From: Jordan Hayes <jordan@Thinkbank.COM>
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 1996 04:47:09 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Imminent Death of Usenet Predicted
Message-ID: <199602032012.MAA01412@Thinkbank.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


	From jf_avon@citenet.net Sat Feb  3 11:04:01 1996

	>Soon I hope
	>that there will be as much chance of children 'stumbling upon'
	>X-rated JPEGs as they can today image satellite-delivered porno in
	>their heads without a dish.

	I guess that children do not see the depicted event as as
	traumatic as you personnally do...  But guess what, maybe
	some peoples do not mind their kids seeing theses pictures.

<NOT-CRYPTO>

Hey, I tried to explain this, but you missed it: I *don't personally
care* about whether kids see porno.  I *know* that a *huge* percentage
of the population in this country does (sorry for being USA-centric,
but we have [at least for now] the largest net population, so you
can see how this will go ...).  Therefore, I'd like to see a way
for the default be that kids (dare I say everyone!) don't *automatically
stumble upon* it in the open network.  I'm all for parents giving
access to their kids to whatver they feel is right, and I'm all
for adults making that choice as well; but I think that if the
majority of the people in a community don't want the default behavior
to be "click here for tits!" then it's up to us, as technologists,
to provide easy-to-use mechanisms for those who do want to see them
to not infringe on those who don't.

If you want porno on your TV, you can rent it, you can pay-per-view
it, you can get a sattelite dish, or whatever.  But most people
don't want it by default to be on channel 7.  Last time: I *personally*
am not one of them, but it's important to see what the majority
thinks on this issue.

</NOT-CRYPTO>

	Phones are *NOT* private devices.

Again, you missed my point.  People *think* they are, and if you
compare "private" calls to "tapped" calls, you'll see that the
expectation of privacy is not so misplaced.  Yes, if your communications
are important to you or you are a potential target of investigation,
you should know it's not private.  But it's not like any significant
number of phone calls are tapped, by the government or otherwise.
And it's not likely to happen, either, because NONE CARES WHAT YOU
SAY TO YOUR FRIEND ON THE PHONE.

	You can tap a phone for 10$ worth of Radio Shack hardware.

And I'm sure you do this, what, 18,000 times per hour?  I'm like
so sure that you listen to all your neighbors phone calls.

	>And don't forget: if you have privacy, you don't need anonymity.
	>Swiss banks provide the ultimate example.

	I would like other peoples to comment on this one, but I
	think that swiss banks *did* also provide anonymity. (number
	accounts)

You can get a numbered account at a Swiss bank by showing up at
the branch, introducing yourself to the branch manager, proving to
him who you are, and signing some papers.  They will keep your name
out of any transactions you make, but they *know you* ... this is
not anonymity; this is merely privacy.

Another good example is John Perry's PGP'd mailing list.  No chance
of anyone "stumbling upon" the content, since it's all PGP'd.  But
it's not anonymous, and for good reasons.  So what if all mailing
lists were like this?  What if alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.oral
was like this? What if all our mail programs and news readers were
able to cope easily with this?  I think this is the question that
efforts like IPSec are trying to answer: we'd all be *way* better
off.

What if looking at a JPEG were like buying beer?  The default is
that a 12 year old isn't going to fool the guy at 7-11, but if
their parents buy a beer and give it to 'em, what the heck?
Consuming alcohol is not regulated; *purchasing* it is.

Don't forget: the fact that "porno on the net" (for instance) is
an issue *at all* is a *failure* of technology.  It would be a
non-issue if USENET wasn't essentially a technology vacuum.

/jordan