Child Porn (was: Re: [freenet-chat] Thoughts about Freenet)

[Sam Joseph]

Owen wrote: > On 19 Apr 2001 12:09:20 +0900, Sam Joseph wrote: > > So my question to you David, is do we actually need the ability to > > _anonymously_ distribute images to achieve any of the things you are > > talking about? Or would _anonymous_ distribution of text do just as > > well? > > > I reiterate: > 1) UU-encode means there will always be binary data. See usenet Yeah, I heard you the first time. You don't think that UU-encoded documents could be filtered? Maybe you don't want to do that, fair enough, but don't tell me it can't be done without giving it some thought. English text has statisical properties not found in UU-encoded text. It could be filtered. > 2) If there is enough legitimate, useful data, people won't think > kiddie porn is a problem Maybe. Personally, however much legitimate data there is I still won't want to run a Freenet node for fear of being party to distributing child porn, and I think there are a lot of people like me, maybe not on this mailing list, but they are out there, and busily not using Freenet nodes for just this reason. Anyway, I was asking a _hypothetical_ question to David, which still stands. Do we need anonymous distribution of images to help heal child abusers? Seems to me that I could set up my own Freenet node that just filtered out any incoming data that didn't the statistical properties of known natural languages, and I would feel fairly secure that I wasn't helping distribute child porn. You disagree? Explain it to me in detail. CHEERS> SAM _______________________________________________ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat