From: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 13:17:52 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: PICS: cyberratings, not censorship
Message-ID: <199605062039.NAA20150@netcom2.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



some more information on PICS for the interested.

I am a strong advocate of this system because even though it involves
ratings, I see it as expressly and vehemently 
anti-censorship. this will be difficult
to understand for some people who equate ratings 
with censorship, and it will require
some major education to help people see why this is not the case
with PICS (platform independent content selection).

why is PICS *not* censorship? because of its key design goals:

1) people are free to choose what ratings they use.  whoever
  sets up the system decides. i.e. parents might pick a particular
  rating agency for their family. people might even use a combination
  of ratings. i.e. weigh the Christian Zealots 50%, and the
  People for the Improvement of Cyberspace 50%, etc

2) ratings are not merely for blacking out pages. they can be
   for finding "neat" pages (Point Communications 5%, etc),
   or "child friendly" or whatever

3) ratings can be created by anyone, including gov't agencies,
  individuals, foreign governments, religious fanatics,
  etc., and moreover they can be in any form whatsoever, they
  are merely seen as information-- the market will decide 
  which ones are useful and which ones are worthless, 
  and whether to create standards in various specific categories.


regarding the CyberAngels, I think it would be an excellent project
to have them while away their lifetimes going through the web
and applying their official "cyberangel rating" to every page they
encounter. it would be a valuable public service, and they'd probably
get a real kick out of it (hmmm, perhaps "control-freak-ecstasy"?). 
it gives them a chance to put their brains and hands where their 
mouths are, so to speak.

next time you hear someone rant about pornography in cyberspace,
or censorship, or whatever, (whether it is Gore's wife or some 
nobody on an obscure mailing list), tell them to set up their own 
PICS rating service and shut up.

if you hear someone whine that no one is listening to their
rating service or using their ratings, tell them that it's
an excellent existence proof that no one truly cares what they think,
and for them to jam it down anyone's throat (via legislation
or whatever) only proves how manipulative, desperate, 
and out-of-touch-with-reality they are.

truly, I hope that some day the universal and accepted response
to seeing something you don't like on the internet will be to
start or join a rating service, and NOT to try to pass a bill
in congress that attempts to regulate cyberspace (@#$%^&*).

will there ever be a day in the future in which, e.g., the Iranian
governments of the world decide to start a Moslem Cyberspace
Blacklisting Service instead of the less-efficient and less-effective
method of Lucrative Blasphemer Assassination Grants?  help support
this proposal and perhaps it will happen. <g>


------- Forwarded Message

Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 10:54:56 -0400
To: pics-info@...
From: Paul Resnick <presnick@research.att.com>
Subject: vac-wg Announcing PICS 1.1!


Version 1.1 of the PICS technical specifications are now available from the
PICS web page (http://w3.org/PICS). The direct URLs for the two documents are:

http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/PICS/services.html
http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/PICS/labels.html

We plan to submit them as informational RFCs in the near future.

These documents are now frozen. If significant new features are specified in
the future, there will be a higher version number.

Three cheers!
- ------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Resnick			AT&T Research
Public Policy Research		Room 2C-430B
908-582-5370 (voice)		600 Mountain Avenue
908-582-4113 (fax)		P.O. Box 636
				Murray Hill, NJ 07974-0636