1996-09-13 - Thoughts about Morph Escrow Crimes

Header Data

From: jbugden@smtplink.alis.ca
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 8118ec18734588d036999d82a36448aa03231d56c1856e37bcb5954c34efdd91
Message ID: <9608138426.AA842634290@smtplink.alis.ca>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1996-09-13 18:51:13 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 02:51:13 +0800

Raw message

From: jbugden@smtplink.alis.ca
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 02:51:13 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Thoughts about Morph Escrow Crimes
Message-ID: <9608138426.AA842634290@smtplink.alis.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May) wrote:
>As the law cannot tell if an image of prurient interest started out as a
legal image of Raquel Welch or Jennifer Aniston, or started out as an
illegal image of a minor child, morph escrow will force all image
possessors and distributors to produce proof that the image started out legal.

It is not hard to imagine a future where computer modelling has reached the
stage that a real picture is not required. An obvious extension of this is a
film with computer generated actors.

Now, consider this scenario:
1) The computer generated image is "indistinguishable" from reality.
2) The computer generated image depicts something considered obscene or illegal
under present laws (e.g. pedophilia).

At some point in the future it would seem possible that the computer generated
image will be treated as a real image under the law (and evaluated accordingly)
because it is indistinguishable from a real image.

Or perhaps we will take the other tack and simply say: What is truth?

I'm not quite ready to wash my hands on this issue.

James

Welcome to MorphSex - Fulfilling your fantasies - Painlessly.
Select Gender [M/F/H]:
Select Age [2-80]:
Options: [Orgasm/Suffocation/Dismemberment/Disembowlment/Ennui]






Thread