From News.com

**Banned: timechange.com** · 03-26-2003, 01:56 PM

WASHINGTON--The U.S. House of Representatives is scheduled to vote Thursday on a proposal that would criminalize using misleading domain names to lure unsuspecting people to sex sites.

Under the proposal, a last-minute amendment to an unrelated child abduction bill, people who knowingly use an innocent-sounding domain name to drive traffic to a sexually explicit Web site could be fined and imprisoned for two to four years. An example of an innocuous-sounding domain name with pornographic content is WhiteHouse.com, which is not sponsored by the Bush administration.

**GeorgeK** · 03-26-2003, 02:07 PM

I doubt such a law would survive a constitutional challenge.

**beatz** · 03-26-2003, 02:08 PM

Heh...i mean, what can i say - luckily i live in germany.
We are even allowed to redirect religious domains to porn sites and that's great

FREEDOM OF SPEECH ,YEAH !..or sumfing (no political statement intended )

**RMF** · 03-26-2003, 02:32 PM

Good idea, but it won't happen.

What they should develop is a child version of the Internet, completely seperate from the Internet, with the option of including a plugin that allows you to switch to the normal Internet.

RMF

**Banned: Tippy** · 03-26-2003, 02:36 PM

They should also stop people from redirecting their Domians to none related, pop up infested, Search engine sites.

Mike

**devolution** · 03-26-2003, 03:39 PM

Well, the domain .KIDS was proposed to (and rejected) by ICANN when they invited applications for the latest round of new TLDs (BIZ/INFO etc.).
This was supposed to do what you were suggesting.
Maybe next time around they will pick it... don't know when that'll be though...

Originally posted by RMF
Good idea, but it won't happen.

What they should develop is a child version of the Internet, completely seperate from the Internet, with the option of including a plugin that allows you to switch to the normal Internet.

RMF

**hhunterjr** · 03-26-2003, 03:59 PM

The problem that you all are speaking of has already been addressed and decided in 2002. (At least in the united states) Have you guys heard of kids.us?

The US Congress and the president have already started the process for creating a separate "safe internet haven" for kids. There's going to be strict rules on who can register and operate domains in this "safe zone" so that kids will not be exposed to porn, gambling, or other human vices.

The new domain is called kids.us and the Child Net Safety Law that mandates the creation/support of kids.us was signed into law in late 1992.

That is the domain that will be the new internet safety zone for children. See http://www.neustar.us

[/url]

**izopod** · 03-26-2003, 04:04 PM

Originally posted by hhunterjr
The problem that you all are speaking of has already been addressed and decided in 2002. (At least in the united states) Have you guys heard of kids.us?

HH, kids.us is for the US only. ICANN could still adopt a .kids gTLD, but not very likely. It will be interesting to see what other countries do.

**Banned: timechange.com** · 03-26-2003, 04:07 PM

Does it matter what we think?

++++

Bush order covers Internet secrets
By Declan McCullagh
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
March 26, 2003, 12:11 PM PT
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-994216.html

President George W. Bush has signed an executive order that explicitly gives the government the power to classify information about critical infrastructures such as the Internet.
Bush late Tuesday changed the definition of what the government may classify as confidential, secret and top-secret to include details about "infrastructures" and weapons of mass destruction. The new executive order also makes clear that information related to "defense against transnational terrorism" is classifiable.

In his executive order, which replaces a 1995 directive signed by President Bill Clinton, Bush said that information that already had been declassified and released to the public could be reclassified by a federal agency. Clinton's order said that "information may not be reclassified after it has been declassified and released to the public."

David Sobel, general counsel to the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said it was unclear why the Bush administration decided to include the term infrastructure. An existing category of scientific, technological or economic matters relating to national security might have covered information about the Internet and other critical infrastructures, Sobel said.

"It's a mystery to me why there was a feeling that the old order needed to be revised and expanded," Sobel said.

The definition of what may be properly classified typically becomes an issue when a lawsuit is filed under the Freedom of Information Act seeking to force the government to divulge documents that it claims are secret and properly classified. Bush's decision gives the U.S. Justice Department, which defends agency classification decisions in court, more leeway in fighting such lawsuits.

Clinton's 1995 order said one of the seven categories of information that could be classified was: "vulnerabilities or capabilities of systems, installations, projects or plans relating to the national security."

Under Bush's order, that definition has been expanded to: "vulnerabilities or capabilities of systems, installations, infrastructures, projects, plans or protection services relating to the national security, which includes defense against transnational terrorism."

Steven Aftergood, an analyst at the Federation of American Scientists who tracks government secrecy, says the change in definitions "creates an opening that could be exploited in the future, but in practice the previous policy would have permitted much of the same thing."

**dvdrip** · 03-26-2003, 05:32 PM

Don't give a **** for GWBush.
He is the king of stupidity.
Guess how I feel about what he signs!

**Banned: timechange.com** · 03-26-2003, 05:55 PM

Eho tria arhidia

**dvdrip** · 03-26-2003, 06:11 PM

Eho tria arhidia for Bush.

**Banned: timechange.com** · 03-26-2003, 06:13 PM

**Sharpy** · 03-26-2003, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by Tippy
They should also stop people from redirecting their Domians to none related, pop up infested, Search engine sites.

Mike

They should also stop people from mindlessly surfing the internet, hour after hour, day after day, registering rediculous domain names for $7+ and then selling them for $2 or $3 every Sunday night!