From: "Pierre Petiot" <p_petiot-AT-euronet.nl>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 01:35:44 +0000
Subject: Re: (Fwd) Child XXX


Hi,

I really should not send long posts anymore, because nobody seems to 
read them.
But well.. This one is not too short either, so I guess it will 
be read accordingly.

Just the following:

ANY GOVERNMENT THAT RESTRICTS FOR WHATEVER REASON
PRODUCTION OF, TRANSMISSION OF, 
PROCESSING OF, RECEPTION OF, 
INTERPRETATION OF 
                                 INFORMATION 
IMMEDIATELY INVALIDATES THEREBY THE VALUE OF ANY VOTES
INVALIDATES ITS OWN CONSTITUTION
AND HENCE 
               LOGICALLY
                              CEASES TO EXIST.

(I hope you are glad to learn that we do not have governments 
anymore)

This because any restriction of this sort
invalidates the basis for normal usage of the human 
mind. That is to say the basis for any human decision and action.

I consider any other position as logically inconsistent and a total delirium. 

> > The point about a tract is not to send it to one particular person, but
> > to the world at large. It's an open letter.

I think that the world at large has no address.
If the world at large has an address, then please tell me what is it, 
I need to go there and meet him.
By the way,  is there an organized community grouping the Internet users ?

>>  We can use this case as an "excuse" to clarify our views on the situation. 

Do we need an excuse to dig into the nature of Internet, Computers 
and Computer Science from a Surrealist point of view ?

Why don't we have a surrealist point of view on that?
What sort of lessons are we going to give to the world, based on a 
total absence of surrealist understanding and research about the 
Internet, the Web, etc...

Do we have a theory for that, do we have goals as regards that ?
Do we have ONE (working) working group about that ?
Do we simply look to what existing work group think about that?

We don't.
We do not have that, we do not understand what Internet and the 
Web and all are, what we should do with that, and where they should be going, 
if they were supposed to go in a surrealist way. 
We do not know our friends or enemies.

We are just users, simple boring and quite improductive users, 
not even curious or clever users.

> > We can simply state that one of us, has
> > received this notoriuos childXXX-spam, and that we would like to take the
> > opportunity to point to some dangers and some ways out. 

I accept that.
But we have a chance to be not too boring, and accepted as useful actors 
if we use the SURREALIST specific way of understanding 
to help people thinking what they are facing, 
and what might be the correct ways to get out of this mess. 

As far as protestation is concerned, it is not going to be of any 
interest. Everyone can protest, the major point is what the 
protestation is and what it means. 

I proposed to state  clearly that 
1 - a bit is a bit, a pixel is a pixel and the rest is the receivers responsibility.
2 - the receivers are made able to refuse being confronted with data 
that they do not like. 

That means:

Total and absolute freedom of transfering and offering numbers, 
pixels and bit, whatever the interpretation of it may be.
In other terms TOTAL and ABSOLUTE freedom of expression.

That also means

- no spams, 
- not broadcast, 
- no systematic e-mailing 
- no ads
- no commercials

AT ALL, unless I explicitly ASK for it.
The Web allows offering whatever you have to offer, to whoever wants 
to care for it.
Anything of commercial nature should be explicitly tagged as such by 
HTML (or any used format) and any Web browser should offer the user 
the ability not to display information of commercial nature at all.
(As it is too easy to mix commercial with the rest and force you to 
be forced to swallow the commercial stuff when you are looking for 
non commercial data).

These rules should be extended to any sort of information whatever 
the used media may be.
There is no difference between Internet and any information media.

I MUST be allowed to refuse commercial data in my snail mail box too, 
and offenses MUST be automatically prosecuted by the snail-mail 
providers and the e-mail providers.  
I MUST be allowed not to be confronted with commercial data on any 
media at all if I do not want to. 

Commercial data should be provided as a separate and easily 
identifiable and separable appendix on any media. 

Commercial ads on TV or radio shall be grouped into predefined 
sequences, published only at certain hours (e.g. 19-20)
and strictly forbidden at any other moment.

Commercial ads on posters in public areas, 
as they cannot be refused by users shall be purely and simply forbidden 
(Except within buildings that are owned or rented explicitly for this purpose 
and provided a clear announcement is made at the entrance of the building
that you are going to be exposed to commercial driven mind 
suggestion). 

