01. Introduction
02. The Internet & Internet Culture
03. Will the Internet transform politics?
04. Equality of Access
05. Defending Free Speech
06. Encryption
07. Issues of Law & Definition.
08. Copyright
09. Search & Seizure.
10. Freedom of Information.
11. Role of Government.
12. Conclusions.
01. INTRODUCTION
These are my thoughts on a report following from the seminar on Civil Liberties and the Internet held by Liberty, the National Council for Civil Liberties, at Kings College in London on Friday 12th July 1996. Since I hope it will become adopted as a Liberty document, it is consistent with the aims of NCCL / Liberty and, where it touches on other policy areas where there are existing official policies determined by the AGM, consistent with those policies. Some--e.g. economic and international--matters are beyond Liberty’s remit, but are consistent with what other participants said there.
02. THE INTERNET, AND INTERNET CULTURE
This section gives a brief outline of the Internet, and can be skipped if you are familiar with it. A computer network, usually via phonelines, allows you to send material either as ‘mail’ to particular people or place it on subject ‘notice- boards’ (in American, ‘bulletin boards’) for anyone to read and reply. The Internet is simply INTER-NETworking, so that a person on any participating network can send mail on any other participating network: effectively to anyone in the world with a suitable computer setup. There is also a shared set of noticeboards called ‘newsgroups’, and an article sent via your local network is rapidly passed to everyone else’s copy of that newsgroup.
The same convention for passing messages from place to place can implement other schemes, e.g. the World-Wide Web is a set of documents and images (web-pages) on different machines which you can access. Its chief feature is that you can simply click on a reference to another page anywhere in the world to be transferred to that page, making effectively ''all one very large document''.
The Internet is decentralised, international, and almost impossible to censor. There is no one central place that pressure can be brought, and information usually finds its way round any barrier. This does not mean there are not attempts to block communication in particular places and damage done by them, or that the obstructors are repelled automatically without needing to fight hard. Think of the Chinese dictatorship trying to block news getting out by fax machine: they can block some communication and harm some senders, but in the end it is an uphill struggle because the conditions are against them and the information gets out somehow.
The Internet fosters some very positive attitudes of independence from authority, and thinking & debating for yourself. Those who try to throw their weight around or silence opposition are received with contempt, and usually defeated in argument.
03. WILL THE INTERNET TOTALLY TRANSFORM POLITICS?
This question, as for the introduction of the printing press, is largely an argument about words. In one way the printing press did help to sway the social balance, by greatly
increasing the ability to know and to question. In another way, it did not simply make power and wealth disappear overnight--- any real political change grew from real political action, not miraculously from a piece of technology. But it does increase the power to know. In 1985 (?date), the fax machine made it impossible to stop Spycatcher by physical borders. In 1995 the Net made it much more swiftly unfeasible for France to conceal matters of public interest.
The Net allows everyone the opportunity to be heard; but it doesn’t guarantee that others will choose to listen, and the obvious consequence is there will be much on it that is trivial. Clearly when taking control over areas of your life -- in this case, over what information is important for you -- you have to put a little extra effort into make those decisions yourself. We must also realise its limitations: the Net reaches a minority of people who have access to and basic skills with computers and, while we can do our best to make this as widespread as possible, this is not the whole of society or anything like it, especially in world terms.
The Net puts all the players on one football field, but it doesn’t make them of equal size and weight: there are bound to be those with money and power who can afford more people to do more research, and more writing, on a bigger and better presented site. It cannot level this down. But it levels some of the small players up somewhat, so that at least they can be heard. If they have something that really attracts attention, like the McSpotlight campaign, they can even defeat the wealthy corporation by the sheer merits of their argument. On routine matters it is more effective not to seek widespread attention, but to have more information at your finger-tips and have co- ordination among like-minded people.
The most important contribution of the Net is that it promotes the idea of open debate. There is no substitute for putting a question where anyone who has relevant information can give or add to the answers, and where your arguments reach more or less the same audience as the original to be judges on their merits. At a time when political parties increasingly try to squash internal democracy and side-step their annual conferences, this is very much to be welcomed. Many authoritarian groups would like to retain or restore the idea of people being passive consumers of pre-packaged material in an ''information supermarket''---this trend must be resisted at all costs as large commercial groups get increasingly involved in the Net.
04. EQUALITY OF ACCESS
There is a danger of society dividing between the information rich and the information poor. It is important that as many people as possible get computer access and knowledge to use the Net----schools, libraries, community projects etc should be encouraged to get online. It can be done with comparatively small amounts of money from local or central government, and from EU, level. Much of this can be simply education and encouragement rather than actual grants.
