Response to "My War"

I have been away for most of the day, and came home to see I hit a 
sensitive spot in one way or another with many people. I tried to respond 
to many people who sent me private messages, but for some strange ass 
reason all of my mail is bouncing as "host unknown." I am quite sure 
aol.com exists. So I am going to try and respond to much of it here. 

In my long rant, I realized the message was getting too long, and 
paraphrased some of my larger thoughts. I figured everyone would know 
what I was trying to get at, but I was wrong. To clarify a few points, 
before I get to the debate:

I was not advocating the destruction of servers that are used by large 
numbers of people. I was thinking of the terminology used by the people 
trading...fserv/ftp servers, many of which are virtual to their desktops 
which can be shut on and off at will by them as desired. My reference to 
destruction of servers fit this definition. I don't want to affect large 
numbers of innocent users to get the few scumbags out there. That is not 
acceptable. Precision strikes yes, not mass strikes for the "greater 
good." That is asinine.

Nor was I attempting, as some did point out, to be some sort of "ring 
leader" in this crusade. I do not plan to organize some large anti-kiddie 
porn team. I plan on spending a few hours a week, on my own, identifying 
active participants in this activity. I plan on gathering logs of various 
types of activity to justify my actions. I plan on taking action which 
will affect only these individuals. I will make public postings on my own 
accord to various places on the Internet (dc-stuff WILL NOT be one of these 
places).

These are things I am doing on my own. If others would like to join the 
effort, I would ask they do the same thing. Spend a few hours a week in 
their world to identify the traders and do what you do best to either 
wreck them or make things a serious hassle for them to continue. I do not 
want a personal strike team to organize and manage.

As far as freedom of speech goes, sorry guys, it does not cover activities 
which violate the rights of others. Someone does not have the right to fuck 
a four-year-old girl in the ass, take pictures of it, and then scan it and 
upload it to the Internet. No one has the right to force a six year old 
girl to suck his dick until cum is running down her face, take pictures 
of the whole thing, and, once again, upload it to the Internet. This is 
not covered. Go back to school if you think it is.

Anyone who thinks this doesn't affect the young children, you are wrong. 
I doubt these children consented to the sexual activity. I doubt they 
consented to being photographed. I doubt they consented to the pictures 
being distributed to others. I am sure this affects the 
emotional/psychological state of the child victim in many ways beyond 
what most of us can understand. I think we can all agree that is creates 
a less-than-optimal psychological state in the children.

I know my actions are themselves illegal. I am not going to try to 
morally justify it with comments such as "It's for the greater good," or 
"What they are doing is more illegal than hacking." I know my actions 
against these people are illegal, and many for good reason. It is 
destruction of property. I am honest enough to admit I will be breaking 
laws. At least I don't try to rationalize it behind some strange, 
twisted sense of logic. 

I am not here to force my morals on anyone. If you agree with me, fine. 
If you have the ability to do something about it, fine. If you disagree, 
fine. I have had some disagreements against my email/plan/whatever. I 
have read evry single one of them. I do not hate those who disagree with me. 
I see the logic in their arguments. I actually encourage it, as it helps 
me to define what I plan to do better. 

Everyone has the right to say what they want, whether they agree or not. 
That includes me, that includes you. This, of course, as long as it doesn't 
violate the more fundamental rights of others. Agree with me? Yes. Disagree 
with me? Yes. Distribute child porn. No!

On an interesting note, in instances where I have talked one-on-one with law 
enforcement agencies in the past, I have thrown several hypothetical cases 
their way to judge their reaction: (A small glimpse of my Defcon speech)


ME: "If I entered a system without authorization and poked around a left, 
would you arrest me?"
THEM: "No. We don't have the time or resources for that. We aren't 
interested in the people who look around without causing damage despite 
what everyone thinks."

ME: "If I entered a system without authorization and destroyed it, would 
you arrest me."
THEM: "Most definitely." 

ME: "If I was at Defcon and entered a system without authorization that 
was dedicated to the distribution of child pornography and destroyed it, 
and you were looking over my shoulder the whole time and saw what I did, 
would you arrest me?"
THEM" "I would turn around and walk away."


se7en

Se7en recapitulates:

> As far as freedom of speech goes, sorry guys, it does not cover activities 
> which violate the rights of others. Someone does not have the right to fuck 
> a four-year-old girl in the ass, take pictures of it, and then scan it and 
> upload it to the Internet. No one has the right to force a six year old 
> girl to suck his dick until cum is running down her face, take pictures 
> of the whole thing, and, once again, upload it to the Internet. This is 
> not covered. Go back to school if you think it is.

Straw man.  There is no evidence that such activities are being engaged
in, photographed, and uploaded to the Internet by the perpetrator. 

There is a huge difference between crimes being illegal, and crime scene
pictures being illegal in the possession of someone having no link
whatsoever to the original perpetrator. 

There is an even larger difference in scenes of very old non-crimes being
illegal in the possession of anyone whatsoever. 

All of these things get lumped under the general catch-all phrase "child
porn." 

> ME: "If I was at Defcon and entered a system without authorization that 
> was dedicated to the distribution of child pornography and destroyed it, 
> and you were looking over my shoulder the whole time and saw what I did, 
> would you arrest me?"
> THEM" "I would turn around and walk away."

Take the officer's name and badge number.  He needs to be fired.

At 10:07 PM 6/9/97 -0700, se7en wrote:
>As far as freedom of speech goes, sorry guys, it does not cover activities 
>which violate the rights of others. Someone does not have the right to fuck 
>a four-year-old girl in the ass, take pictures of it, and then scan it and 
>upload it to the Internet.

Amen to the first part of the sentence. [Are there really pictures  like
that available? I too have investigated USENET to determine out just how
much truth there was to the claim of abundant child pornography available
on the Net and found only the type of pictures a casual observer could take
on any given Summer day at a Mediterranean beach. Oh, and 30+ year old
women in baby doll dresses. Twisted, but hardly child porn. Maybe child
porn is available on the net. But if I can't find it, it hardly is abundant.]

As to the last part of the sentence, who' rights, exactly, were violated
when a pre-existing picture was scanned and posted? I assume you could say
that the child's rights were violated since it didn't sign a release. What
if its legal guardian agreed to the posting of the immage? I concur that a
child's legal guardian can not validly agree to the child being subjected
to the deranged treatment you describe, but I fail to see how the mere act
of scanning and posting the pictures is any different than scanning and
posting any other picture. Assuming the person scanning and posting is not
involved in the production of the pictures.

Thanks,

--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