From: "Declan B. McCullagh" <declan+@CMU.EDU>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 02:23:34 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: [NOISE] Re: Guardian angels, the decency brigade, and
In-Reply-To: <9604270337.AA22787@frumious-bandersnatch.MIT.EDU>
Message-ID: <ElUqZXC00YUvE1vu1P@andrew.cmu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




---------- Forwarded message begins here ----------

From: sethf@MIT.EDU
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 23:37:48 -0400
Message-Id: <9604270337.AA22787@frumious-bandersnatch.MIT.EDU>
To: angels@wavenet.com
Subject: Re: Guardian angels, the decency brigade, and cyberseraphim
Cc: fight-censorship+@andrew.cmu.edu, mnemonic@well.com, cp@panix.com

	I have been researching the issue of ratings for some time, and
thinking of getting a SafeSurf rating for a few pages as an experiment,
so this "patrolling" is pretty interesting:

"Gabriel" writes:
> The answer is yes.  So how can Safesurf be sure that sites registered with
> them are indeed genuinely kidsafe?  Simple - someone has to go and check
> out all the sites who register with Safesurf.

	Now, would you be kind enough to tell me what happens next?
Suppose you check out a site and find it is in your opinion not
"kidsafe". What do you do in that case? This is not clear from your message. 
	If the essence of the the SafeSurf system is "voluntary" ratings,
are you not substituting your own standard? After all, in reference to
Declan McCullagh's point about the fight-censorship archives, you say:

"Why ask?  Clearly a site with a message like this would not be suitable for
children to read.  That would be an adult site rating."

	Clearly then, you have some standard you are applying, which
seems in this case be roughly "any archive which contains any message
with any sexual content, no matter what the context or proportion, does
not qualify as "kidsafe" in the CyberAngels view."
	So, in reality do we not have two standards here, the site's
"voluntary" one, and the one the CyberAngels apply to the site? Only if
the two coincide will all be well. Thus, is it not reasonable to ask
that the CyberAngels at least make clear their criteria? I collect items
such as this (ratings systems), I would be very interested in what the
CyberAngels have come up with.

================
Seth Finkelstein
sethf@mit.edu

P.S. I don't know if you're a recent recruit or not, but Curtis Sliwa
has a checkered history at best. Given the fabrications in the Angel's
past, what can we expect in their future?

References:

       AUTHOR: Goodstein, Laurie
        TITLE: Guardian Angels' Chief Clouds His Reputation
       SOURCE: Washington Post
   SEC,PG:COL: A, 3:1
         DATE: Nov 29, 1992
     ABSTRACT: Curtis Sliwa, founder of the Guardian Angels, has admitted 
               that some of his 1980s exploits were fabricated to get 
               publicity.

      AUTHOR: Gonzalez, David
        TITLE: Police Union to Sue Sliwa over Hoaxes
       SOURCE: New York Times
   SEC,PG:COL: B, 6:6
         DATE: Nov 26, 1992
     ABSTRACT: Ron Reale, the president of the New York City transit police 
               union, said Nov 25, 1992 that his group would file a lawsuit 
               against Curtis Sliwa, the founder of the Guardian Angels, on 
               the grounds that he had injured the union's reputation by
	       faking crime-fighting exploits in order to garner publicity 
               for the Guardian Angels.

       AUTHOR: Gonzalez, David
        TITLE: Sliwa Admits Faking Crimes for Publicity
       SOURCE: New York Times
   SEC,PG:COL: B, 1:4
         DATE: Nov 25, 1992
     ABSTRACT: The Guardian Angels' founder and leader, Curtis Sliwa, 
               admitted in a New York Post article on Nov 24, 1992 that he 
               faked six of the group's early crime-fighting exploits to
               gain publicity.  Some former and present associates contend 
               that even more of the group's activities were publicity 
               stunts.

        TITLE: Curtis Sliwa's Confession
       SOURCE: New York Times
   SEC,PG:COL: A, 32:1
         DATE: Nov 27, 1992
     ABSTRACT: An editorial wonders why so many New Yorkers got taken in by 
               Curtis Sliwa, the Guardian Angels' leader who recently 
               confessed that he and his Angels fabricated several exploits 
               in order to gain public support.