From: Mike Godwin <mnemonic@eff.org>
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 93 05:09:14 PDT
To: ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu (L. Detweiler)
Subject: Re: EFF pornography file warning
In-Reply-To: <9310060453.AA10453@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
Message-ID: <199310061207.AA02851@eff.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


 
Lance writes:

> 1) this opens them up to having to do this *regularly*. Is this what
> they want to be doing?
 
I doubt that EFF is regularly going to have a list of graphics files that
the feds are using as the basis of a child-porn investigation.

> 2) since when does EFF help federal BBS investigations?
 
I don't see how letting people know what the feds are looking for is
"helping" the feds.

> 3) M. Godwin just got done informing us the beauty of *non* liability
> with a hands-off BBS operator policy.
 
In particular, I've been talking about noninterference with electronic
mail. But look at our choices, Lance. The alternative, when we knew what
files were being looked for, was *not to let anyone know*. It strikes me
as difficult, ethically, to justify *not* letting people know what
particular files are being looked for.

The issue of letting people know about these files is logically separate
from the issue of whether a sysop will be held legally liable for files he
or she doesn't know about.

> 4) its silly to post a notice about given filenames. They simply are as
> amorphous as cyberspace itself.

Not quite. In real life, those who traffic in GIFs normally deal in such a
volume of files that they rarely trouble to change their names.

> 5) a recall of any type is a notorious way to generate paranoia,
> perhaps a cure worse than the affliction. this kind of message spreads
> like wildfire. `What? EFF says file [x] is child pornography?' There
> are tens of thousands of BBS operators in the U.S. -- is this a service
> or a disservice to them? hence my urban myth ramblings.
 
Sometimes telling the truth *does* generate paranoia. Look, it is
difficult for me to justify *not* giving sysops information that a *lot*
of sysops (although perhaps not you, Lance) would very much like to have.
What's more, a sysop can determine whether he's had files with these names
uploaded to his system *without snooping through someone's e-mail*.

Tell you what, Lance: if you can find a number of sysops who would *rather
not know* the kind of information that Shari disclosed in her message, we
will weigh their reluctance to know carefully if this situation should
ever come up again.

> 6) Releasing this kind of notice only draws more attention to those
> files. Suddenly, they become collectors items. People start hunting
> them down. People create empty files with the same name as a joke. All
> because `EFF says file [x] is child pornography'
 
I think I'll wait until I see this actually happen before I regard it as a
serious possibility.
> 2) it does not appear to me that EFF has thought this through. this
> announcement reflects on EFF. why couldn't they have phrased it
> differently? e.g. Agents [x] of government agency [x] have requested
> that operators remove these files. As it stands, EFF associates its own
> reputation with this investigation and the file recall.
 
If what you are doing here is criticizing the *wording* of the
announcement, that undercuts your other comments here. You seem to be
saying it would be *okay* to release the list of graphics files if we had
written the announcement differently.

If that is the substance of your criticism, fine. Send us a redrafted
announcement--the way you think it should be written. 

> 4) in general, I object to this philosophy found elsewhere on the list
> of `if its in our backyard then don't criticize it'. 

Personally, I don't mind your taking the trouble to criticize EFF over
this. But I hope you understand us well enough to realize that reasonable
people can disagree over this issue. Again, it strikes me as hard to
justify *not* giving sysops the info that at least *some* of them would
want.

> 5) In a rather low blow, S. Steele writes ``I figured those who sought
> to challenge the child pornography laws would poo poo the message.  I
> guess I figured right.'' For the record, I do not seek to challenge
> child pornography laws or federal investigations. My message made
> rather clear that I was objecting to the role of *EFF* in the affair.
 
Lance, I personally don't think your criticisms here imply any opposition
to the child-porn laws.

For all that you may be write that "the whole area is a quagmire," it
seems important to stress that EFF wasn't dealing with "the whole
area"--only with the particular issue of whether to let people know what
we had discovered about a particular federal investigation.

We were trying to be helpful. If it's your position that publishing that
list of files was *wholly unhelpful*, that it will turn out to have been a
mistake, well, perhaps you're right. But I don't think our action here is
so obviously wrong in the black-and-white way you seem to be implying
here.


--Mike