My War

Way back when in 1995 when I stopped lurking on this list and became a 
regular poster, one of the things I quickly became known for was my 
on-line harrassment of those who had stepped over the line in one manner 
or another in a way that would ultimately hurt us as a group overall.

Many old-timers here will remember my harrassment of Curtis Sliwa and 
Colin Hatcher of the Cyberangels (a.k.a. Guardian Angels). These were the 
fools who organized a worldwide volunteer police-wannabe force that 
searched out indecency (in the generic and ill-defined sense of the term) 
on the net, which when one dug further into their agenda, found it was 
just a ploy for funding and political power. 

My incessant harrassment led to the revelation of many things, most 
importantly that their leader had never ever been on the WWW, stating 
that he didn't have time to do so. This despite the fact he had time to 
organize a police force to patrol it.

There have been many others since then, most not as evil as the 
Cyberangels. They each had their own reasons for harrassment. Among 
some of them have been Carolyn Meinel, O.J. Simpson, Captain Crunch, and 
Gambit.

As many of you know, I make a living as a professional speaker, with 
federal government, military and intelligence communities as my core 
audience. Let me put any fears anyone may have to rest: my work 
concentrates in Information Technology more than anything else, and if I 
get into hackers and hacking, it is more pro-hacker than anything else. I 
am working to improve our image as a community of talented individuals.

I recently went off on a serious rant with three different audiences on a 
topic I felt was seriously exaggerated/over-hyped/fearmongered/bullshit. 
That topic was child pornography on the Internet. If you believed the 
press, child pornography was all over the Internet and easy to get. This 
brought about even more press and some action by our legislators to 
crack down on the Internet.

I conducted an eight-week long search for child pornography late last 
year in the middle of this hype. I searched for, followed literally tens 
of thousands of links and hacked into pay/private porno servers all over 
the world. My opinion based on my results, which were not having found a 
single picture of child pornography anywhere, was that this whole topic 
was a bunch of bullshit.

Well, that all changed a few days ago. I had asked for a software crack 
in a public USENET forum to override the NT4.0 Server 120 day time limit. 
While never receiving the crack, some idiot from an anonymous address 
sent me a child porn .jpg file. Trust me when I say it was child porn; 
the girl was no older than four years old and was very graphic. I 
immediately deleted all trace of the message/attachment. I was also very 
pissed to say the least that some asshole sent me this.

I looked around on IRC on #teensex, and by whois'ing several operators, 
found more insidious channels. Among them are:

#preteensexpics
#littlegirlsex
#100%preteensexpics
#100%preteensexfuckpics
#!!!!!!preteensexpics

There are many others. I joined several of these channels and found that 
upon entering each one, I was auto messaged about special kiddie porn 
servers dedicated to trading, e.g.,

PreTeenSexPics - FTP at 130.67.80.230 l/p ncc/ncc [|]

I logged onto several of these servers, and upon doing an ls-la found 
directories dedicated, among others, to child pornography. CD'ing into these 
directories listed several hundreds of files such as:

9yoshowr.jpg
8&dad.jpg
4yrfuck.jpg
6thgrade.jpg
6yoanal.jpg

These are some of over several hundreds of files in a single directory on 
a single server. There were dozens of servers. I learned the protocol to 
download on these servers was to uplaod pictures you owned and then the 
operator would give you "credits" of various ratios for downloading, i.e., 
upload two pictures, you get credit to download one picture. I uploaded 
generic garbage pics off of a commercial adult web site, and recived 
credit to download three pics. What I saw wanted to make me physically 
vomit (yes, these pics are long since overwritten with 1's and 0's and 
destroyed). To put any doubts at rest, the material was real and fit the 
names of the files mentioned above.

I was also actively sent private messages by those looking to trade. I 
asked what they had, and the usual response was "anything and 
everything." Some of the more common messages were:

"I have 4-12 year old girls both action or pose."
"I have little boys and girls alone or together."
"I specialize in adults with 4-8 year old girls."

I started logging the channels. I wanted to silently gather IP addresses 
and email addresses. These people needed some genuine hacker terror. 
Among some of the more active and persistent traders were:

(*denotes server in operation)

* SylphFox has a ftp at 206.246.162.183 1:2 ratio, anon login
* <hehe@ts33.dac.pace.edu>
* <kiddie@t2o15p13.telia.com>

<suicide@mail1.arnan.com>
<alexis@broken.dartmouth.edu>
<guinness@broken.dartmouth.edu>
<nexgen@philly158.voicenet.com>
<tuvak@ppp-5200-0403.mtl.total.net>
<Triad@an108.tir.com>
<seeme@star090165.galstar.com>
<domain@port182-tnt-ak-2.ihug.co.nz>
<lewisJ@user-37kb329.dialup.mindspring.com> name: Lewis Johnson
<fungus@infounik.com>
<tk@conc0-a03.conc.tds.net>
<pyro@user-37kb97d.dialup.mindspring.com>
<hat@dialin9001.slip.uci.edu> name: Tuyen Ha
<phostis@har-ct5-03.ix.netcom.com>
<polls@175-203-179.ipt.aol.com>

This log was generated in thirty minutes on #100%preteensexpics. If their 
email address appears above, it indicates they were actively offering 
trades or had servers in operation. These people listed above *were not* 
passive participants in the rooms. This represents only a small sampling 
of the overall people in the room at the time. Average number of people 
in each room varies, but seems to number about 40 people per room.

