Re: Re: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report
On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, James B. DiGriz wrote:
On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
----- Forwarded message from Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> -----
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> Subject: FC: NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report To: politech@politechbot.com Cc: HLin@nas.edu Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 10:37:21 -0400 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 X-URL: Politech is at http://www.politechbot.com/
Background from Politech archives:
"Net-sex NRC panel asks for testimony, will hold regional mtgs" http://www.politechbot.com/p-01852.html
"Patricia Nell Warren's comments to NAS porn panel" http://www.politechbot.com/p-01615.html
"National Academy of Sciences panel hears about porn & kids" http://www.politechbot.com/p-01571.html
"Free speech advocates fret about NAS Net-porn commission" http://www.politechbot.com/p-01567.html
This is science???
What I want to know is: what color should the pantaloons on the piano legs be?
jbdigriz
Let me elaborate: Panels, meetings, testimony...where's the research? What is even being studied here? This sounds like a "problem" fumbling around until it reaches a critical consensus of definition. The opportunities for shenanigans, for good or ill, should be evident. Personally, I was a horny little fucker as a kid. I won't say when exactly, but the the lurid pulp covers at my eye level at the time tended to focus on Ilsa the she-bitch of the SS S&M type themes. I DID find this somewhat disturbing, if fascinating. It was not till sometime later that a friend and I discovered his father's Playboy collection (my old man kept his stash a lot better hidden) and I was exposed to more gratifyingly wholesome images. I can't say that any of it did me any harm, though. Anecdotal, to be sure, but it tallies with my observations of children in recent years, whether watching cable, surfing, or whatever. I know there are folks who won't abide it, but they will be better served by Consumer Reports. And so I've said my say, jbdigriz
On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, James B. DiGriz wrote:
And so I've said my say, jbdigriz
Uh, ya'll don't all respond at once now. Seriously, I know I'm not a regular poster, but don't leave me twisting in the wind here. I haven't heard this kind of deafening silence since the time I told my lawyer the church job was a frame up and who did the framing. He didn't believe me, but he found out I was right. (I think his point then was "yeah, so?", but he got us off without a trial. Damn sharp attorney, that one.) If you're worried I'm trolling for pedos or something, or if you're some kind of amateur detective like I'm told reads the list, or an armchair psychoanalyst like the ones the FBI hires as consultants, no I don't make a habit of turning the kiddies on to porn, and fuck no I don't let 'em surf using my account. I won't turn off the Playboy channel when they come in the house, unless mommy's with them or something. Well, that depends on the mommy. I was just commenting on what I observe people letting their kids watch and do. jbdigriz
On Tuesday, August 14, 2001, at 01:22 PM, James B. DiGriz wrote:
On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, James B. DiGriz wrote:
And so I've said my say, jbdigriz
Uh, ya'll don't all respond at once now.
Seriously, I know I'm not a regular poster, but don't leave me twisting in the wind here. I haven't heard this kind of deafening silence since the time I told my lawyer the church job was a frame up and who did the framing. He didn't believe me, but he found out I was right. (I think his point then was "yeah, so?", but he got us off without a trial. Damn sharp attorney, that one.)
First, people are less likely to respond to whimsical nyms, even a stainless steel rat. Second, you comment on Declan's forwarding of a forwarding of a Herb Lin call for reviewers for some study his group is doing. Ho hum. Third, the issue of online porn, the CDA, the Amateur Action case, etc. have been discussed many times here. Fourth, Cypherpunks are probably more interested in making sure Big Bro can't block porn, via technical means, than in advising Herb Lin on yet another study. Fifth, you expressed your view of Herb's study. Absent some point, what is there is to discuss? Sixth, you're always welcome to post more. Some things generate interest, some don't. Don't sweat the posts that don't. I don't. --Tim May
On Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 01:53:58PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
Third, the issue of online porn, the CDA, the Amateur Action case, etc. have been discussed many times here.
The NRC study will be very important in Washington DC circles (less important than the Meese commission, more important than the COPA Commission). While it may be of passing interest to cypherpunks, many of these topics have been discussed before, as Tim says, which explains why there's little reaction. -Declan
On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 01:53:58PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
Third, the issue of online porn, the CDA, the Amateur Action case, etc. have been discussed many times here.
The NRC study will be very important in Washington DC circles (less important than the Meese commission, more important than the COPA Commission). While it may be of passing interest to cypherpunks, many of these topics have been discussed before, as Tim says, which explains why there's little reaction.