A key consideration is that first these community groups, then the public, can get connectivity at as low a price as possible. It has been vital for both the commercial growth &public use of the Net that local phonecalls have zero or nearly zero cost; also that high capacity links become cheaply available via cable TV systems. This can be achieved simply by regulatory pressure for--& easing restrictions against--these developments at zero cost to government.
In the third world, offers of Internet connectivity are too closely tied to the rich commercial sectors that will be trading with the donor countries. N.G.O’s should do whatever they can by lobbying or grant to ensure it reaches genuine community needs, and that third world issues are effectively communicated using the Net. (There are other things to worry about too in countries where food & medicine are still a more pressing priority...).
05. DEFENDING FREE SPEECH
A fundamental point is that it is wrong to make content-based censorship of published material by prior bans or later punishments, where the message is simply communication that is found offensive or indecent and not the direct instrument of some real crime such as instructions to carry out a fraud. We should carefully distinguish between harassing material sent directly to a person’s address (which of course is wrong and must be dealt with), versus aggressively going out of our way to stop people saying anywhere things we dislike or abhor.
Consenting adult discussion of consenting adult sex is, of course, a positive thing leading to more open and relaxed attitudes. We must expose the odd mindset of those who link ‘sex’ with ‘violence’, and would presumably want a world without sex as much as they would want one without conflicts that lead to violence. But we must also realise that allowing free speech means allowing whatever we most loathe to be said. After all, even the worst dictator is happy to allow free speech for the views he agrees with: if we do so ourselves for a different set of views, it is merely a superficial difference not one in kind. This is so obvious and accepted in the Net community that anyone seen not to uphold the most basic freedoms involved would simply not be taken seriously.
Free speech includes the right to speak freely without fear of persecution, and therefore when one believes it necessary to speak anonymously. There are a number of cases where one could suffer loss, injury or vilification for holding an opinion. It might be that you hold political or religious views unpopular in the community around you, and might suffer for speaking out. There are a number of cases where you might suffer from you employer if he legitimately allows you to use the Net other than in the course of your employment. You might not wish him to know you are exploring job advertisements, and would not want him to know if you blew the whistle on unsafe practices putting the public at serious risk. These make it essential that one communicate anonymously with truly secure encryption, where nobody else has access to your private key.
06. ENCRYPTION.
It is important to defend the right to encryption genuinely secure against being broken by others without restrictions on length of key, on making and keeping the only copy of your private key, on having to pay licensing, or which prevent third parties holding and signing public keys for others. Encryption has a multitude of uses both for guarding privacy and authenticating identity. We do not demand that people send their letters in transparent envelopes so they can be read in transit without effort, and so far automatic analysis of speech phonecalls is of limited effectiveness. With the increasing power of computers and database search engines, it really does become possible that large percentage of all communications could be monitored all the time, and there would be no such thing as speaking in private without the state monitoring it. The law can, ultimately, demand disclosure of documents and enforce penalties for noncompliance. But what we must not have is a situation where we are forced to hand out the equivalent of a pass key to our house, so that the state (and anyone else who obtains it in the way they get hold of PNC information) can search at any time without our knowledge.
Encryption will become increasingly common for financial purposes and for authenticating documents or software. Nobody will trust providers of such services not based in countries where they have sole and secure control of their private keys. It is always possible to parade the same set of moral panics as for censorship, and get in a tizzy about what people might say in private if we ''allow'' them the possibility of truly private speech. But encryption is of great commercial and industrial importance, and those backward countries which prevent it will lose out financially as well as in freedom.
07. ISSUES OF LAW & DEFINITION.
A letter by Email is broadly similar to one by post or fax, and a published item broadly similar to a pamphlet made generally available by distributing printed copies or by faxback. Many existing laws of individual nations will probably be held to apply irrespective the technical means of sending. There are certain areas where clear definitions are important to safeguard rights.
POSSESSION/DISTRIBUTION. Downloading material in private and viewing it within the Internet software in the continuation of that single download should be considered equivalent to answering a phonecall, viewing a TV station, or (in copyright terms) browsing a work. Moving it onward into another permanent file should be the criterion for possessing it; sending it onward to another person should be the criterion for circulating or distributing it. We must resist the temptation that a stricter and unjust criterion is needed for some particular pressing reason of commerce or censorship, so that the standard is made unjust in every other matter.
