From: m5@vail.tivoli.com (Mike McNally)
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 93 06:39:14 PDT
To: "L. Detweiler" <ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
Subject: EFF pornography file warning
In-Reply-To: <9310060453.AA10453@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
Message-ID: <9310061332.AA07867@vail.tivoli.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



As a quickie preface, I state that I feel no guilt posting this to
cypherpunks, even in light of the many recent complaints about
bandwidth.  This issue seems quite germaine to me, though it's
only tangentially related to cryptography.

"L. Detweiler" writes:
 > I posted the announcement to the cypherpunks because
 > 
 > 2) there was a huge flame war over CERT sending a notice to E.Hughes
 > for his FTP site, saying `please look into this'-- this EFF
 > announcement struck me as amazingly similar.

It doesn't strike me as similar at all.  One was a specifically
targeted notice, and the other was a broadcast for general
consumption.

 > Now, why did I flame EFF for this action? In one word: quagmire. 

You flamed because "quagmire"?  What does that mean?  (I know what
"quagmire" means; I can't parse the sentence "I flamed the EFF because
quagmire.")

 > I said it was `silly, useless, and damaging'

Silly?  Seemed pretty serious to me.  Useless?  Well, it was
dissemination of pertinent information; given the signal to noise
ratio of the electronic infonet world, that's saying a lot.  Damaging?
Well, that's the debatable point.

 > 1) this opens them up to having to do this *regularly*. Is this what
 > they want to be doing?

I don't agree with this, though it may be true that such expectations
will be established.  (After this uproar, I doubt it.)

 > 2) since when does EFF help federal BBS investigations?

Help?!?  Was the EFF passing along names of suspect BBSes?  Indeed,
I'd say they were *hindering* the investigation, if anything; they're
suggesting that "evidence" be destroyed.

 > 3) M. Godwin just got done informing us the beauty of *non* liability
 > with a hands-off BBS operator policy.

There's a BIG difference between non-liability and immunity from
seizure.

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

Is it really silly?  Though I'll of course agree that the names
*could* be changed, are they?  How common is that?  Isn't it probably
true that if those files exist somewhere it's highly likely that they
have those names?  If so, is it still "silly" to publish the names?

(Is it "silly" for "Wanted" posters to contain photos and descriptions
of hair length, facial hair, body weight, and so on, given that such
things can easily be changed?)

 > 5) a recall of any type is a notorious way to generate paranoia...

I don't think that EFF would claim to have the power of "recall".

 > `What? EFF says file [x] is child pornography?'

No, EFF says file X is a hot topic in some particular investigation of
child pronography being conducted by some law enforcement
organization.  It's a statement of fact.

 > 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 don't see why this should be an argument against posting the
warning.  Hurricane warnings generally bring many people who want to
surf or just look aat and experience the hurricane; would it be better
to just keep a lid on the whole tropical depression thing?

 > 7) many other reasons that will become obvious and important in
 > retrospect, but look like hypersensitivity at this point.

My breath is held.

 > I'm very upset that
 > 
 > 1) everybody on the list is hiding, and refuses to criticize EFF
 > despite the strong parallels to CERT. at best this is cowardice and at
 > worst hypocrisy. this tiptoeing and silence is very reprehensible, IMHO.

Whoa, podner.  Speak for yourself.  You're giving us (a) cowardice or
(b) hypocrisy; why not (c) a difference of opinion with L Detweiler?

 > 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.

I can't argue with this; the fact of this conversation proves your
point.

 > 3) there have been requests from EFF representatives to `let it drop'.
 > well, yes, that is one way of dealing with the issue, but IMHO more
 > appropriate to a species of animal called `ostriches'.

I also agree with this: the subject bears discussion.  I think it's
relevant to cypherpunks because the topic could someday be "files
foo.X and bar.X are suspected of being encrypted Top Secret Stuff, and
are being sought in an investigation of pirate cryptography".

--
Mike McNally