Commercial info, shall be tagged including child porno related or not
All the rest is absolutely free as a 
normal expression of human beings freedom.
(A commercial establishment is not a human being)

> > This is then to be send  to various news groups, lists etc.
> > To say that we shouldn't react because it was all a hoax is to miss the
> > point, I think. As I said, a lot is at stake. (This also follows from Pierre's and
> > Carlos' mailings.)
> 
> In other words, engage in another unsolicited and unwanted SPAM? Count me
> out. Like most Internet users, I appreciate the fact that it is NOT a
> broadcast medium, and I resent attempts by parties to turn it into one. The
> fact is that for the most part, the rest of the world doesn't give a rat's
> ass what you think  personally and collectively about this issue, and they
> will care even less if you inundate their email accounts with some
> unsolicited diatribe.

They DO care that "you inundate their email accounts with some
unsolicited diatribe" because they currently have no means to refuse it.
Nor they can escape the possible consequences of it as they will be 
drawn by people who do not understand what information is.

Now there are Internet ethics and orientation working groups and news 
groups on network, and quite probably Web pages too.
We can address our group manisfestation to these ones.
(And we should do it if we have anything intelligent to say)
 
> What's more, why would you want to send email to the world in order to
> simply voice your affirmation of the general reaction to this latest SPAM,
> that is to announce that you think that child porn is abhorent, and that
> the SPAM was equally detested. This will have about as much impact as a
> general announcement of our finding the weather agreeable.

I do not consider child porno as abhorrent.
I am not sure to detest that this latest spam.
I am sure to detest the current hysteria and total delirium about 
child porno, and the fact that no sane judgment is possible anymore 
as soon as child and porno appear anywhere.

This spam did not create this crazy situation. The media and various 
powers did. This is the enemy. The authors of the spam won't fire me.
The management of my firm will. My wife (kidding I hope) and 
neighbours are responsible of accepting all low level mind 
manipulation. THEY are the crazy and irresponsible people.
THEY should be prevented from acting based on artificially 
processed data. 
THEY should be deprived of their rights of voting.

ANY one who accept making judgments and taking 
actions based on unreliable information is responsible
and should not be allowed to take actions.

If the general reaction was that actually that one, then general 
reaction is self mutilation. 

Do not count me as part of the general. 
I still DO like myself as a whole, if others don't.

My position is that use of images must be totally free 
and commercial activities must submitted to laws and rules.
Non commercial PRACTICES are submitted to laws and rules. 
Dreams not.

I can accept some mandatory (and enforced) tagging of data in order to 
support the right of the general user to freely refuse it, just as I suggest for 
commercial info. I would not even go against a regulation 
that would required child porno to be tagged.
But I would go against any restriction imposed by anyone to free 
expression of or free access to any possible information, including 
child porno.

Any proprietary sensitive or military sensitive data should be prohibited from 
all communication media (including normal phone and post office services) 
and transmitted manually only,  or else left exposed to full usage of the hacking 
skills of anyone. (I am fully Sadian there)

Any State, Firm, or Association restricting potential access to 
information to any of its members should simply be cut off 
>from all international and local communication links by the CCITT

Any State, Firm, or Association should be cut off from all 
international or local communication links by the CCITT
if it can be proven that one of its members has ever seen his rights to free 
access to information and/or free production of information restricted in anyway.

That threat should be enough to quickly enforce total freedom of
thinking on this planet.

Information is neither false, true or offending or whatever as such.
Information has no value.
The value of information whatever the used information media may be
results from mutual consent and agreement between the parties 
that decide to grant a value to it. (As any value does...)

Whenever this agreement is broken, information has no legal value 
(This - as you might remember - originally applied to bank notes...
 and more generally to money and government originated data
laws and constitution included)
No one shall be prosecuted for refusing to grant value to any 
piece of information on whatever media.
No one shall be prosecuted on basis of information he does not freely 
accept to grant a value.
Any information may be freely duplicated, processed, transformed and transmitted.


I think that establishment of truth is a permanent duty to anyone.


And I think there is no other basis for truth than public HUMAN discussion about 
it. 
Truth simply evaluate a level of reliability of information from a 
HUMAN point of view.

Information has no value as long as its level of reliability is not 
agreed upon by an agreed upon body of associated HUMAN beings
and this only as far as it is agreed upon.

I think the role of tribunals should be restricted to that the establishment of a certain 
level of reliability. 
What you have done or not is not really the important point. 
It is of no interest, and it has never been. Muchless punishment for it.
Punishment is a very very very stupid thing, very primitive, infra 
human concept.

