pornography & the ``cypherpunk cause''
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.
"L. Detweiler" writes:
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'.
Seems to me it only implies that the files are central to a particular investigation. Unless you take the Ed Meese line that if you're a suspect then ipso facto you're a criminal, the implication has no legal weight (says this non-lawyer).
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.
Think of it this way. If I'm tooling down the Interstate at 75 and my passenger says Though ultimately you will have to make this decision for yourself, because in your capacity as driver of this motor vehicle you are solely responsible for adherence to state and local traffic ordinances, you should be aware that an official affiliated with a law enforcement organization is at this moment using a speed measurement device from his vehicle parked ahead of us behind a bush, and that there may be legal ramifications to his detection of your current speed. I'd be like real pissed off while the ticket was being written. If, on the other hand, my companion said TROOPER! SLOW DOWN! we'd probably make it to Stuckey's before they ran out of pecan log roll. -- Mike McNally
In message <9310131248.AA27665@vail.tivoli.com>, Mike McNally writes:
Think of it this way. If I'm tooling down the Interstate at 75 and my passenger says Though ultimately you will have to make this decision for yourself, because in your capacity as driver of this motor vehicle you are solely responsible for adherence to state and local traffic ordinances, you should be aware that an official affiliated with a law enforcement organization is at this moment using a speed measurement device from his vehicle parked ahead of us behind a bush, and that there may be legal ramifications to his detection of your current speed. I'd be like real pissed off while the ticket was being written. If, on the other hand, my companion said TROOPER! SLOW DOWN!
A counter-example might be: 1) Someone breaks down my door while I am eating. As per California law there is a REBUTABLE PRESUMPTION (embedded in statutory law) that my life is in danger and that deadly force is justified. Consequently, my response to the situation is ruled justifiable homicide. 2) Someone breaks down my door while I am eating. A feeble minded guest of mine shouts out "I don't think he's armed." Consequently, the police find that the man is either not armed or had a water pistol. I might do 5-10 for manslaughter or 2nd degree murder. Your example doesn't involve a law that requires knowledge or a state of mind to be guilty. Laws about the transport of illegal information do! -- Edward Elhauge | "The only thing worse than being talked about Lever Industries | is not being talked about." San Francisco | -- Oscar Wilde ee@lever.com |
LD: [the comparison of EFF's note to CERT's, from L. Detweiler, 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 [...] things like what has been called the `Tim May .sig Agenda' because some people might have strong opinions?
I won't speak for CPs at large on what is important to them, but I think several things are a little off here. To keep it short, and hopefully end this marginal thread, the important difference between the "warnings" from EFF and CERT [the old one, not the recent one about the security tester] is INTENT. CERT is not Officer Friendly. They can sometimes be OK, but the message in question was rather big brotherish. Does anyone here really WANT to have CERT telling you what they think you should do? I don't. The EFF on the other hand posted this material specifically to help people AVOID being trapped in a situation that may result in prison terms. The other side of the fence entirely. As I've explained to Lance in email, it's like the difference between a cop saying "I don't think you should be drinking", and a person warning their friend drinking in the park,"Better ditch that beer, here come the cops." That, and I really don't think that the TONE of "voice" of the messages in question have anything whatsoever to do with their content. At any rate, I'd really like to just table this matter, it is getting further and further afield. -- Stanton McCandlish Electronic Frontier Foundation Online Activist & SysOp "A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood of ideas in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." -JFK -=> mech@eff.org NitV-DC 202-232-2715, Fido 1:109/? IndraNet 369:111/1
participants (4)
-
Edward Elhauge -
L. Detweiler -
m5@vail.tivoli.com -
Stanton McCandlish