I logged out of IRC, and then went to USENET, in such rooms as:

alt.binaries.erotica.children.pre-teen

There I found several hundreds upon hundreds of .jpg files of real child 
pornography. Several messages also pointed to some WWW sites, such as:

http://www.nudebooks.com

For someone who took a virtual tour of the kiddie porn world for only one 
day, I had the opportunity to download enough files to fully max out an 
IOmega 100MB ZIP disc. **This is not an exaggeration.** Imagine how much 
could be, and has, been downloaded by those who are regular participants 
in this activity.

Well, this whole situation is unacceptable. First, I would like to 
apologize to all those who have hired me in the past, and were subject to 
my emotional rants about how the whole subject was bullshit and not real. 
It is very real. It is disgustingly real. It is so real it will make you 
want to throw up, and I actually, physically did throw up last night.

Second, in reference to previous conversation over the years on this list, 
and in the hacking community in general, I know this type of activity is 
not tolerated by us. I have given you enough information above to start 
identifying the players in this and the places they congregate. It would 
be my sincere hope that hackers of all abilities would spend a few 
moments each day and put their talents to use against these people.

Yes, I am advocating malicious, destructive hacking activity against 
these people. Who are they going to run to? The police? "They hacked my 
kiddie porn server and rm -rf'd my computer!" Right...the police will be 
so anxious to lock us up left and right.

These people need to be eradicated from the Internet. While that may 
never happen completely, enough harrassment will send a message that 
engaging in this type of activity in very dangerous, and can result in 
serious harrassment, public embarrassment and computer destruction.

This is my war. It will be a public war. I don't care what happens to me 
by their community or by law enforcement. I feel secure enough that no 
jury in the world will convict me for taking these people out. I feel 
secure enough that no law enforcement agency will ever take action that 
would place me in front of a jury. And if by some chance I do end up 
being prosecuted, I know what I did was right.

So, now start the logs of the channels and the actions of those in it. 
Now starts the public postings of these logs in various places on the 
Internet. Now starts the harrassment. Now starts the malicious hacking. 
Now starts the war.

I don't expect people to join me here on this. If you do, you have enough 
information to start. I caution you to log what is going on, and to make 
sure you are hitting the guilty, so no innocent people get annihilated in 
the process. Make damn sure you know who you are hitting and why, and be 
able to back it up with the idea of having to justify your actions in 
front of a jury.

And make *REALLY SURE* that if you do come across files of child 
pornography, that you *OVERWRITE AND DESTROY* these files immediately! 
You wouldn't want to be the one who ends up being prosecuted for being in 
possession of this type of material. I would also recommend getting an 
anonymous email account, such as juno.com, mailmasher.com, hacked, etc., 
so that you can conduct your activities without fear of the inevitable 
retribution of those who actively trade this shit when the heat starts 
getting applied to them.

Of all the people who can help stop this, it is us...hackers. Not law 
enforcement, not the government, not the media. Not anyone. Just us, 
hackers who have the talent to do what no one else can.

Please forward this message freely around the Internet. It is not 
copyrighted in any way, shape, or form.

se7en

please post more information about the technical side of your war.

thanks

	- Igor.

> I started logging the channels. I wanted to silently gather IP addresses 
> and email addresses. These people needed some genuine hacker terror. 
> Among some of the more active and persistent traders were:

se7en believes in attacking other peoples equipment and censoring those 
who say things he does not like. Foo.

> Well, this whole situation is unacceptable. 

In what sense?

> First, I would like to apologize to all those who have hired me in 
> the past, and were subject to my emotional rants about how the 
> whole subject was bullshit and not real. 

Is this really relevant?

> It is very real. It is disgustingly real. It is so real it will make you 
> want to throw up, and I actually, physically did throw up last night.

Good, I hope your censorous ass chokes next time.

> Second, in reference to previous conversation over the years on this list, 
> and in the hacking community in general, I know this type of activity is 
> not tolerated by us. 

Do not include me in either the falsely moral "hacker community", which 
does not even exist anymore in the same way it did years ago, or make 
assumptions that I believe certain forms of speech are more valuable than 
others.

> Yes, I am advocating malicious, destructive hacking activity against 
> these people. Who are they going to run to? The police? "They hacked my 
> kiddie porn server and rm -rf'd my computer!" Right...the police will be 
> so anxious to lock us up left and right.

Anyone who attacks others peoples computer equipment in this manner 
commits a crime, whether they can respond or not is immaterial, it is a 
matter of morality and respecting other peoples right to free spech and 
their property rights.

> These people need to be eradicated from the Internet. While that may 
> never happen completely, enough harrassment will send a message that 
> engaging in this type of activity in very dangerous, and can result in 
> serious harrassment, public embarrassment and computer destruction.

An aspiring member of the cabal crawls out of the woodwork <sigh>...

> This is my war. It will be a public war. I don't care what happens to me 
> by their community or by law enforcement. I feel secure enough that no 
> jury in the world will convict me for taking these people out. 

