From: Hallam-Baker <hallam@ai.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 08:42:52 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Kiddie porn on the Internet
In-Reply-To: <50us2f$o5c@life.ai.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <323459CE.31DF@ai.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Dale Thorn wrote:
> 
> "News" stories are now circulating on radio about child pornography on
> the Internet, and how an organization called "Save The Children" is
> working very hard to identify the trafficers and their accomplii.
> 
> Save The Children is complaining that they can't find all of the dirty
> dealers of kid-porn, since much of the traffic is encrypted!
> 
> So who is Save The Children? First, since they're an international
> organization raising funds in the U.S., they obviously operate at the
> pleasure of the State Department. Ho hum. Remember the incidents at the
> Denny's restaurant chain where Denny's was sued for discrimination
> against minorities? Did it seem a little bizarre for the 1990's?

I'm trying to work out just what sort of confused idea is going on
here. Save the Children is an international charity that is based
in the UK. It is ultra respectable, Princess Ann being its president
and very active in that role (ie not merely titular). Its also 
a-political which it has to be for tax reasons and because otherwise 
the royals couldn't have anything to do with it.

Their main mission is sending food to Ethiopia and other famine
areas, development work etc. It is ultra-worthy stuff.

I think that a more rational explanation of the Dennys case is that
being weasels the Dennys management decided they needed some good PR
before the judgement brought them bad PR.

>*** The recievers of the porn should not be punished for the photographers
>action, the same as if I would complain that someone burglarized my home becuase
>i left the door open. It was their ignorance that caused their loss. 

Its the consumers who create a market. If someone burgals your house and
I knowingly buy the stolen goods its a crime.


	Phill