From: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
Date: Sat, 4 May 1996 15:06:32 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Freedom and Security
Message-ID: <01I49XXMDSMO8Y56P8@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


From: angels@wavenet.com (CyberAngels Director : Colin Gabriel Hatcher)

>Site security is not at all the only problem.  Are you not aware of spams
>and scams going on all the time?  Are you not aware that sexual predators
>operate in IRC? Or that child pornography is a world wide trading game?
>Have you never heard of email forgeries or impersonation?  What about tthe
>victims of harassment and hatred who don't know how to deal with it?  What
>about all the people who have never heard of killfiles?  Who don't know how
>to report a problem nor who to report it to?   Haven't you ever been mail
>bombed and wished you could find out who did it?

	I find it interesting that Mr. Hacher is claiming spams as a reason
for CyberAngel activities. I had sent him several examples of spams, to which
he replied with messages showing a distinct lack of knowledge (thinking I could
filter out messages from the address - which was a mailing list to which I
wish to subscribe, for instance). He then noticed my piece in CuDigest
suggesting that spams and other Internet abuse would be something proper for
the CyberAngels to be involved with - instead of the censorship they advocate.
After noticing this, he wrote me back, told me that spams were not something
that they were concerned with - they weren't a _real_ problem like pornography
- and legally enjoined me not to send mail to the CyberAngels. (I would thus
appreciate someone forwarding this mail to Mr. Hatcher; he is not visibly on
the list. In case anyone is wondering, I forwarded _at most_ one copy of each
message that I had received via email; I most certainly did not mailbomb him.)

	As has been previously pointed out, it is not possible for "sexual
predators" to commit actual crimes - as opposed to utilizing freedom of speech
and freedom of press - over the internet. There are four points that may be
made regarding child pornography:
	A. What is defined as child pornography may vary from place to place.
As an example, I believe the pornographic videos involving Traci Lords (who was
below the age of 18 when they were made) are legal to posess in most of Europe.
This difference is similar to that in ages for statutory rape; Mississipi, for
instance has one of 12. (I view this as too low, in case anyone is wondering.)
	B. Even if something is claimed to be child pornography, it may not
actually have involved the use of children. Makeup, plastic surgery, and
digital editing are all involved in the creation of such faked child
pornography; the latter two are advancing at a rapid rate. While the offering
of such as "child pornography" is a variety of fraud if compensation is
involved, somehow I doubt the CyberAngels would be much interested in
getting someone prosecuted for it.
	C. As has been pointed out by others, even if actual child pornography
is on the Net, it is not in and of itself doing any harm to children. It is
the production of actual child pornography that does so. While it may be argued
that giving child pornography a market value will encourage its production, two
counterarguments may be made to this point. First, much of the sexually
explicit images on the net are in violation of copyright; I do not believe that
the CyberAngels are trying to get people prosecuted for this. Second, driving
a market underground tends to raise prices - look at the Drug War; thus, any
reduction in supply due to illegality of the market will simply compensate the
producers more.
	D. As has been pointed out, the use of child pornography is a classic
"Horseman" (of the Four). In other words, the CyberAngels are using child
pornography as a red herring for their even more objectionable activities.

>Maybe you feel like a veterano and can afford to look condesendingly at all
>the thousands of fresh-faced netizens just arriving online and say "well if
>they can't take the heat they should stay out of the fire" - but if we are
>to call ourselves an emerging "community" then we must take responsibility
>for our city, and that means caring about other people's problems.

	I have no objection to the CyberAngels assisting victims of
alleged harrasment with such mechanisms as kill files; I have some doubt as
to their technical ability in this area. I object, however, to their more
proactive activities, such as "patrolling" and soliciting people to make
complaints about usages of free speech ("harrassment"). These involve either
attempts to cut off someone's Internet access at the ISP's level or, worse,
attempts to attract governmental attention. The first may be the right of the
ISP, unless it is governmental or has a previous contract agreement stating
otherwise; it would still be preferable if others such as the CyberAngels were
to learn the basic lesson of "mind your own business." Bringing goverment into
the matter may both result in a violation of individual civil liberties and
may result in increased governmental control over the Internet.
	As has been pointed out by others, the Cypherpunks are doing things to
help other people on the Internet in areas such as mail forgery/impersonation
and mail-bombing. (A properly run anonymous remailer will not forward a mail
bomb any more than a properly run post office will.) I sincerely doubt whether
the CyberAngels are actually doing anything about these problems as opposed to
their fetish of pornography.

>When your address is forged and you get flamed and bombed, or if you start
>receiving anonymous death threats, your freedom is under threat.  It's not
>enough to say "Well I just turn off my monitor"

>The Internet is a city - it needs 911 services and it needs Neighborhood
>Watches.  And neither professional law enforcement nor neighborhood watch
>are by definition a threat to anyone's freedom.  Freedom within the context
>of Community does not and never has meant the freedom to kill your
>neighbor, or rob someone, or rape someone, or harm someone.  In the context
>of the internet Community too, freedom is not the individual's right to do
>whatever he or she likes - because then the Community is no longer free.

	By definition? Probably not... although it depends on the definition.
Some implementations of such activities - such as the CyberAngels and their
current and proposed activities - are such. Freedom is the right to do what
will not trespass on another's freedom; I defy you to show how having
pornography available, including "obscene" material, trespasses on the freedoms
of others. I also defy you to show how having fully anonymous remailers
available is a violation of anyone's liberties.

>Freedom is under threat from two directions - from selfish individuals who
>care little for the Community, and from the over zealousness of governments
>who seek greater and greater control over individual thought and action.

>The first step is to acknowledge that we have a problem within the Internet
>Community - because if we don't address it responsibly then we have only
>ourselves to blame when the governments try to take it over.  We can face
>our problems or we can deny that they exist.

	And how, pray tell, will bringing such alleged problems to the
attention of government - as has been an activity of the CyberAngels - avoid
increased governmental intervention?

>By asking me the question: "What crime?" you are indicating to me that you
>prefer denial.

	No. We have a disagreement about what is crime - what is an exercise of
individual civil liberties, and what is a violation of them.

>"Two people may disagree, but
>that does not mean that one of them is evil"

	That depends on what they disagree. I believe we disagree in ways
that include enough fundamental freedoms that calling you evil is proper from
my viewpoint.
	-Allen