Comments on: State AGs + NCMEC = The Net’s New Regulators?

By: If NCMEC’s Going to Regulate the Internet for Child Porn, It Should At Least Be Subject to FOIA

Sun, 09 Aug 2009 21:10:03 +0000

[...] year, my PFF colleague Adam Thierer asked whether State AGs + NCMEC = The Net’s New Regulators? Adam noted that NCMEC, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, a private non-profit [...]

By: Rethinking “Sex Crimes” and Sex Offender Registries

Rethinking “Sex Crimes” and Sex Offender Registries — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 18:38:54 +0000

[...] and overblown fears about child predators in particular — are leading to many calls for increased Internet regulation. Down below, I have pasted in an excerpt from my “Parental Controls & Online Child [...]

By: Emmanuel Lazaridis

Emmanuel Lazaridis — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 08:52:17 +0000

Given the increasing regulatory and investigative powers of the NCMEC, it is no longer clear whether or not the FOIA applies to NCMEC records. We are about to find out. I am right now bringing a case against the NCMEC in federal court for access to records under the FOIA and, failing that, for discovery under 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a).

If anyone wishes to contribute an argument in favor of the notion that NCMEC records should fall under the FOIA, now is the time to do so. The case is no. 1177 of 2009 in the District of Columbia.

By: Emmanuel Lazaridis

Emmanuel Lazaridis — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 04:52:17 +0000

If anyone wishes to contribute an argument in favor of the notion that NCMEC records should fall under the FOIA, now is the time to do so. The case is no. 1177 of 2009 in the District of Columbia.

By: Emmanuel Lazaridis

Emmanuel Lazaridis — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 03:52:17 +0000

If anyone wishes to contribute an argument in favor of the notion that NCMEC records should fall under the FOIA, now is the time to do so. The case is no. 1177 of 2009 in the District of Columbia.

By: Senator Cuomo & the Coming Assault on Internet Freedom | The Technology Liberation Front

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 15:12:29 +0000

[...] points out the “shake down” nature of Cuomo’s operation. And Adam has explained that this is all part of a broader assault on online free speech. While few are willing to [...]

By: Editorial: It’s time for a child porn czar - justflogme

Editorial: It’s time for a child porn czar - justflogme — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 20:27:47 +0000

[...] powerThe National Center for Missing and Exploited Children already wields significant power as an unofficial Internet regulator, some of it granted by Congress, but most of it achieved through “consensual” [...]

By: Rationalitate

Rationalitate — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 21:59:52 +0000

Children cannot consent to such acts and, as a society, we rightly take steps to eradicate not only the scourge of child exploitation, but any resulting images of it.

What I'm saying is that these goals – minimizing child exploitation, and minimizing the ease with which pictures of child exploitation are distributed – very well might be in conflict.

By: Rationalitate

Rationalitate — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 21:56:51 +0000

By banning child porn, demand for it is curbed, thereby reducing the incentive to produce it in the first place.

Why do you say that? Child porn is infinitely distributable – rising demand for it by people doesn't by any means mean that more of it will be produced. However, if you limit its distribution, then this could have the unintended consequences of driving more people to create their own (which they won't share, thus forcing other people who like child porn to seek out/create their own).

By: Adam Thierer

Adam Thierer — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 22:25:47 +0000

It wouldn't make any difference what the effect was on the perpetrator because it is a crime. We ban all forms of child porn for a very good reason: Children were exploited and/or abused in the production of that material. This is not like adult pornography, which involves actions between consenting adults. Children cannot consent to such acts and, as a society, we rightly take steps to eradicate not only the scourge of child exploitation, but any resulting images of it.

The concern I am raising in my essay above is that we actually may not be doing enough to end this scourge. The problem is, we just don't know how good of a job that NCMEC or anyone else is doing on this front. There are no definitive studies or government reports on the issue that I know of.

Incidentally, I have been on record as being favor of not merely radically increased sentences for child abusers, but forced castration for repeat offenders. That may sound radical to some, but I don't really care. We're talking about the rape of children in many of these cases.

By: Ryan Radia

Ryan Radia — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 21:25:53 +0000

It's widely accepted that child sexual abuse is an especially heinous crime and very bad thing; therefore, anything that can be done to reduce its incidence is considered desirable. Because some people demand child pornography, there is active commercial enterprise in the child sexual abuse business, especially in nations lacking strictly enforced laws against child pornography. By banning child porn, demand for it is curbed, thereby reducing the incentive to produce it in the first place.

By: Ryan Radia

Ryan Radia — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 21:09:05 +0000

The NCMEC's status as a private, non-governmental entity was cast in doubt by the SAFE Act, a bill recently signed into law that grants NCMEC special privileges and obligations with respect to child pornography. ISPs are now legally required to provide NCMEC reports about any suspected instances of child pornography. NCMEC must then pass on any such reports to law enforcement agencies.

What if an ISP, upon receiving a "kiddie porn blacklist" from the NCMEC, preemptively censors content to minimize criminal exposure? If NCMEC is judged to be intertwined with law enforcement, then any pressure on ISPs to rely on its list (which hasn't been conclusively deemed illegal in court) would raise serious First Amendment issues.

By: Rationalitate

Rationalitate — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 20:30:41 +0000

I know this isn't going to be a popular thing to say, but, I'm not entirely convinced that banning and prosecuting child pornography is an unalloyed good. Isn't it possible that viewing child pornography is a substitute for actually molesting a minor? Of course, it's also possible that viewing child porn encourages molestation, but I have yet to see any evidence one way or the other.