-Declan
Gotcha. jbdigriz
On Tuesday, August 14, 2001, at 02:36 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 01:53:58PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
Third, the issue of online porn, the CDA, the Amateur Action case, etc. have been discussed many times here.
The NRC study will be very important in Washington DC circles (less important than the Meese commission, more important than the COPA Commission). While it may be of passing interest to cypherpunks, many of these topics have been discussed before, as Tim says, which explains why there's little reaction.
And there is, after all, VERY LITTLE that such a study should do. Some people don't like porn, some people like it. Some subscribe to porn sites, some surf for free, some even generate online and other porn. Some people don't want their husbands to access porn. Some don't mind. Some don't want their children to access porn. Some don't mind. Some people don't want bookstores to carry "To Kill a Mockingbird," some people don't want them to carry "Lolita." Some don't mind. However, in a free society with protections similar to the First Amendment, what people like or dislike is not germane to what government may pass laws about. There is nothing in the First which allows government to regulate speech or music or any other such form of expression based on its offensiveness to some. Nothing. (The landmark Supreme Court cases on obscenity, like Miller, have to do with fairly gross obscenity. Not that I agree they were justified, but the "online decency" issue is a long way from what the Supremes have said may be banned.) "For the children!" is no more a reason to trump the First for Web sites than it would be to trump the First for bookstores, for example, by requiring that "Lolita" be kept in an adult's only section. Or that children not be allowed to enter bookstore's containing images and text deemed unaccepable by some. Nor is "self labelling" acceptable under the First. My words are my words, my pages are my pages. I don't have to "rate" them for how a Muslim might feel about them, or how Donna Rice might react, or whether I included material "offensive" to Creationists. Nothing in the First Whether the technology yet exists to allow parents (or wives) to block certain sites is neither here nor there, and it's a shame something called "The National Research Council" is getting involved in this. By the way, this is an area which is ideal for an analysis using Larry Lessig's "tripod" of "Custom" vs. "Law" vs. "Technology." I wrote about Lessig's model a few years ago. (I haven't read his latest book, "Code," so I don't how he fleshes out the idea....I have combined it with my own models. Maybe I'll write up some thoughts. (Not for Herb Lin, of course. Nothing against him, but these "studies" are usually just opinion polls and are crushingly boring reads. I tried to read the NRC's "Crypto" report...even went to the Palo Alto unveiling. B-o-r-i-n-g!) --Tim May
On Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 03:32:06PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
Whether the technology yet exists to allow parents (or wives) to block certain sites is neither here nor there, and it's a shame something called "The National Research Council" is getting involved in this.
The NRC is very prestigious. It is part of the even more prestigious National Academies, which includes the Nataional Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. It's not really the NRC's fault; Congress made them do it in a recently-enacted law. NRC staffers are trying to make the most of it (though quitting is also an option). The real story here is the risks of having a government-funded "science" center tasked with "investigating" political issues like Net porn. Private research institutions don't have the same problem.
. I tried to read the NRC's "Crypto" > report...even went to the Palo Alto unveiling. B-o-r-i-n-g!)
I found it in a used bookstore yesterday on 18th st NW. Maybe I can offload mine there too. -Declan
On Tuesday, August 14, 2001, at 04:17 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 03:32:06PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
Whether the technology yet exists to allow parents (or wives) to block certain sites is neither here nor there, and it's a shame something called "The National Research Council" is getting involved in this.
The NRC is very prestigious. It is part of the even more prestigious National Academies, which includes the Nataional Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.
I doubt the "prestigious" part, at least out here in the boondocks of Silicon Valley. Herb Lin may be a nice enough droid, but he certainly wouldn't be an attractive hire to the Intels, Ciscos, Ebays, Oracles, and others in the Valley. The last Washington insider hired by a Valley company was, IIRC, Joe Lockhart, former press secretary to Clinton. Larry Ellison hired him to do something vice presidential at Oracle. He lasted several months, then left "to spend more time with his family" or somesuch. (If I'm wrong about it being Lockhart, I'm definitely right about it being Oracle. A search should turn up the details.) The National Research Council is inconsequential, which is why they are now carrying water for the anti=porn crusaders. --Tim May
On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote:
However, in a free society with protections similar to the First Amendment, what people like or dislike is not germane to what government may pass laws about. There is nothing in the First which allows government to regulate speech or music or any other such form of expression based on its offensiveness to some. Nothing.