"Members of the jury, we only killed him because he was black, surely you 
realise all blacks are scum, don`t you?"

> I don't expect people to join me here on this. If you do, you have enough 
> information to start. I caution you to log what is going on, and to make 
> sure you are hitting the guilty, so no innocent people get annihilated in 
> the process. Make damn sure you know who you are hitting and why, and be 
> able to back it up with the idea of having to justify your actions in 
> front of a jury.

I would encourage anyone who wants to to take retaliatory action against 
se7en or any of his supporters to do so, attacks on freedom of speech and 
attempts at censorship like this cannot be allowed to go unchallenged.

        Datacomms Technologies data security
       Paul Bradley, Paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk
  Paul@crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul@cryptography.uk.eu.org    
       Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/
      Email for PGP public key, ID: FC76DA85
     "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

Paul Bradley wrote:
> 
> > I started logging the channels. I wanted to silently gather IP addresses
> > and email addresses. These people needed some genuine hacker terror.
> > Among some of the more active and persistent traders were:
> 
> se7en believes in attacking other peoples equipment and censoring those
> who say things he does not like. Foo.
> 
> > Well, this whole situation is unacceptable.
> 
> In what sense?
> 
> > First, I would like to apologize to all those who have hired me in
> > the past, and were subject to my emotional rants about how the
> > whole subject was bullshit and not real.
> 
> Is this really relevant?
> 
> > It is very real. It is disgustingly real. It is so real it will make you
> > want to throw up, and I actually, physically did throw up last night.
> 
> Good, I hope your censorous ass chokes next time.
> 
> > Second, in reference to previous conversation over the years on this list,
> > and in the hacking community in general, I know this type of activity is
> > not tolerated by us.
> 
> Do not include me in either the falsely moral "hacker community", which
> does not even exist anymore in the same way it did years ago, or make
> assumptions that I believe certain forms of speech are more valuable than
> others.
> 
> > Yes, I am advocating malicious, destructive hacking activity against
> > these people. Who are they going to run to? The police? "They hacked my
> > kiddie porn server and rm -rf'd my computer!" Right...the police will be
> > so anxious to lock us up left and right.
> 
> Anyone who attacks others peoples computer equipment in this manner
> commits a crime, whether they can respond or not is immaterial, it is a
> matter of morality and respecting other peoples right to free spech and
> their property rights.
> 
> > These people need to be eradicated from the Internet. While that may
> > never happen completely, enough harrassment will send a message that
> > engaging in this type of activity in very dangerous, and can result in
> > serious harrassment, public embarrassment and computer destruction.
> 
> An aspiring member of the cabal crawls out of the woodwork <sigh>...
> 
> > This is my war. It will be a public war. I don't care what happens to me
> > by their community or by law enforcement. I feel secure enough that no
> > jury in the world will convict me for taking these people out.
> 
> "Members of the jury, we only killed him because he was black, surely you
> realise all blacks are scum, don`t you?"
> 
> > I don't expect people to join me here on this. If you do, you have enough
> > information to start. I caution you to log what is going on, and to make
> > sure you are hitting the guilty, so no innocent people get annihilated in
> > the process. Make damn sure you know who you are hitting and why, and be
> > able to back it up with the idea of having to justify your actions in
> > front of a jury.
> 
> I would encourage anyone who wants to to take retaliatory action against
> se7en or any of his supporters to do so, attacks on freedom of speech and
> attempts at censorship like this cannot be allowed to go unchallenged.
> 
>         Datacomms Technologies data security
>        Paul Bradley, Paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk
>   Paul@crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul@cryptography.uk.eu.org
>        Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/
>       Email for PGP public key, ID: FC76DA85
>      "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

Sounds like someone's afraid that se7en might trash his kiddie porn
stock.  How on the HELL do you categorize child pornography as "Freedom
of speech"?  How???  It is disgusting and only extremely sick
individuals take a part in it.  If you're defending it, then excuse me
for rushing to judge, but you are a sick, disgusting ass-fuck that needs
a good shot in the head.

A Hysterical Person writes:

> Sounds like someone's afraid that se7en might trash his kiddie porn
> stock.

As with all hysterical people, the first words out of his mouth are a
pathetic attempt to suggest that anyone who doesn't agree with his
position is a consumer of whatever it is he disapproves of. 

> How on the HELL do you categorize child pornography as "Freedom
> of speech"?  How??? 

While I certainly think that society has every right to enforce reasonable
workplace health and safety standards within the commercial porn industry,
including setting reasonable age limits for employment therein, the
current ban on any and all depictions of the sexuality of minors, even
synthetic ones, is clearly an ideological purge of speech certain people
are uncomfortable with, and not some glowing crusade to protect children
from harm. 

> It is disgusting and only extremely sick individuals take a part in 
> it.

You're right.  Arrest Janet Reno immediately, and confiscate all motion
picture footage of the Waco child torchings. 

> If you're defending it, then excuse me for rushing to judge, but you are a
> sick, disgusting ass-fuck that needs a good shot in the head. 

Sounds like someones socioerotic rehearsal play was severely limited
during their formative years.  Guaranteed every time to produce a cranky
neurotic who displaces sexual arousal into anger when confronted with
erotic imagery involving the young and emotionally healthy. 

