| 
          
         | 
        
          
            <<  
             ^ 
              >>
          
          
            
              
                Date: 1998-08-12
                 
                 
                UK/Zoll: Pornosuche & Idiotie
                
                 
-.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- 
                 
                
      Wie es einem Journalisten am britischen Zoll erging, der mit 
einem Laptop in England einreisen wollte, ist ein zum Weinen 
schönes Abbild behördlicher Idiotie. Gesucht wurde nämlich 
nach "Internet Porn", dessen Einfuhr auf Festplatten im uk 
behördlich verboten ist... 
 
from  
Kenneth Neil Cukier, via dave farber's ip list & Declan 
McCullagh <declan@well.com> 
 
-.-.- --.-  -.-.- --.-  -.-.- --.- 
 
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 14:18:12 -0400 From: "K. N. Cukier" 
<100736.3602@compuserve.com> Subject: Searched at UK Border 
for Net Porn Sender: "K. N. Cukier" 
<100736.3602@compuserve.com> 
... 
 
Here's what happened to me last Friday when I arrived in 
London from Paris on the channel tunnel train: 
 
As I walked through UK immigration, two guys pulled me 
aside, flashed badges, and said: "UK Customs. Come with us." 
They walked me behind a wall where they handed me off to one 
of a fleet of waiting agents. 
 
A customs officer told me to lay my computer bag on the 
table, and inspected my ticket and passport. After learning 
I was a reporter, she demanded to see my press card (issued 
by the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs), and asked about 
where I was going in London, why, and for how long.  
 
"Do you know there are things that are illegal to bring into 
the UK?" she asked. 
 
"Uh, yeah.... There are *many* things that are illegal to 
bring across borders -- do you have in mind any thing in 
particular?," I said. 
 
"Illegal drugs, fire arms, bomb making materials, lewd and 
obscene pornographic material...." 
 
I felt a rush of relief. I was late and now was assured I 
could get on with my journey. "I am carrying none of that," 
I replied, staring directly at her, with a tone of earnest 
seriousness. 
 
"Is that a computer in your bag?"  
 
"Yes." 
 
"Does it have Internet on in?" 
 
Here, I confess, I really didn't know how to answer. What 
does one say to a question like that?? I was struck dumb. "I 
use the computer to access the Internet, yes," I said, 
rather proud of myself for my accuracy. 
 
"Is there any pornography on it?" she said, stoically. 
 
Here, I figured out what's going on. But I'm mentally 
paralyzed from all the synapses sparkling all at once in my 
head: Does she not understand that Internet content is 
distributed around the world? That I'm just dialing a local 
number, be it in France or the UK, and that whether I cross 
a border is moot to what I'm able to access?  
 
"There is no pornography stored on the hard drive," I 
stated. 
 
"Do you mind if I check." she says rather than asks, and 
begins to take the computer out of the bag. "I'm just going 
to hook it up over there and scan the hard drive..." she 
continues. 
 
And then her face turns dour. "Oh! It's an Apple," she says, 
dejectedly. "Our scanner doesn't work on Apples." 
 
At this point, it's all a little bit too much, too fast, for 
me to handle. >From seeing my personal privacy ripped out 
from under me with a computer-enema to an immediate 
about-face and witnessing my oppressors flounder in the pap 
of their own incompetence was just too much to bear.  
 
Then, of course, I sort of relished the irony of it all. I 
swung into naive-mode: 
 
"Oh. Oh well," I said and began packing up. "Why not?" 
 
"I dunno -- it just doesn't," she said. 
 
"Is this a common thing that you do? Scan PCs?" 
 
"It happens quite often," she said. (Note: I wrote this 
entire dialogue immediately after the incident, but that 
particular quote I wrote the moment we parted, to have it 
exactly right.) 
 
"Do you catch a lot?" 
 
"Sometimes," she says, cautiously. 
 
What's the fine? The penalty?" I asked.  
 
She started to become uncomfortable and tried to move me 
along. "It depends. Every case is different. It depends what 
they have." 
 
"What about if I had encryption -- do you check for that 
too?" I said, disdaining the risk that she might want to 
check the computer "by hand" since I'd mentioned the dreaded 
C-word.... 
 
"Huh?! I don't know about that...." 
 