Maybe, maybe not. I'm the first to agree that porn *should* be treated as equal to other speech, but considering the strength of the opposite view nowadays, I would not be surprised if the First was gutted in this regard. And I think if you look at the history of the Bill of Rights (which Americans naturally know far better than I ever will), one does have some reason to believe the "speech" in 1A is mostly targeted at political speech, even if the meaning is implied.
(The landmark Supreme Court cases on obscenity, like Miller, have to do with fairly gross obscenity. Not that I agree they were justified, but the "online decency" issue is a long way from what the Supremes have said may be banned.)
So how about the "prevailing community standard" part?
"For the children!" is no more a reason to trump the First for Web sites than it would be to trump the First for bookstores, for example, by requiring that "Lolita" be kept in an adult's only section.
The question is, are there enough sensible people around to stop precisely that from happening?
Nor is "self labelling" acceptable under the First. My words are my words, my pages are my pages. I don't have to "rate" them for how a Muslim might feel about them, or how Donna Rice might react, or whether I included material "offensive" to Creationists.
Agreed. But I do think self-labelling is a nice gesture, and may even afford one a direct means of targeting a site specifically for the kind of people most vocal about banning online speech. Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy, mailto:decoy@iki.fi, gsm: +358-50-5756111 student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front
On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
Maybe, maybe not. I'm the first to agree that porn *should* be treated as equal to other speech,
But 'porn' is no more speech than 'murder' is. What makes porn so offensive isn't the pictures, but the ACTS that had to be commited to create the speech. No where in the 1st does it say that you can say and do anything you want as long as it contains 'speech'. While the 'speech' part is really irrelevant (and a wrong-headed way to resolve the issues relating to the acts) there is still the component of the acts against minors that needs to be dealt with. Those acts are in no way 'speech'. -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
Maybe, maybe not. I'm the first to agree that porn *should* be treated as equal to other speech,
But 'porn' is no more speech than 'murder' is. What makes porn so offensive isn't the pictures, but the ACTS that had to be commited to create the speech.
So legislate the ACTS, not the speech.
No where in the 1st does it say that you can say and do anything you want as long as it contains 'speech'.
But one *is* guaranteed a whole bunch of privacy rights and self-determination. If one *wants*, for one reason or another, to engage in the production of porn, who are you to say it cannot be done? The stuff that results is then just speech.
While the 'speech' part is really irrelevant (and a wrong-headed way to resolve the issues relating to the acts)
Of course it's wrongheaded -- you're confusing the act, and the act of distributing a record of an act.
there is still the component of the acts against minors that needs to be dealt with. Those acts are in no way 'speech'.
Not speech, but not relevant either. What results from recording the acts *is* speech, and should be treated as such. In fact, even if the original acts constitute a felony, I think it is a separate issue whether dissemination of the resulting speech can be controlled. Punish the pornographer for any provable violation of other people's rights, but do not touch porn that was produced. Then there's the nagging question of whether all of the so called child pornography actually calls for a violation of a minor's rights. I won't go there here. Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy, mailto:decoy@iki.fi, gsm: +358-50-5756111 student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front
On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
Maybe, maybe not. I'm the first to agree that porn *should* be treated as equal to other speech,
But 'porn' is no more speech than 'murder' is. What makes porn so offensive isn't the pictures, but the ACTS that had to be commited to create the speech.
So legislate the ACTS, not the speech.
But they are auto-catalytic. You draw a false distinction that the 'act' and the 'picture' are somehow disconnected. They are not. Note that I am not in any way addressing text or artificialy created images, or images created by consenting adults. Only those which involve a minor. It is the involvement of a minor which is the deciding line, why? Because they don't have the life skills/experience/maturity/whatever to make the informed decision themselves. The act preceedes the speech and as a consequence looses its protection. It's very like an admission of guilt. The desire to get the 'speech' is what drives the act. To address one and ignore the other is simply not reasonable. The images should be taken as evidence of the act and then destroyed. They should not in and of themselves be left in circulation to promote further acts. And no, this does not violate the 1st in spirit or letter.
No where in the 1st does it say that you can say and do anything you want as long as it contains 'speech'.
But one *is* guaranteed a whole bunch of privacy rights and
No, one is not. There is no mention of 'privacy' in the Constitution. It does talk about 'personal' (and yes, I am aware of the legalistic quibbling this injects into the discussion - I agree with your equating 'personal' and 'private' - IANAL.)
self-determination.