Please post again when you have something to say about cryptography, and
try to stay away from the kiddie pool.

--
     Mike Duvos         $    PGP 2.6 Public Key available     $
     mpd@netcom.com     $    via Finger.                      $

At 03:02 PM 6/9/97 -0700, Tim May wrote:
>Precisely. The laws are designed to go after the thoughts. Synthetic
>images, images of little girls in leotards. images of teenagers of legal
>age *in the countries of origin*...none of these involve acts of sexual
>congress with a child in violation of the laws of the U.S. The only crime
>is thoughtcrime.

Lately, I have been thinking much about an old saying: "Everything is the
other way around."

My current interpretation of this rather Zen expression is that what we
know to "obviously" to be the cause is often the effect and the other way
arround.

Let us assume that it is unethical to force children to participate  in the
production of child pornography. (For the benefit of Kent and the more
ignorant people on this list, I will state that I firmly believe this to be
true, despite the fact that doing so should be irrelevant for the argument.)

Furthermore, let us assume that there are a number of individuals who enjoy
looking at hard core child pornography.

The question then is: does going after the distributors provide a benefit
to the children being (potentially) used for such pictures?

The answer is clearly no. By limiting the distribution of an individual
picture, you increase the total number of pictures required to satisfy
market demand. That means more children will be required to meet demand.

Thus, by going after the distributors, Se7en causes more children to be
violated by child pornographers.

The only question that remains is: how can he live with this?

Logic != base emotions,

--Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred.

  Put a stake through the heart of DES! Join the quest at
  http://www.frii.com/~rcv/deschall.htm

Lucky Green wrote:
> Let us assume that it is unethical to force children to participate  in the
> production of child pornography. (For the benefit of Kent and the more
> ignorant people on this list, I will state that I firmly believe this to be
> true, despite the fact that doing so should be irrelevant for the argument.)
> 
> Furthermore, let us assume that there are a number of individuals who enjoy
> looking at hard core child pornography.
> 
> The question then is: does going after the distributors provide a benefit
> to the children being (potentially) used for such pictures?

> The answer is clearly no. By limiting the distribution of an individual
> picture, you increase the total number of pictures required to satisfy
> market demand. That means more children will be required to meet demand.

How do you justify that "clearly"?

I think that your analysis is incorrect.

This is a supply and demand situation. It is very simple to show (as any
microeconomics textbook does) that a tax on the product reduces the amount
of product sold and produced.

Since a unit of product is probably one picture of a child, there are
less units produced if they are taxed.

In the case of child porn, all this persecution is a form of tax, although
not very quantifiable.

igor


> Thus, by going after the distributors, Se7en causes more children to be
> violated by child pornographers.
> 
> The only question that remains is: how can he live with this?
> 
> Logic != base emotions,
> 
> --Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred.
> 
>   Put a stake through the heart of DES! Join the quest at
>   http://www.frii.com/~rcv/deschall.htm
> 



	- Igor.

At 7:52 PM -0700 6/9/97, Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
>Lucky Green wrote:

>> The answer is clearly no. By limiting the distribution of an individual
>> picture, you increase the total number of pictures required to satisfy
>> market demand. That means more children will be required to meet demand.
>
>How do you justify that "clearly"?
>
>I think that your analysis is incorrect.
>
>This is a supply and demand situation. It is very simple to show (as any
>microeconomics textbook does) that a tax on the product reduces the amount
>of product sold and produced.

Your economics education must have some gaps. Look into "price elasticity."
Look also at the markets for illegal drugs: despite severe "taxation" (in
the form of price increases of some drugs, increased prison terms, etc.),
some markets have increased even as prices have increased.

Closer to home, analyze gas consumption as gas taxes in American have risen
nearly 400% in the past 25 years (roughly following the OPEC shock in ;73).

With drugs, knocking out distributors has in many cases increased the
selling price of the drug, making it actually more lucrative for street
dealers to enter the market.

A complicated system, no doubt, but arguments based on "Econ 101" are
usually flawed when dealing with complex systems (something Samuelson would
almost certainly agree with me on).

>Since a unit of product is probably one picture of a child, there are
>less units produced if they are taxed.

This is not at all clear. If the crackdown on child porn, or porn in
general, causes the street price to rise to $10 a picture, say, then many
folks not producing child porn now might be tempted to get into the market.

If you look at your Econ 101 text again, read up on cycles of pork bellies
and suchlike agricultural products. Every shortage is followed by a period
of "overproduction," and vice versa.

What this all means for the porn trade is unclear, but looking at the drug
trade is pretty revealing.

--Tim May

There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws.
Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!"
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

Tim May wrote:
> At 7:52 PM -0700 6/9/97, Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
> >Lucky Green wrote:
> 
> >> The answer is clearly no. By limiting the distribution of an individual
> >> picture, you increase the total number of pictures required to satisfy
> >> market demand. That means more children will be required to meet demand.
> >
> >How do you justify that "clearly"?
> >
> >I think that your analysis is incorrect.
> >
> >This is a supply and demand situation. It is very simple to show (as any
> >microeconomics textbook does) that a tax on the product reduces the amount
> >of product sold and produced.
> 
> Your economics education must have some gaps. Look into "price elasticity."
> Look also at the markets for illegal drugs: despite severe "taxation" (in
> the form of price increases of some drugs, increased prison terms, etc.),
> some markets have increased even as prices have increased.
> 
> Closer to home, analyze gas consumption as gas taxes in American have risen
> nearly 400% in the past 25 years (roughly following the OPEC shock in ;73).

