pornography & the ``cypherpunk cause''

[m5@vail.tivoli.com (Mike McNally)]

"L. Detweiler" writes:
 > For example, learning that they are the target of
 > a federal investigation into child pornography would imply to a high
 > degree of probability they are `illegal'. 

Seems to me it only implies that the files are central to a particular
investigation.  Unless you take the Ed Meese line that if you're a
suspect then ipso facto you're a criminal, the implication has no
legal weight (says this non-lawyer).

 >                                                While I'm not sure that
 > what CERT did was apropos, that warning was so *delicately worded*. In
 > contrast the EFF announcement SHOUTS IN YOUR EAR. the CERT announcement
 > was extremely diplomatic. the EFF announcement was SCREECHING.

Think of it this way.  If I'm tooling down the Interstate at 75 and my
passenger says

	Though ultimately you will have to make this decision for
	yourself, because in your capacity as driver of this motor
	vehicle you are solely responsible for adherence to state
	and local traffic ordinances, you should be aware that an
	official affiliated with a law enforcement organization is
	at this moment using a speed measurement device from his
	vehicle parked ahead of us behind a bush, and that there
	may be legal ramifications to his detection of your current
	speed.

I'd be like real pissed off while the ticket was being written.  If,
on the other hand, my companion said

	TROOPER! SLOW DOWN!

we'd probably make it to Stuckey's before they ran out of pecan log
roll.

--
Mike McNally