Re: crypto for porno users
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
I'm soory but I don't care if the images come from mars . Jerking off to the images of kids is sick.
Kids like Tracy Lords, who looked to be over 18 in all her movies? (All of which are now illegal to own because she was under 18 when she made them.) Adam "Clearly a sicko who should be locked up for his own good." Moroni wrote: | I'm soory but I don't care if the images come from mars . Jerking off | to the images of kids is sick. -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hello E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU> and moroni@scranton.com and cypherpunks@toad.com Allen wrote:
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 ...
I believe that the thread originally was on pornography in general, not any particulary type... One reason to talk of it might be that users of legitimate pornography (non-violent erotica, X, whatever you call it) are a likely adopter of privacy technology (encryption, e cash, anon, etc). They may also be a sufficiently numerous group to affect elections, should one or the other party actually be better than the other. Particularly in Australia, where I understand X-rated material may be sold only in the Territories, and anyone living in one of the States has to drive over or mail-order. <offtopic> ...
governmental censorship. Consequently, I would like to give two counterarguments to the idea that child pornography is not something that should be cryptographically protected. ... [age of consent; generated without children] ...
One can even imagine situations with real live child pornography... Should one be forbidden from distributing pictures of oneself when one was younger? </offtopic> However, I speak from assumptions and newspaper reports, not personal experience, so all of the above may be way off :-) Adiau - Jiri - -- If you want an answer, please mail to <jirib@cs.monash.edu.au>. On sweeney, I may delete without reading! PGP 463A14D5 (but it's at home so it'll take a day or two) PGP EF0607F9 (but it's at uni so don't rely on it too much) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2i iQCVAwUBMLamJSxV6mvvBgf5AQGuagQAhGbN/16ALjnDKKJMlPpfbctBkXt7gpZl zh+lx+w+u0jIYG6whmCwpPnSPpo1MjorHvhZ/5B/h+WonXYfSw+ZFo0ziOCtIh5S L0Jyp2LnJaU4mqggVwqMfBVlQ31Ax3sSuxxxI2YhQygrx4BauPhHMnJJnDxs7Uj0 qKFVGTK53WI= =m8px -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
"E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH@mbcl.rutgers.edu> writes:
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.
... I recall that a man was recently convicted in Canada on child pornography charges (sorry, can't recall the exact statute name) for, basically, drawing naked kids on his computer. No children were harmed, or otherwise involved in producing the material, but the courts found it to be child pornography. --- Dr. Dimitri Vulis Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
participants (5)
-
Adam Shostack -
dlv@bwalk.dm.com -
E. ALLEN SMITH -
Jiri Baum -
Moroni