An interesting point, Tim.

Your examples show that over time, demand and supply curves change. For
example, despite taxation, there are more people driving and they have
to drive farther because more people live in suburbs.

I would not be surprised if, when a certain product is taxed, its
consumption would increase over the long run due to many other factors
besides taxes.

The question that is more relevant is, what is the incremental impact
of the tax, that is, what would happen if the tax changed and all
things remained equal? (this may be called a short term impact of the tax)

An example to look at is online [adult] porn. It is, for all practical
purposes, not regulated. We see a humongous number of pornographic
images being created, not surprisingly, even though Lucky's argument
would suggest that there should not be such a variety if anyone can
freely copy them.

> With drugs, knocking out distributors has in many cases increased the
> selling price of the drug, making it actually more lucrative for street
> dealers to enter the market.

Yes, of course the price rises if a tax is imposed. The same econ 101
shows that if the demand is inelastic (as it is the case for drugs), the
buyers pay the bulk of the tax. So of course, the punitive laws
increased prices and made the business more lucrative. But the same laws
have also made drug trade more dangerous, because drug dealers risk to
go to jail and be shot by other dealers.

I would not be surprised to see that when the drug tax diminishes, the
drug use would go up. As a drug-free person, I do not care much about it
as, since drugs would be cheap, drug addicts will not have to kill
people to get a dose. And in the longer run, greater availability of the
images of drug addicts would probably have a good deterrent effect.

The cost of the drug tax to the society is all the inefficiencies
created by it: for example, when thousands of hard working business
people are locked up in expensive jails, it is a cost with little
offsetting benefit. The shootouts between gangs is also a cost insofar
as bystanders are involved.

Also, in an efficient system where people could buy crack at a Walgreens
counter, there would be less people involved in the whole business,
because Walgreens is more efficient at distribution than the inner city
drug dealers. As a result, these former drug dealers would be out of
business and be gainfully employed in some more productive trade.

> A complicated system, no doubt, but arguments based on "Econ 101" are
> usually flawed when dealing with complex systems (something Samuelson would
> almost certainly agree with me on).

Samuelson himself has "proven" some quite funny theorems.

> >Since a unit of product is probably one picture of a child, there are
> >less units produced if they are taxed.
> 
> This is not at all clear. If the crackdown on child porn, or porn in
> general, causes the street price to rise to $10 a picture, say, then many
> folks not producing child porn now might be tempted to get into the market.

Tim, let's compare child porn (with images of persons below 18 years
of age) with adult porn.

In other words, 

	1) there is little difference, in terms of consumer utility,
	   between pictures of 17 year olds and pictures of 21 year 
	   olds
	2) The costs of producing these images, EXCLUDING TAX, are 
	   essentially equal.

That should lead us to expect that without taxes, the number of 16 year
old pictures would be about the same as the number of 21 year old
pictures, give or take 50%.

However,

	3) There is a tax imposed on "child" porn.

And we indeed observe that 

	4) the number of 16 year old images that is available
	   is much, much lower.

> If you look at your Econ 101 text again, read up on cycles of pork bellies
> and suchlike agricultural products. Every shortage is followed by a period
> of "overproduction," and vice versa.

The problem with cyclical products is high fixed costs and high exit costs.

Agricultural products are very specific because their production cannot
be easily changed when the future supply becomes certain. After all, you
can't kill all the little pigs or raze the corn crop and plant potatoes
in June, even  if you know that due to the weather there will be a lot
of it in the market.

> What this all means for the porn trade is unclear, but looking at the drug
> trade is pretty revealing.

Could not agree more.

> There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws.
> Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!"
> ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
> Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
> tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
> W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
> Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
> "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
> 
> 
> 
> 



	- Igor.

On Mon, 9 Jun 1997, Lucky Green wrote:

> Furthermore, let us assume that there are a number of individuals who enjoy
> looking at hard core child pornography.
> 
> The question then is: does going after the distributors provide a benefit
> to the children being (potentially) used for such pictures?
> 
> The answer is clearly no. By limiting the distribution of an individual
> picture, you increase the total number of pictures required to satisfy
> market demand. That means more children will be required to meet demand.

This assumes that supplying the craving for pictures will not increase the
desire to do acts in the real world enough to increase the number of acts

C.S. Lewis once described society as a convoy - and that there was little
disagreement about ships not running into each other.  But he also made
the point that it may be proper to require ships to be seaworthy so they
won't run a risk of running into other ships because they cannot avoid it.

Looking at synthetic child porn may be purely a thought crime, but it
involves breaking a lot of societal taboos.  If someone does not have the
self-restraint to not look at mere pictures, will they have the restraint
to avoid comitting actual crimes?  Pornography is not like reading Rosseau
or Locke since rational enlightenment is not the goal.

