From: "L. Detweiler" <ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 93 22:39:57 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: pornography & the ``cypherpunk cause''
Message-ID: <9310130537.AA23327@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


First of all, a clarification. I raised this issue with EFF because I'm
utmostly concerned about upholding their sterling image, not because I
am trying to start a flame war or engage in a sniper attack. If I had
sent email to a few key people there I would have gotten nowhere (as my
email actually proves). Here we have a *small personal forum* to
discuss this in *unemotional* terms. I raised it in that spirit and am
very disillusioned to see it all dragged through the gutter by many
respondents. People are reacting like I've said, There Is No Cypherpunk
Cause or Eric Hughes and T.C. May Are Traitors.

So, I'm quite relieved that D. Frissell has posted some cool comments
on case law and others who have focused on the issue of *operator
knowledge* related to the law, which was one of my chief concerns from
the beginning.

* * *

S. Steele <ssteele@eff.org>

>My warning to sysops simply said that these files were listed
>on a federal indictment, so the "lack of knowledge of the age of the
>depicted people" defense remains

The bulletin strongly suggests that the files constitute illegal child
pornography. therefore, that would imply to a sensible operator that
the age of the people pictured is not above that allowed for legal pornography.

The point of *requiring knowledge of age*, in my view, seems to be a
subset of a more important idea of *knowing the pictures violate the
law*. Knowing the age of the participants is *one* way that one might
know that the pictures violate the law. But one may come to that
conclusion otherwise. For example, learning that they are the target of
a federal investigation into child pornography would imply to a high
degree of probability they are `illegal'. Of course, I don't claim to
be a lawyer, and this is just one interpretation. perhaps it is
mistaken. feel free to correct and insult me at the same time (what fun
is it without both?).

* * *

I would like to say the following.  My analogy to the CERT warning that
appeared here seems to have completely escaped many, or perhaps
everyone is intentionally evading it. The metaphor is extremely
compelling. Both are sent to operators in order to bring something to
their attention they `might' need to fix by an outside party generally
interested in the operators own best interests. While I'm not sure that
what CERT did was apropos, that warning was so *delicately worded*. In
contrast the EFF announcement SHOUTS IN YOUR EAR. the CERT announcement
was extremely diplomatic. the EFF announcement was SCREECHING.

Do `we' have *any* consistency, sophistication, or coherence as a
group? Recent messages have DISMAYED me. is `our' philosophy nothing
but Beavis&Butthead style ``Gubberment and the Fedz and Pigs are THINGS
THAT SUCK and EFF is a THING THATS COOL.'' Or do `we' have no
philosophy at all? Are `we' just blind, crosseyed, and elitist
`codeheads' that char newbies for cruel sport? Is it better to just
ignore the `politics of cryptography' which coincidentally involves
things like what has been called the `Tim May .sig Agenda' because some
people might have strong opinions?

If `we' don't have our own house in order, `we' are nothing but LOUD
HYPOCRITES. If you don't clean your dirty laundry, IT STINKS.

Excuse me, but I think the press adores the Cypherpunk cause, and `we'
got press exposure such as the NYT and Wired article, because there
appears to be LEADERS and a DEFINITE POLITICAL AGENDA. It appears,
reading from those, that perhaps we even view the whole matter of free
cryptography use as a MORAL ISSUE, which of course would seem to imply
we possess some MORALITY to so claim. Oh yes, what was that
hand-wringing a few months ago on the list about the ``MOVEMENT
STALLING''? I wonder why! who posted that, anyway? I forget.

p.s. I dare someone to post that old CERT announcement sent to E.H.
that was posted here and caused such a noxious stink here. Look at how
gentle it really is. In fact, I would recommend that future
announcements of this sort look to it as a model. It clearly has been
finetuned past many revisions. As much as I hate to admit it, CERT has
a lot of expertise in dealing with this kind of thing. If anyone wants
to emulate them, don't reinvent the wheel.

p.p.s. go ahead, flame me into oblivion. ah, anonymously is even
better! from people we've never *heard* of before on the list! yes, 
let everone up to the top tell me what a jerk I am for caring. please
be as *emotional* as possible. defend the silly announcement or the
Cypherpunk Status Quo as if I had accused *you* of being a child
pornographer or traitor. Even better, banish me from the list for my
thoughtcrimes! Yes, cyberspatial hemlock is what I need right now.