LIABILITY. Internet Service Providers must be given an explicit status of ''common carrier'' i.e. the sender bears the whole
responsibility for any message he send via them and they bear none, just as a phone company is not liable for the content of the phone or fax calls make via them. The alternative is that independent operators are driven out of business from the liab- ility leaving only large monopolies; and that any litigious bully like Robert Maxwell can remove by threats all published criticism. It is absolutely inappropriate to use the model of broadcasting, as human rights abusers such as Singapore have.
INTERNATIONAL. There are appropriate models for the Internal in postal and extradition law. Both are really aimed at upholding local jurisdictions. States will in general have their own local standards of what can be published, and will not want their communications imposed on by foreign countries. therefore the treaties on ordinary post should be extended to give right of safe & unitercepted passage for 3rd country messages. The best model otherwise is that of extradition, i.e. there should be formal arrangements to cooperate in regulating messages on the analogy of extradition where the act complained of would be a serious offence, not grounded in politics or military law, in the requested as well as the requesting state. This might be by an actual hearing or by a warrant from a judge; but in any case there should be rights to move for dismissal of a case because this was not justified, or seek compensation if it is seriously misused. The alternative is that the standards of the worst dictatorships should be imposed on free people elsewhere, or that strong countries control information in weaker ones.
08. COPYRIGHT.
Copyright serves the public interest by promoting the circulation and discussion of creative work, where there is genuine intent that the work as at least potentially saleable at ordinary market rates, by ensuring reward for the authors (and to some extent other circulators) of creative work. The danger to civil liberties is that commercial and other agencies may damage the medium itself through greed or restriction, and that it may be misused for other purposes such as secrecy.
Copyright law should cover material which is open for discussion and at least potentially available for publication at ordinary market rates; separate laws should deal with confidentiality of unpublished materials. It should be grounded in promoting the public interest in fair exchange of ideas (it should not be enforceable e.g. to defend the secrecy of criminal or unlawful matters). This includes rights to browse and to make fair use commentary. There should be no charging of licences or other severe restrictions on the Internet simply designed to serve particular commercial interests. The Net has a whole host of opportunities for civil society, research, business and profit generally: it must not be destroyed by converting it to a passive entertainment medium like trashy cable TV, issuing nothing but passive entertain- ment, by putting restrictions which sell out its potential to purveyors of ''entertainment software'', films & computer games.
Breach of copyright is not stealing goods or money already held, but more like an unauthorised use of facilities like land or buildings without payment. Therefore it should remain, e.g. in the harmonisation of European laws, a civil law matter.
The concern of authors and journalists is that the actual creator of works be properly rewarded. Obviously creative work has no trade value unless it is assignable. But writers are concerned over unfair contracts that insist on assigning all rights for what is, effectively, a sale of first serial publication to a newspaper or magazine. Authors should retain more rights over their creations. The balance is too far in favour of agencies trading in their works.
09. SEARCH & SEIZURE
One of the worst threats to civil liberties is the use of search and seizure without trial as an extrajudicial punishment---equipment can be held for months, stopping an organisation from campaigning or driving a business into bankruptcy, over a matter which is brought to trial. The violent invasion of private homes should also be a last resort, as this can (and, in America, has been) held out as a threat to silence critics of a powerful organisation.
First, this should be prevented by alternatives. If the problem is continuing unlawful acts, the first recourse should be--except in the most extreme circumstances i.e. threat to life and limb--enjoining persons to case those acts. If the problem is evidence gathering then, wherever possible, information should be copied rather than equipment removed. Searches by the plaintiff where otherwise evidence might be destroyed should be carefully limited to just this test, and court officers should be present to ensure fairness. The material seized should be kept by the court not the plaintiff.
Second, compensation should be paid automatically for looses incurred if the case fails. This should include at least an obligation to see that one way or another equipment and information are restored in their original condition. At the courts discretion, the plaintiffs shall be liable for this on any searches they have caused to happen. If a plaintiff causes a search to happen through false information, they should also be suable for damages. None of this prevents the proper use of search & seizure, but people should bear in mind the real harm they do to the victim of a failed case and that there ought to be some redress for it.
