As seen at My Left Nutmeg, it appears that legislation that originally sought to provide stronger consumer protections from phishing and identity theft has morphed into something far more sinister.
The bill, as quoted at MLN reads:
(a) As used in this section:
1) “Protected computer” means any computer that, at the time of an alleged violation of any provision of this article involving that computer, was located within the State of Connecticut;
2) “Social networking website” means a website on the Internet that contains profile web pages of the members of the website containing the name or nickname of the member, photographs placed on the profile web page by the member, and other personal information about the member; contains links to other profile web pages on the social networking website of friends or associates of the member that can be accessed by other members or visitors to the website; and provides members of or visitors to the social networking website the ability to leave messages or comments on the profile web page that are visible to all or some visitors to the profile web page and may also include a form of electronic mail for members of the social networking website.
b) No owner or operator of a social networking website shall allow a minor using a protected computer to create or maintain a profile web page on a social networking website without first obtaining the permission of the minor’s parent or guardian and without providing such parent or guardian access to such profile web page at all times.
(c) Any owner or operator of a social networking website shall adopt and implement procedures to use independently obtainable information to confirm the accuracy of personal identification information collected from members, parents and guardians at the time of registration.
(d) A violation of any provision of this section shall constitute an unfair trade practice under subsection (a) of section 42-110b. For purposes of this section, each day that an owner or operator of a social networking website fails to adopt and implement the procedures required under subsection (c) of this section shall constitute a separate and distinct violation.
Of course, careful reading will find that the term “social networking website” is rather broadly defined and can effectively include webfora and blogs. Also, there’s the implicit obligation that folks running web fora and blogs that permit reader/commenter registration would have to seek to confirm the identities and ages of any participants who might possibly one day be located in the State of Connecticut, in order to comply with the law.
I’d be very concerned about this but for the fact that federal courts have generally ruled that statutory obligations for adults to confirm their ages and identities is “too much” in the eyes of the Constitution and common sense, at least given the current state of the art.
I wonder how long it will take Connecticut’s attorney general, Blumenthal, to propose the Great Firewall of Connecticut when he finds his efforts foiled.