From: "Erik E. Fair" (Time Keeper) <fair@clock.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 1996 14:03:48 +0800
To: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: blocking software & brock meeks
Message-ID: <v02140b28ae00aadf9ca1@[199.43.99.154]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Vladimir,
        I agree with you in general, however, Brock and Declan have a point
to make too: these companies need to differentiate themselves based on two
things:

1. basic philosophy of filtering (why they filter what they filter).

2. diligence in keeping up their databases.

Brock & Declan are right to expose the basic filtering philosophies of the
different companies, so that those of us who may wish to avail ourselves
their services know exactly what we're getting (or rather, not getting).

In the end, the market will choose between the simple "no porn" philosophy
(for whatever your definition is of that), and the "christian family values
approved by the christian coalition" philosophy (with, one hopes, a whole
lot of other points on the spectrum in the middle). However, the consumers
cannot make this choice absent the information; Brock & Declan have done
everyone a service by shining some light on this.

What I'm surprised about is that these companies apparently aren't already
trumpeting their philosophies of filtering themselves. The principle
differentiator for this market is not the software - there really aren't
that many ways to filter this stuff, and these companies ought to share
their techniques in that area so that they can all be more effective and
thus serve their customers better. The real differentiator is what's in
their databases, which (one presumes) is driven by each of their
philosophies of what is "harmful" to minors.

One wonders if these companies might be embarassed to actually take a
public position on this burning issue: just exactly what *is* "harmful" to
minors? Personally, I fail to see how they can avoid it - it is the essence
of their entire business.

        Erik Fair <fair@apple.com>