Logic != Emotion

But what happens when we deal with individuals who are entirely driven by
emotions, and by the basest emotions possible?

Although you can argue that people may be able to look without touching,
the reason they are looking in the first place involves a release of the
beast within.  How many such people are we willing to trust to keep that
beast on the chain.  The law is currently structured to answer "none" to
this question, and this may be the proper answer.

With guns and explosives, there is greater likelyhood that someone will
injure themselves or their own property on a destructive binge.  This type
of expression is more benign, though I don't think it represents the
better angels of our nature.  But I see no threat to me personally from
such people.

Similarly with most drugs - if the dealers could use the courts to settle
problems like stolen merchandise there would be less violence.  I might
demand someone go to a secure area before taking a drug which will deprive
them of their reason, and not be let out until it is recovered.

But I would not want to have someone leave the two components to a binary
nerve gas on a shelf, with the owner's promise that they will never fall
off and accidentally mix, or believe that the owner will never get angry
and decide to destroy something.  Something intrinsically capable of mass
destruction is also something that can be regulated.

Something that is in and of itself a turning away from reason and giving
in to emotion, and the ultimate destination of that path if it is followed
will result in injury to others, especially innocents, is something that
should be regulated.

This form of "information" is an addictive drug, with the side effect is
that it destroys others much more than it destroys the abuser, and it
doesn't wear off after a drying out period.  (Or could I suggest that they
could watch as much as they want in a secure area, but could not get out
unless they were chemically castrated?)

This does not mean that I am any less a civil-cyber-libertarian, since I
have even more problems with current enforcement of most laws.  That is a
different issue.  I am saying that it should be illegal, not how such laws
should be enforced, and not that we should shred the constitution in
pursuit of these people.

I call bullshit on this whole line of reasoning!

All prohibition of speech should be based on the judgement of whether or
not specific individiuals (not general groups or socienty at large) can be
reasonably be deduced to be at immediate risk or be harmed from that speech.

>Looking at synthetic child porn may be purely a thought crime, but it
>involves breaking a lot of societal taboos.  If someone does not have the
>self-restraint to not look at mere pictures, will they have the restraint
>to avoid comitting actual crimes?  Pornography is not like reading Rosseau
>or Locke since rational enlightenment is not the goal.
>
>Logic != Emotion
>
>But what happens when we deal with individuals who are entirely driven by
>emotions, and by the basest emotions possible?

I find lust to be a noble urge.

What happens when you sell high-power autos to immature consumers which can
only be used as promoted by traveling at speeds well in excess of safe?

>
>Although you can argue that people may be able to look without touching,
>the reason they are looking in the first place involves a release of the
>beast within.  How many such people are we willing to trust to keep that
>beast on the chain.  The law is currently structured to answer "none" to
>this question, and this may be the proper answer.

Following this line of reasoning, isn't it appropriate that any
attractive/exciting experience which gets the adreneline pumping (with the
possibility for abuse and injury to third-parties) be regulated?

>
>With guns and explosives, there is greater likelyhood that someone will
>injure themselves or their own property on a destructive binge.  This type
>of expression is more benign, though I don't think it represents the
>better angels of our nature.  But I see no threat to me personally from
>such people.

I think some families in Oklahoma City may disagree.

>
>Similarly with most drugs...
>
>But I would not want to have someone leave the two components to a binary
>nerve gas on a shelf...

Now you've transgressed from speech to possession.

>
>Something that is in and of itself a turning away from reason and giving
>in to emotion, and the ultimate destination of that path if it is followed
>will result in injury to others, especially innocents, is something that
>should be regulated.

Regulated or banned?  I find war to be the best such example, but we still
have massive armies and a military-industrial complex don't we?

>
>This form of "information" is an addictive drug, with the side effect is
>that it destroys others much more than it destroys the abuser,

Can you back up this assertion with clinical data?

>
>This does not mean that I am any less a civil-cyber-libertarian..

I believe it means you are a wanna-be Libertarian.

--Steve

At 10:12 PM -0700 6/11/97, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Wed, Jun 11, 1997 at 07:18:52PM -0700, Steve Schear wrote:
>> Ideas are not protected speech, since they only exist in the mind, only
>> expressions are protected.
>
>Actually, expression is heavily encumbered with state mechanism, since
>it is expression that is "protected" by copyright.

Quite.

>Ideas are also
>encumbered by the state, through patent law.  The whole notion of
>expression and ideas as property is purely sustained by the state.

Yep.  I have the right, because I have the ability, to think anything I
wish. But as soon as I reduce that idea, for example a patent, to a
tangible form the state has deemed it their domain to regulate it, but only
so far as the property aspect is concerned.  But they shouldn't from a
freedom of expression standpoint.

>
>> As I stated earlier, all expressions (however
>> objectionable they may be to some or many members of society) deserve
>> protection, unless they immediately threaten (or server to incite others to
>> threaten) the physical well being of specific individuals or groups.  Porn
>> and instructions for making conventional or weapons of mass distruction
>> should not be regulated.
>
>It seems to me that your penultimate sentence contradicts your last
>sentence.
>
>--
>Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
>kent@songbird.com			the thief he kindly spoke...
>PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
>http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html



PGP mail preferred
Fingerprint: FE 90 1A 95 9D EA 8D 61  81 2E CC A9 A4 4A FB A9
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Schear              | tel: (702) 658-2654
CEO                       | fax: (702) 658-2673
First ECache Corporation  |
7075 West Gowan Road      |
Suite 2148                |
Las Vegas, NV 89129       | Internet: azur@netcom.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------

        I know not what instruments others may use,
        but as for me, give me Ecache or give me debt.

