December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Child Porn as Thoughtcrime
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 8:48 PM 9/10/96 -0700, Declan McCullagh wrote: >On Tue, 10 Sep 1996, Timothy C. May wrote: > >> Q: Is a drawing of a child engaging in a sexual act an illegal item? > >Under the original Hatch bill, yes. Certainly under the revised one. Of >course, Hatch's proposal goes even farther. There's no "sex act" requirement. >Judy Krug from the ALA testified about this, opposing Bruce Taylor. > >> Q: Is an image of Raquel Welch morphed to make her look like a 15-year-old >> illegal? > >Even under the original Hatch bill, yes. It seems to me that the logic of these answers would make the movie, "Carried Away" illegal. According to a Boston Globe review (reprinted in the local rag), "... his character cheats on his longtime girlfriend with a new student who's only 17, ..." Depending on how this is depicted in the movie (Rated R), it seems to me that this could go over Hatch's line. (BTW, the review rates the movie 3 stars out of a possible 4.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | "Lone Star" - My personal | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | choice for best movie of | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | 1996 | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0

Re: Child Porn as Thoughtcrime
by Rick Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim wrote: : Declan answers in the affirmative that, yes, nearly all of the examples I : cited are indeed crimes. .... : As I well knew, which is why I presented them. (The Jock Sturges case was : in SF, ... I've read in several places that the Jock Sturges case was thrown out of court by the judge. Nobody has dragged me away in shackles for owning "Radiant Images." Stores selling photo books often carry his work, and it is rarely covered with opaque plastic. So it may be nudity that set the gendarmes (sp?) in motion, but that's evidently not what's really illegal. I wonder what would happen if an "adult magazine" were to reproduce Sturges' work. The court case might be interesting... Now apply that to the Web. Imagine there's a Sturges site, and a porn site links to it. Does that make the Sturges material "child porn?" If so, is the porn site illegal or the Sturges site? I suspect the prosecutors will come down on both and let the courts sort it out. Prior restraint, eh? : ...the "little girls in leotards" case was only a few years ago, etc.) Don't know about that one. Is it illegal for little girls to be photographed in leotards now? "Nutcracker" is X rated? Move over, Bambi. Personally, I think the political posturing theory captures the essence of the legislative climate. Rick.

1 0

Unsolicited harrassing e-mail from <stewarts@ix.netcom.com>
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Please stop e-mailing me, cc:ing me, or otherwise harrassing me. I have no connection with the thread you're quoting and don't want to receive any more e-mail from you. stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com writes: > >> There > >> are a number of anonymous remailers out in cyberspace, but it has been > >> stated by a knowledgeable source that a number of them are being operated > >> by law enforcement agencies (presumably to troll for criminal activity). A > > > >Can someone verify/discredit/comment on this statement? Who is the > >knowledgeable source? > > Definitely true. Zero is a number, and there are also larger numbers. > KOTM = Kook Of The Month. > > # Thanks; Bill > # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com > # <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> > # You can get PGP software outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto >

1 0

'robert' and his 'hipcrime' web site
by nobody＠cypherpunks.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Have you considered who is funding this "hipcrime" site? Web sites aren't terribly expensive these days, but someone paid at least a few hundred dollars in set-up fees for this. Now, I realize that most artists really just like to draw, and will spend money on their art projects without expecting any kind of benefit; that is not unusual. What is unusual is the disclaimer and its corporate mentailty, and the "anarchist info". It's obvious that this guy's true passion is fractals and raytracing. He threw in some bomb-making stuff, but he scanned it out of a book and probably never tried it. Compared to the rest of the site, it looks like an afterthought. Someone who was really interested in chemistry would have taken the time to retype the info and add their own comments. He had a reason to have some "anarchist" info on there but he's not really interested in it. So basically this guy is a mathematician/artist trying to pretend he's an anarchist. Same goes for the remailers. He claims he likes remailers and anonymity, but he's lying. Anyone who really liked remailers/anonymity/privacy would have pages and pages about how to use remailers, and why privacy is a good thing. He has a reason he needs to be anonymous, but it's not because he supports privacy. He publishes a PGP key, because he wants to pretend he's an anarchist, and Louis Freeh told him that all evil terrorist organizations use PGP. But he doesn't like PGP, he doesn't advocate PGP, and he doesn't tell you where to get PGP. So we have a guy, probably with an education in mathematics, who likes abstract art. Not what would generally be considered a political figure. But there's something else there - something that doesn't want to be seen, something that is very strongly law&order, something that doesn't understand the anarchy of the net, and fears it. Something that has the money to fund lots of little pet projects. Is robert(a)precipice.v-site.net just a useful idiot who found someone who will fund his fractal creations? Or is he a willing participant? I guess it doesn't matter really. Someone here doesn't like us... didn't like us before Hipcrime went online, and still doesn't like us. But now at least he's got our attention.

