First of all, a clarification. I raised this issue with EFF because I'm utmostly concerned about upholding their sterling image, not because I am trying to start a flame war or engage in a sniper attack. If I had sent email to a few key people there I would have gotten nowhere (as my email actually proves). Here we have a *small personal forum* to discuss this in *unemotional* terms. I raised it in that spirit and am very disillusioned to see it all dragged through the gutter by many respondents. People are reacting like I've said, There Is No Cypherpunk Cause or Eric Hughes and T.C. May Are Traitors. So, I'm quite relieved that D. Frissell has posted some cool comments on case law and others who have focused on the issue of *operator knowledge* related to the law, which was one of my chief concerns from the beginning. * * * S. Steele <ssteele@eff.org>

My warning to sysops simply said that these files were listed on a federal indictment, so the "lack of knowledge of the age of the depicted people" defense remains

The bulletin strongly suggests that the files constitute illegal child pornography. therefore, that would imply to a sensible operator that the age of the people pictured is not above that allowed for legal pornography. The point of *requiring knowledge of age*, in my view, seems to be a subset of a more important idea of *knowing the pictures violate the law*. Knowing the age of the participants is *one* way that one might know that the pictures violate the law. But one may come to that conclusion otherwise. For example, learning that they are the target of a federal investigation into child pornography would imply to a high degree of probability they are `illegal'. Of course, I don't claim to be a lawyer, and this is just one interpretation. perhaps it is mistaken. feel free to correct and insult me at the same time (what fun is it without both?). * * * I would like to say the following. My analogy to the CERT warning that appeared here seems to have completely escaped many, or perhaps everyone is intentionally evading it. The metaphor is extremely compelling. Both are sent to operators in order to bring something to their attention they `might' need to fix by an outside party generally interested in the operators own best interests. While I'm not sure that what CERT did was apropos, that warning was so *delicately worded*. In contrast the EFF announcement SHOUTS IN YOUR EAR. the CERT announcement was extremely diplomatic. the EFF announcement was SCREECHING. Do `we' have *any* consistency, sophistication, or coherence as a group? Recent messages have DISMAYED me. is `our' philosophy nothing but Beavis&Butthead style ``Gubberment and the Fedz and Pigs are THINGS THAT SUCK and EFF is a THING THATS COOL.'' Or do `we' have no philosophy at all? Are `we' just blind, crosseyed, and elitist `codeheads' that char newbies for cruel sport? Is it better to just ignore the `politics of cryptography' which coincidentally involves things like what has been called the `Tim May .sig Agenda' because some people might have strong opinions? If `we' don't have our own house in order, `we' are nothing but LOUD HYPOCRITES. If you don't clean your dirty laundry, IT STINKS. Excuse me, but I think the press adores the Cypherpunk cause, and `we' got press exposure such as the NYT and Wired article, because there appears to be LEADERS and a DEFINITE POLITICAL AGENDA. It appears, reading from those, that perhaps we even view the whole matter of free cryptography use as a MORAL ISSUE, which of course would seem to imply we possess some MORALITY to so claim. Oh yes, what was that hand-wringing a few months ago on the list about the ``MOVEMENT STALLING''? I wonder why! who posted that, anyway? I forget. p.s. I dare someone to post that old CERT announcement sent to E.H. that was posted here and caused such a noxious stink here. Look at how gentle it really is. In fact, I would recommend that future announcements of this sort look to it as a model. It clearly has been finetuned past many revisions. As much as I hate to admit it, CERT has a lot of expertise in dealing with this kind of thing. If anyone wants to emulate them, don't reinvent the wheel. p.p.s. go ahead, flame me into oblivion. ah, anonymously is even better! from people we've never *heard* of before on the list! yes, let everone up to the top tell me what a jerk I am for caring. please be as *emotional* as possible. defend the silly announcement or the Cypherpunk Status Quo as if I had accused *you* of being a child pornographer or traitor. Even better, banish me from the list for my thoughtcrimes! Yes, cyberspatial hemlock is what I need right now.