        SHOW ME THE DIGITS!

On Tue, 10 Jun 1997, Steve Schear wrote:

> All prohibition of speech should be based on the judgement of whether or
> not specific individiuals (not general groups or socienty at large) can be
> reasonably be deduced to be at immediate risk or be harmed from that speech.

So, if "speech" can cause individuals in X to harm individuals in Y, there
is reason to prohibit it.

> I find lust to be a noble urge.

Then you probably find rape a noble deed.  I do not.  If you are referring
to the acts our net.loon often posts to this list, I hope you enjoy
placing yourself at his level.  My ideas originate above my limbic system.

> What happens when you sell high-power autos to immature consumers which can
> only be used as promoted by traveling at speeds well in excess of safe?

Which is why we have Drivers Licenses, lame as they are.  There should be
far more education - Germany doesn't have the same problems, but their
higher speeds are accompanied by higher thresholds for licensing and a
different driving ethic.

> Following this line of reasoning, isn't it appropriate that any
> attractive/exciting experience which gets the adreneline pumping (with the
> possibility for abuse and injury to third-parties) be regulated?

At least Detroit didn't burn down because the Red Wings won.  I would hope
the police are at least worried about riot control, and last time I
checked, inciting a riot wasn't considered free speech.

> >With guns and explosives, there is greater likelyhood that someone will
> >injure themselves or their own property on a destructive binge.  This type
> >of expression is more benign, though I don't think it represents the
> >better angels of our nature.  But I see no threat to me personally from
> >such people.
> 
> I think some families in Oklahoma City may disagree.

The information on how to do demolition is available from the army, and
the ingredients were commonly available.  As was the truck he used to
transport it.  We can prevent many fires by an outright ban on gasoline. 

What item, if banned, would have prevented the act?

> >But I would not want to have someone leave the two components to a binary
> >nerve gas on a shelf...
> 
> Now you've transgressed from speech to possession.

I thought libertarians thought any mere possession should not be a crime.

> >Something that is in and of itself a turning away from reason and giving
> >in to emotion, and the ultimate destination of that path if it is followed
> >will result in injury to others, especially innocents, is something that
> >should be regulated.
> 
> Regulated or banned?  I find war to be the best such example, but we still
> have massive armies and a military-industrial complex don't we?

Within the edited section, I suggested something to this effect.  The
regulation should be such that they can do whatever act where I will be
safe from them.  If they are willing to spend their days in a "Molester's
Monastery", they can look at whatever they want.  You can drink all you
want, but then you cannot drive a car until you are sober.  Anyone willing
to quarantine themselves should be able to do what they want.  People who
want to go out into public have responsibilities.

> >This form of "information" is an addictive drug, with the side effect is
> >that it destroys others much more than it destroys the abuser,
> 
> Can you back up this assertion with clinical data?

Not off hand.  I also cannot back up the statement that I will die if I
drink a particular poison (since I may have a particular immunity) without
conducting the test.  Can you suggest how we may conduct such a test on
kiddie porn without threatening children?

> >This does not mean that I am any less a civil-cyber-libertarian..
> 
> I believe it means you are a wanna-be Libertarian.

No, I am an autoarchist not an anarchist.  I belive in self-control which
is the difference between liberty an license.  If liberty is given to
barbarians it will be lost for everyone.

I want cryptography available even though it makes child-porn easier to
hide for the same reason I want gasoline available although it makes arson
easier to commit.  But I do not have to be pro-arson to be pro-gasoline.

And I can differentiate between ideas (which are protected free speech),
and things without any such content.

>On Tue, 10 Jun 1997, Steve Schear wrote:
>
>> All prohibition of speech should be based on the judgement of whether or
>> not specific individiuals (not general groups or socienty at large) can be
>> reasonably be deduced to be at immediate risk or be harmed from that speech.
>
>So, if "speech" can cause individuals in X to harm individuals in Y, there
>is reason to prohibit it.

Only if the risk is immediate.

>
>> I find lust to be a noble urge.
>

My ideas originate above my limbic system.

Then you've undoubtedly removed yourself from the gene pool ;-)

[snip]
>The information on how to do demolition is available from the army, and
>the ingredients were commonly available.  As was the truck he used to
>transport it.  We can prevent many fires by an outright ban on gasoline.
>
>What item, if banned, would have prevented the act?

None that wouldn't adversely impact legitimate activities.

>
>> >But I would not want to have someone leave the two components to a binary
>> >nerve gas on a shelf...
>>
>> Now you've transgressed from speech to possession.
>
>I thought libertarians thought any mere possession should not be a crime.

I don't have any problem with sales high-performance autos, or for that
matter possession of substances or machanisms as long as any citizen who
can demonstrate (anonymously) to a regulatory agency that they understand
the use of such items can keep them.

