Cyberspace is by nature crime-free

"Bradley W. Dolan" <71431.2564@CompuServe.COM>:
> [Seabrook's rant against flaming]
> project, told me, "You won't have a Waco in Texas, you'll have 
> a Waco in cyberspace.  You could have a cult, speaking to each
> other through encryption, that suddenly erupts in society -
> well programmed, well organized - and then suddenly disappears
> again."  Therefore, in an effort to balance the good and bad

Excuse me? Will the cyberspace Waco abuse children with paddles in basement
'punishment rooms' - maybe by posting their names to alt.basement.punishment?
Will the cyberspace Waco be able to _physically_ intimidate people into acting
against their will?

The major difference between cyberspace and the world of brick houses is that
no _physical_ crime is possible - no matter what anti-porn kooks say, you 
_can't_ rape with words; or murder, or torture or kidnap. Even the pedophiles
(98.3356% of the Net's population, apparently) cannot go beyond _communication_
on the Net... Even if one agrees with the debatable criminality of consensual
sex with minors, the act itself has to be _physical_! The crime cannot be in
discussing it. What's the FBI going to do? Jail people for _talking_ about
murder, or jail _murderers_?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rishab Aiyer Ghosh                                    They came for the Jews,
                                    and I was silent because I was not a Jew;
rishab@dxm.ernet.in                        They came for the Trade Unionists,
                                     and I did not protest, because I did not
Voice/Fax/Data +91 11 6853410                        belong to a trade union;
Voicemail +91 11 3760335      They came for the Catholics, and I said nothing
                                                because I was not a Catholic;
H 34C Saket                                        And then they came for me.
New Delhi                            There was no one left to say anything...
INDIA                                                   ----Father Niemoeller

rishab@dxm.ernet.in writes:

    The major difference between cyberspace and the world of brick houses
    is that no _physical_ crime is possible

Right on.  With the exception of fraud (the danger of which is
lessened by the use of appropriate cryptographic protocols in your
business transactions), cyberspace is essentially crime free.

Mind y'all, when I said "Wacos in Cyberspace: Hear, hear!"  I thinking
of the positive aspects of the former Branch Davidian community: they
were independent, effectively sovereign, and capable and willing to
defend themselves.  (Vernor Vinge's "The Ungoverned"[1] is one of my
favorite stories.)

I *am* *not* fond of their plethora of bad aspects: that they were
religious-fanatic leader-following probably-child-abusing collectivist
loonies with barely a gram of rational grey matter amongst the lot of
them.

    What's the FBI going to do? Jail people for _talking_ ... ?

I'm sure they'd like to.  It would certainly make things more... *orderly*.
"You have been found guilty of Thoughtcrime..."

Actually, in a recent case a person was threatened with jail for
exercising freedom of expression.  Underground comix artist named Mike
Diana recently was found guilty of distributing pornography; he
self-published a xeroxed zine containing his own rather raw artwork.

As part of his sentence, the judge ordered him to *never draw this
kind of stuff again*!.  Seriously: the judge ordered that the guy's
parole officer was to *make unannounced checks of the guy's house
periodically to make sure he wasn't drawing anything pornographic*!
Even if he wasn't publishing it!  [Check around on Usenet for more
details; I can't remember which newsgroups I saw this in.]

ObCrypto: Perhaps Diana could begin drawing on a Mac, and use Stego
to hide his stuff.  "Sure, officer, wanna see some of the landscapes
I've been working on?"

-Anthony Garcia
agarcia@sugar.neosoft.com

[1] Vernor Vinge's short story "The Ungoverned" is a great depiction of
anarchocapitalism in action.  Look for it in either of his collections
"Across Realtime" and "True Names and Other Dangers", both from Baen
Books, in paperback.

"Anthony Garcia" wrote:

> Right on.  With the exception of fraud (the danger of which is
> lessened by the use of appropriate cryptographic protocols in your
> business transactions), cyberspace is essentially crime free.

I have to disagree with this, especially the title 'is by nature'.
Cyberspace as a communications forum still presents many opportunities
for crime as are present in physical and related communications media.
To rattle a few off the top of my head without thinking to broadly:

 - break and enter --> cracking/hacking (whatever you want to call it)
 - vilification, discrimination
 - sedition
 - inciting violence
 - fraud (as you've mentioned)
 - transfering funds, tax evasion
 - illegal business activity, false advertising
 - contempt of court
 - copyright infringment

Admittedly by the nature of cyberspace, detecting and gaining evidence
for these crimes can be more complicated than in a tangible physical
medium, but none the less these actions are still criminal. 

In fact, I think it is much better that these activities are possible
in cyberspace, since it's a better representation of the real world.
Crime is pervasive, it is naive to expect that it would fail to follow
people into cyberspace.

Matthew.

-- 
Matthew Gream
Consent Technologies
Sydney, (02) 821-2043
M.Gream@uts.edu.au