10. PERSONAL PRIVACY & PUBLIC INFORMATION.
The general principle hold that people ought to know about, as a first step to controlling, what is legitimately their business and done with their money. A person’s private life is their own business and they should not have the state interfere in it without strong justification, nor media publicise it unless the public have a legitimate stake (''interest'') in the outcome of their actions. While technology might make such intrusion easier, the culture of the people using it should be one that despises personal intrusion. Conversely, that actions of government are done in the individual’s name and with the individual’s money: therefore the individual should have knowledge and control over them. A series of actions could be taken to make government information more available, ultimately
leading to a Freedom of Information Act. [[Insert briefing from the FOI campaign]].
11. ROLE OF GOVERNMENT
The first concern is that government’s are stopped from doing active harm. Their contribution, from America through to Singapore, has been pretty disruptive so far, especially as regards free speech and private/anonymous speech through control of your own secure encryption without escrow’s or backdoors. Restriction has never made anything positive happen, it can only stop things, and the state’s willingness to step in and ''regulate'' matters is like a friendly elephant with an overwhelming desire to helpfully step into your rowingboat: the result of letting it can only be disaster, and costs to both freedom and commercial development in the backward countries that let it happen. If it sells out the national interest to cheap headlines chasing moral panics, there will be a serious cost both political and finical.
The state can indeed make a positive contribution. This consists largely of encouraging the right telecommunications infrastructure and pricing to be laid down. It can pass positive laws establishing common carrier, and limiting oppressive search. It can encourage and educate the spread of Net resources in community groups, often at zero cost or with EU funds. And it can become a good neighbour in cyberspace by leading the way with its own online information resources. That is the positive role for the state.
12. CONCLUSIONS
The Internet offers unparalleled opportunities for both commercial and social development. The availability of improved information and communications helps ''level up'' individual rights against the centres of oppressive power; though of course people change things by their efforts, not a piece of technology which is merely the instrument of that. The technology must be widely available throughout the community so all can benefit.
Free speech is the lifeblood of the Net: all other benefits
spring from that, and anyone who does not wholeheartedly defend
it will not be taken seriously. It includes a right to
anonymous speech and to truly secure encryption without limits
or backdoors for everyone, given the nightmarish extent of
total surveillance which could otherwise result in digital
communications. It also requires that the ISP have a common
carrier status without liability for the messages he carries;
and that each country be able to enforce its own standards, so
that that strong countries cannot force theirs on the weak and
we do not have those of tyrannies like Singapore imposed on all
of us. Copyright law must be adjusted to both genuinely benefit
the creative worker, without being abused or allowed to
strangle the Net for the commercial interest of the few.
Oppressive search & seizure must be prevented. There are great
opportunities for freedom of information via the net. The role
of the state is to contribute to this, and to general access-
ability, not to make damaging restrictions.
---DB, July 1996
POSTSCRIPT -- allegations of child pornography
[this docm't was a draft, which wasn't submitted for national use because I was tied up in other things during Sept/Oct]
Around 10 or 12 August, one Detective Inspector French sent a letter to all Internet Service Providers about Internet newsgroupsd which has certainly been represented as dealing with paedohile pictures on those newsgroups. However, (1) oddly it is not from the Paedophile unit but from the Clubs and Vice unit; and (2) it is not confied to pictures but includes text, not only or even mainly paedophile material but seems aimed at adult sexual activity and the suppression of any minority sexual group e.g. ''alt.homosexual'' is included even though neither homsexuality nor writing about it is in itself illegal. Pipex cravenly removed all these newsgroups, including alt.homosexual, and dishonestly sought to conceal this from their users. Demon Internet published the letter and asked internet users advice on what to do.
OUR GENERAL POSITION
The authors are absolutely opposed to the paedophilia i.e. the involvement of children, pre-pubescents, in sexual activity. This includes the distribution of their picture for clearly sexual purposes; even in cases where there was not also illegal sexual activity being photographed. We believe there should be something like the present heterosexual age of consent for young people, although it is wrong and discriminatory to have a diffferent age for gays. This should be interpreted tolerantly for young people of closely similar ages; but strictly for involvement with a person much older, or for prostitution or sexual pictures--neither in themselves illegal whether or not we approve--which are adult choices only.The law should protect real young people against anyone istributing such pictures of them: though it is not necessary to find and identify them, if a real young person was clearly involved. Where international boundaries are concerned, it is a fact that other countries will only cooperate against what is illegal in both countries-the same applies to ''sex tourism'', it is illegal where the victim was under the age of consent in that country. The authorities here may of course ban the further storage or distribution of material here, on the grounds of the harm they believe it does here.
