The Child Molester Prevention and Effective Sentencing Act

The problem with all the current bills like original SAFE and ProCODE is
that they're too wimpy, abstract, arcane. Who cares about protecting
business? Nobody, at least not when you'll be dubbed soft on crime. So
what's the one thing everyone cares about and wants to protect?

Yes, that's right: CHILDREN!!!! I think someone should introduce a bill
called "The Child Molester Prevention and Effective Sentencing Act of
1997."

The summary: "To reduce crime, protect our children, and secure our private
communications from child molesters, pedophiles, and various perverts, this
bill would spur the development of privacy-enhancing technologies by
removing all export controls on encryption products."

Who would ever vote against the CMPA? Who wants to be soft on child
molesters and random perverts? Not even Louis Freeh could successfully
oppose this one...

-Declan

(Okay, okay. It's a Friday. Time for me to go home...)


-------------------------
Declan McCullagh
Time Inc.
The Netly News Network
Washington Correspondent
http://netlynews.com/

On Fri, 26 Sep 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:

> 
> The problem with all the current bills like original SAFE and ProCODE is
> that they're too wimpy, abstract, arcane. Who cares about protecting
> business? Nobody, at least not when you'll be dubbed soft on crime. So
> what's the one thing everyone cares about and wants to protect?
> 
> Yes, that's right: CHILDREN!!!! I think someone should introduce a bill
> called "The Child Molester Prevention and Effective Sentencing Act of
> 1997."
> 
> The summary: "To reduce crime, protect our children, and secure our private
> communications from child molesters, pedophiles, and various perverts, this
> bill would spur the development of privacy-enhancing technologies by
> removing all export controls on encryption products."
> 
> Who would ever vote against the CMPA? Who wants to be soft on child
> molesters and random perverts? Not even Louis Freeh could successfully
> oppose this one...
> 
> -Declan
> 
> (Okay, okay. It's a Friday. Time for me to go home...)

I remember one of the NET moderators asked why they should use encryption.

What if you want to send a message to your child saying you will be late
after school.  What is to prevent a pedophile from forging such a message?
And if a pedophile intercepts such a message, couldn't he arrive 5 minutes
early saying that "dad changed his plans again and sent me...".

Now, Rep. Tauzin wants to make it illegal to listen in to any "private" 
radio communication (yes listen, not just repeat), since Gingrich couldn't
have access to encrypted communication and someone listened in on his cell
phone.  One law prevents security from being available, so they think that
a second law will prevent people from listening in.

Repealing a law preventing fences is more effective than adding a
draconian penalty for tresspass. 

--- reply to tzeruch - at - ceddec - dot - com ---

Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> writes:

> Yes, that's right: CHILDREN!!!! I think someone should introduce a bill
> called "The Child Molester Prevention and Effective Sentencing Act of
> 1997."
>
> The summary: "To reduce crime, protect our children, and secure our private
> communications from child molesters, pedophiles, and various perverts, this
> bill would spur the development of privacy-enhancing technologies by
> removing all export controls on encryption products."

The worst pedophiles on Internet today are Chris Lewis, a Canadian, and
Nick Sandru, a Romanian living in Denmark.

There's a web site dedicated to listing pedophiles from California -
I think it's http://www.sexoffenders.com.  Can someone please check
if the usual suspects are there?

---

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

At 6:30 PM -0400 9/26/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>The problem with all the current bills like original SAFE and ProCODE is
>that they're too wimpy, abstract, arcane. Who cares about protecting
>business? Nobody, at least not when you'll be dubbed soft on crime. So
>what's the one thing everyone cares about and wants to protect?
>
>Yes, that's right: CHILDREN!!!! I think someone should introduce a bill
>called "The Child Molester Prevention and Effective Sentencing Act of
>1997."

I've been looking for an excuse to post this, and if someone can find me
the original article I'd be grateful:

Christopher Caldwell in the New York Press quotes an article on child porn
that appeared in the Times Literary Supplement by American University
professor Kenneth Anderson:

"The fears of the religious are real.... Still, it rarely occurs to
conservative religionists in America that in sacralizing children they have
thereby secularized their God. In order to play with power in the public
sphere, the religious Right has raised children higher than God, precisely
because in knows that children are a God for the secular and so can be
invoked in public in a way that God Himself cannot.

"But this relationship depends on the secular Left-liberals cooperating, by
also making children a transcendental category. That they have done so has
less to do with the welfare of children than with a restless search by
these elites for a source of moral legitimacy to shore up their managerial
foundations."


Best-- Glenn Hauman, BiblioBytes
       http://www.bb.com/

>What if you want to send a message to your child saying you will be late
>after school.  What is to prevent a pedophile from forging such a message?
>And if a pedophile intercepts such a message, couldn't he arrive 5 minutes
>early saying that "dad changed his plans again and sent me...".
>
>Now, Rep. Tauzin wants to make it illegal to listen in to any "private" 
>radio communication (yes listen, not just repeat), since Gingrich couldn't
>have access to encrypted communication and someone listened in on his cell
>phone.  One law prevents security from being available, so they think that
>a second law will prevent people from listening in.
>
>Repealing a law preventing fences is more effective than adding a
>draconian penalty for tresspass. 

I try to avoid "me too" posts, but I agree 100% with this. Somehow we have
to convince a bunch of legislators that technological solutions are
superior or legal ones in protecting info-privacy. Perhaps an analogy with
welfare might help (at least with conservative members): access to crypto
vs. laws protecting privacy is like private job creation vs. welfare. Do we
want to live in a state where we are mandated to rely on the government for
privacy (even if we could trust the government)?

Thanks also for the concrete example of how pedophiles could make use of a
parent's lack of encryption/signing.

Paul

Oh freddled gruntbuggly thy micturations are to me
As plurdled gabbleblotchits on a lurgid bee.