy for the Incidental (Score:5, Funny)
So? Are you saying you're against fighting child porn?
Re:Privacy for the Incidental (Score:4, Interesting)
Strange but true: In the UK, it's legal to shag a 17 year old, but now as soon as you take a photo, you're guilty of making and possessing child porn (the 2003 Sexual Offences Act bizarrely raised the age for appearing in photos from 16 to 18, despite the age of consent remaining at 16 where it as always been).
Re:Privacy for the Incidental (Score:4, Insightful)
All that UNTIL AN EXPERT says "oh, wtf, this is just some kid having a bath sent to him by a family member"... too late. The damage would be done.
Root Password to the US Constitution (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Must have been too long...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
>
> But, I thought it was "war president".
> Must have been too long...
When I was your age, it was "living document". Uphill. Both ways. During a Congressional recess.
Re:Root Password to the US Constitution (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Root Password to the US Constitution (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Root Password to the US Constitution (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Root Password to the US Constitution (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
<blinks>
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, you ought to submit that as a story in itself!
(Of course, knowing Slashdot, Zonk will get it and completely screw it up anyway...
Please, think of the children!! (Score:2)
Gonzales is Lying again (Score:2)
But that's not what this is about, and I'm insulted (if not surprised) that he's being so blatant.
if you don't have anything to hide... (Score:5, Insightful)
And their logic is always "If you don't have anything to hide, you don't have anything to worry about". To which I say, "If I don't have anything to hide, why do they need to spy on me?"
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We all know, that these cameras should be used res
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Any time you hear... (Score:5, Insightful)
Its almost like "I'm not a racist, but..."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"No disrespect intended, but" means someone is about to get disrespected.
"No offense, but" means something offensive is about to follow.
"I'm not a racist, but" means something racist is about to be said.
"we respect civil liberties, but" means some civil liberties are about to be disrespected.
"Harmonize" (Score:3, Interesting)
Abusing children is the most horrible crime (Score:5, Insightful)
2 questions: (Score:2)
Why does "harmonization" always mean bringing everyones laws into line with the one which provides for the most disadvantage to the most people?
The Four Horsemen must be stopped! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It Takes A Village to raise a Prisoner (Score:4, Interesting)
- Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez.
Number 6: Where am I?
Number 2: In the Village.
Number 6: What do you want?
Number 2: We want information.
Number 6: Whose side are you on?
Number 2: That would be telling.
We want information... information... information.
Number 6: You won't get it.
Number 2: By hook or by crook, we will.
Come to think of it...
Number Six: Everybody votes for a dictator.
Chessmaster: "You must be new here. In time, most of us join the enemy - against ourselves."
I guess it takes a village to raise a Prisoner as well as a Child.
The thing I miss most about the Republican wing of the Party is the wing that asked questions like "What would the Democrat wing of the Party do with these powers?"
I just wonder how long the Democrat wing of the Party that's currently asking these sorts of questions will last when they're handed power in 2008?
In Soviet America (Score:3, Insightful)
Massive Cost (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm appalled at the invasion of privacy. Practical side of this bad idea is very troublesome as well. Gonzales must think there is data retension fairy that will do all of this for him.
Re:Massive Cost (Score:5, Funny)
or in this case "Pedo-bytes" of information...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm fine with this. (Score:2)
*You say "What about terrorism?" well add another line that includes "threats of imminent terrorist acts". Of course the Republicans would cry foul, declare that such a line is too vague and doesn't give the agents in the field the right tools to fight terrorism. Which means "anyone could be a terrorist so we must
Who was the holdout state AG? (Score:4, Insightful)
Who was the lone holdout state attorney general who didn't sign on to this executive branch power grab? I'd like to consider moving to that state.
-Isaac
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I saw only American Samoa, Puerto Rico, VI and D.C. as non-states listed. That means _three_ territories and a federal district. Not exactly "several." Regardless, 49 is still a significant number, especially considering that SCOTUS will reject a method of execution when only 13 states still employ it. So, if SCOTUS can engage in a political decision with only 13 states, then why can't Congress legislate at the request of 49 Attorneys General?
I checked to ma
Re:Who was the holdout state AG? (Score:5, Informative)
All I know is ... (Score:2)
Is it really a growing threat? (Score:5, Insightful)
The growing threat of child porn? Is it really that big of a threat?
I've surfed the tubes and found some pretty perverse pr0n, but I have never run across any child porn. I have absolutely no clue how anyone could even go about finding the stuff. And yet, Gonzalez and the gov't claim it is a huge threat. A threat so great that we must intrude on the privacy rights of all law-abiding citizens. Do we have any real evidence to back up the claim that child porn is such an enormous threat that we must take extraordinary measures? No, we don't.