'THE OBSERVER' SINKS TO THE DEPTHS
On Sunday 25th August, the Observer newspaper printed a vile article attacking both Clive Feather (M.D. of Demon Internet) and Julf Helsingius (owner of the 'anon.penet.fi' anonymous remailer in Finland), which demonised them as linked with child pornography. This includes statements that Helsingius system is used to forward 90% of the child pornography found on the Net; although the Finnish police say there is no evidence that it is used for this on any significant scale at all. Helsingius posted a furious reply saying that he hoped to sue the publishers of the article---but, as a private individual, it is unlikely he has the money to take on a large media conglomerate in a foreign jurisdiction. The anoymous remailer is widely used for the discussion of sexual abuse recovery by victims, and by the Samaritans for counselling potential suicides.
.
The ''French'' Letter
Newsgroups: uk.misc,uk.legal,uk.net,uk.politics.misc, alt.censorship,
news.admin.censorship Subject: Re: Newsgroup *censorship*?!
On Thu, 15 Aug 1996,
In article {32135d11.5997315@news.dircon. co.uk},
"Big Ears." {BigEars@technocom.com} writes:
}In article{67+tFAAPdxEyEwl2@urban75.demon.co.uk},Mike Slocombe wrote:
}|
}| METROPOLITAN POLICE SERVICE
}| Clubs and Vice Unit
}|
}| Charing Cross Police Station
}| Agar Street
}| London WC2N 4JP
}| Telephone:0171 321 7752 Facsimile:0171 321 7762
}| To: All Internet Service Providers
}| Dear Sir / Madam
}|
}| Pornographic Material on the Internet
}|
}| Further to the seminar held at New Scotland Yard on 2nd August I enclose,
}| as promised by Superintendent Mike Hoskins, a list of those Newsgroups
}| which we believe contain pornographic material.
}|
}| We have attempted to confirm that the Newsgroups listed currently contain
}| this offensive material but as you will be only too aware the content is
}| continually changing and you will need to satisfy yourself about the
}| nature and content before taking any action. Furthermore, this list is
}| not exhaustive and we are looking to you to monitor your Newsgroups
}| identifying and taking necessary action against those others found to
}| contain such material. As you will be aware the publication of obscene
}| articles is an offence.
}|
}| This list is only the starting point and we hope, with the co-operation
}| and assistance of the industry and your trade organisations, to be moving
}| quickly towards the eradication of this type of Newsgroup from the
}| Internet. At the seminar we debated the means of maintaining an up to
}| date list and you will recall that ISPA volunteered to pool information
}| and assist in this initiative. However, we are very anxious that all
}| service providers should be taking positive action now, whether or not
}| they are members of a trade association.
}|
}| We trust that with your co-operation and self regulation it will not be
}| necessary for us to move to an enforcement policy.
}|
}| Yours Faithfully
}|
}| Stephen French Chief Inspector
}|
}====} a full list of newsgroups is in Mike's original posting in uk.misc
}
}It is genuine. I have just spoken to CI Stephen French but he declined to
}comment further on the non-pedo non-child porn newsgroups.
}Mr French used the word "obscene" and I was left wondering whether normal
}"adult" sex material was going to be targeted as part of this new police
}clamp down which in Mr French's own words "was just starting".
}
}Mr French is very approachable but he regretted the publication of his
}"secret" letter to ISPs.
}When I asked Mr French his grounds for believing alt.sex.breast (on his
}list) contained child porn (which it does not because I've just looked) he
}declined to comment.
}[........]
}The Metropolitan Police's clandestine promotion of secret censorship of
}adult newsgroups which do not contain child porn is wrong. What other
}secret attempts will be made to silently censor political newsgroups or
}items critical of the current government in the advent of the General
}Election ?
}
}Child porn definitely NO. Secret British police censorship of Usenet also
}definitely NO
LETTER FROM AN INTERNET USER
Newsgroups: alt.anonymous,alt.privacy.anon-server, uk.politics.misc,
uk.net, uk.media, uk.misc,alt.stupidity
Date: Tue,27 Aug 1996 Message-ID:{3222b2eb.7211171@news.u-net.com}
Subject: READ THAT OBSERVER ARTICLE HERE - INTERNET UNDER ATTACK ...
THE "OBSERVER" HAS GONE TOO FAR !