If you cannot be trusted, for instance, if you systematically refuse 
any value to any information at all, or are repeatedly witnessed killing 
someone, or anything of the kind, then you are simply getting less and less 
reliable with each crime (for instance) or with each lies.
And the logical result from a pure functional point of view 
is that you simply cannot be part of a certain level of humanity at all. 
You cannot be part of the game, that's all.
That is not bad, or wrong, it is just a fact, that other people may
take into account if they want, just because they intend to go on 
with the game.
The result will be that no one will trust you and/or you behavior, 
and will simply behave accordingly. 

So that if you come to the point that you cannot be trusted except 
between walls or under permanent surveillance, that is not a 
punishment, just a wise precaution that other people take against 
you. Note that this logically excludes anything like death penalty. 
As a human being, you may always be trusted up to a certain level. 
There is always a way to create a context within which you can be 
practically trusted. For instance, I do not see any reason to prevent 
a murderer from accessing the Internet and having Web pages and 
having interesting discussions. 

But I may see good reasons to put him between walls 
or placing him under some sort of surveillance 
or taking any reasonable steps according to the nature of the context 
or of the risk if he has been killing several times more than one person.

This whether intentionally or not, that's not the point. 
The point is that the probability that you will kill more people 
looks like increasing dangerously.
Now whether you are a doctor, a taxi driver or a criminal is not of 
any real interest. The only thing to take into account is the 
established probability that this shall happen again in a given 
context.

People are funny and their risk evaluations totally irrational.
Child porno, is obviously far less dangerous to kids that usage of 
cars. Now they will kill anyone who harms a kid but they will never 
restrict the use of cars... Child porno is abhorrent, but cars are 
not... Is this by any means reasonable ? 

Now someone who believes into information copied on the radio or on 
the TV without ever taking reasonable steps to verify it, this person 
is also unreliable, and I shall personally exclude him from any 
serious discussion and any decision making because he is not safe.
I will do my best to exclude him from politics and citizenship, 
because these words have no meaning when too many people repeat just 
any lie they hear. AND THIS IS CURRENTLY GOING ON

I do not accept them in my game, which is related to permanent 
establishment and re-establishment of truth.
It is not a punishment, but simply I do not trust them enough to play 
with me.
You can always do something with people, you can always accept them 
up to a certain level. But the highest levels of games are only 
possible with some people, because they make the game valuable.
That's also true for sex and love. I do not love or sleep with boring women.
(Nor men)

When we decide about rules and all, we should always decide from the 
point of view of the game, not from the point of view of the people 
who happen to be part of the game. People are people and the only 
things they deserve is respect, care and love, to the maximum 
possible extent and whatever they are.

But WE need good rules for a good game, not for judgments about the value 
of people.

We should react according to these principles, according to how far 
the number and quality of games that may be played is reduced or 
threatened or not.
That does not depend on the intention of the authors of THIS spam,
but much more on the way Internet players accept their self 
mutilation.
The Internet players are "guilty" according to the principles above
if they accept any restriction to their game.


We should insist on the point that usage of Internet (Child porno or 
not) is considerably safer that usage of the US government machine, 
safer than usage of planes, railways, cars, tribunals (how many 
people intentionally killed in the US this year?), free enterprise, free market 
 religion (how many people killed in Algeria this year?) and all these shits.
We should work based on established and reliable data, 
based on risk estimation.
ANYTHING else may potentially be the basis for a political manoeuver.

There will NEVER be 10.000 kids killed by sexual maniacs per year
in France, never. 

There will never be a higher number of kids killed by maniacs than 
men and women killed by normal religious fundamentalists.
 
But there are 10.000 persons killed by the simple usage of car per 
year in France and no real steps are taken against it.
:-) Hence usage of Internet, 
reducing the need for cars probably saves lifes (:- 

The substance of this could be a basis for a surrealist proposal that I would gladly 
send anywhere, spam or not. Simply because this is the normal level 
of discussion between responsible citizens, and there is a huge need 
to broadcast that sort of material.

The justification for the spread of a message should be its added 
value. Complaining has not much added value. Intelligence has to take 
the means necessary to be heard. But making a lot of unintelligent noise 
is a waste, and a disaster always. 

Big means are only big by what you do out of them.





Pierre PETIOT 
email: "Pierre Petiot" <p_petiot-AT-euronet.nl>