We have to take the government's word for it, because no one is allowed to independently research child porn. To do so would violate the law. I've heard that the amount of new child porn material has increased in the past few years. Conversely, I've also heard that all of the child porn that's out there is the same old material that has been circulating around for 20 years. But we have no way to know for sure. The government keeps a database of child porn for themselves, and prosecutes and harshly punishes anyone that so much mistakenly downloads an image in their browser cache.
This push by Gonzalez to mandate ISP data retention smells very fishy, especially considering that we, as citizens, have no way to verify that child porn is as serious a problem as he claims.
want to find it (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:want to find it (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course your link could be some sort of joke, a link to pictures of baby elephants or something, but I guess I'll never know.
And That... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I have viewed child porn - not only that, but repeatedly and semi-deliberately: I'm sure they could lock me up if they felt like it for what I've seen, and therefore had on my computer.
Of course, the reason I saw it was because I was looking at an experiment in a major news site where they were trialling wikis as a method of responding to editorials. It was linked here on Slashdot, the trolls descended, and one particularly persistent one decided that his vandalism of choice was to post nude pictures of
Re:Is it really a growing threat? (Score:4, Insightful)
Reminds me of this other great threat to america, i believe it is called marijuana. The government has told me many times that it is very bad for me, although i cannot find out for myself because it is illegal. Scientist have tried to do independant studies to find out if this "drug" is indeed harmful but the government will not allow them too because it is illegal.
Strange but true..
Moo (Score:5, Insightful)
The main issues stated are:
1) It hurts children to make it.
2) It causes people to want the real thing.
The first is obviously not what they are after, since:
1a) They go after the consumer with full force, when this helps little. (It only helps the content creator only if he sells it.)
1b) They go after voyeuristic photos and "model" shoots. The amount of actual CP where the child is hurt has never been shown to be significant.
The second reason, has never been proven either:
2a) The is an equal and opposite force that people would release tension through this, instead of going after the "real" thing.
2b) Pedophilia is defined as a mental disorder, so "normal" viewers will shouldn't be affected by it anyway. Only someone who already wants it, and doesn't know it, would be affected. This is most likely not a significant amount of people.
As such, i believe the real reason is not any of those given above. But until it is delineated, and the laws address it by protected people from harm (that is, make sure there is an actual (potential) victim as opposed to regulating behavior) there should be no barring of CP different from the Adult version. And, as for invading privacy, that's is going to take a lot more doing than this vagueness.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is particularly the case in the UK, where now, even fake sexual images of child are illegal. Yes, it's illegal to make images of women look younger, even if you have no intent to distribute these images: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/4776123.st m [bbc.co.uk]
Basically, liking women with small breasts, shaved pussy and school uniforms is a crime in the UK, and consid
Re: (Score:2)
All of this is very wrong, but still, I'm pretty sure that without prior history photoshopp
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, that was one of the more unsettling arguments here. Rather than dwell on the ethics of forcing children to have sex for the purpose of producing pornography, I'll point out the legal points involved here.
Under current law, sexual activity with minors is, ipso facto, non-consensual and therefore illegal. Your point #1 is in fact what "they" are after, the reasoning behind going after the consumers as well as the produ
but isn't that the point the P makes? (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because something is horrific doesn't mean we should throw out all rational thought. I mean I have people in my life who were affected by molestation when they were children, and I would love to throttle the ones who did it, BUT i would rather we as a society think about this rationally and err on the side of caution rather than execute people o
Re:Moo (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, you just ignored his entire argument! And since you did so, I'll restate it:
In other words, if they want to stop child porn they ought to:
It's the production that (theoretically) causes harm, therefore it's the production that ought to be illegal.
Is file sharing good or bad for content creators? (Score:3, Interesting)
Your point #1 is in fact what "they" are after, the reasoning behind going after the consumers as well as the producers, is that demand creates supply, and cutting off the demand for child pornography will lower the incentives to produce it (whether or not money is directly involved).
Wait just a second. By downloading it without paying for it, aren't you ... stealing it. You know, robbing the 'artists' that produce this 'intellectual property.' I mean, that's what Alberto Gonzales has been touring Ame
Key words: Data Retention (not child porn) (Score:5, Insightful)
Child porn is just the catch phrase they can use to ram it through congress.
I can see the campaign ad -- "Congressman X voted against protections from child porn!"
Protection tools? (Score:4, Interesting)
Are there any tools that can be used to mask real browsing habits by randomly sampling and following links from sites like Google News or Wikipedia? It would be nice to have something like that going 24/7 so that your actual traffic would be drowned in a sea of noise. It would also considerably raise the cost of the invasion, required by law or not. I don't like my ISP looking over my shoulder to begin with. That big brother wants to share the view is disturbing but not much different from the existing corporate invasion.