4 3

Re: [WAS xs4all.nl] Terrorists
by stewarts＠ix.netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:01 AM 9/9/96 +0200, Stephan wrote: >One thought : How many of you would support terrorist >web server (say Oklahoma, TWA, Iran, Lybia, RAF, IRA, ...) ? But I _do_ support a terrorist web server! My taxes pay for CIA (odci.gov) whitehouse.gov, llnl.gov, *.mil, +1-888-ATF-FIRE .... # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> # You can get PGP software outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto

1 0

Re: Hacking Mobil Telephone System ?
by Peter Trei 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> On Wed, 11 Sep 1996, Stephan Schmidt wrote: > > > The German Company MobilCom wants to proove > > that the German GSM networks D1,D2 and E+ are > > secure. > > > <snip> > > > > If a hacker is able to phone using the number > > 0171 / 3 28 99 66 in Germany with a hacked code, > > the company will pay 100.000 DM (~65.000$) to a non > > profit organisation of the hackers choice. > > > > Is someone able to do this ? :) > > While there's dubious wisdom in trying to tell Der Polizei, "I was just > responding to an authorization that I found on the Internet that says it's > OK to phreak your phones - honest," I'd also expect to get paid a hell of > a lot more than $65 for doing a penetration test on their network. Sixty > five bucks won't even pay the per diem, none the less a reasonable wage. > And Der Polizei is *NOT* known for having a sense of humor about anything, > at any time, with anyone. Remember, kids, they may look like shit in > uniform, but those automatic weapons they carry are real, so's the ammo, > and they know how to use both of 'em. The simple solution is to call the number from a regular phone, and find out if the offer is correct. I think you'll find that '100.000 DM (~65.000$)' is European nomenclature for '100,000 DM (~65,000$). The differences between US and European nomenclature can be subtle, yet important. Quick - which is likely to have had warmer weather: 1/8/96, or 8/1/96? Peter Trei Senior Software Engineer Purveyor Development Team Process Software Corporation http://www.process.com trei(a)process.com

1 0

RE: Hacking Mobil Telephone System ?
by jbugden＠smtplink.alis.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Wed, 11 Sep 1996, Stephan Schmidt wrote: > If a hacker is able to phone using the number > 0171 / 3 28 99 66 in Germany with a hacked code, > the company will pay 100.000 DM (~65.000$) to a non > profit organisation of the hackers choice. "Mark O. Aldrich" <maldrich(a)grci.com> wrote: >I'd also expect to get paid a hell of a lot more than $65 for doing a penetration test on their network. Then how about a thousand times more than $65 US ? When was the last time Cents/Pfennigs were denominated in 1000ths of a Dollar/Mark? Ahh, maybe you are from Italy? ;-) Ciao, James

