a thaumaturgical compendium

No, not this Alex, 9th circuit judge Alex Kozinski, who has recently found himself in the limelight when asked to recuse himself from an obscenity case because he had published “similar” pornographic images to the web. He apparently believed that placing these items in an obscure directory on his private website was enough to hide them from public view. He was wrong. (And here, I disagree with Lessig’s view that it was private-ish.)

Someone sent me a note asking for my opinion on this. I’m not sure that I have a considered opinion. The descriptions of the images seem to be far worse than the images themselves. Two of the images described in the LA Times article appear here (NSFW), in a compilation of putatively humorous images that is not safe for work. Which gives rise to the question of that term: Not Safe for Work. Should a judge be judged by a standard different from the standards by which we judge any other citizen. Bear in mind that he has been accused of circulating distasteful images, not illegal images. I don’t think anyone would suggest that a subscription to Hustler should disqualify someone from the bench.

I can see getting fired for viewing these kind of images at work, particularly if it resulted in co-workers seeing them. I can even see getting fired for intentionally publishing this sort of material on a personal site, if your work found out about it and you were in an industry sensitive to public opinion (as most are). But there was no such intent here. It’s not like he’s been secretive about it; as he admits here, he maintains a “gag list,” from which he sends out “dirty jokes.” (There is more in this interview that seems a bit risque in retrospect.) The question is whether this should impact his role as a judge. I don’t see why it should. Given how few people we have at the appellate level that have even a basic understanding of the online world, it would seem a particularly unfortunate

At worst, I think he can be blamed for a lack of political acumen, and arguably (since it always is) questionable taste. Perhaps he should add “keeping a careful lid on your personal interests” to his advice for aspiring federal judges. And though he’s not a fan of bloggers, this serves as a great example to those who are bloggers of how personal web publishing (by you or your kids) can come back to bite you.

This blog is rated… PG?

That doesn’t quite explain why I’m blocked by major filters. The rating changes depending on what is on the main page. I have a feeling that if it slurped up my archives, it would get a different rating, but even my cyberporn category only gets us down to an R. I’m not sure that a blog that fails to reach NC-17 is really playing to its full potential. (via Froomkin)

I don’t know where to fit this, but someone has noted that my course on Cyberporn ended up being cited as part of one of the cases in the National Ethics Bowl. It strikes me that it is framed in a rather peculiar way, and there are much more interesting ethical questions involved, but hey—I’m no ethicist.

A lot of newspapers have been shy to link outside of their own news organization: so much so that it is almost a truism. They followed the corporate credo of keeping users on the site. That has changed over the last few years, with more and more traditional news sites willing to include hyperlinks.

The New York Times has a very nicely done article on underaged model sites, sites that include images of (often barely) clothed minors in sexual poses. This is sometimes referred to as “legal child porn,” and while that certainly seems to be an oxymoron, it may not be entirely. While US v. Knox established a test that allowed for prosecution of those selling (and receiving) images of clothed minors under certain circumstances, it strikes me that pedophiles can turn any image of a child into pornography, if more explicit images are not available. In other words, unlike a lot of laws, while you are still held responsible for breaking the law, it’s not completely clear where that line is drawn.

Obviously, the solution is to get no where near anything that could be even possibly considered child pornography. But that’s easier said than done. On the “mainstream” porn side, there are extremely popular titles like “Barely Legal” that play to an appetite for youth. On the non-pornographic side, there are the millions of parents who think nothing of taking pictures of their children in the bath, or nursing—photographs that have gotten people in trouble for producing child porn.

The Times article links directly to the lilamber website, as an example of the progenitor of this phenomenon, noting that the new sites tend to be more explicit in their language, if not their images. (As an aside, I am terrible at judging age, and while “lilamber” is clearly young, I can see how someone would mistaken her for being over the age of 18, perhaps.) This follows on the recent arrests in the UK over what is sometimes called “virtual child pornography.”

But the editorial policy of linking to the lilamber.com site (which I have done above) is interesting. One one hand, by providing the name of the site, they have effectively given the reader enough information to find the site. Actually making it a hyperlink is merely a convenience and a pretty common thing for bloggers to do, for example, as a service to their readers. However, it isn’t a convenience offered elsewhere in the article. Indeed, this is the only external link in the article, which affords it some importance.

As the article itself notes, they quickly ran into sites they found to display child pornography in their own investigation. Under such circumstances, is it responsible to shunt readers off to a site that is on the questionable border of such material? Does the Times have a clear policy as to what it does and does not link to?

I was cleaning out boxes from my old office in Buffalo, and came across this mouse pad that was given to me by a special agent of the FBI. Especially given the passage of DOPA in the House, it made me think a bit about how many of these tips I follow:

1. Never give out identifying information such as your name, address, telephone number, password, or school information;

Great advice. But what does “give out” mean, really. Lots of sites require passwords, and a surprising number want to know that other stuff. Unfortunately, if you follow this one, it will be pretty hard to participate online in just about anything. A much better strategy would probably be to get students to use fake addresses, names, and telephone numbers…

2. Never arrange for a face to face meeting with anyone you meet online;

I get the reason for this, but isn’t this one of the valuable uses of the internet for adults? I can see why it would be attractive to kids as well.

3. Never upload (post) pictures of yourself onto the Internet or online service to people you do not personally know;

Well, that pretty much kills Facebook, now, doesn’t it. I am not big for posting my face all over the net, but I also found that in college courses where online interaction was accompanied by a headshot, it made it possible to articulate online/offline discussions more effectively.

4. Never download pictures from an unknown source. Pictures could contain sexually explicit images;

Let’s be serious here. While young people probably do run into explicit pictures without intending to, when they download they probably know what they are getting. While there are ways to download large zip files of photos, for example, generally, you see it before you download it. Besides, what exactly is an “unknown source.” Haven’t they heard, on the internet no one knows if you are an unknown source. Maybe they are thinking of eBay Porn?

5. Never respond to messages or bulletin board postings that are suggestive, obscene, belligerent, or harassing;

Wait, does this mean the FBI has located postings that do not fall into one of these categories? Seems a bit far-fetched.

The list is odd for a couple of reasons. First of all, I can get what they are after, because I know what it is they are trying to get kids to avoid. Do I know what they mean by “suggestive” if I am a kid just working out the whole sex thing? I seriously doubt it. Heck, as an adult it can be a pretty ambiguous sort of thing. It sets up an unreasonable sort of situation when we say “there are things out there you shouldn’t know about and so you should avoid them but we can’t tell you what they are to tell you how to avoid them.” It strikes me that the better approach is “there are adults out there who molest children, and here are some of the ways they entice kids, and you should be on the watch.”

Anyway, out of context (the tips give almost no indication that they are intended for children), these seem pretty funny. They might as well be read as “Do not use sociable media.” But I especially like the final warning, which should be posted on every monitor:

WHATEVER YOU ARE TOLD ONLINE MAY OR MAY NOT BE TRUE

I was on WB11 News (New York City), on a segment of “News you can use” (to promote your network’s entertainment offerings). Yes, it’s pretty sensationalistic, but it got the facts right, I think. Anyway, if you were ever dying to see a video of me walking down the street engaged in conversation, here’s your chance (wmv, mov).