From: “E. ALLEN SMITH” <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
To: janzen@idacom.hp.com
Message Hash: 664994bbb23db4e635696787d6ca754f1262b60ed216415dcc63bd3ac522b9ac
Message ID: <01I25AISROZKAKTUGH@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1996-03-10 06:17:01 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 14:17:01 +0800
From: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 14:17:01 +0800
To: janzen@idacom.hp.com
Subject: Re: Vexatious Litigants (was: SurfWatch)
Message-ID: <01I25AISROZKAKTUGH@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
From: IN%"janzen@idacom.hp.com" "Martin Janzen" 9-MAR-1996 09:48:42.59
>ObCrypto, sort of: What if the page were retrieved through an HTTP
>proxy which, unbeknownst to the author (and the filtering service/SW),
>deliberately removes or alters the PICS-Label or other rating
>information? The author did, after all, _provide_ the "undesirable"
>material.... To what extent does the author's intent matter? Must Web
>authors now add a digital signature to each page (including its rating
>info), to prevent tampering?
Good idea, and one that I should have remembered thinking of before
with my comments on a "rating-searching" search engine. If it's providing web
proxying on such links, including removal of potentially-exclusive ratings
would be a good idea. (Running the system on a secure server would also be
a good idea).
-Allen
Return to March 1996
Return to ““E. ALLEN SMITH” <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>”
1996-03-10 (Sun, 10 Mar 1996 14:17:01 +0800) - Re: Vexatious Litigants (was: SurfWatch) - “E. ALLEN SMITH” <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>