1 0

Re: Child porn as thoughtcrime
by mpd＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Chuck Thompson <chuck(a)nova1.net> writes: > The answer to the all the questions in the first set is > yes, in this country anyway, if they are interpreted by the > legal system as intending to incite illicit sexual acts, > fantasies or obsessions about children. The fantasies or > obsessions are assumed to lead to the illegal acts. The problem here is that they are "assumed" to do this as a matter of inerrant scripture, in spite of quite a bit of evidence indicating that this is not the case. It doesn't exactly send those under 18 a positive message about their bodies when it is suggested that capturing the slightest overt representation of their sexuality is a crime worthy of flaying and burning at the stake. I agree that persons should probably be protected from working as models or service providers in the commercial sex industry until they reach the age of majority. But the things that are being proposed these days look much more like an ideological purge of material relating to youthful sexuality than a serious attempt to protect children. The reasons given as justification are almost always overly vague. > Well, I'd say that anyone who benefits materially from the > distribution of child porn is exploiting either the > children, the pervert or both. The definition of "child porn" today is so excessively broad that it tramples on the notion of protected free speech and need not involve a "pervert." Since the alleged sexual exploitation of children is the one political issue no CongressRodent can afford to be seen as soft on, it is hardly surprising that this single issue will likely be the wedge used to successfully attack protected free speech. > Hold on here.. you are making an invalid comparison. To > my knowledge, there is no law against speaking in favor of > child porn, any more than there is against speaking in favor > of drug usage. It against the law to *use* either of them. But of course we aren't really talking about "speaking in favor of child porn." That's just the buzzword phrase used by the opposing side to characterize any argument against their proposals. We are talking about the right of citizens to privately converse with each other on any topic of their choosing, including through the use of visual material, without government interference. This is independent of the issue of child porn, and who is exploited when money is made through its distribution. > The argument is not dependent upon whether or not actual > children are used, any more than whether or not an actual > gun is used in a robbery - the net effect is the same. > Children are harmed by the promotion of child porn because > it leads to the abuse/exploitation of kids. This is a very vague and spurious connection, much like the suggestion that sympathetic views towards Communism in the '50s would lead to the overthrow of our government. Purging all depictions of adolescent sexuality from our society under threat of imprisonment is hardly a prudent public safety measure. > Let those who believe that they have a constitutional right > to "keep and bear child pornography" violate the various > laws and see if they can prove that their constitutional > rights are violated by the law which proscribes such things. Our constitution would be far better if it had a strong privacy provision, rather than the current First Ammendment. There will always be reasonable exceptions to the notion of absolute freedom of speech, and in every era, people will believe that their own pet issues, (Communism, Child Sex, Abortion Information), should be amongst the special exceptions made. In a country like Sweden, for instance, a constitutional ammendment would be required to ban private possession of any printed material in a citizen's own home. Here, all it takes is some grumbling by the child sex hysterics, and you can go to prison for sitting at your kitchen table with sissors and a jar of paste, and making a collage from selected pieces of the JC Penney Catalog and the latest issue of Playboy. Many so-called child porn laws are easily the silliest examples of the "Tyranny of the Majority" and "thoughtcrime" ever to rear their heads in modern times. -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ mpd(a)netcom.com $ via Finger. $

1 0

Important News from The Wall Street Journal Interactive Edition
by The Wall Street Journal Interactive Edition 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear Wall Street Journal reader: Your trial subscription to The Wall Street Journal Interactive Edition ends in less than two weeks, on Sept. 21, 1996. We hope you've had the chance to explore the Interactive Edition fully during this extensive trial period. If not, visit us today at http://wsj.com. Be sure to check out key features such as Personal Journal, which enables you to create a personalized view of current Journal news, and our extensive Company Briefing Books. A brief tour of our most powerful features is at http://wsj.com/tour.htm. If you wish to continue with your subscription after the trial ends, you don't need to re-register. Just fill out a brief online form and provide us with payment information; we won't charge your credit card until after our trial period is over. An annual subscription costs just $49 a year, or $29 a year if you subscribe to any print edition of The Wall Street Journal. To convert to an annual subscription, just access http://wsj.com and click on the "Convert Now" graphic. If you do not wish to convert to an annual subscription, you do not need to do anything -- you will not be billed and your subscription will be canceled automatically at the end of the trial. You may also be interested in a special offer available to users of Microsoft's Internet Explorer. Microsoft has made arrangements with several premier publishers on the Web, including the Interactive Edition, to offer subscriptions to Internet Explorer users at no charge through the end of this year. If you use the latest release of Internet Explorer as your Web browser, you will be able to keep reading the Interactive Edition through Dec. 31, 1996 and there is no need for you to provide us with payment information at this time. For more information on this offer, you can visit http://wsj.com/ie.html or ask us questions at the e-mail address below. We hope you'll stay with us as a charter annual subscriber. The coming months will see continued progress and expansion on all fronts in the Interactive Edition -- with more Briefing Books, an improved and enhanced Personal Journal, more exclusive news coverage, a greatly expanded search archive and a variety of new tools that we hope will make keeping track of the news easier and more enjoyable. If you have questions or comments, e-mail us at the address below or call Customer Service at 1-800-369-2834 or 1-609-514-0870. Neil Budde Editor The Wall Street Journal Interactive Edition info(a)interactive.wsj.com -------------------------------------------------------- The WSJ-ANNOUNCE3 list is a service of The Wall Street Journal Interactive Edition (http://wsj.com) If you no longer wish to receive messages from the WSJ-ANNOUNCE3 list, simply reply to this message and in the body of your message type: UNSUBSCRIBE WSJ-ANNOUNCE3

