From: "E. Allen Smith" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 20:52:45 -0800 (PST)
To: reagle@rpcp.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Why PICS is the wrong approach
Message-ID: <01ICXVY7TKJKAEL8AI@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


From:	IN%"reagle@rpcp.mit.edu"  "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." 12-DEC-1996 23:12:04.05

>  > More importantly, the "payload" does not carry some particular set of
>  > fairly-arbitrary PICS evluations. Binding by the censors instead of by the
>  > originator, which is as it should be.

>In which case, I disagree. I think accurate, consistent, "objective" (I
>know this is an argument on the other thread, I think one can get
>relatively "objective ratings" see my RSAC case study for a break down on
>the qualities of rating systems on my ecommerce page (home page below))
>well branded and reputable agents will have a greater weight, and will have
>a market motivation for accuracy exceeding regulatory pressure. (Plus,
>there is nothing preventing thresh-hold tolerances for use with multiple
>ratings.)

	Umm... I pointed out a while back the considerable problems with
the RSAC attempt at objective ratings. See
http://infinity.nus.sg/cypherpunks/dir.archive-96.05.09-96.05.15/0092.html
for a review of my objections. The system in question is obviously
much more subjective than, say, one that had:
	Does this page contain any female frontal nudity?
	Does this page contain any male frontal nudity?
	Does this page contain any female rear nudity?
	Does this page contain any male rear nudity?
and so on. The parts on violence are particularly subjective.
	-Allen