From: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 12:22:44 +0800
To: vznuri@netcom.com
Subject: Re: Mandatory Voluntary Self-Ratings
Message-ID: <01I4L9W7VMMW8Y5CGR@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


From:	IN%"vznuri@netcom.com"  "Vladimir Z. Nuri" 11-MAY-1996 03:38:35.85

>the idea with the rating system is that the rating signs the signature
>of the page, which is itself digitally hashed or something. in other
>words, the rating is on the "state" of a page at some time. the system
>would at least be able to detect a change in the state of a page,
>and inform the user that a rating may no longer be valid due to obsolescence.
>but you are correct that page changes are probably more problematic
>for market ratings than self-ratings.

	One wonders what their hashing method would be. If it's not very
cryptographically secure, one could (via selection of image file names,
comments, etcetera) cause it to be the same hash for a very different set of
images. (A Fun With Animals page from riding lesson photos to bestiality, for
instance.)

>2. will self-ratings be deliberately misused by people protesting the
>system? will it be a problem?

	And how are you defining "misuse"? If the system is not good, then
rating something differently than how the system says it should be is using it
properly, not improperly.
	-Allen