From: IN%"moroni@scranton.com" "Moroni" 24-NOV-1995 14:52:11.13

I wish we could get off the subject of the kiddie porn , it makes me wonder what people on this list are doing when they are not mailing out letters. Not to flame ,BUT it is such a serious issue and we all as adults and approaching adults should not treat it as an academic issue . It is the most victimizing of all crimes and I think of speak for some of us when I say that it would be better if we all found a way to get back to discussing the problems of cryptography as related to we not pornographers.

I can see one argument that one should not discuss such unpopular topics. That argument is that the person who brought them up may act as a (hopefully inadvertent) _agent provocateur_ for those who would condemn cryptography for protecting child pornography and similarly unaccepted practices. However, I regard self-censorship in reaction to fears of government as as evil as governmental censorship. Consequently, I would like to give two counterarguments to the idea that child pornography is not something that should be cryptographically protected. The first is that one may legitimately disagree with the government on what is child pornography. For instance, one may disagree on what minimum age should be used. Governments are known for being quite incoherent on rules on sexuality and the age of consent. For instance, Britain's age for consent depends on the type of sexuality involved; heterosexual sex receives a more lenient age (18) than homosexual (21). (There are also, of course, difficulties caused by such legal inconsistencies as simultaneously deeming someone not to be of consenting age for sex yet to be considered an adult when charged with murder; I refer to the infamous Bobbit (sp?) trials). The second is that given new image modification technologies, it is possible to produce what will seem child pornography, but with no actual harm done to children. In some ways, this product may reduce harm to children in some respects by providing a "competing product" to actual child pornography, and thus discourage its manufacture. Some will argue that such simulated child pornography is useful by pedophiles in persuading children; this argument appears similar to the one against cryptography that it can be used for purposes generally agreed to be illegitimate. I trust that the list does not find such an argument to be valid. I will mention in this regard that I have no personal want to see child pornography. However, I support the right of those who do to do so, if no harm to others is committed. Sincerely Yours, -Allen