>> >This form of "information" is an addictive drug, with the side effect is
>> >that it destroys others much more than it destroys the abuser,
>>
>> Can you back up this assertion with clinical data?
>
>Not off hand.  I also cannot back up the statement that I will die if I
>drink a particular poison (since I may have a particular immunity) without
>conducting the test.  Can you suggest how we may conduct such a test on
>kiddie porn without threatening children?

No, but I think those who suggest such restrictions should be forced to
personally fund such research.

>
>No, I am an autoarchist not an anarchist.  I belive in self-control which
>is the difference between liberty an license.  If liberty is given to
>barbarians it will be lost for everyone.

Liberty never given its won or taken.

Self-control is too nebulous, for me I prefer responsibility.

>
>I want cryptography available even though it makes child-porn easier to
>hide for the same reason I want gasoline available although it makes arson
>easier to commit.  But I do not have to be pro-arson to be pro-gasoline.
>
>And I can differentiate between ideas (which are protected free speech),
>and things without any such content.

Ideas are not protected speech, since they only exist in the mind, only
expressions are protected.  As I stated earlier, all expressions (however
objectionable they may be to some or many members of society) deserve
protection, unless they immediately threaten (or server to incite others to
threaten) the physical well being of specific individuals or groups.  Porn
and instructions for making conventional or weapons of mass distruction
should not be regulated.

--Steve

On Wed, Jun 11, 1997 at 07:18:52PM -0700, Steve Schear wrote:
> Ideas are not protected speech, since they only exist in the mind, only
> expressions are protected.

Actually, expression is heavily encumbered with state mechanism, since
it is expression that is "protected" by copyright.  Ideas are also
encumbered by the state, through patent law.  The whole notion of
expression and ideas as property is purely sustained by the state.  

> As I stated earlier, all expressions (however
> objectionable they may be to some or many members of society) deserve
> protection, unless they immediately threaten (or server to incite others to
> threaten) the physical well being of specific individuals or groups.  Porn
> and instructions for making conventional or weapons of mass distruction
> should not be regulated.

It seems to me that your penultimate sentence contradicts your last 
sentence. 

-- 
Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com			the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html

Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com> writes:

> On Wed, Jun 11, 1997 at 07:18:52PM -0700, Steve Schear wrote:
> > Ideas are not protected speech, since they only exist in the mind, only
> > expressions are protected.
>
> Actually, expression is heavily encumbered with state mechanism, since
> it is expression that is "protected" by copyright.  Ideas are also
> encumbered by the state, through patent law.  The whole notion of
> expression and ideas as property is purely sustained by the state.

Yes - "copyright" is a pretty recent invention.  I don't like it.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

At 2:17 PM -0700 6/9/97, Mike Duvos wrote:

>While I certainly think that society has every right to enforce reasonable
>workplace health and safety standards within the commercial porn industry,
>including setting reasonable age limits for employment therein, the
>current ban on any and all depictions of the sexuality of minors, even
>synthetic ones, is clearly an ideological purge of speech certain people
>are uncomfortable with, and not some glowing crusade to protect children
>from harm.

Precisely. The laws are designed to go after the thoughts. Synthetic
images, images of little girls in leotards. images of teenagers of legal
age *in the countries of origin*...none of these involve acts of sexual
congress with a child in violation of the laws of the U.S. The only crime
is thoughtcrime.

Thoughtcrime.

As for whether it is "sick" to be sexually attracted to an "underage"
person, I sure do recall being attracted to a lot of the girls in high
school, and they were certainly nearly all "underaged."

(I won't delve into this further, and won't get into issues of what the
ages should be. In earlier cultures, girls were married off by the age of
12-14, and boys by the age of 14-16, for various good reasons.)

This "se7en" person should understand that a strong crypto list is probably
the wrong place to find converts for a crusade against thoughtcrimes. For
one thing, what does he think remailers are useful for? Or anonymity? Or
digital cash? Or that evil technology, "morphing."

(A popular project is to use Photoshop and similar tools to juxtapose the
faces and bodies of various celebrities and nude bodies. "Sabrina the
Teenage Witch Meets Tiffany Towers." This act is apparently now a Class A
Thoughtcrime in several U.S. jurisdictions. Amazing.)

Oh, and "se7en" should go back with his newly discovered religious fervor
and watch the movie "Se7en," from whence he got his handle. It has been
declared "violence porn" by some of his ideological fellow-travellers.

Ironic indeed.

--Tim May



There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws.
Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!"
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

Se7en writes:

[The Story of his Mental Breakdown]

I do believe we've found a date for Debbie Mahoney. 

--
Eric Michael Cordian 0+
O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division
"Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

On Mon, 9 Jun 1997, se7en wrote:

> Yes, I am advocating malicious, destructive hacking activity against 
> these people. Who are they going to run to? The police? "They hacked my 
> kiddie porn server and rm -rf'd my computer!" Right...the police will be 
> so anxious to lock us up left and right.

Why not simply trace them down to something close to their identity, and
when confirmed, simply email the newspaper website nearest them.  Why rm
-rf when you can get whatever ID information from the very same hard
drive?  I think this would be a proper, proportional response since the
authorities will do more damage since it won't involve just the computer.