From: Berzerk <berzerk@xmission.xmission.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 94 11:16:17 PDT
To: nzook@math.utexas.edu
Subject: Re: NYET to censors, REPOST
In-Reply-To: <9407291409.AA24554@pelican.ma.utexas.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9407291235.A22625-0100000@xmission>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




On Fri, 29 Jul 1994 nzook@math.utexas.edu wrote:
> Specifically, this is a plan to create two sorts of accounts to the net--
> adult and minor.  Adult accounts may only be obtained by persons of age
Ok.  This is arguable itself, but there are a couple comments in the 
legal framework section that are VERY imprtant.

> State Level:
> 1)  Declare to hold harmless those BBS operators for charges of Contributing
> to the Delinquacy of a Minor that obtain and verify the age of account
> holders, and maintain a NYET system of access for minors.  Certain
> acceptable verification methods specified, with authority to add methods
> delegated to a regulatory agency.  Emphasis to be on ease and speed of
> verification.  Special consideration for in-house systems.
Sure, this is great.  No problems.  This should include visual inspection 
for those who can be verified at a glance, or personal knowledge(like a 
conversation about what you were doing when kenedy died, or the working 
of a company a child would not remember.)

>2)  Make it illegal to misrepresent age and name data to a BBS.  Require
NO!  2 options.,

Make it illegal for a MINOR to misrepresent age and name data to a BBS.

or

Make it illegal to misrepresent age bracket(minor, adult) to a BBS.

> BBS operators to maintain a record of age and name of account holders for
> thirty days after opening of account for hold harmless agreement, and
> allowing deletion of said data afterwards.
The deletion of said data is a nice touch.  I think that this could be 
subject to the same slippery slope arguments that has been used with the 
FFL, though, uping the requirements, raising the time, adding information.

Don't give them an electronic platform that they can amend things onto 
that we will all regret.

> 3)  Declare aiding in tampering with NYET system to be "Contributing to the
> Delequency of a Minor".
?????  This would seem to be covered by 2), what is the deal?  
Forgeries?  If so, I would be concerned about enforcemnent.

> Federal Level:
> Pass paralell laws for BBSs operating with local numbers from two or
> more states, or for BBSs operating with 800 numbers.
NO!  Just cover them in both states.  We know that the feds will try and 
turn this into a national id card and database, they have tried with 
healthcare, drivers licences, tax data, ......... the list is as long as 
my arm.

> I believe that such a system would protect the full free expression 
> currently enjoyed by the net, while reaffirming parental responsibility in 
> the upbringing of their children.  The burden of controlling access
> devolves all the way to the parents, making charges against BBS operators
> patently frivolous.  Porno charges would then be MUCH more difficult to
> press, since a jury could be told that specific steps were being taken to
> prevent access to minors.  If parents complained that they didn't want to
> go to the trouble of spelling out what their children could access, the
> response is clear:  "Oh, so it's not worth the effort to you?"
True, I agree that an effort to head this off is warented, and would work 
for this here.  Send me private e-mail for further discussion.

Roger Bryner.