On its front page as the main "news" with a huge headline,
Sunday, August 25th, the Observer, a large UK Sunday
newspaper, published a vicious and libellous attack upon
Mr. Clive Feather, a director of Demon Internet, the largest
UK Internet service provider, and Johan Helsingius, who runs
anon.penet.fi. They were stigmatized as aiding and abetting
the mysterious "child pornographers" who are being painted
in this country as a good enough reason to prohibit the Internet,
or at least to cut it down to size. The Observer calls for censorship
of newsgroups, no doubt under the orders of some faceless Government
committee; abolition of anonymous remailers; and unspecified other
action againt the Internet.
If you would like to see that offending Observer article, it is
available at:
http:www.scallywag.com
as two scans, 105K each (including the pictures of the two devils, Mr.
Feather and Mr. Helsingius).
The remaining freedom-minded people left in England would appreciate
any electronic help we can get. A few emails to the Observer in
support of free Internet access and newsgroup access would
help. The address is:
editor@observer.co.uk
Here is the text of a letter I have written to the Observer, which
may be of interest:
***************************************************************************
To the Editor: Dear Sir:
Your front page today, 25 August, is disgraceful. I hope you are hit
with massive lawsuits.
When I purchased the paper today (for the last time) I initially
received the impression that you were hounding Mr. Feather and Mr.
Helsingius as pederasts. Only after carefully reading the fine print
in the article did I understand that you were not
accusing either man of any offence in any country. I have no doubt
that millions of other people in this country formed the same
impression as I did and have not been disabused.
By attacking Mr. Feather you attack the basic right of any man to free
expression without prior restraint. For a newspaper to do this is
particularly disgusting.
By attacking Mr. Helsingius you attack the basic right of any man to
privacy.
The articles on your inside pages betray your reporters' abysmal
ignorance of the technology, practice, and culture of the Internet.
The pathetic nature of your Observer website, which does not even
include a valid "mailto" button, reinforces my impressions of your
lack of professionalism.
Goodbye.
***************************************************************************
In art{841237357.11726.0@spasm.redcat.org.uk},{matt@redcat.org.uk} writes:
}
}The entire article can be found at www.redcat.org.uk/think.html along
}with a lot of other matter related to the recent usenet regulation
}suggestions from the Met
Reuters, 1996.
HELSINKI (Aug 26, 1996 10:53 a.m. EDT) - On the eve of a major conference on
child sex abuse, a Finnish Internet specialist on Monday angrily dismissed
allegations in a British newspaper that his system handled up to 90 percent
of child pornography on the Net.
Johan Helsingius, whose Internet remailer or anonymous forwarding system is
one of the largest in the world, said the claim in Britain's Observer Sunday
newspaper was ''totally false'' and he was considering legal action.
The newspaper reported the charges, by a U.S. policeman and FBI adviser, in
the run-up to an international conference in Stockholm on the commercial
sexual exploitation of children starting on Tuesday.
Finnish police also said they had found no evidence in areas they can
investigate that Helsingius's system is now being used to forward child
pornography on a large scale. [..........]
Internet remailers are computers which receive and forward messages with a
pseudonym or anonymous source.
There are about five in the world, and they exist to enable anonymous
discussion of sensitive subjects -- for instance by victims of child abuse,
potential suicides or people in politically repressed societies.
Helsingius said one key reason his system would not be used for pornorgaphy
was that it has built-in capacity limitations which make it impossible to
send large pictures through it -- only small amounts of text.
''Also the groups where pictures are carried...are not supported in my
server,'' he said.
It could be possible to compress and chop up picture material for use
through the server but this would involve using ''tens or hundreds of
separate messages,'' he said.
Kai Malmberg, a Helsinki police specialist in Internet affairs, said he had
in the past found child pornography remailed through the server but it had
stopped since police started investigating.
''I've found really no evidence of the Finnish remailer being used for child
pornography,'' he said. ''But we can't -- we don't want to -- check people's
mail. That would be like going into the post office and opening all the
letters.
''I believe that he's quite sincere in trying to protect his server for
people to discuss sensitive issues,'' he said.
Asked if his system could be used to carry child pornography through
individual e-mail messages, Helsingius said this was possible but not on a
large scale as it does not support e-mail systems which simultaneously send
to many recipients.
But he said it was possible for Internet experts to imitate his remailer
address to make it seem as if messages were coming through his system.
''In a prevous case roughly a year ago we could find a couple of cases of
child porn,'' he said. ''It was actually posted in the UK to the UK -- it
didn't come to Finland at all but it was being made to look like it came
from my server. Anyone can alter the origination information.''
[.......]
''My reputation has been tarnished all over Europe. We will take legal
action, but we are not quite sure in what country.''
![[to Home]](../img/button/2xemu.gif)