Re: (Score:2)
We respect civil liberties but ... (Score:5, Insightful)
How about retaining info on gov't employees? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think all communications with attorney generals, congress persons, cabinet members, etc should all be retained, reviewed, and utilized when corruption is evident. That'll keep our children safe!
How about this... (Score:3, Insightful)
2. put together servers and software that can monitor ISP lines
3. provide servers and software to ISPs at no cost
4. ISPs only report on those that are going to those sites.
5. haul in the asses of those who are guilty of visiting said sites
OR
1. create a list of sites that they find are exploiting children
2. take down those sites
3. everyone is happy
Yes, I know there are a lot of those sites that are 'offshore' but I can assure you, it isn't from experience.
Better child porn than this (Score:2)
How many cases? (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean are we talking tens? hundreds? thousands? more?
-- Should you believe authority without question?
How about think of the childrens (Score:3, Interesting)
Retention forever (Score:2)
Nothing New (Score:5, Informative)
He's tried:
-meeting privately [com.com] with the major ISPs to ask them for voluntary compliance
-getting Republican Congressman James Sensenbrenner to introduce a bill [com.com] that went nowhere.
-somehow persuading Qwest to endorse legislation [com.com]
I don't mean to pimp Cnet. Search any tech news site for "ISP data retention" and you'll see the history of this.
Re: (Score:2)
um, yah... (Score:2)
This from the guy who advised Bush in the FISA wiretaps?
I have a better idea, Mr. Gonzales ... (Score:5, Insightful)
A bit disappointing, really.
Maybe we do need to give up some civil liberties, given the current state of affairs with international terrorism
Furthermore, I absolutely do not accept "child pornography" as good and sufficient cause to invoke yet another massive spy campaign against the American public. If the FBI needs more funds to go after these bastards
I think not.
Re: (Score:2)
The only problem with that arguemnt is that WWII had clearly defined end. Do you really think the guv is gointo hunt down every last terrorist cell? Ever?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The amount of rights rescinded depended a lot on whether or not you were ethnic Japanese (and one of the strongest supporters of sending the Japanese to concentration camps (using the pre-WWII meaning)was Earl Warren) - many people had their property confiscated (the folks in Handford did not leave willingly - the 90% "war profits" income tax bracket wasn't rescinded until the 1960's.
What's even worse is wh
New law (Score:4, Interesting)
A note to Mike Hatch, who's running for Gov of MN (Score:3, Interesting)
Dear Attorney General Hatch,
I'd like to thank you for not adding your name to this letter:
(From AP) "Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Tuesday that Congress should require Internet service providers to preserve customer records, asserting that prosecutors need them to fight child pornography.
"This is a problem that requires federal legislation," Gonzales told the Senate Banking Committee. "We need information. Information helps us makes cases."
"We respect civil liberties but we have to harmonize this so we can get more information," he said. " "
Child porn is just an excuse. If protecting children was really the point, the letter proposing legislation would limit all subpoenas of data retained under this law to child porn cases. This proposition doesn't do that, so Mr. Gonzales obviously wants to 'legitimize' the domestic spying program, gain unlimited access to private info with no oversight, and should be condemned for his co-opting a 'hot button' issue to garner support for a lie.
I appreciate the rather singular gesture you have made by not signing this letter, and showing Minnesotans and Americans that privacy and the fourth amendment are as important to you as they are to us.
Abusing children is a horrible crime, abusing them for more political power is worse.
Thanks, and good luck in November; you will have my vote.
We seem to be missing an important point here... (Score:3, Insightful)
A picture of a naked 14-year-old boy or girl, just standing there in a neutral kind of way, not sexually suggestive at all, is completely legal as an artistic shot. My parents have photos of me as a baby, all nekkid with my little baby wee-wee and everything (curses!!) but I highly doubt they could even be considered remotely illegal.
Now, that same 14-yr-old doing something suggestive or posing in a not-for-kids manner would definitely be considered porn and thusly illegal. I'm not sure what the rules are regarding erotica and minors.
There are many professional photographers who aren't kiddie-pornographers, who take nude photos of their subjects whether they're of legal age or not.. This could also include medical imaging, as well as anything else it could include which I can't remember right now.
I wonder how long before someone uses CGI to make artificial kiddie-pr0n.. "but she's not underage, Your Honor! Right here in the code, her age is commented: Nine hundred." Loopholes, glorious loopholes. Just FYI, IANACP.
--A
Re: (Score:2)
Of course! They'll pass the "No Record Left Behind Act" which will come with Federal money to assist local ISP's in meeting these new Government requirements.