From: jbaber@mi.leeds.ac.uk
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 06:15:37 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: PICS is not censorship
Message-ID: <4484.9612101411@misun2.mi.leeds.ac.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


> Tim May <tcmay@mail.got.net> writes:
> If it's only a contract, and forever only a contract, then I am less
> worried. But my point is that I fear the purely contractual status will not
> last.

This point is something that we can agree on completely. But the question 
is should be approach it from a 'compromising' point of view encouraging 
completely volentary contracts or wait for the government to attempt to 
mandate a system. Although ideal we should fight against any form of
censorship  I think that the public are generally ignorant enough to say 
'well it works with films so why not with web pages' when faced with the 
four horsemen.

> (And, as I think it was Lucky Green who pointed out, what is to stop people
> who have _not_ entered into any contract with one of the (several?) PICS
> agencies from simply claiming a rating? If the PICS folks want to set up a
> system for digital signatures, compliance testing, etc., fine...so long as
> non-customers don't have to pay for it. Let the Hallelujah Brigade and the
> Dervishes subsidize their systems.)

Again I was thinking more along the lines of having the PICS system similar
to british standards where claiming to have something that you do not is 
illegal. However I think that your idea, although put forward facetiously,
is actually ideal. People currently pay for web-blockers so why should they
not buy web browsers that allow restricting (for their own children of 
course) which web sites etc they can reach from digitally signed ratings
on pages. Initially browser sales could pay for web ratings (much as they
currently pay for researching which sites should and should not be allowed
into things like surfwatch), once the browsers themselves become widespread,
and view per page (or even site) automatic charging comes into use then 
such an organisation could even charge to review your web pages - if you do
not like their evaluation then just do not use them.

> >> If I believe pictures of people having sex should be marked "Suitable for
> >> all ages" (or whatever the Official PICS Status Code is) will I be
> >> criminally or civilly in danger? If so, then PICS is a ratings system which
> >> individuals are likely to be unable to interpret themselves.
> >
> >What if the PICS classifications were worded so as to describe the factual
> >content of a page rather than the writers opinion of its suitability? This,
> >if correctly implemented, could remove the problem of interpretation.
> 
> Doubful. I contend that any such approach is bound to fail.
> 
> Suppose I describe a picture of adults having sex as "A joyful experience,"
> or "Children need to look at this!"?
>
> There simply is no "factual" description of a page. Every person will have
> their own descriptions. Mandating that words be "true" is the end of free
> speech as we know it.

I was starting from the point that there were a number of officially (by 
the PICS organisation) recognised PICS labels each of which had specific 
definations in a similar manner to existing HTML tage.. Nothing would stop 
anyone from making up their own new tags but browsers could only assume that 
the official ones would be strictly defined.

> (For starters, religions--all of them--will have to be shut down.)

This is a bad thing? (;->)

> >> (This takes the element of intent to deliberately defeat PICS out of the
> >> equation, and asks if "innocent mislabeling" or "philosophical disagreement
> >> alternate labeling" will expose the mislabeller to charges.
> >
> >Factual classifications should completely remove the problems of innocent
> >mislabeling and philosophical disagreement (if you disagree don't label but
> >if you use our labels follow our rules). I would never claim to be a lawyer
> >but from my naive point of view I would say that putting false labels on a
> >page would be misrepresenting it and could possibly constitute fraud?
> 
> Fraud? What happened to free speech? The assumption that there even exist
> "factual descriptions" (and presumably "false descriptions") is an
> incredibly pernicious idea, at least as regards free speech.

Not having a detailed knowledge of the American right to free speach I can
only go on my opinions, but lieing with the intent to defraud would almost
certainly be illegal over here. The solution for this of course goes right 
back to reputations and digital signatures.

> If I wish to describe two people having sex as "Two happy persons engaged
> in a happy pursuit," this is not "fraud." True, many parents will dislike
> it, as will many Mennonites, etc. So?

But these would not be 'Officially Recognised tags' so would essentially mean
nothing. How to inforce the Official Recognition is another matter and I 
believe that your sugestion of digital signatures would fit the bill 
(although it does introduce the problem of another person rating your work -
you must either accept their 'Official' rating or do without (or find another
company that rates your work in the way that you wish)).
 
> >> What I see with any such enforcement of PICS standards is yet another Full
> >> Employment Act for Lawyers, and the Lawyer's Guild will be oh so happy to
> >> see PICS essentially made part of the bureacratic morass:
> >>
> >> "Due to the complexities of the PICS ratings system, and varying community
> >> interpretations of the elements of PICS, we advise that no person post
> >> anything to the Net with a PICS rating without seeking competent legal
> >> advice from a PICS-licensed legal professional."
> >
> >Unfortunately this may be the case, however I would suspect that this may go
> >the other way with people thinking that if they can be sued for mislabeling
> >their pages they just will not label them at all.
> 
> Of course, the most correct and consistent view is to just leave it for a
> market solution: some label, some don't, some label carelessly, some label
> anally [no content is implied! :-}), some label deceptively, some label
> clearly, and so on.

A market solution with a number of different labeling organisations, and
labels validated by digital signatures would be idea.... if you want what
your child sees to be decided by ratings assigned by the "good mothers of
america' or the 'porn hunters of the UK' then it is up to you.

> Again, my concern is not that some bunch of folks initiate a PICS or SICS
> or LIKS system, but that it the legal system gets involved...I surmise that
> many lawmakers are already talking about this--this came up in connection
> with the CDA case, that a labelling system such as PICS could resolve some
> of the issues....I hardly expect that a fully voluntary system would meet
> the demands of the censors.

I agree, the censors will at an absolute minimum want everything labeled in
such a way that they can get rid of anything that they deam 'inappropriate'.
This means a centralised authority and everyone getting all of their pages
labeled. Thankfully, given the size, complexity and multi-jurisdictional
nature of the web (and internet in general) this is simply not practical,
and I believe that it should be possible to persuade them so. The only way
for them to achieve anything near their ends would be a widely deployed 
rating system backed by digital signatures and browsers capable of 
recognising these signatures and labels and descrimingating based on them.

The only disadvantage that I can see to such a system would be that it would
make it easier for goverments, corporations and other organisation from 
passing through their servers and routers allowing wide scale sensorship.
This should be prevented by having a number of rating organisations slowly
gaining popularity (overall they must be popular or parents blocking 
unrated would be unacceptably restrictive). There would be nothing to
stop a page having ratings from a number of organisations or infact from
none at all.

Jon Baber
jbaber@mi.leeds.ac.uk
http://chem.leeds.ac.uk/ICAMS/people/jon