Anti-porn conference in Manila

The Religious Alliance Against Pornography has been holding a biggish 
conference in Manila; the focus is on child pornography, and a major topic
of discussion is the evil of electronic networks. The Interpol is among those
participating; the head of their kiddie-porn division claims Britain is the
source of most European stuff, and bemoans the fact that too little is spent
on monitoring traffic, as the war against drugs is considered more important.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rishab Aiyer Ghosh                                "In between the breaths is
rishab@dxm.ernet.in                                  the space where we live"
rishab@arbornet.org                                        - Lawrence Durrell
Voice/Fax/Data +91 11 6853410  
Voicemail +91 11 3760335                 H 34C Saket, New Delhi 110017, INDIA

rishab@dxm.ernet.in wrote:

> The Religious Alliance Against Pornography has been holding a biggish 
> conference in Manila; the focus is on child pornography, and a major topic
> of discussion is the evil of electronic networks. The Interpol is among those
                                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> participating; the head of their kiddie-porn division claims Britain is the
> source of most European stuff, and bemoans the fact that too little is spent
> on monitoring traffic, as the war against drugs is considered more important.

Perhaps it will become "Internetpol"?

Seriously, there is considerable danger that the growing chorus of
alarmist nonsense about the Net being used for child porn, for snuff
films, for weapons secrets deals, etc., will result in the U.S.
Net.Cops linking up with their European and Asian associates.

The recent stuff on "international key escrow," a la the conference
last September, is worrisome.

(I don't think they can win, of course, but any accleration of their
efforts is cause for increased vigilance.)

--Tim May


-- 
..........................................................................
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
                       | knowledge, reputations, information markets, 
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
Cypherpunks list: majordomo@toad.com with body message of only: 
subscribe cypherpunks. FAQ available at ftp.netcom.com in pub/tc/tcmay

Timothy C. May says:
> Seriously, there is considerable danger that the growing chorus of
> alarmist nonsense about the Net being used for child porn, for snuff
> films, for weapons secrets deals, etc., will result in the U.S.
> Net.Cops linking up with their European and Asian associates.

I was rather amused at the forum given by the New York City Bar
Association on Clipper. The FBI representative not only trotted out
the four horsemen of the infocalypse -- in order, in a single
sentence! -- but also at one point spoke of snuff films.

He said, in what I found to be the greatest denial of logical thinking
I've seen in years, that he's not ready to give up and say that the
genii is out of the bottle -- as though he could put it back by force
of will.

I spoke with Stuart Baker for a while, during which time he informed
me that he didn't think the internet could possibly last.

> The recent stuff on "international key escrow," a la the conference
> last September, is worrisome.

Dorothy Denning is running another such conference soon.

Perry

On Sun, 22 Jan 1995, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> I spoke with Stuart Baker for a while, during which time he informed
> me that he didn't think the internet could possibly last

I find that most statists on the internet assume that the internet
is some kind of government service.

When they discover that it is not, they wonder how it can possibly
exist, and assume it will soon collapse.

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          |  
We have the right to defend ourselves     |   http://www.catalog.com/jamesd/
and our property, because of the kind     |  
of animals that we are. True law          |   James A. Donald
derives from this right, not from the     |  
arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.  |   jamesd@netcom.com

"James A. Donald" says:
> On Sun, 22 Jan 1995, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> > I spoke with Stuart Baker for a while, during which time he informed
> > me that he didn't think the internet could possibly last
> 
> I find that most statists on the internet assume that the internet
> is some kind of government service.
> 
> When they discover that it is not, they wonder how it can possibly
> exist, and assume it will soon collapse.

I got the distinct impression that he didn't know that the internet
was in real use by big companies to conduct their daily affairs. When
I asked him if he'd ever heard of Cisco, he said he hadn't; he seemed
slightly suprised when I explained that it was a Fortune 500 company
that basically did nothing but sell internet routing equipment.

I don't know if the bastards are posing or are legitimately ignorant
but either way they are dangerous.

.pm

tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May) writes:

> rishab@dxm.ernet.in wrote:
> > The Religious Alliance Against Pornography has been holding a biggish 
> > conference in Manila; the focus is on child pornography, and a major topic
> > of discussion is the evil of electronic networks. The Interpol is among tho
> 
> Perhaps it will become "Internetpol"?

The Interpol, like many national police agencies, already does attempt to
police the Net. While their work against narcotics and money launderers deals
primarily with the phone network, _child_ pornography (which is legal in
places, but like all porn is illegal if non-consensual, as is usually the
case with kidporn), software piracy, and conspiracy/terrorism is hunted for
in cyberspace. For instance, there was this noise a while ago when they
stumbled on a xenophobic European BBS that had a hit-list of 'black' 
sympathizers. Naturally they aren't particularly good at net.policing, and
no one can ever really be.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rishab Aiyer Ghosh                                "In between the breaths is
rishab@dxm.ernet.in                                  the space where we live"
rishab@arbornet.org                                        - Lawrence Durrell
Voice/Fax/Data +91 11 6853410  
Voicemail +91 11 3760335                 H 34C Saket, New Delhi 110017, INDIA

On Mon, 23 Jan 1995 rishab@dxm.ernet.in wrote:
> The Religious Alliance Against Pornography has been holding a biggish 
> conference in Manila; the focus is on child pornography,

These international conferences are usually held in pleasant
tourist spots, and most of the participants usually members
of QUANGOs -- nominally private organizations that directly
or indirectly receive large amounts of government funds.

The major tourist attraction of the Phillipines is of course
the large number of whores available at very cheap prices -- many
of them extremely young.

Now the American religious right receives very little money
from the government (as yet) so I doubt there are too many
US Christian rightists attending the conference.

