New US Link and Domain Law

[cyberfolli]

I know for a fact that porn could easily be controlled just by simply using .xxx as an extension on domain names that way anything that has to do with the adult industry is defined and if parents what to block adult sites they can restrict access to .xxx. what is the industry waiting for. this is such an easy fix..

the government is wasting time passing laws for illegal click throughs. it doesn't cover misleading advertising click throughs etc.[google][yahoo][wiki][/wiki][/yahoo][/google]

[incrediblehelp]

This is like the recent anti-gambling law they just passed. Not really enforceable, just more political bantering.

Then they select one big ginnie pig to make an example of and everyone making money on gambling is supposed to quit, LOL.

[steveglobal]

Restricting domain names is a restraint of trade and is a poor method of control. If there is ever a successful trial that relies on this inane law, it won't be long before all businesses are pigeonholed into specific domain name formats. The law is overly broad. A site named "body.com" could be applied to any number of industries, not just porn, and is not in itself deceptive. This law gives the puritanical, political nutcases a means to file more frivolous lawsuits, as if we don't have enough of those already.

I think you are looking at it backwards. Having a site called "body.com" that points to health products will not be affected by this law (IMO). However, having a site called "luckycharms.com" that points to photos of Irish genitalia is what this law is designed to prevent.

Also, I would have a hard time believing that this law has been written just so that an enforcement body can go around hunting down people to throw in jail, simply because they put up a vacation photo of their girlfriend in a bikini on their blog site called "ilovecandy.com". Rather, it is a tool for them to use so that when they find someone doing something shady, they have the means to prosecute and punish.

Don't blame websites for taking advantage of users' inability to use a keyboard; that's putting blame in the wrong place.

Blame in the wrong place? It's exactly the right place. You aren't going to throw users in jail because they are stupid (although some would argue that you should). The Web site is the one being deceptive. There are thousands of laws that deal with this principle - full disclosure on sales of houses and vehicles, truth in advertising, advertised pricing guarantees, warranty obligation, etc. Laws in these areas are all designed to protect the consumer from deceptive practice, especially if it is beyond their control ("Caveat Emptor" notwithstanding - I'm talking about when the user has already done due diligence and cannot reasonably discover the nature of a deception).

I think you've gone a bit too far into the deep end of the cynicism pool.

[rhiebert]

On-side to protect the kids but it's obvious that down the road it will end up going farther than it's first intention. Some kids can't be protected no matter what the legislators do.

[downstrike]

This is long overdue. If the Internet were self-policing this wouldn't be necessary. Some search sites have made a token effort to trash misleading links, but there is only so much they can afford to do.

To their credit, Google does successfully segregate naturists from naturalists, even when the exhibitionists among the nudists insist upon using the wrong word.

Yes, a lot of money is going to be wasted on litigation. IMHO, all litigation - as it is currently practiced - is a waste of money, and when some attorney tries to argue that exhibitionistic porn sites have the right to dishonestly lure innocents to view their porn, it will simply be one parasite defending another parasite.

[urknighterrent]

This is a typical congressional non-solution to a very real problem. This will do NOTHING to get rid of the swarm of online pedophiles that we, the American public, are worried about when we hear the phrase "online sexual predators". I don't see anything remotely valiant or well-meaning about it. Congress isn't composed of idiots. Congress is composed of people that think WE'RE idiots. They know damn well that this law won't do anything, but now they get to campaign on their stand against online predators and best of all it won't cost them a dime.

If we are serious about addressing the problem of online predators how about this:

300 cops, with 50 of them on line 24 hours a day 7 days a week. These guys spend 2 hours a day "training". They watch MTV and play Tony Hawk. They can talk about Yu-Gi-Oh and WOW with any 12 year old out there. 300 cops on line looking for and exterminating vermin in cooperation with local law enforcement agencies. I can gurantee you that that cooperation would not only be forthcoming, but EAGERLY forthcoming. We'd see a 10 fold drop in online predation in a month. These sick bastards would be falling all over each under tring to get back under the rock they crawled out of.

300 cops, assuming 50k a year in salary and another 10k in benefits, with 20 supervisers and techs making an average of say 70k. Say another million for office space and computers. Total cost just over 4 million bucks. Sound like a lot of money?

4 Tomohawk missiles.

What this law tells me is that my kids aren't worth 4 tomohawk missles. That congress thinks I'm dumb enough to fall for their Mr. Feel Good Link Law is just adding insult to injury.

It just makes me sick.

[computergenius]

Does this law apply to everybody, or is it just the US?

Does the US government know what www stands for? It isn't USAww for a good reason.

[bj]

Every kid I know is going to LOVE this law. Now they'll know which links to click.

[OKSupport]

Congress passed a law this week aimed at protecting kids from stumbling onto porn through misspelled .....

First, "misspelled" is not 'mis-typed'. Mistyping can still bring up porn.

Lastly, being more clear with URL makes it easier for curious minds to find that which we too often stumble across anyway.

The intent is honorable, but the US doesn't own the Internet and try as they might, can not control URL's in other countries (yet).

It is sad how just a few years ago politicians, corporations, and religious leaders thought he Internet was a passing fad, then tout it as the 'second coming' and then, try to control that which is world-wide.

As CNN reported a few days ago, the majority of kiddie-porn sites are on servers in the U.S. The americans, with the help of the UN can't find Bin Laden - how do they expect to control the 'Net with a few words on paper?

[bfoge69]

I do not wish for the government to take away any rights we enjoy no matter how small. Having said that, I do wish to see legislation, such as this, that prevents people from falsely representing themselves on the WWW. As stated before, it is absolutely embarrassing, frustrating and wrong when I am trying to show my children something they need to learn or want to see on the web and they get an eyeful, without warning, of things they don't need to see. And it is not just pornography, as far as I am concerned, it is anything being mis-represented. If I ask a sales person to see a certain piece of merchandise, I do not expect that person to show me something that has absolutely nothing to do with my request and believe the same principle applies to the web.

We should also have laws that prevent a large portion of these sites from downloading ANYTHING to my PC without my permission. It is, in my opinion, no different than breaking into my home and dropping trash and disease in my living room. These people are costing individuals and companies around the world, millions of dollars. I do know that some of these companies are not in US jurisdiction and therefore not prosecutable under our laws. We should vigorously
get other countries to attempt same legislation. We should treat these people as evil minded terrorists of our children and our right to be safe in our own homes. I feel violated when a virus tries to get into my PC's and even more so when I am inundated with popups and ads I did not want or ask for.

Kudos, FOR ONCE, to our Congress.