Pornography, What is it?

From: ravage@bga.com
  To: cpunks the world over

Hi all,

I am very interested in the data haven issue now that I have my site up. The
aspect of pornography is a problem that has to be faced. To this end, I would
like to ask that we look at how pornography is defined.

From my own view, I fail to see any way to truly define pornography as 
anything other than the ravings of a neurotic (both on a personal and
a societal level). Every example of pornography I have seen has been put
in that category because it contravenes some personal or group taboo.

Take care.

On Mon, 9 Jan 1995, root wrote:

> 
> From: ravage@bga.com
>   To: cpunks the world over
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I am very interested in the data haven issue now that I have my site up. The
> aspect of pornography is a problem that has to be faced. To this end, I would
> like to ask that we look at how pornography is defined.

What you define as pornography doesn't mean shit, it's what the media and 
jornalists and fundies etc.. decide is pornographic that you gotta watch 
out for.  This means just about anythign that isn't vanilla After School 
Special material is suspect.  

I too mayt have a site int eh near future, so I am interested int eh 
project also, as I have always been really into the idea of data-havens. 
I think that a self-sufficient data-haven is going to need alot of 
resources tho to continue it's operation past the pont were it is known 
to exist.

i want to know everything          http://www.mcs.com/~nesta/home.html
i want to be everywhere                     Nesta's Home Page        
i want to fuck everyone in the world               &
i want to do something that matters         /-/ a s t e zine

> > 
> > I am very interested in the data haven issue now that I have my site up. The
> > aspect of pornography is a problem that has to be faced. To this end, I would
> > like to ask that we look at how pornography is defined.
> 
> What you define as pornography doesn't mean shit, it's what the media and 
> jornalists and fundies etc.. decide is pornographic that you gotta watch 
> out for.  This means just about anythign that isn't vanilla After School 
> Special material is suspect.  
>
I am well aware that what I personaly consider pornography carries little
weight. But it does carry some since I do vote. There is the whole issue of
community standard that has been left out of this discussion so far and that
means that I as a taxed land owner (5 acres in Lockhard, TX) get to sit on
juries now and again. In that sense what I believe can carry a lot of weight.
Even to the point of refusing to convict somebody because I personaly feel a
law or precedence is incorrect. But when you consider states like Oregon where
the whole concept of pornography has been removed from the books it makes me
have a little hope for sanity. My personal contention is that pornography
does not exist any more than good or evil do, these concepts are based on our
personal ethos not anything absolute.
 
> I too mayt have a site int eh near future, so I am interested int eh 
> project also, as I have always been really into the idea of data-havens. 
> I think that a self-sufficient data-haven is going to need alot of 
> resources tho to continue it's operation past the pont were it is known 
> to exist.
> 
As to data havens being dangerous to run...I don't know. At the recent HoHoCon
there was a long discussion 'bout networks hidden within networks that was very
intriguing. If Doug Barnes is reading this he may be willing to reiterate some
of the talk. I do know that at the moment my partners and myself are looking
at remailer software running under Linux and data havens are something that we
have discussed. I personaly see data havens as a repository for information 
that is beyond the keen of governments to regulate. This is the key point to
me. Not whether it is industrial secrets, military secrets, or .gif's that 
jr. can get his rocks off over. I see the whole pornography issue as a red
herring that keeps the dim-witted and ignorant busy on while everyone else
with a clue gets on with their own personal agenda. I do not mean this to imply
a conspiracy, simply that most DA's have something they want (ie political 
clout) and they will in general do whatever it takes to get. In a sense one
could consider such regulatory agencies as mercenaries for personal gain.


> i want to know everything          http://www.mcs.com/~nesta/home.html
> i want to be everywhere                     Nesta's Home Page        
> i want to fuck everyone in the world               &
> i want to do something that matters         /-/ a s t e zine
>

On Mon, 9 Jan 1995, root wrote:

> As to data havens being dangerous to run...I don't know. At the recent HoHoCon
> there was a long discussion 'bout networks hidden within networks that was very
> intriguing. If Doug Barnes is reading this he may be willing to reiterate some
> of the talk. I do know that at the moment my partners and myself are looking
> at remailer software running under Linux and data havens are something that we
> have discussed. I personaly see data havens as a repository for information 
> that is beyond the keen of governments to regulate. This is the key point to
> me. Not whether it is industrial secrets, military secrets, or .gif's that 
> jr. can get his rocks off over. 

This is something I have been doing seom writing on lately, teh idea of 
nets on top of nets, the almost fractal nature of networking of this 
scale and horizontal nature on the INternet.  A DatHaven, like I 
mentioned in another post, is a vauge name, it could be some hacker kid 
with a lot of space on his HD and a fast modem who hacks the local 
univeristy and installes term, riggin his term connection to allow FTP 
connections, or telnet connections, or it oculd be someone with a decent 
size dinvestor backing him up as he gets a site linked ot teh net from 
some Carribean Island, who collects and intercepts TRW and Equifax like 
data on credit transactions and shit like that, selling it to those about 
to invest in soemone or something and want more info on it.  OR maybe 
it's an elaborate set-up of mail aliases thru remailer chains and 
clearing stations that lead to data safe deposit boxes, where someone can 
leave a large amount of date anon, and then allow osmeone else to 
retrieve it anon also.  With suffiecient planning, coding and equipment a 
datahaven could perform almost all the ideas that Tim came up with in his 
cyphernomicon, from selling crdit info, to a data drop box, to a holding 
agent for anon transactions(can't remember proper term).

damn I wish I could have made it to HoHoCon.

> From: root <root@einstein.ssz.com>
[...]
> > What you define as pornography doesn't mean shit, it's what the media and 
> > jornalists and fundies etc.. decide is pornographic that you gotta watch 
> > out for. [...]
> >
> I am well aware that what I personaly consider pornography carries little
> weight.

One minor nit.  Pronography is not illegal, obscenity is what is regulated.
The difference between the two the fine line upon which we tread.

> As to data havens being dangerous to run...I don't know. At the recent
> HoHoCon there was a long discussion 'bout networks hidden within networks
> that was very intriguing. If Doug Barnes is reading this he may be
> willing to reiterate some of the talk. I do know that at the moment my
> partners and myself are looking at remailer software running under Linux
> and data havens are something that we have discussed.

That was my talk, and if I ever get around to it I will be putting my notes
and design details for underground internetworking up on the web.  These
notes include the slides from the talk and the technical notes relating to
this issue...

jim

> [...]
> > > What you define as pornography doesn't mean shit, it's what the media and 
> > > jornalists and fundies etc.. decide is pornographic that you gotta watch 
> > > out for. [...]
> > >
> > I am well aware that what I personaly consider pornography carries little
> > weight.
> 
> One minor nit.  Pronography is not illegal, obscenity is what is regulated.
> The difference between the two the fine line upon which we tread.
>
If this is so then everything I have read or seen misses this minor point
completely. Every press release, speech, etc. that I see uses the term
pornography, not obscenity. TV preachers, news anchors, newspapers, DA's,
etc. consistently use the term pornography. The state of Oregon specificaly
legalized pornography, not osbcenity. 

I think from a legal standpoint there is little difference between the two.
 
> > As to data havens being dangerous to run...I don't know. At the recent
> > HoHoCon there was a long discussion 'bout networks hidden within networks
> > that was very intriguing. If Doug Barnes is reading this he may be
> > willing to reiterate some of the talk. I do know that at the moment my
> 
> That was my talk, and if I ever get around to it I will be putting my notes
> and design details for underground internetworking up on the web.  These
> notes include the slides from the talk and the technical notes relating to
> this issue...
>
Sorry, for the slip.