Boy, I sure have gotten flamed by the best on this one. And its rather deafeningly silent on the list. I'm bleeding from shrapnel wounds and hung out to die. Let me justify a few things. Enclosed: - why I posted the announcement - why I flamed EFF - things that have upset me about this affair - a classic cypherpunk rant on child pornography worthy of T.C. May * * * I posted the announcement to the cypherpunks because 1) there has been a long past history of interest in BBS type investigations 2) there was a huge flame war over CERT sending a notice to E.Hughes for his FTP site, saying `please look into this'-- this EFF announcement struck me as amazingly similar. (BTW, I had virtually nothing to do with that flame war, which was incredibly prolonged) 3) EFF of course is very close to the cypherpunk cause with S.Steele, M.Godwin, and J.Gilmore regular readers and contributors. 4) consider that comp.org.eff.talk would be another forum, but I rejected it, because this forum is more private and still watched by EFF. * * * Now, why did I flame EFF for this action? In one word: quagmire. I said it was `silly, useless, and damaging' 1) this opens them up to having to do this *regularly*. Is this what they want to be doing? 2) since when does EFF help federal BBS investigations? 3) M. Godwin just got done informing us the beauty of *non* liability with a hands-off BBS operator policy. 4) its silly to post a notice about given filenames. They simply are as amorphous as cyberspace itself. 5) a recall of any type is a notorious way to generate paranoia, perhaps a cure worse than the affliction. this kind of message spreads like wildfire. `What? EFF says file [x] is child pornography?' There are tens of thousands of BBS operators in the U.S. -- is this a service or a disservice to them? hence my urban myth ramblings. 6) Releasing this kind of notice only draws more attention to those files. Suddenly, they become collectors items. People start hunting them down. People create empty files with the same name as a joke. All because `EFF says file [x] is child pornography' 7) many other reasons that will become obvious and important in retrospect, but look like hypersensitivity at this point. * * * I'm very upset that 1) everybody on the list is hiding, and refuses to criticize EFF despite the strong parallels to CERT. at best this is cowardice and at worst hypocrisy. this tiptoeing and silence is very reprehensible, IMHO. 2) it does not appear to me that EFF has thought this through. this announcement reflects on EFF. why couldn't they have phrased it differently? e.g. Agents [x] of government agency [x] have requested that operators remove these files. As it stands, EFF associates its own reputation with this investigation and the file recall. 3) there have been requests from EFF representatives to `let it drop'. well, yes, that is one way of dealing with the issue, but IMHO more appropriate to a species of animal called `ostriches'. 4) in general, I object to this philosophy found elsewhere on the list of `if its in our backyard then don't criticize it'. the Fidonet operators are like this. EFF is like this. The former, in their cryptophobia and surveillance, are implicitly supportive of the philosophy of Clipper and the NSA. The latter, EFF, has a critical role in promoting coolness, not hysteria, among BBS operators. 5) In a rather low blow, S. Steele writes ``I figured those who sought to challenge the child pornography laws would poo poo the message. I guess I figured right.'' For the record, I do not seek to challenge child pornography laws or federal investigations. My message made rather clear that I was objecting to the role of *EFF* in the affair. * * * Lastly, I guess I'm a little confused. tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)
No, I won't say it was silly, useless, or damaging. [...] Do I hear any volunteers to become a test case?
I tweaked T.C. May in the hope of seeing a message analyzing child pornography in digitized images over cyberspace, because I thought I recall him writing a rather amazing essay on the subject some months ago on the list. Apparently, based on my recent private email exchange, he wasn't associated with that. I guess I just misremembered because it seemed like such a classic cypherpunkesque rant in the spirit of his best. Anyway, as I recall, *someone* about 3 or 4 months ago posted to the list a remarkable analysis of a brouhaha surrounding the creation of the group `alt.pictures.erotica.children'. The person talked about posting a PGP file to the group, as I recall with an anonymous remailer, and then talked about the fierce reaction (melee?) involved. The person stated that the group appeared to have been created as a joke, and the file itself as PGP code was actually not legal syntax for `plausible deniability' of the author, but nevertheless raised important questions. The essay talked about the fruitlessness of trying to track down actual `child pornography' over cyberspace. One of the main points was that child pornography is not illegal everywhere, as I recall the person mentioned Denmark as a place where it particularly flourishes. Is a GIF illegal if it was taken in a country that prohibits it? that's easy. But what about if it was taken in a country where it was legal and imported? well, in the U.S. this is illegal too. But the poster raised a lot of other very fascinating questions that were highly relevant to pornography in cyberspace. Digital composition tools allow artist to cut and paste pictures with astonishing realism. What about a situation where adult models (as young as possible) are used and child's faces are plastered on top? Or how about the situation where *entirely imaginary pictures* are created? These are very real possibilities. Are they illegal too? How is it that just a particular configuration of pixels constitutes illegal pornography, and another does not? I think the poster made various humorous remarks about baby pictures too -- the type of children on bearskin rugs. Shall we imprison all parents that have taken these? (ug, I can't wait for all silly flames on the `I know it when I see it' definition of pornography.) This was my point with the EFF warning: the whole area is a quagmire, and the only consistent and enforceable philosophy seems to be a `hands off' approach. It is very likely to evolve in the long-term future because of all the quandaries. And in particular I was hoping the essay would pop up again on the list so they could see that perspective. Anyway, the poster then made some characteristic comments about the changes that cyberspace will introduce to these kind of pornography laws. The whole essay was such a brilliant exercise, IMHO, and involved actual `research' and `analysis', that I guess I just sort of misremembered T.C. May writing it, but apparently this is not the case. Anyway, I apologize for the misattribution. Just `attribute the misattribution' to my degenerating memory for specifics after 35 hundred cypherpunk postings <g> (But I would be fascinated to see that essay again, if anyone has a clue of what I'm talking about. Hopefully the writer is still on the list, has it in archives, and can post it. It's highly germane to the EFF warning, and was a really brilliant cypherpunk document, IMHO. If I'm just hallucinating over the whole thing, well, maybe its time for me to unsubscribe <g> )