"You don't know what cryptography is?" I asked. 
 
"No. Thank you, you can go now," she said. 
 
And thus ended my experience with inspector "K. PARE_," 
whose name tag was partially torn at the final one or two 
letters of her last name. 
 
 
Of course I was burning up. Lots of thoughts raced through 
me.  
 
For example, would I have really let her inspect my hard 
drive, even knowing I was "innocent." That, of course, was 
entirely irrelevant to me -- it's about a principle. I 
thought of my editor -- or ex-editor -- if I didn't make the 
day-long meeting. And I immediately thought of John Gilmore, 
and how much I respected him when he refused to board a 
flight a few years ago when the airline demanded he present 
a form of identification. Had I acquiesced to their mental 
thuggery?  
 
As soon as I realized I was "safe" from being scanned, I was 
tempted to pull out my notepad, go into reporter-mode, and 
make a small scene getting names and superiors and formal 
writs of whatever.... but suspected it would only get me 
locked in a room for a full day. 
 
Then I thought of how, despite in their kafakain zeal to 
abuse my privacy, they couldn't even get that right. Not 
only did they not have a clue what the Internet is, they 
confirmed their ignorance by not even being able to 
digitally pat me down. Insult to injury! It brought back 
something John Perry Barlow once told me about why he 
doesn't fear US intelligence agencies. "I've seen them from 
the inside," he said (as I recall), "they will suffer under 
the weight of their own ineptitude."  
 
What's at the heart of this is "thought crime"; and scanning 
one's computer is paramount to search and seizure of one's 
intellectual activity. What if they found subversive 
literature about the proper role of government authority in 
civil society? Would that have gotten me busted? And do they 
store what they scan? Are business executives with marketing 
plans willing to have their data inspected under the 
umbrella of public safety from porn? 
 
Just the night before I read in the memoirs of William 
Shirer, who wrote The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, 
about how he was blacklisted for a decade after his name was 
cited in Red Currents, a magazine that destroyed hundreds of 
careers during the McCarthy era. He was powerless to defend 
himself.  
 
I see parallels: We are approaching the point were we are 
incapable of reasonable discourse on Internet content. 
Refuse to boot up for inspection means you've got something 
to hide. Defend civil liberties of the accused means you 
condone guilty acts. Question the nature of the censorious 
policies in the first place means you are filthy, and as 
unhealthy as the wily-eyed porn devourer.... State the 
obvious: That a large part of the drive for Net content 
regulation is driven by hucksters seeking recognition, and 
that it is taken to idiotic extremes by a mass movement of 
simpletons ignorant of the history of hysteria in the US, 
and, well, you're just a typical lawless cyberlibertian. 
 
Finally, it dawned in me. This wasn't an aberration at all, 
but part of a much deeper trend. It's a British thing, 
really.  
 
"As might be supposed I have not had the time, not may I add 
the inclination to read through this book," wrote Sir 
Archibald Bodkin, the director of public prosecutions, on 29 
December 1922. "I have, however, read pages 690 to 732 ... 
written as they are, as it composed by a more or less 
illiterate vulgar woman ... there is a great deal of 
unmitigated filth and obscenity." 
 
And so James Joyce's Ulysses was banned in Britain for 15 
years.  
 
Interesting, that. The policy was made by a chap who didn't 
actually read the work he felt justified to prohibit others 
from reading. Wonder if the fellows who implemented 
Britain's scan-for-skin policy actually use the Net 
themselves...? 
 
 
Kenneth Neil Cukier <100736.3602@compuserve.com> Singapore, 
11 August 1998 
 
(No, I was not stopped by customs officials here. But this 
e-mail was sent out via government-mandated proxy servers) 
 
 
-.-.- --.-  -.-.- --.-  -.-.- --.- 
TIP 
Download free PGP 5.5.3i (Win95/NT & Mac) 
http://keyserver.ad.or.at/pgp/download/
                   
 
-.-.- --.-  -.-.- --.-  -.-.- --.-
    
                 
- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- 
                
edited by  
published on: 1998-08-12 
comments to office@quintessenz.at
                   
                  
                    subscribe Newsletter
                  
                   
                
- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- -.-. --.- 
                
                  <<  
                   ^ 
                    >> 
                
                
               | 
             
           
         | 
         | 
        
          
         |