1995-01-12 - Re: Reefer madness

Header Data

From: Mark Grant <mark@unicorn.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 44749635dad48b28b8b76fe5eca54d2ffdd4c3b82ff96ceafa4a7239ceb23ff4
Message ID: <Pine.3.89.9501121847.A13935-0100000@unicorn.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1995-01-12 18:52:56 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 12 Jan 95 10:52:56 PST

Raw message

From: Mark Grant <mark@unicorn.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 95 10:52:56 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Reefer madness
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9501121847.A13935-0100000@unicorn.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

On Thu, 12 Jan 1995, Russell Nelson wrote:

> I really *don't* think that New York State plans to
> ban encryption, not now and not over this issue anyway.  His thrust is
> 1) to have the legal authority to sufficiently punish someone who goes
> after children (which they don't have now), and 2) to educate guardians
> about the risks of untoward communications from adults to children.

But what happens if, say, a minor is solicited for sex when they are
pretending to be older than they are ? Or if the solicitation comes via a
remailer ?  Or a minor with a grudge fakes email to show that someone 
attempted to get them to agree to sex/picture-taking or whatever ?

Once you pass laws making some forms of communication illegal, you're 
immediately getting into dodgy territory requiring is-a-person 
credentials and so on. That isn't neccesarily a problem if it's voluntary 
(e.g. your kids accounts might be set up to only accept mail from people 
who're certified to be under 18 or whatever), but governments are 
unlikely to do things that way.