I thought I would share an e-mail message that I received recently from a number of Connecticut's prominent bloggers on their concerns regarding the legislation that has been proposed to require regulation of "social networking websites".
This legislation would require that social networking websites keep children from creating accounts on these sites unless the parents of these children give their authorization. It is intended to protect children from online sexual predators.
The motive behind this legislation is good. However, I agree with the concerns raised by bloggers, which they summarize in their e-mail message to legislators:
The problem with the social networking website legislation is that, to follow it, virtually all interactive websites would have to assume that every person wanting to participate in the site is a minor, unless that person can document that they are not. And that would mean (1) everyone would have to divulge personal information about themselves before they could participate in an interactive website and (2) anonymous participation on the web would essentially be outlawed.
As a case in point, the blog you are reading right now would seem to be affected by this. I would be banned from allowing people leave comments to my blog posts unless they tell me exactly who they are. I have not had a problem with people leaving (polite) anonymous comments on this blog because I think it encourages free speech.
But there are a lot more good reason why anonymous participation on the Internet is important to preserve, and the points in this comment from the MLN post are especially relevant:
This legislation would require that social networking websites keep children from creating accounts on these sites unless the parents of these children give their authorization. It is intended to protect children from online sexual predators.
The motive behind this legislation is good. However, I agree with the concerns raised by bloggers, which they summarize in their e-mail message to legislators:
We are writing to you today on the subject of House Bill 6981, "An Act Concerning Social Networking Internet Sites and Enforcement of Electronic Mail Phishing and Identity Theft Laws." Specifically, this letter addresses the Joint Favorable Substitute made after the public hearing date by the General Law Committee on March 8, 2007 - Attorney General Blumenthal's proposed additions concerning social networking internet sites, which are contained in Section 3 of the bill.The letter attached to the e-mail is a PDF (similar to this PDF), and it looks very similar to the discussion of the social networking sites legislation by mattw in this MLN post.
We are writing to request that you oppose the bill in its present form, as the proposed regulations of social networking sites:
-- cannot be consistently met by content providers,
-- will impact a far greater number of internet sites than intended, due to overly broad language in the definition of "social networking internet sites,"
-- will limit protected speech online, including the right to communicate and access information anonymously
By seeking to regulate a wide swath of internet communication in an effort to target crimes conducted in the physical world - namely, sexual violence against minors - HB 6981 will limit the ability of Connecticut residents to access information online, force non-commercial content providers to cease their online operations, and may have serious and unintended ramifications for internet-based commerce and communications of all kinds in- and outside the State of Connecticut.
If these concerns can be addressed through the amendment process, the bill - especially its provisions concerning electronic mail phishing and identity theft - may provide the Attorney General with appropriate legal authority to prosecute crimes conducted via the internet.
Additionally, it may be possible for the General Assembly to achieve the desired effect of the Sec. 3 provisions by formalizing a process by which parents are provided with the tools and information necessary to restrict their child's access to social networking websites. The Attorney General's office has been cultivating an educational program informally for several years, and it is our belief that establishing and funding a state program along the lines of this educational model would not only be the most successful method for protecting minors from contact with child predators online, but would fully protect the ability of adults to access information and communicate via the internet without additional and unintended interference by the state.
Our letter -- including a more thorough explanation of what we believe to be the technical and legal flaws in HB 6981 as written -- is enclosed with this email. Feel free to contact us if we can be of further assistance.
The problem with the social networking website legislation is that, to follow it, virtually all interactive websites would have to assume that every person wanting to participate in the site is a minor, unless that person can document that they are not. And that would mean (1) everyone would have to divulge personal information about themselves before they could participate in an interactive website and (2) anonymous participation on the web would essentially be outlawed.
As a case in point, the blog you are reading right now would seem to be affected by this. I would be banned from allowing people leave comments to my blog posts unless they tell me exactly who they are. I have not had a problem with people leaving (polite) anonymous comments on this blog because I think it encourages free speech.
But there are a lot more good reason why anonymous participation on the Internet is important to preserve, and the points in this comment from the MLN post are especially relevant:
HB 6981 doesn't take into account the variety of legitimate reasons why one might wish to communicate or access such information anonymously - security and identity theft concerns, or fear of stigmatization by internet users wishing to access sensitive medical, sexual, political, or cultural information. Even if a selective enforcement approach were used to exclude sites such as Amazon.com or Ebay.com from prosecution under HB 6981, websites which are designed primarily for "social networking" purposes are often used to solicit help or medical advice anonymously: for example, many private groups exist on MySpace.com and Facebook.com sponsored by rape crisis centers, cancer or AIDS support groups, and battered women/children's shelters, and the ability to contact and obtain information from such organizations privately and anonymously is enjoyed by many users of these forums.There are ideas being considered at the Capitol that would help catch criminals who abuse children, including Internet predators. Catching actual criminals is a lot better way to protect children than creating new rules that would take away much of what is good about the Internet. As the MLN post points out:
The problem the General Assembly and the Attorney General are attempting to address is an important one: Connecticut's children interacting with other internet users - including possible child predators - without their parents' knowledge or consent. But in crafting a law to address this problem, you should take care to allow adults to communicate with other adults, and you should take care to protect the rights of free speech and free assembly - including anonymity and pseudonymity - enjoyed by minors and adults alike on the internet.