Both Australia and England have government established
religions, so I expect there was a major turn out from
those two nations.

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          |  
We have the right to defend ourselves     |   http://www.catalog.com/jamesd/
and our property, because of the kind     |  
of animals that we are. True law          |   James A. Donald
derives from this right, not from the     |  
arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.  |   jamesd@netcom.com

On Sun, 22 Jan 1995, James A. Donald wrote:

> Both Australia and England have government established
> religions, so I expect there was a major turn out from
> those two nations.

An extract from the Australian Constitution:

116. The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any
religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the
free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as
a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth. 

Do please explain.

-- 
Dave Horsfall (VK2KFU) | dave@esi.com.au | VK2KFU @ VK2AAB.NSW.AUS.OC | PGP 2.6
Opinions expressed are mine. | E7 FE 97 88 E5 02 3C AE  9C 8C 54 5B 9A D4 A0 CD

On Mon, 23 Jan 1995, Dave Horsfall wrote:

> Date: Mon, 23 Jan 1995 17:11:20 +1100 (EST)
> From: Dave Horsfall <dave@esi.COM.AU>
> To: cypherpunks@toad.com
> Subject: Re: Anti-porn conference in Manila
> 
> On Sun, 22 Jan 1995, James A. Donald wrote:
> 
> > Both Australia and England have government established
> > religions, so I expect there was a major turn out from
> > those two nations.
> 
> An extract from the Australian Constitution:
> 
> 116. The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any
> religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the
> free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as
> a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth. 
> 
> Do please explain.

Church of England in Australia was, and I believe still is, government 
funded by the Australian government.

Furthermore when my kids went to government school in NSW, Australia,
they were taught Church of England religion by my neighbor, Mrs Law, 
in school, in the classroom.  

If it quacks like a duck ...

I was unaware of the portion of the constitution that you mention.

I suspect that the government and the church are none to clear on it
either.


 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          |  
We have the right to defend ourselves     |   http://www.catalog.com/jamesd/
and our property, because of the kind     |  
of animals that we are. True law          |   James A. Donald
derives from this right, not from the     |  
arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.  |   jamesd@netcom.com

On Jan 23, 12:06am, James A. Donald wrote:
> Church of England in Australia was, and I believe still is, government
> funded by the Australian government.

Please substantiate.  I am aware of no government funding to the
Anglican Church in Australia.

> Furthermore when my kids went to government school in NSW, Australia,
> they were taught Church of England religion by my neighbor, Mrs Law,
> in school, in the classroom.

When I went to school (government school) the religion taught depended on
exactly who they could get to teach it.  If they could get COE, they got
COE.  If they could get Catholic, they got Catholic.  If they couldn't,
the rest of the kids got shoved into whichever group seemed most
appropriate, or allowed not to attend scripture at all.  This led to
some interesting mixes, and some interesting people to teach it
(my favorite was a guy who had been in the Belgian Resistance during
WWII, and had been war-wounded by a German soldier.  It took us the
whole term to get it out of him that he'd been shot in the butt.)

I'd also point out the funding to private religious schools does not
discriminate on the basis of religion.  Hardly indicative of a state
religion, surely.

> If it quacks like a duck ...

And if it doesn't, it's not a duck.

> I suspect that the government and the church are none to clear on it
> either.

Hmmm... try as I might, I cannot think of a recent decision which
received any specific denominational influence.  Even the Festival of
Light is becoming a political irrelevancy.

							Ian.

On Mon, 23 Jan 1995, James A. Donald wrote:

> Church of England in Australia was, and I believe still is, government 
> funded by the Australian government.

As are many other schools of various religious persuasions.  So?

> Furthermore when my kids went to government school in NSW, Australia,
> they were taught Church of England religion by my neighbor, Mrs Law, 
> in school, in the classroom.  

It's not compulsory - as an avowed atheist I always avoided them.

> If it quacks like a duck ...

Not necessarily...  If they fund one school, they can hardly refuse
to fund others.

> I was unaware of the portion of the constitution that you mention.

Obviously - it's handy having an on-line copy of the Australian
Constitution.  Anyone want a copy?  I don't run an FTP site.

> I suspect that the government and the church are none to clear on it
> either.

You might be amused to know that our Governor-General (the "Queen's Man")
is himself an avowed atheist - is it likely he would have been appointed
by a pro-religious government?

-- 
Dave Horsfall (VK2KFU) | dave@esi.com.au | VK2KFU @ VK2AAB.NSW.AUS.OC | PGP 2.6
Opinions expressed are mine. | E7 FE 97 88 E5 02 3C AE  9C 8C 54 5B 9A D4 A0 CD

On Tue, 24 Jan 1995, Dave Horsfall wrote:

> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 10:56:06 +1100 (EST)
> You might be amused to know that our Governor-General (the "Queen's Man")
> is himself an avowed atheist - is it likely he would have been appointed
> by a pro-religious government?

Establishing a religion is usually an act of hostility towards religion,
not an act of support

He who pays controls.

Recollect how the Church of England originally came to be established?

The King put the church on his payroll, after confiscating its 
independent sources of revenue.


 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          |  
We have the right to defend ourselves     |   http://www.catalog.com/jamesd/
and our property, because of the kind     |  
of animals that we are. True law          |   James A. Donald
derives from this right, not from the     |  
arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.  |   jamesd@netcom.com

On Mon, 23 Jan 1995 rishab@dxm.ernet.in wrote:
> source of most European stuff, and bemoans the fact that too little is spent
> on monitoring traffic, as the war against drugs is considered more important.

What weenies... 

It's a nice metaphor to use, "monitoring traffic".  It sounds like such a 
harmless thing.  Funny how they don't use phrases like "invading 
privacy", "spying", and "searching without a warrant".

					-Anthony