1 0

The definition of child pornography -- no help here
by declan＠well.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[Note this was before Knox. --Declan] NEW YORK v. FERBER No. 81-55 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 458 U.S. 747; 102 S. Ct. 3348; 1982 U.S. LEXIS 12; 73 L. Ed. 2d 1113; 50 U.S.L.W. 5077; 8 Media L. Rep. 1809 April 27, 1982, Argued July 2, 1982, Decided PRIOR HISTORY: [***1] CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK. DISPOSITION: 52 N. Y. 2d 674, 422 N. E. 2d 523, reversed and remanded. SYLLABUS: A New York statute prohibits persons from knowingly promoting a sexual performance by a child under the age of 16 by distributing material which depicts such a performance. The statute defines "sexual performance" as any performance that includes sexual conduct by such a child, and "sexual conduct" is in turn defined as actual or simulated sexual intercourse, deviate sexual intercourse, sexual bestiality, masturbation, sado-masochistic abuse, or lewd exhibition of the genitals. Respondent bookstore proprietor was convicted under the statute for selling films depicting young boys masturbating, and the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the statute violated the First Amendment as being both underinclusive and overbroad. The court reasoned that in light of the explicit inclusion of an obscenity standard in a companion statute banning the knowing dissemination of similarly defined material, the statute in question could not be construed to include an obscenity standard, [***2] and therefore would prohibit the promotion of materials traditionally entitled to protection under the First Amendment. Held: As applied to respondent and others who distribute similar material, the statute in question does not violate the First Amendment as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 753-774. (a) The States are entitled to greater leeway in the regulation of pornographic depictions of children for the following reasons: (1) the legislative judgment that the use of children as subjects of pornographic materials is harmful to the physiological, emotional, and mental health of the child, easily passes muster under the First Amendment; (2) the standard of Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, for determining what is legally obscene is not a satisfactory solution to the child pornography problem; (3) the advertising and selling of child pornography provide an economic motive for and are thus an integral part of the production of such materials, an activity illegal throughout the Nation; (4) the value of permitting live performances and photographic reproductions of children engaged in lewd exhibitions is exceedingly modest, if [***3] not de minimis; and (5) recognizing and classifying child pornography as a category of material outside the First Amendment's protection is not incompatible with this Court's decisions dealing with what speech is unprotected. [...] ****** Copyright (c) 1994 Albany Law Journal of Science & Technology Albany Law Journal of Science & Technology 1994 4 Alb. L.J. Sci. & Tech. 311 LENGTH: 10368 words COMMENTS: WHY THE POSSESSION OF COMPUTER-GENERATED CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CAN BE CONSTITUTIONALLY PROHIBITED David B. Johnson TEXT: [*312] I. INTRODUCTION The computer revolution is sweeping across the world. Like the Industrial Revolution of the nineteenth and early twentieth century, the computer has brought and will continue to bring profound changes to our society. In many instances, computer technology has advanced faster than the laws governing it. n1 Some critics fear that computer technology is growing so fast that "society will be . . . unprepared [to deal with] the moral and legal havoc it will create and the questions it will pose for human identity and privacy." n2 The computer revolution already has brought society its fair share of moral and legal havoc. n3 However, what is to come will tax society's moral and legal systems on an even greater scale. [...]

1 0