From: “E. ALLEN SMITH” <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
To: frantz@netcom.com
Message Hash: f96fcf34467728ee97afb34475a5d7f390fa1640e94e22542fe3dfe08f82b0c8
Message ID: <01I3IGVW330U8Y51D0@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1996-04-14 07:49:34 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 15:49:34 +0800
From: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 15:49:34 +0800
To: frantz@netcom.com
Subject: Re: PICS
Message-ID: <01I3IGVW330U8Y51D0@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
From: IN%"frantz@netcom.com" 12-APR-1996 22:58:59.49
>I had a chance for a brief look at the PICS protocol, and it seems to have
>a lot of cypherpunks relevance. It includes features such as:
> Multiple third party rating systems
No problem. Although it looks like the CDA-replacement bill would
essentially require using one with at least as great anti-minor censorship
abilities.
> Digital signatures
This is a problem, unless one simply deletes the signature on modifying
a message, and takes the deny-everything-to-minors approach.
-Allen
Return to April 1996
Return to ““E. ALLEN SMITH” <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>”
1996-04-14 (Sun, 14 Apr 1996 15:49:34 +0800) - Re: PICS - “E. ALLEN SMITH” <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>