From: frantz@netcom.com (Bill Frantz)
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 00:18:31 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: PICS is not censorship
Message-ID: <199612080818.AAA05613@netcom7.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 12:02 PM 12/7/96 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote:
>So, as long as PICS is fully voluntary, and I mean _fully_ voluntary, civil
>libertarians will likely not object. After all, it's just a system _some_
>other people (maybe even most) are voluntarily adhering to. However, the
>pressure to stop "rogues" from "subverting" the PICS system by either not
>using it, or by deliberately monkeywrenching it, will be enormous.

The last time I looked at PICS, there was a mode where sites were checked
against a third party "PICS server", and a mode which used signed ratings. 
Now I am not saying these modes can't be hacked.  I don't remember the
details well enough.  But they should be somewhat resistant to problems
with false self-rating.  (How these "PICS servers" and "Rating signers"
keep up with the number of sites and the growth of web page publishing is
not at all clear.  It would seem to me that it would require many people. 
Perhaps the Christian Coalition can put together a cooperative effort among
their members.)

Note that the "PICS server" approach has major privacy problems.  However,
I don't think that many censors are interested in privacy, so they may not
be a barrier to censorious parents.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Frantz       | I still read when I should | Periwinkle -- Consulting
(408)356-8506     | be doing something else.   | 16345 Englewood Ave.
frantz@netcom.com | It's a vice. - R. Heinlein | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA