From: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 15:41:36 +0800
To: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
Subject: Re: misunderstandings of PICS
In-Reply-To: <01I4E4S4ZWSE8Y583T@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
Message-ID: <199605062253.PAA15378@netcom22.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


EAS:

now that you quote the PICS standard instead of CyberAngels
in referring to PICS, I think we are getting somewhere.

>... PICS specifies three ways to distribute labels. The first is to embed
>labels in HTML documents. This method will be helpful for those who wish to
>label content they have created. 

right. as I said, I think this will be the less important area of the
PICS proposal. in fact, I think it is a bit misleading to say, "the first 
is..", because the other methods are really what PICS was trying to achieve,
in my opinion (this is just my perception, I don't know if the writer
would agree. these kinds of issues are still being worked out).

one useful idea related to "self-rating" 
is to allow the user to create a sort of "abstract" or
"keywords" that could be incorporated into the rating system. such
an idea is not prohibited by the existing proposal and in fact fits
into it nicely imho.

but again, I believe that the "self-rating" concept of PICS 

1) is not the key design goal of PICS, and 

2) will not be a major use of the service in the long run 
in comparison to "rating services", and 

3) because it requires action on the part of the page designer,
it is less desirable for this reason, and in fact another major
aspect of PICS insists that no action on the part of the page 
designer should be possible (that which is relative to URLS)

4) the designers intended that self-rating be voluntary. hence
any coercion of requiring people embed certain kinds of labels
is wholly rejected by the proposal. 

but OK, I see that the CyberAngels have focused on a part of the
PICS proposal that can be twisted into their own unique interpretation.
I see you/they have a semi-valid concept here. frankly, it only suggests
to me how dangerous the "self-rating" concept is, and perhaps that
it should be downplayed in the PICS proposal imho. (any PICS designers
out there listening?)

>In other words, the CyberAngels want to eliminate any pages that
>contain material they think minors shouldn't see that aren't self-rated with
>a PICS self-rating (the first of the three types) intended to block minors
>from seeing it.

this is only how a bonehead would view cyberspace. it's an old view
of how information should be regulated. it's taking the metaphor,
"records should have a little sticky sticker that tells whether
it has explicit content". for someone who think that cyberspace is
made out of atoms, not bits, it seems eminently sensible. but it
is wholly ridiculous and unnecessary.

the cyberangels should clarify
their position. who decides what is rated what? it is amazing how
many people who are favor of some kind of censorship scheme evade the
issue of SUBJECTIVITY, as if a government organization can precisely
determine what is acceptable to children.

it reminds of how those in law enforcement talk about CRIMINALS when
often they are actually referring to SUSPECTS. the distinction is
absolutely critical in civilized society. imagine what effect a
politician's speech would be if he said, "we have to CRACK DOWN
ON CRIMINALS!!!" vs. "we have to CRACK DOWN ON ALL THE CRIME SUSPECTS!!"
I highly recommend that everyone make this mental substitution whenever
you hear someone ranting about "criminals" and see what a different
tone their words take!!

> Yes, this is an abuse of the market oriented variety of PICS;
>they obviously don't know and/or don't care. If you want to convince them
>otherwise, start cc:ing your messages (and forwarding mine, on this I give you
>permission) on PICS and the CyberAngels to angels@wavenet.com.

it's impossible to fully get rid of ignorance. all that can be done
is for proposals to be written as clearly as possible.

since you are so interested and brought it up, I think you ought to
do it. I am doing all that I care to do in posting to this group. you
have given me reason to write on the issue.

>Incidentally, their pressure (especially the legal variety - acting as
>informants) could also include against an ISP that doesn't do the second for
>material the CyberAngels don't like.

right. again, that's why I think the "self-rating" idea should be
minimized in the PICS proposal as the last one listed, and the market-oriented
ones listed first.

I also would like to see terminology that the proposal is expressly
against mandatory kinds of practices such as requiring page writers
to include certain tags based on some agency's opinion etc.

it seems so ridiculous at times that people are on such different
wavelengths that the proposals have to reject all this
explicitly, but of course that's the same idea behind the Bill of Rights.

I do hope the CyberAngels seize on the other aspects of PICS that would
effectively let them put CyberAngel stickers on every single page in
cyberspace, if they have the attention span to actually pull this off.