From: "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri, 10 May 1996 21:13:31 +0800
To: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Mandatory Voluntary Self-Ratings
Message-ID: <9605092107.AA13747@rpcp.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Couple quick things:

At 11:46 AM 5/9/96 -0700, you wrote:
>I don't like the use of the term "objective" here. (I object!!)

No, it isn't the best term, there is some bias which can be an issue with
dealing with this at the international level, but I think there are
solutions to that...

>a judgement like "child approved" is more subjective than "sex: moderate",
>but they are both value judgements.

        It doesn't even say "sex: moderate", but "(s 3)", and then the
parent can consult a chart that is a summary of the questions that directly
ask about the content:


		VIOLENCE	
	
ALL (0)  HARMLESS CONFLICT;  SOME DAMAGE TO OBJECTS
1        CREATURES INJURED OR KILLED; DAMAGE TO OBJECTS; FIGHTING
2        HUMANS INJURED OR KILLED WITH SMALL AMOUNT OF BLOOD
3        HUMANS INJURED OR KILLED, BLOOD AND GORE
4        HUMANS INJURED OR KILLED, BLOOD AND GORE	
         WANTON AND GRATUITOUS VIOLENCE TORTURE; RAPE

So we can argue about "objective," but this is _atleast_ very
"non-arbitrary" and the process (if people are non-malicious) is deterministic.

>now, it seems that the author might as well put the tags in his material
>himself instead of going through this submission process.

        This is a significant issue.

>also, above we have the claim it is "fully automated". what??? it
>sounded to me like the page designer has to submit a special form
>to this service and then go and grab the tags to manually put in his own
>page? this is "fully automated"??? 

        Try it for your own page and see!

>also, JR, you say the system does not determine "appropriateness". 
>but in my view it does indirectly. an author can "falsify" his submission
>to say that his page has no sex or violence. (who is to say he is
>wrong? the internet ratings police?) this will implicitly determine
>the "appropriateness" of his page for people who screen their
>browswers based on the keywords that were affected.

        People who misuse the system can be fined. (By using the system one
also has to "AGREE"). However, the status of this contract is up at grabs
IMHO since they relied on trade mark to enforce their system (the pic on a
box). Now, gifs and the like (banners) may still be of issue, but the real
meat here is a system (s 3 l 2 v 0), there is no IP protection for this, and
if there aren't signatures, this can be a serious problem.

>creator, as it should be. (in my view ratings and the content should
>be made as independent from each other as possible in the sense
>that ratings are not tied up in the content itself)

        I see it as an author provided a value added service to his content
same as anyone else.

_______________________
Regards,       Men govern nothing with more difficulty than their tongues,
               and can moderate their desires more than their words. -Spinoza
Joseph  Reagle      http://farnsworth.mit.edu/~reagle/home.html
reagle@mit.edu      E0 D5 B2 05 B6 12 DA 65  BE 4D E3 C1 6A 66 25 4E