And what about the self-determination of the children? How does allowing porn protect that? It doesn't.
If one *wants*, for one reason or another, to engage in the production of porn, who are you to say it cannot be done? The stuff that results is then just speech.
Are we talking 'adult' or 'child'?...world of difference. The point being, sex between consenting adults isn't 'porn'. It's sex between consenting adults. 'porn' falls into two categories. Only one of which makes any sense. That is regarding minors. The other is a religous perspective based on some of the most twisted Judeo-Christian spin-doctoring around and involves sex other than between a man and wife in the missionary position in the dark with their clothes on. -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Jimbo sniveled:
The desire to get the 'speech' is what drives the act.
Nonetheless, they are separate and separable. Outlawing the act does not require outlawing the speech.
The images should be taken as evidence of the act and then destroyed. They should not in and of themselves be left in circulation to promote further acts.
Actually, it is just as reasonable to think that the MORE kiddy porn there is out there, the LESS acting out there will be (think cathartic release). Also, by letting what already exists circulate, REDUCES the incentive to produce more and, thus, abusing more kids.
And no, this does not violate the 1st in spirit or letter.
Of course it does. What part of "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..." doesn't "Mr. Constitutional absolutist" understand? :'D
There is no mention of 'privacy' in the Constitution.
"Mr. Constitutional absolutist" should have another look at the Ninth.
Are we talking 'adult' or 'child'?...world of difference.
The point being, sex between consenting adults isn't 'porn'. It's sex between consenting adults.
No, but speech about sex between consenting adults is porn. Look it up, "pornography" literally means, "writings about prostitutes," but has been extended to encompass all writings (and other speech) about sexual conduct. By the way, "porn" is not illegal, per se. It's "obscenity" that's the legal bugaboo. Of course, "Mr. Constitutional absolutist" INAL (and never could be). S a n d y
On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
Jimbo sniveled:
The desire to get the 'speech' is what drives the act.
Nonetheless, they are separate and separable. Outlawing the act does not require outlawing the speech.
No they are not. You can't make the picture without commiting the act. If you could, it wouldn't be 'porno', it'd be a fantasy picture or one taken of consenting adults that would fall fully under 'speech' protection. -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Jimbo sputtered:
The desire to get the 'speech' is what drives the act.
Nonetheless, they are separate and separable. Outlawing the act does not require outlawing the speech.
No they are not. You can't make the picture without commiting the act.
A not-so-clever straw man. "Making" the picture is not the speech in question, Duh. Distributing the picture is. And you can distribute the picture, without committing the underlying act yourself.
If you could, it wouldn't be 'porno'...
As I said (and Jimbo ignored), porn is not illegal, per se, only obscenity. Perhaps that is a distinction without a difference, but that's the way the laws work. S a n d y
On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
Jimbo sputtered:
The desire to get the 'speech' is what drives the act.
Nonetheless, they are separate and separable. Outlawing the act does not require outlawing the speech.
No they are not. You can't make the picture without commiting the act.
A not-so-clever straw man. "Making" the picture is not the speech in question, Duh. Distributing the picture is. And you can distribute the picture, without committing the underlying act yourself.
Absolutely the making is 'speech'. The distributing it is 'press'. Only a lawyer would confuse the two. Let's look at the situation, if for nothing else to twist your tit ring... We have a group of persons who commit an act with a child. In the process a photograph is taken. The photograph is distributed. Your (ie CACL) claim is that the picture is not itself a crime, and in particular it is protected as speech. This assertion is wrong. Here's why. The person taking the picture was not the only participant who had a say. Each person in the picture and help create the event had a say. They were a participant in the 'speech' both in act and recording. The distribution, or 'press' is a different issue but follows. Now, the child is clearly a participant in that act as well as a participant in any claim of 'speech' that might be attributed to the picture (or recording, or whatever). Now the standard for expression of ones rights is that you are pretty much allowed to do whatever you want, until/unless you interfere with another. Then your right ends, and their right to self defence begins. Now the child clearly has both a right in the speech aspect as well as the self-defence aspect. So, can the child be 'consensual'? No. Children for a variety of reasons are NOT (and why somebody who claims to be as smart as you do doesn't get this makes me chuckle, google 'paiget' 'volume') simply 'little adults' as was so popularly, and universaly held until the later half of this centry. In other words they don't have the same 'consensual abilities as adults. Our law recognizes this and provides special protections as a result. So, we have a picture, at least one of the participants was forced against their wishes (or their guardians wishes, select as you may) to participate. So, can we really claim that the only issue is the right of speech with respect to the adults? No. The picture is not protected speech by the simple expedient that it was constrained or forced upon at least one of the participants. I guess that 97 percentile doesn't mean as much as you thought. (this applies equaly to Declan's specious commentary as well) -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
The desire to get the 'speech' is what drives the act. To address one and ignore the other is simply not reasonable. The images should be taken as evidence of the act and then destroyed. They should not in and of themselves be left in circulation to promote further acts.
