From: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
Date: Sun, 5 May 1996 12:31:36 +0800
To: hal9001@panix.com
Subject: Re: [Political Rant] Was: examples of mandatory content rating?
Message-ID: <01I4BKO04WVI8Y53GG@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


From:	IN%"hal9001@panix.com"  "Robert A. Rosenberg" 15-APR-1996 03:46:01.05

>At 18:52 4/14/96, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote:

>>I'm not sure if the major use for ratings may not be searching for
>>material that the raters don't like. I'd be interested in many things the
>>fundys don't like, for instance. One could even do this via one of the
>>"services" that mails out listings of places to be locked from kids - just
>>sign up one of your anonymous employees, and get the data and put it on your
>>anonymous web access site. Doing so - if you don't admit you've done it - may
>>be cheaper than doing the research yourself. Of course, you'll need to check
>>out each such site to make sure that it isn't a decoy that they've inserted.

>When you do the checking, make sure it is from an IPN that does not point
>back at you (or at least only points to a Server Supplied not a Dedicated
>IPN). You might also want to watch out for "Canary Trap" Decoys (where each
>list has an unique set of Decoys [or at least one unique Decoy] so they can
>tell which copy was compromised). I'm assuming that the Decoy is a "valid"
>[possibly virtual] domain address which is being logged.

	The way to get around the second problem is to sign up with such a
"service" twice, then filter out anything not appearing on both. Since at least
some of the parental censorship "services" have customization for the parent,
doing more than one would also be a means to pick up more specific evaluations
of the sites in question.
	-Allen