IP: THE NEW "I AM A CHILD" INTERNET PROTOCOL

[Dave Farber <farber () central cis upenn edu>]

> From: Cu Digest (tk0jut2 () mvs cso niu edu)  <TK0JUT2 () MVS CSO NIU EDU
Subject: Cu Digest, #8.29, Apr 11, 1996




+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+
                 THE NEW "I AM A CHILD" INTERNET PROTOCOL
+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+


There's a second way to answer the question of: "How do you know who
the children are?"


Another option the DoJ appears to be pushing -- we'll know details
tomorrow -- is this idea of reprogramming every computer on the
worldwide Internet to run software that tags users as adults or
minors, so a server will know whether it can send out "indecent"
material.


This shifts the burden of establishing age-identity from the content
provider to the business or school giving out the Internet account.


It also would allow any unscrupulous net.lurker to troll for "I am a
child" tags and follow them back to the originating site -- not
exactly the best way to protect the children!


I should have realized this DoJ strategy earlier. Last week when I was
arguing with Bruce Taylor, an architect of the CDA, we went 'round and
'round on the issue of children on the Net. He maintained that every
Internet user has to have an account somewhere, so the provider of
that account can tag the user as a minor or adult.


I asked Taylor how his proposal was possible with the TCP/IP protocol
-- the nerve system the carries all the data flowing through the Net.
He replied that technical problems can be solved by technical people,
and wasn't there a new protocol being developed, anyway?  Basically,
his position was: "Your side comes across to the court as saying that
it can be done but we won't do it. You're a bunch of geeks who want to
protect their porn and the court isn't going to buy it."


The "new protocol" being developed is IP Version 6, which the DoJ
zoomed in on in cross-examination of one of our witnesses, Scott
Bradner from the Internet Engineering Task Force:


   13    Q   Would it be fair to say, to summarize what you've just
   14        said, that the IP Next Generation group is working on a new
   15        generation of the IP Protocol itself?
   16    A   That is correct.
   17    Q   Does it have -- does the IP Next Generation group have
   18        recommendations regarding a specific architecture of the
   19        packet traffic on the Internet, including the format of the
   20        packet?


The DoJ is going to argue that IPv6 can include such an adult/minor
tag in each datagram. Chris Hansen, the head of the ACLU's legal team,
says:


  Olsen is going to push this tagging idea that the government has,
  that you can imbed in your tag -- in your address -- an adult or
  minor tag. They're going to suggest that the market will come into
  existence that will make that tagging relevant.


It's more like the *judicial penalties* will evolve to make the
tagging not just relevant, but mandatory! On the cypherpunks list,
Bill Frantz, a computer consultant, outlines one problem:


  One of the migration paths suggested for IPV4 to IPV6 migration is
  to tunnel IPV4 packets within IPV6 packets. IPV4 packets do not
  provide for an adult/minor tag, so until the transition to IPV6 is
  fairly well along, this approach will be ineffective.


  If the people who are worried about minor's accessing smut want
  something this century, they should go with PICS.


A member of the IETF replies:


  Neither, for that matter, do IPv6 packets -- there is no provision
  for them. Furthermore, were anyone to create an end to end header of
  that sort, it would be eight bytes of wasted space in every packet
  in the net, especially since the implementation of such a tag is a
  technical impossibility as there is no way to force the originating
  system to tell the truth.


The "high-touch" argument against this is important as the high-tech
one. I just received the following mail from someone who would be
unable to continue his work if the DoJ's IPv6 scheme is implemented:


  We provide free anonymous access to the net to sexual abuse survivors.
  We don't even know who they are, nor do we care - a lot of them are
  hiding out from their perps, and to try and identify them would be a
  tremendous breach of trust, as they are depending on us for their
  anonymity, much as a reporter would protect their anonymous source.


  I also have been told by these folks themselves that some of them are
  under the age of 18 - hell, I've had a few that tell me that they are
  13 or 14 years old, and that they are still at home, still being raped
  by their perps. We provide an outlet for their frustrations, emptional
  support, a community for them, people to talk to, and support for them
  if they choose to report their abuse.  None of this would be possible
  if Taylor and friends had their way.


  Sure, we could trace each and every one of them back to their
  providers, and find out who they are, but I'm not going to do it, and
  I'm perfectly willing to go to jail to protect their identities. My
  integrity is worth a whole hell of a lot more than any government law.