Your assumption here is that leaving them in circulation will promote further acts against children. I do not believe that this is the case. In fact, if anything promotes further acts against children, it is taking such images *out* of circulation. If the desire to get the 'speech' (ie, photos) is what drives the abuse of children, do we not owe it to those children to minimize the motive to harm them? And if the motive is financial, how better to minimize it than to flood the market with public-domain computer- generated kiddie porn? If you saturate the market, then there is no more financial motive to abuse kids. It's plain old supply and demand, right? It's totally obvious to anyone whose motive is actually protecting kids rather than suppressing speech. Which would explain why the american legal system has been missing it so consistently; protecting kids, whatever the rhetoric they use, is not what they want to do. Bear
On Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 01:18:47AM +0300, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
Of course it's wrongheaded -- you're confusing the act, and the act of distributing a record of an act.
Well put. Photographs of murder are legal for newspapers to reproduce, generally speaking, why not porn? But we can't expect Choate to get this. (Additional hint to Choate: Murder is illegal, having sex generally isn't.) -Declan
On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
Maybe, maybe not. I'm the first to agree that porn *should* be treated as equal to other speech,
But 'porn' is no more speech than 'murder' is. What makes porn so offensive isn't the pictures, but the ACTS that had to be commited to create the speech.
You mean acts which consenting adults perform voluntarily? In most off-camera cases, acts which signify love and trust with a life partner? Acts on some of which the continuation of the species depends? The idea that such acts are somehow "wrong" or "criminal" is ridiculous. And you are asking us to believe that the images or descriptions of such acts are heinous because they inherit wrongness or criminality from the acts themselves? Go soak your head. Bear (Who happens to enjoy sex)
On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
Maybe, maybe not. I'm the first to agree that porn *should* be treated as equal to other speech,
But 'porn' is no more speech than 'murder' is. What makes porn so offensive isn't the pictures, but the ACTS that had to be commited to create the speech. No where in the 1st does it say that you can say and do anything you want as long as it contains 'speech'. While the 'speech' part is really irrelevant (and a wrong-headed way to resolve the issues relating to the acts) there is still the component of the acts against minors that needs to be dealt with. Those acts are in no way 'speech'.
So in Choate Prime, in order that one make a movie of a person getting shot in the head, one would have to commit murder? So in Choate Prime, in order that one make a Godzilla stomps on Tokyo movie, one must first see the destruction of the city of Tokyo? So in Choate Prime, in order that one make a movie of an exploding nuclear bomb, decimating Hiroshima, one must build such a weapon and drop it on city? So in Choate Prime, are there no cartoons because it would be impossible to create them in real life? Porn is speech, the same as any other type of magazine, movie, sound, etc. The acts can and have been faked, as are the sound effects. The speech part isn't irrelevant, it's the whole, and only point of this disucssion. Yes, I know you'd bring up kiddy porn, but recall that not only movies of such acts are banned, but so are cartoons, comic books, etc. depicting such acts. In other words, here in the real world (i.e. not in Choate Prime), kiddy porn is thought crime, and thus it is restricted speech. So is going on Yahoo stock message boards and getting people to buy stocks so as to raise their price. So are sexual offers/requests in the office. I'm sure in your next elequent reply you will continue to tell us about your lovely world in its parallel dimension, which has no relation to ours, and we'll read it with fascination. ----------------------Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--------------------------- + ^ + :Surveillance cameras|Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\ \|/ :aren't security. A |share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\ <--*-->:camera won't stop a |monitor, or under your keyboard, you \/|\/ /|\ :masked killer, but |don't email them, or put them on a web \|/ + v + :will violate privacy|site, and you must change them very often. --------_sunder_@_sunder_._net_------- http://www.sunder.net ------------
On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote:
On Tuesday, August 14, 2001, at 01:22 PM, James B. DiGriz wrote:
On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, James B. DiGriz wrote:
And so I've said my say, jbdigriz
Uh, ya'll don't all respond at once now.
