From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 18:56:09 +0800
To: "David E. Smith" <dsmith@prairienet.org>
Subject: Re: Rating Problems
In-Reply-To: <199606172345.SAA07563@firefly.prairienet.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960617202616.20874B-100000@crl12.crl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,

On Mon, 17 Jun 1996, David E. Smith wrote:

> Do we just ignore the fact that these lists [Cyber Patrol, etc.]
> are outdated within seconds of release?  

Yes, because they are still largely effective for their intended
purpose.  Just as crypto is ultimately economics, so to is blocking
software.  Parents who wish to make the Internet "safer" for their
children will be happy with a 95% solution.  That's the way it is
with X-rated videos and magazines.  While it's not impossible for
kids to get their hands on them, it isn't easy.  And that's good
enough.

> I think the point of all this is that unless/until a "smart"
> filter can be devised, there can't / won't be a good filtering
> package that will please everyone, or even a majority of 
> someones.  

I disagree.  I'm sure almost every parent will find a filter 
that's "good enough" for them.  As evidence, look at the current
situation.  Many (most?) parents object to some of the content on
broadcast television.  Though they could put a lock on the set or
remove it entirely, few do.  It's just too much trouble.  Instead,
they forbid their kids to watch certain shows or otherwise limit
the time and topics they allow their kids to watch.  Not perfect,
but good enough.  It will be the same with filters.


 S a n d y

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~