Acidus wrote:
...
Of course the counter-counter attack would be to randomly select some ratio of pixel locations based on the resolution of the image and toggle the red component on them.
...

I don't mean to sound like an asshole, but it seems to me that spending time working through the logistics of circumventing a bad piece of legislation that hasn't even passed yet to be a little like putting the cart before the horse.

This is still a political concern and the solution seems like it ought to be likewise. E.g. write your senator and congressperson, raise awareness (i recognize this is happening to some degree organically, since i just found out about it, but nonetheless), etc.

Have we become so cynical about the likelihood of being listened to that we assume bullshit laws will be passed and jump straight to figuring out how to get around them?

Decius wrote:
...
Its worth noting that the law doesn't require ISPs to screen traffic. It merely authorizes the sharing of child porn images for this purpose. Presumably there are ISPs lined up who want to do this but presently its illegal.
...

Oh? I'm not saying you're wrong, but what motivation do ISP's have for this kind of self regulation? Are they presently liable in some way for child pornography that crosses their networks? Do they want to engage in PR to say that they throw child pornographers in jail?

I don't assume any business wants to do anything that would require a large investment with no clear return besides some social benefit (recognizing that business don't do things just because it's the "right" thing to do). This sounds rather more like setting the stage for privacy intrusion that the ISP's have little interest in, to me.

RE: Thought Crime