From: Scott Brickner <sjb@universe.digex.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 17:50:03 +0800
To: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.rutgers.edu>
Subject: Re: PICS required by laws
In-Reply-To: <01I3GRMTAVBQ8Y510B@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
Message-ID: <199604162302.TAA16890@universe.digex.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


"E. ALLEN SMITH" writes:
>From:	IN%"frantz@netcom.com"  6-APR-1996 16:21:56.32
>
>>I am less worried about this possibility than most.  PICS scrubbers will be
>>as easy to produce as any other web intermediary.  (e.g. The one which
>>replaces "bad" words with "censored".)
>
>	Quite... as will ones that flip-flop the various packet bits that
>people are discussing. 

This is a bit naive.  The "packet bits" I've discussed are added by the
content provider (since he doesn't want to open himself to charges of
"contributing to the delinquency of a minor", which exist regardless of
the CDA) and packets with the "bits" are never delivered to the
minors.  To think that someone along that path would subvert the system
is ridiculous.  As an example, the path for packets from playboy.com to
me is entirely controlled by two entities:  MCI (Playboy's provider)
and DigEx (my provider).  This will generally be true, and though the
number of entities may be larger, the "kinds" of entities will be the
same.  Even if we're discussing a mom & pop porno shop instead of
playboy, the general picture is the same:  the content provider will
hand off the labelled data to someone with "network common carrier"
status, who will not jeopardize that status by delivering the packets
to a minor's connection.

The sorts of organizations that form the core of the internet, and are
involved in this network layer censorship scheme, just *aren't* the
sort of "subversives" (or "patriots", take your pick) that would try to
bypass the system.