From: Rich Graves <llurch@networking.stanford.edu>
Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 18:13:56 +0800
To: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net>
Subject: Re: Children's Privacy Act
In-Reply-To: <adca67d204021004ac12@[205.199.118.202]>
Message-ID: <Pine.GUL.3.93.960523233809.22413l-100000@Networking.Stanford.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Thu, 23 May 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:

> We at LolitaWatch GMBH are amused that legislators in the United States are
> attempting to legislate that which can be so easily bypassed with the
> world-wide Internet.
[...]
> Danish laws are not so repressive as American laws, and our American
> friends can so easily access our data bases of information derived from the
> mandatory age-labeling tags you Americans so conveniently (for us) insist
> upon.

Good and valid points about the CPA's hypocrisy and inanity, but this
doesn't really address the bill (was it meant to?). 

CDA + CPA = bad. CDA = bad. CPA is still indeterminate.

I recognize that criminalizing the free flow of information is like trying
to stick your finger in a dike, but every little bit has an effect. In
this case, I'd call it a positive effect. 

I was certainly disappointed to hear a couple of cypherpunks the other day
discussing for-profit offshore data havens full of personal information
that is illegal to collect in the US as a business opportunity *they* were
interested in pursuing. I just can't see myself doing that, for anybody.
Gubmint or private, doesn't matter.

-rich