From: Rich Graves <rich@c2.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 10:27:57 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: The Observer [UK] editorializes against online freedoms (fwd)
Message-ID: <Pine.GUL.3.95.960826160534.24037A-100000@Networking.Stanford.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Information longs to be free, even if some forums aren't...

We've put scans of the full story onto www.scallywag.com.

The source is a reporter for a competing newspaper.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 09:40:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rich Graves <rich@c2.org>
To: fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu
Subject: Re: The Observer [UK] editorializes against online freedoms

Attribution for the forward deleted on request. Richardson's included
PGP-signed letter, though, is public. I hope this reassures US activists
that *even the British* know the story is wrong.

-rich

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 12:24:05 +0100
Subject: Response to Observer

A nice technical response to some of the factual innacuracies in The
Observer piece. Not quite the way I would have done it . . . but good
nonetheless.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

I. T. Consultancy Limited

Our reference  L2217

The Editor
The Observer
119 Farringdon Road
London EC1R 3ER

26 August 1996

AN OPEN LETTER - FOR PUBLICATION

Sir,

I read with some interest the article by David Connett and Jon Henley
in yesterday's edition regarding the Internet and child pornography.
I was particularly interested as I am a computer consultant advising
clients on Internet issues.

In my professional opinion, the technical standard of the reporting
was sufficiently poor as to be both inaccurate and misleading.  The
purpose of this letter is to clarify certain technical issues which
might cause your readers to reach unfounded or incorrect conclusions.

It is important to be aware of the various methods by which
information generally (which can include pornography) is distributed
around the Internet.  Your article focuses on one particular route,
namely Newsgroups.  It is Newsgroups which are detailed in the
Metropolitan Police's letter to Internet Providers and which are
concentrated upon by your article.  There are several other means of
distributing information.  I believe however that the Police letter
lists fewer than the 150 groups referred to by the authors.
Interestingly enough Newsgroups only offer the means of broadcasting
information to anyone who wants to retrieve it.

The authors do not appear to have a sufficient grasp of what a
"remailer" does.  For example they seem to draw a direct link between
the use of such remailers and people being able to "log on and
participate in 'live' and 'interactive' filmed sessions".  A lay
reader would perhaps draw the inference that the remailer is somehow
involved in any such live participation.  Unfortunately this could
not be further from the truth.  Remailers simply allow people to post
messages, either as email to other people or to Newsgroups for
general reading.  Nothing more.  Remailers are generally incapable of
being "logged on" to.

Your article also refers to "remailing companies", from which the lay
reader might infer that remailers are operated for commercial profit.

Such an inference would again be wholly incorrect.  I know of no
organisation operating a remailer for profit, indeed none of them
even charge for their services.  They are generally run by
individuals on a voluntary basis who consider them as a service to
the Internet community.  Your article appears not to mention any of
the purposes of such remailers other than in terms of the
distribution of pornography.  In my view it would be difficult to
present a balanced article without doing so.

Different remailers take different steps to prevent whatever their
operators consider as "abuse".  My understanding is that Mr.
Helsingius' service restricts messages to 48k bytes (or characters)
and prohibits postings to the "binaries" newsgroups designated for
images.  I also understand that it only allows 30 messages per user
per day.  At a technical level these restrictions would make it
almost impossible to use his service for mass distribution of any
binary data, not just pornography.

It therefore appears surprising to me that your article should allege
that Mr. Helsingius' remailer is responsible for handling "90 per
cent of all child pornography" on the Internet.  I wonder what
substantiating evidence The Observer has to this effect other than
the alleged claim by Toby Tyler.  Indeed it appears from your article
that the words "is supplied through this remailer" may not be a
direct quote from Toby Tyler.

Your article alleges that "the photographs made available to Demon's
subscribers through the Internet are supplied anonymously by
remailing companies".  The lay reader might infer from this that all
photographs therefore come via remailers.  Again this would be far
from the truth.

Finally I hope this letter offers some assistance to your readers in
clarifying a number of issues which were perhaps less than clear in
your article.  Given your newspaper's difficulties with technical
issues, I would be grateful if you would kindly refer any editing of
this letter to me prior to publication.

Yours faithfully,
Matthew Richardson

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv

iQCVAgUBMiFvEAKwLwcHEv69AQGjIQP+IGR9rhvdYXe7CuCcwPl/tIrIBryikTM2
IVOpygTF2nCPf3WEJ8czRvs1emp9d9d++69XiG1f6QAeP9Jv/h9KzVtV7mjjuqCX
LhlhXBYjLIiGCcxljKZ07zHFlCeZWCzuAmIFnZbz2fNNjqyicheIMlxI2tDrGgjp
dlaGZuAI2XY=
=dkXg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----