cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1997-07-25 - Re: Yet another self-labeling system (do you remember -L18?)

Header Data

From: nospam-seesignature@ceddec.com
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 1d5d47de94082adf723c52cda7dae02ae4ec92366e04e348698611996ad0e30e
Message ID: <97Jul25.170516edt.32257@brickwall.ceddec.com>
Reply To: <v03102802affe9889ff47@[207.167.93.63]>
UTC Datetime: 1997-07-25 21:21:32 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 05:21:32 +0800

Raw message

From: nospam-seesignature@ceddec.com
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 05:21:32 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Yet another self-labeling system (do you remember -L18?)
In-Reply-To: <v03102802affe9889ff47@[207.167.93.63]>
Message-ID: <97Jul25.170516edt.32257@brickwall.ceddec.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



On Fri, 25 Jul 1997, Tim May wrote:

> At 10:49 AM -0700 7/25/97, James Love wrote:
> >Tim, if you think that no web site are unambiguously inappropriate for
> >children, then you are in a state of denial.  However, while I don't
> >expect to change your mind on that point, let me set the record straight
> >on your note.  I don't favor RSACi or other PICS systems.  I think these
> >are a mistake, and should be resisted.  However, I do favor a far less
> >ambitious and less informative system (less is more, as far as I am
> >concerned), which involves a simple, single voluntary tag, selected by
> >the web page publisher, at their discretion, of the nature of
> >
> ><META NAME="Rating" CONTENT="adult">
> 
> So long as it is completely voluntary, and I am free to label my sites as
> "Suitable for children," whatever they contain, I have no problem with your
> proposal.

Why is everything considered to be a federal government v.s. total anarchy
debate?

A PRIVATE organization could set up objective standards for content and
then produce ratings for sites (using a digital signature technique). 
Whether your site has nude pictures is something measurable.  There can
also be subjective standards.  If you find religion offensive, you can go
to sites rated as safe by an atheistic association.  If they misrate
things, switch organizations.

You can make a movie and say it is rated "G", but you cannot use the
MMPA's reputation capital to do so.  If you say it has been rated "G" by
the MMPA, it either has been, or your are committing fraud. 

You can place any tag on your site which you want, but the same
technological revolution will make reputation capital certification
possible, and your choice will be to have no site rating, or one provided
by an organization which has standards and you won't be able to forge.

If I want to create a site which advertises to children of a particular
age group, I will want to attract the largest number of children possible. 
No one will trust my own "safe for children" tag, but they will trust
someone independent.  So I go to them to have my site rated, and either
make adjustments, or debate some points, but the idea is that my page will
then become a place for children to go to because of the rating. 

> However, if you or Justice Rehnquist or Louis Freeh or Ralph Reed should
> _disagree_ with my "voluntary" labeling of my site as "suitable for
> children," and should then bring the courts into the process in a
> prosecution or other action against me, then it will hardly be "voluntary,"
> will it?

No, but if I am the one certifying your site, I would certify what I see
as appropriate for the given age group, and use a digital signature, so if
you altered your content, you would immediately lose my certification, or
I might do so for a probationary period until you established a reputation
for not swapping nice clowns for lusty nudes, much as people require
collateral and cosigners until someone has built up a good credit rating.

If you said "suitable for children", and the common opinion was that it
wasn't, you would develop a reputation for mislabeling, lying, fraud, or
psycosis.  If you keep calling a Stetson hat a potted plant, you lose
reputation capital.  And then people stop believing you on other issues
such as "I know what I am talking about when it comes to programming".

--- reply to tzeruch - at - ceddec - dot - com ---

Thread