From: frantz@netcom.com (Bill Frantz)
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 15:22:28 +0800
To: Scott Brickner <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.rutgers.edu>
Subject: Re: PICS required by laws
Message-ID: <199604162331.QAA05370@netcom9.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At  6:02 PM 4/16/96 -0500, Scott Brickner wrote:
>"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.

You are asuming that the (underage) user wouldn't route his packets thru an
offshore packet bit scrubber that some freedom-loving student set up to do
the bit scrubbing.  It is not even clear that any of the parties is
violating the law:

  The content provider is correctly labeling his packets.
  The transport agents are correctly passing them along.
  The bit scribber is running where such activities aren't illegal

The further you move the control from the home/school into the internet the
easier it is to subvert because there are more places to subvert it, more
people motivated to subvert it, and less control of the environment.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Frantz       | The CDA means  | Periwinkle  --  Computer Consulting
(408)356-8506     | lost jobs and  | 16345 Englewood Ave.
frantz@netcom.com | dead teenagers | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA