From: Blanc <blancw@cnw.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 13:42:58 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: Re: Thoughtcrime   (Re: My War)
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970610224326.0075855c@cnw.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




I really don't think that se7en just wants to censor the kiddie porn sites;
I think he is on a personal vendetta (like McVeigh).   He didn't call for
anyone to support legislation and propose new, tough laws, but called for
hackers to go after this particular target.    On the net anyone is prey,
remember;  kiddie porn dealers not exempted.

It's moot to discuss whether eliminating a few thousand digital images will
make any difference on the availability/market desireability of these
pictures (I expect these are all backed up somewhere, anyway, so destroying
them probably wouldn't actually make much difference, but just anger the
owners.)   How many photos of real children arranged into sexual poses or
imposed upon to perform sexual acts does it take to satisfy an addict?
How many photos which are not duplicates do these people actually possess,
and how many more do they seek to obtain?   Is it the number of them, or
the thrill of the "new"?   That a certain number of these photos are in
circulation may not be so important as the fact that they are "new" (to the
person looking to get them).   This means that having free circulation of
large numbers of images may be beside the point (I am speculating and
calculating based on almost total ignorance of the psychology of this type
of individual).

If these pedophiles just want to fantasize, I would offer they could get a
package of Macromedia Freehand or Director and Photoshop and create their
own.   But that probably wouldn't be satisfactory to them.  I expect there
is something in the qualities and character of real children which draw
them.   

But I digress.  The subject was hacking at your own chosen target.   Some
people hack children's innocence; some people hack the hackers.  Que sera'
sera'.

    ..
Blanc



    ..
Blanc