jayeff

Be honest, if you were a US webmaster facing (if I remember the proposals correctly) 5 years imprisonment for a first offense, would you be satisfied with something which only offered to "reduce the risk"?

I don't think so. I don't think you would want to rely on online records either (such as someone else proposed in this thread), at least not before seeing a positive outcome from at least one case involving such records. It may well be that some of the "creative" solutions coming from sponsors and content producers could prove acceptable, but who wants the risk they will face if they are unlucky enough to be a test case? Even a successful defendant will face serious financial costs in taking on the federal government.

I don't believe that the content producer - purely for example - who says he is going to black out the parts of documents that he doesn't consider relevant, is really facing up to the situation (assuming the new laws do largely reflect the initial proposals). I'm sure as heck not going to risk being hauled off just so that he can go on doing business almost as normal. Sure it doesn't specifically say that you cannot black out someone's name and address - again for example - but do we seriously expect investigators to be satisfied with documents showing only a stage name and birthdate? Ditto online records: if the regs say they want to be able to visit my workplace and check my records, is it really likely I can pass them on to someone a thousand miles away?