From: "L. Detweiler" <ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 93 21:55:09 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: EFF pornography file warning
Message-ID: <9310060453.AA10453@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Boy, I sure have gotten flamed by the best on this one. And its rather
deafeningly silent on the list. I'm bleeding from shrapnel wounds and
hung out to die. Let me justify a few things. Enclosed:

- why I posted the announcement
- why I flamed EFF
- things that have upset me about this affair
- a classic cypherpunk rant on child pornography worthy of T.C. May

* * *

I posted the announcement to the cypherpunks because

1) there has been a long past history of interest in BBS type investigations

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. (BTW, I had virtually
nothing to do with that flame war, which was incredibly prolonged)

3) EFF of course is very close to the cypherpunk cause with S.Steele,
M.Godwin, and J.Gilmore regular readers and contributors.

4) consider that comp.org.eff.talk would be another forum, but I
rejected it, because this forum is more private and still watched by EFF.

* * *

Now, why did I flame EFF for this action? In one word: quagmire. I said
it was `silly, useless, and damaging'

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

2) since when does EFF help federal BBS investigations?

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

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

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.

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'

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

* * *

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.

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.

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'.

4) in general, I object to this philosophy found elsewhere on the list
of `if its in our backyard then don't criticize it'. the Fidonet
operators are like this. EFF is like this. The former, in their
cryptophobia and surveillance, are implicitly supportive of the
philosophy of Clipper and the NSA. The latter, EFF, has a critical role
in promoting coolness, not hysteria, among BBS operators.

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.

* * *

Lastly, I guess I'm a little confused.

tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)
>No, I won't say it was silly, useless, or damaging.
>[...]
>Do I hear any volunteers to become a test case?

I tweaked T.C. May in the hope of seeing a message analyzing child
pornography in digitized images over cyberspace, because I thought I
recall him writing a rather amazing essay on the subject some months
ago on the list. Apparently, based on my recent private email exchange,
he wasn't associated with that. I guess I just misremembered because it
seemed like such a classic cypherpunkesque rant in the spirit of his best.

Anyway, as I recall, *someone* about 3 or 4 months ago posted to the
list a remarkable analysis of a brouhaha surrounding the creation of
the group `alt.pictures.erotica.children'. The person talked about
posting a PGP file to the group, as I recall with an anonymous
remailer, and then talked about the fierce reaction (melee?) involved.
The person stated that the group appeared to have been created as a
joke, and the file itself as PGP code was actually not legal syntax for
`plausible deniability' of the author, but nevertheless raised important questions.

The essay talked about the fruitlessness of trying to track down actual
`child pornography' over cyberspace. One of the main points was that
child pornography is not illegal everywhere, as I recall the person
mentioned Denmark as a place where it particularly flourishes. Is a GIF
illegal if it was taken in a country that prohibits it? that's easy.
But what about if it was taken in a country where it was legal and
imported? well, in the U.S. this is illegal too.

But the poster raised a lot of other very fascinating questions that
were highly relevant to pornography in cyberspace. Digital composition
tools allow artist to cut and paste pictures with astonishing realism.
What about a situation where adult models (as young as possible) are
used and child's faces are plastered on top? Or how about the situation
where *entirely imaginary pictures* are created? These are very real
possibilities. Are they illegal too? How is it that just a particular
configuration of pixels constitutes illegal pornography, and another
does not? I think the poster made various humorous remarks about baby
pictures too -- the type of children on bearskin rugs. Shall we
imprison all parents that have taken these? (ug, I can't wait for all
silly flames on the `I know it when I see it' definition of pornography.)

This was my point with the EFF warning: the whole area is a quagmire,
and the only consistent and enforceable philosophy seems to be a `hands
off' approach. It is very likely to evolve in the long-term future
because of all the quandaries. And in particular I was hoping the essay
would pop up again on the list so they could see that perspective.

Anyway, the poster then made some characteristic comments about the
changes that cyberspace will introduce to these kind of pornography
laws. The whole essay was such a brilliant exercise, IMHO, and involved
actual `research' and `analysis', that I guess I just sort of
misremembered T.C. May writing it, but apparently this is not the case.
Anyway, I apologize for the misattribution. Just `attribute the
misattribution' to my degenerating memory for specifics after 35
hundred cypherpunk postings <g>

(But I would be fascinated to see that essay again, if anyone has a
clue of what I'm talking about. Hopefully the writer is still on the
list, has it in archives, and can post it. It's highly germane to the
EFF warning, and was a really brilliant cypherpunk document, IMHO. If
I'm just hallucinating over the whole thing, well, maybe its time for
me to unsubscribe <g> )