From: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
Date: Sun, 12 May 1996 12:52:45 +0800
To: vznuri@netcom.com
Subject: Re: Publicity on PICS
Message-ID: <01I4L8TE6OIS8Y5CGR@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


From:	IN%"vznuri@netcom.com"  "Vladimir Z. Nuri" 11-MAY-1996 00:25:38.47

>From:	IN%"EALLENSMITH@mbcl.rutgers.edu"  "E. ALLEN SMITH"

>>>The system depends for its ratings on voluntary compliance by Internet
>>>providers.

>ugggghghghghg. not my ideal use of PICS. I hope that people don't
>begin to believe that PICS is this system.

	Oh? Look at the second method listed for means of getting PICS ratings.
>From the ISP, essentially.

>>>But there is no way to use the system to seek out pornography or violence on
>>>the web, officials insisted.

>I don't know why that would be a problem.

	That they mentioned this is perhaps an indication that they aren't
exactly on the side of anyone except pro-censorship parents.

>>>"To content-providers, I would say, 'Rate your sites' To parents I would
>>>say, 'Set the levels for your children.' And to governments, I would say
>>>humbly, 'Think again before censoring the net,"' Stephen Balkam, executive
>>>director of the Recreational Software Advisory Council, told a news
>>>conference.
>>
>>	Note again the pressure for self-rating.

>"content-providers" != internet providers. that former is OK. the
>latter is a horrible nightmare. please, please, please, 

	I'd call both a problem, when you're using a system that is meant for
censorship purposes as opposed to finding-stuff purposes. If it's a system for
finding stuff, then the content provider should be involved; it will vary
whether the ISP should be involved (that can be left up to the individual ISP).

>>	Whatever became of market-ratings? Admittedly, they may mean that each
>>country will be encouraged to given an example system... but I still don't
>>like the idea of government involvement.

>the government becomes just another rating agency. I don't like it either.
>but as long as we emphasize, "the individual always has the ultimate
>decision", which fortunately this press release does,
>little can go awry, hopefully.

	They try to emphasize individual - or actually, parental - decision,
but they seem to have entirely forgotten about the use of this system by
governmental censors. It can be used for such either for preemptive censorship
(a Chinese firewall) or for spotting people to arrest when you start up
censorship. If the government gets involved in doing a rating system, then
it can better start doing things like mandating that particular material be
rated or you're up on "corrupting a minor". The recent CDA decision (thank you,
all plaintiffs, lawyers, judges, and God) does emphasize that mandatory rating
isn't constitutional... but A. the Supreme Court may not be as sensible (God
forbid) and B. other countries may have other ideas.
	-Allen