In the indictment of United States of America VS JOHN ZUCCARINI people seem to be missing a KEY point. Has anyone bothered to read the indictment document? It can be found at http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/cyb...ni82903cmp.pdf
Only part of his indictment has to do with mispelled domains. The OTHER HALF has to do with the fact that his warning "adults only" page that people are directed to has no way to verify the age of a person that clicks the "enter site" button. THIS AFFECTS EVERY ADULT WEBMASTER.
Here are some quotes from the indictment:
Page 13, then continued on the top of page 14, there is an account from the investigator regarding the "internet investigation" It begins as such;
"I observed the following: first, my computer was directed to a Web page which,according to the domain name which appeared in my computer?s browser, was known as ?amaturevideos.nl.? Almost immediately thereafter, my computer was directed to another Web site; this Web site had the domain name ?HANKY-PANKY-COLLEGE.com? (the ?Hanky-Panky Site?). The first screen of the Hanky-Panky Site consisted of a ?Warning? page which, among other things, stated ?Warning: Adults Only . . . This Website contains sexuallyoriented adult content which may include visual depictions of nude adults, adults engaging in sexual acts, and other audio and visual material of a sexually explicit nature.? This page directed viewers who did not wish to see such materials, or who were under the age to 18 to exit the site; viewers over 18 wishing to see such materials were directed to click on a portion of the screen labeled ?Enter Site.? After clicking on the ?Enter Site? portion of the screen...."
Continued on page 14 the prosecuter states;
"Although viewers under 18 were directed not to enter the site, the Web site did not provide any method to verify the age of the person who accessed the site, and I was able to enter the site simply by clicking on the ?Enter Site? button."
What do you guys think about this?
Only part of his indictment has to do with mispelled domains. The OTHER HALF has to do with the fact that his warning "adults only" page that people are directed to has no way to verify the age of a person that clicks the "enter site" button. THIS AFFECTS EVERY ADULT WEBMASTER.
Here are some quotes from the indictment:
Page 13, then continued on the top of page 14, there is an account from the investigator regarding the "internet investigation" It begins as such;
"I observed the following: first, my computer was directed to a Web page which,according to the domain name which appeared in my computer?s browser, was known as ?amaturevideos.nl.? Almost immediately thereafter, my computer was directed to another Web site; this Web site had the domain name ?HANKY-PANKY-COLLEGE.com? (the ?Hanky-Panky Site?). The first screen of the Hanky-Panky Site consisted of a ?Warning? page which, among other things, stated ?Warning: Adults Only . . . This Website contains sexuallyoriented adult content which may include visual depictions of nude adults, adults engaging in sexual acts, and other audio and visual material of a sexually explicit nature.? This page directed viewers who did not wish to see such materials, or who were under the age to 18 to exit the site; viewers over 18 wishing to see such materials were directed to click on a portion of the screen labeled ?Enter Site.? After clicking on the ?Enter Site? portion of the screen...."
Continued on page 14 the prosecuter states;
"Although viewers under 18 were directed not to enter the site, the Web site did not provide any method to verify the age of the person who accessed the site, and I was able to enter the site simply by clicking on the ?Enter Site? button."
What do you guys think about this?
Comment