From: tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May)
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 23:00:26 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: SurfWatch
Message-ID: <ad65ebd40702100414ba@[205.199.118.202]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 5:53 PM 3/8/96, Henry Huang wrote:

>Thanks for the clarification.  However, this line of argument applies
>only to "third-party" ratings systems.  Right now, Microsoft/RSAC/SurfWatch
>and SafeSurf/Cybersitter/etc. are setting up competing standards which would
>essentially force people to "self-rate" their own sites, or else be blocked
             ^^^^^
>out by browsers configured to reject unrated sites (a feature Microsoft plans
>to add to its Internet Explorer).

"Force"? Are Cypherpunks now using the language of those who talk about how
Safeway's or KMart's choice of products to carry "forces" customers to buy
certain products? What sort of "force" is being used? Mere handguns, or is
heavy artillery also being used? Are the police called out to raid the
houses of those who refuse to "self-rate"?

Ah, then it really isn't force, is it?

The proper solution is for people unhappy with SurfWatch,
ChristianGuardian, JewScape, and AllahAllowed services is to boycott places
that insist on ratings, create multiple ratings, etc. (Frankly, with
several ratings schemes, and with more coming every day, just how is
Microsoft supposed to "demand" that all posts be rated or they won't carry
them? Or that all sites be labelled as Allah-friendly, Homo-hostile,
whatever? The Usenet is the Usenet, for example, and if Microsoft cuts its
customers off from entire threads, or gaps in threads interfere with the
ability to follow discussions, then they'll clamor for Microsoft to get the
fuck out of interfering.


>The question I have is if these systems were widely implemented, could
>an Web page author or provider of content be sued for "mislabeling"
>their page?  If so, under what circumstances?  Could the RSAC attach

Again, I ask about what sort of _contract_ is involved? (In my case, none.
So, suppose I decide that my post, explaining the fraud that is Islam,
should be read by all Muslims. AllahAllowed, an Islamic rating service, is
upset. Just what is their recourse? I have no contract with them and have
not arranged to label my posts. So, who can sue? The government? Try the
First Amendment.

(By the way, adult magazines voluntary label themselves as "adult": my
understanding from several comments by lawyers and adult industry
spokesmen, is that they are under no obligation to "voluntarily label"
their stuff. And some libraries have an _explicit_ policy that says any
card-holder, of any age, may check out or look at _any_ item the library
carries.)


--Tim May


Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software!
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^756839 - 1  | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."