------------------------------ From: mc/G=Brad/S=Hicks/OU1=0205925@MHS.ATTMAIL.COM Date: 14 Jan 94 18:16:14 GMT Subject: File--Re- Bay Area BBS bust. Date: 1/14/94 11:19 AM Subj: Re: Bay Area BBS bust. > Robert said there was a mystery package which came today in the mail > today (which his son and wife picked up and she opened). The package > turned out to be real honest-to-gosh kiddy porn. ... > The guy who sent it is known as "Lance White," who Robert thinks is one > of his BBS members. ... Robert thinks the postal folks may be after this > guy, and his BBS just got caught in the middle. What charming innocence. --Bzzzt!-- Sorry, wrong answer, but thank you for playing and here's a copy of the home game. Keith, I'd bet you, dollars to doughnuts, that "Lance White" is a postal employee. And people think I'm kidding when I say that I do, in fact, read _Playboy_ for the articles. Folks, this is not the first time that something like this has happened; it may not even be the first time it's happened to a BBS. The US Postal Service has been doing this for =years=, to =anyone= suspected for =any= reason of being even =slightly= interested in child pornography; _Playboy_ averages a news article on it a year, at some length. Go to a good library and look it up; the Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature will help you find them. What's worse, if (as happened to your friend) you accept one of these packages and they find it in your house, opened, then most juries will convict you for possession. Entrapment defense has not worked terribly often for the US Postal Service's past victims. If you think the postal inspectors have =any= reason to suspect you have =any= interest in child pornography, then based on case histories to date, there is only one way to keep your @ss out of jail. If you receive a package in the mail, and do not recognize the return address, take the =unopened= package, =immediately=, straight to the counter at your local post office. Treat this as a life-or-death emergency; it cannot wait, because if this =is= a sting package, possession for even a single day may be enough to convict. When you get to the post office, inform the clerk at the counter that you did not order this package, and ask the clerk to open it for you. If it turns out to be a mistake on your part and it's legal material, actually addressed to you, then they'll give it to you. If it is illegal material (illegal drugs, child porn or other obscene* materials, smart drug literature, Canadian anti-acid-rain documenataries**) they will ask you if you want it. The correct answer is left as an excercise for the reader. If you or a family member mistakenly open such a package, the =only= way to save your @ss (if it can be done at all) is to =immediately= jump in the car, run it down to the post office, and turn it in. If the post office is closed and they catch you before it opens, or if you get pulled over for speeding en route and the cop finds it, or if (as apparently happened here) they're waiting for you and bust in a few minutes after it's delivered, then may all the Gods intervene for you. > An interesting side point is that while they asked for the package > which came that day when they came in, ... Which more-or-less proves that they knew it was there, doesn't it? That's why I'm =sure= that "Lance White" is a postal employee, and this is a sting. > they did not have a warrant for it, and said they would have drive over > to SF to get one unless he volunteered to give it up. Robert signed off > that they could take it, and they did. This =may= have saved him. Had he fought the seizure, they would have told a jury that this proved that he wanted to keep it. Good luck in court! Entirely personal opinion: Based on the cases I've seen written up, the following groups of people have particular reaons to fear child porn entrapment: naturists (especially naturist photographers or anyone else who subscribes to naturist magazines); adult-oriented BBS operators, especially those distributing non-copyrighted amateur material, and =triply= especially any photos depicting gay or lesbian sex, BDSM, or anything that a postal inspector would consider obscene; anyone who uses commercial film processors who has ever photographed their own child or someone else's child while the child was unclothed (yes, baby pictures are dangerous); and especially anyone who fulminates against child porn entrapment in widely published material. And then, of course, there's angry neighbors who think that because of your religion, appearance, or lifestyle that you =must= be some kind of dangerous pervert. (Yes, in fact, I =am= taking such precautions.) As _Playboy_ has pointed out in each article covering the history of this sleazy tactic, so far =no= case has resulted in a conviction, or even an indictment, for professionally producing and distributing child pornography. In other words, the =only= professional producer and distributer of child pornography in the United States is the US Postal Service; which mails out hundreds of pieces a year, unsolicited, in hopes that the people who keep it will lead them to another professional producer. * Footnote: So far, US law does not forbid owning obscene materials, merely producing or selling them. (Local and state law may, however; if you challenge such a law, good luck.) On the other hand, postal inspectors seem to assume that anyone who they notice ordering lots of materials that they think are obscene is probably a distributor or a producer as well. And of course, BBS operators with "obscene" GIFs and JPGs are by definition distributors, as far as they're concerned. But obscenity busts are tiresome, so if they have any doubt about winning, isn't it just =so= easy to entrap you for something =really= juicy, something no civil libertarians will intervene for? Historically, it seems that the kind of material that immediately attracts postal inspector and/or police attention is any photograph that depicts gay sex, BDSM, or animals. (Interracial sex, lesbian sex, and group sex used to set off the same alarms, but they don't seem to get the same immediate attention the other three do. And in addition, a long-standing postal regulation bars snail-mailing anything that actually shows penetration.) ** Footnote 2: OK, I was being slightly sardonic about the second two examples. Those are banned by US Customs Service regulations, not postal regulations, so they =may= not get you into trouble. But don't be surprised if they get seized, either. What, you thought you were still living in the Land of the Free? Listen, the Bill of Rights has its flaws -- but it's better than what we have now. (Obvious extra disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer; this is personal, not legal advice; if you get caught in this mess or think you might, you need the services of a real lawyer, not crummy email advice from an amateur like me.) =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ + END THIS FILE + +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+===+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=