woj is slow

Yep he missed it

Seriously Smokey - you are correct! :-)

The fact that an corp handles large volumes of data is not an excuse under law. It is entirely up to that corp to manage their own data and comply with whatever laws apply.

Google images could get contentious. Google put that package together - no one else, - and they are publishing it and should have full control over it or at least be monitoring it.

On a constructive side, if they do monitor images and were to report clear violations of children, - that could be a more effective way of reducing CP than any US Civil Code. Tho that raises still more shit that would end up another "issue" in the US.

But sure, there are mitigating factors and a decent defense lawyer helps :-)

So does everyone open up a search engine?
Or does it need traffic qualifications?

Will an index do? :1orglaugh

I sale SE scripts!

Ya people should calm down there is no way the exhisting 2257 will hold any water.

Yes, it is a valid argument and it is what the government intended - it's written into the regulations by the government.

They have specifically excluded services like Google, even going so far as to give them their own exclusion separate from ISPs and Hosts.

I don't understand why anyone is arguing when it is pretty clear in the regulations.

You guys can read the regulations and see where they have included the following:

(4) Producer does not include persons whose activities relating to the visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct are limited to the following:

(v) A provider of an electronic communication service or remote computing service who does not, and reasonably cannot, manage the sexually explicit content of the computer site or service.

They have just described Google as well as large chat, forum, blog, image hosting, and many other sites.

Think about the exclusion the government has always give hosts and ISPs in criminal cases.

There is nothing new here - sites that cannot reasonably be expected to moderate all of their content have long been given some protection. This is just a continuation of that protection.

This is covered by:

US TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 110 - Sexual Exploitation of Children
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/1..._I_20_110.html

Sites whose models/actors merely *look* like minors but are actually
adults must comply with USC 18 § 2257, which requires producers of
such sites to verify that their models/actors are over the age of 18,
and requires these producers to keep records of the performers name,
address, age, and every name, nickname or stage alias ever used.
Additionally, they must prominently display a disclaimer on the site
attesting to the fact that the performers are all legally adults.

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 110 > § 2257 Record keeping requirements
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/1...7----000-.html

That's twice as many words as are needed. This shall suffice:

Don't expect reading out of GFY


Carry on.

:pimp :girl