From: Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 01:21:56 +0800
To: tcmay@got.net
Subject: lynch child pornographers not bits! (was Re: Child Porn and Eternity)
In-Reply-To: <v03102803b01817a18ed8@[207.167.93.63]>
Message-ID: <199708141639.RAA03883@server.test.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




Tim May <tcmay@got.net> writes:
> At 8:08 AM -0700 8/13/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> 
> >        But Conti skirted the more controversial question: What if
> >   someone did use Photoshop to synthesize images of half-naked children?
> 
> Let me assure you that such images are available. I might be tempted to say
> I know exactly where to find them, and may have even taken a look at them
> ("as part of my campaign to determine the extend of child porn" :-} ), but
> in this climate that might get me a couple of SWAT vans roaring up my
> hillside...and then I'd have to make some quick decisions about shooting or
> going peacably.

Yup.  Btw have you thought about booby trapping your place with enough
semtex to remove half the hill-top?  Somewhat like Raven in Snow Crash
-- detonator for fusion device in his 'bikes side car was linked to
his brain waves ceasing unexpectedly.  Police were running around
trying to protect him.  The age of personal nukes, heh.  I guess the
danger is that it detonates by accident.

> Such images (including non-morphed images of real nude children, or even of
> children engaging in sex, and so on) are, by the way, good candidates for
> Eternity servers. If the Eternity operators freak out and ban such images,
> so much for "Eternity." Perhaps they could then be named "Ephemeral"
> servers.

I suspect child porn would be kind of the ultimate test :-)

Let's hope we can defer that argument for a few months until there are
more servers.  It'll be interesting to see how well the argument that
it's just a USENET gateway holds out.  Also interesting to see how
well operators can stick to the principle of unconditional free speech
when faced with some "speech" which makes them puke.

The NSA hand book, mykotronix dumpster goodies or more secret
materials probably aren't that sensitive in that once they're leaked
there's not so much point attempting to control their distribution.
Anyone who matters will already have a copy, and making a fuss about
re-distribution probably increases the interest, and number of people
who will read the material.

If eternity lives up to it's name child porn could be published.

Personally my feeling about child molestors, and real life child
pornographers is lynch them.

Child pornographers and pedophiles operate in the real world, and they
get caught.  Problem is they let them go again despite 80+% re-offense
rate.  Hence cry for "lynch them".  There was some sicko in this town
who molested a 7 year old girl over a 2 year time span.  Turned
himself in, and got 1 year jail time.  He's out an about cocky as
ever, not even repentant.  Back in the days of the wild-west such
types wouldn't live long.  "He needed killing" used to be I understand
a perfectly satisfactory legal defense.

btw "Child pornographer" is a difficult term to define towards the
boundary, eg Tracy Lords was underage at the begining of here career,
also the age of consent is much lower in the liberal Scandinavian
countries.  Last time we had this argument James Donald posted to the
list a uuencoded gif of some chick, I guess the claim was she was just
underage by US standards.

Adam
-- 
Have *you* exported RSA today? --> http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/

print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<>
)]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`