Seriously, I know I'm not a regular poster, but don't leave me twisting in the wind here. I haven't heard this kind of deafening silence since the time I told my lawyer the church job was a frame up and who did the framing. He didn't believe me, but he found out I was right. (I think his point then was "yeah, so?", but he got us off without a trial. Damn sharp attorney, that one.)
First, people are less likely to respond to whimsical nyms, even a stainless steel rat.
Ouch, whimsical. Let's just say that keeping the character in mind tempers my comments. Believe it or not.
Second, you comment on Declan's forwarding of a forwarding of a Herb Lin call for reviewers for some study his group is doing. Ho hum.
Be nice if it actually said what it was about, rather than eliciting projections and interpretations on the part of the reader. But, as you say, ho hum. Presumably it is to give "scientific backing" to whatever position Congress wants to take on upcoming issues and legislation, and to couch various, no doubt conflicting, agendas in scientific doublespeak. Excuse my cynicism, but that's the way it looks to me.
Third, the issue of online porn, the CDA, the Amateur Action case, etc. have been discussed many times here.
No doubt everyone is tired of it, then. No problem.
Fourth, Cypherpunks are probably more interested in making sure Big Bro can't block porn, via technical means, than in advising Herb Lin on yet another study.
Or blocking anything else in particular. I concur.
Fifth, you expressed your view of Herb's study. Absent some point, what is there is to discuss?
Mainly I was wondering if others were as dubious as I am at moment about the apparent level of integrity of the NAS. I should research this matter more myself, I admit. If I'm not giving Herb proper credit, even if I remain skeptical of the institution, I'll be the first to say so.
Sixth, you're always welcome to post more. Some things generate interest, some don't. Don't sweat the posts that don't. I don't.
Point taken. Thanks for the response. jbdigriz
On Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 05:50:37PM -0400, James B. DiGriz wrote:
Be nice if it actually said what it was about, rather than eliciting projections and interpretations on the part of the reader. But, as you say, ho hum. Presumably it is to give "scientific backing" to whatever position Congress wants to take on upcoming issues and legislation, and to couch various, no doubt conflicting, agendas in scientific doublespeak. Excuse my cynicism, but that's the way it looks to me.
No cynicism necessary. That's what's probably going to happen. -Declan
On Tuesday, August 14, 2001, at 04:18 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 05:50:37PM -0400, James B. DiGriz wrote:
Be nice if it actually said what it was about, rather than eliciting projections and interpretations on the part of the reader. But, as you say, ho hum. Presumably it is to give "scientific backing" to whatever position Congress wants to take on upcoming issues and legislation, and to couch various, no doubt conflicting, agendas in scientific doublespeak. Excuse my cynicism, but that's the way it looks to me.
No cynicism necessary. That's what's probably going to happen.
Which is what the NRC did with the crypto issue. They sensed which way the wind was blowing (anti-Clipper, by 80% plus if I remember the opinion polls correctly) and came out with a report which massaged the inputs in such a way as to come out against key escrow. If the opinion polls, weighted appropriately by inputs from media conglomerates, conclude that regulation of access to speech is advisable, then the NRC will issue a suitably-weighty report outlining the issues and presenting Congress with options for regulating speech and access to speech. --Tim May
On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote:
Which is what the NRC did with the crypto issue. They sensed which way the wind was blowing (anti-Clipper, by 80% plus if I remember the opinion polls correctly) and came out with a report which massaged the inputs in such a way as to come out against key escrow.
If the opinion polls, weighted appropriately by inputs from media conglomerates, conclude that regulation of access to speech is advisable, then the NRC will issue a suitably-weighty report outlining the issues and presenting Congress with options for regulating speech and access to speech.
Or by inputs from majority stockholders of filtering companies. Oh wait, you said that. jbdigriz p.s. Since there are one or two attractive women out there I know who might concievably chance upon my remarks yesterday, I want to hasten to assure everyone that they were pure hyperbole, to make an, um, abstract philosophical point. Yeah, that's it. I'd never dream of actually looking at that gross, disgusting stuff. Why, it's demeaning to women. Those hussies have nothing on a real woman, anyway. :-)
participants (8)
-
Declan McCullagh -
James B. DiGriz -
Jim Choate -
Ray Dillinger -
Sampo Syreeni -
Sandy Sandfort -
Sunder -
Tim May