From: Don Gaffney <gaffney@emba.uvm.edu>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 1996 23:46:23 +0800
To: Harry Bartholomew <bart@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: S.652 (H.R. 1555)
In-Reply-To: <199601090608.WAA25533@netcom14.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9601091009.F11357-0100000@griffin.emba.uvm.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Mon, 8 Jan 1996, Harry Bartholomew wrote:

> 
>     http://www.cdt.org/policy/freespeech/12_21.cda.html
> 
>     This title may be cited as the "Communications Decency Act of 1995".
> 
>     Perhaps some of our more lawyerly types can decipher whether
>     it is getting better or worse as the conference committee chews.
>     Not I.
> 

I'm not a lawyer, but from what I've read from the WWW site above, it
seems that only providing "indecent" materials to minors is prohibited.
I think this is already illegal.

Broadcasting or sending unsolicited "indecent" materials is also 
prohibited, but that seems to have always been the case (except that 
objectionable materials have been called "obscence" rather than "indecent").

There are provisions, as I read it, that protect electronic 
intermediaries from the acts of the actual publishers of the materials 
(i.e. an ISP is not responsible for the material of other internet sites
not under their control).

It sounds to me like the only real task posed is to authenticate those
accessing questionable materials as being >= 18 years old. Hmmmm. Don't
authentication & crypto go hand-in-hand?

Anyway, being rather foolish I suppose, I don't exactly see what the big
deal is - am I missing something???
_____________________________________________________________________
Don Gaffney
Engineering, Mathematics & Business Administration Computer Facility
University of Vermont
237 Votey Building
Burlington, VT  05405
(802) 656-8490
Fax: (802) 656-8802