From: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 09:23:37 +0800
To: Declan McCullagh <rotenberg@epic.org>
Subject: Re: EPIC letter to CNET.COM and the Internet Community (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970723215720.11839A-100000@vorlon.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <199707250110.SAA13144@netcom4.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




the EPIC letter shows a rather severe misunderstanding of
what many interenet ratings systems are intended to accomplish.
I've written on this subject here and will rebut some of the
claims of the EPIC letter by Marc Rotenberg. (keep in mind,
as you read the following, I am violently opposed to *involuntary* 
rating systems.)

*voluntary* rating systems are in fact another glorious expression of 
free speech, and anyone who advocates free speech will find
themselves in a paradoxically inconsistent point of view
in rejecting such systems.  just as anyone should be free to 
disseminate information,  anyone should be free to comment on
that information. ratings are nothing but "information about 
information" and anyone who claims otherwise would be like someone
arguing for the existence of "illegal bits", as TCM lovingly likes
to call them. amusingly, I have seen TCM argue against voluntary rating
systems here, making the distinction that they are not free speech
but the road to ruin.

PICs was designed from the beginning to be voluntary, and support
voluntary ratings. how is a company that tells you what are some
"hot web pages" different from one that tells you about ones that
are "offensive to children"? there are many of the former that
I've never seen any cypherpunks argue against. surely EPIC would
consider them a good idea. why are the latter a bad idea? what's
the difference between these "good bits" and "bad bits"? answer:
there is none, except in the minds of people who have kneejerk
opinions but not deeply thoughtful insights.

the argument that voluntary rating systems can be quickly
turned into an involuntary one is specious. it's like saying that
if some people are allowed to public fascist magazines, we're
in danger of turning into a fascist country. obviously it's the
same argument the government scaremongers make against free speech.

cypherpunks like to talk about "technical solutions" to problems.
I would like them to begin to understand that a means by which
public opinion is altered is in fact in many cases the only 
possible "technical solution" to some problems. I submit that no amount of 
ingenuity in technical solutions can circumvent a government
or majority of the population that is opposed to your endeavor.
the solution is in part to change public consciousness.  and
to give credit where it is due, the cpunks have done a very 
admirable job of this through the mailing list.

hence, if we have a government that is trying to make voluntary
things mandatory (such as ratings), and clamp down 
on the public, don't you think
you're evading the whole issue by trying to find more ingenious
ways to hide? you're evading the basic question, which is, 
why did the government become like that? why have you accepted
the questionable conclusion that it cannot be changed? do you
think perhaps it became that way because of that opinion? which
came first, the apathy or the tyranny? the lines blur, don't you
think?

if other governments are going to use PICs to manipulate their
public, than is the problem PICs or the governments that are
in that situation? do you think that getting rid of PICs is going
to solve the problem of bad governments? answer: no!! you can
get rid of every opportunity for what you think is a bad government
to exercise its badness, and it will find some ingenious new
way of being bad!! the answer is to fix the government, not to try
to change the ten-bazillion different things it may get its hands onto. one 
problem, one solution.

on to the letter...

>I want to be clear that EPIC, both a plaintiff and counsel in
>the challenge to the Communications Decency Act, does not support
>the use of blocking software in principle or practice. We do not
>support rating systems for the following reasons.
>
>First, we believe that the fundamental purpose of a rating system
>-- to allow one person to decide what information another person
>may receive -- is contrary to the character of the Internet and
>the principles of openness and individuality found in a free society.

a silly restatement of what rating systems do. what mr. rotenberg
fails to note is the obvious distinction between a voluntary and
an involuntary rating system. only the later have the property that
"one person can decide what another can recieve". in fact all rating
systems in existence today are voluntary and merely *advisory*.
they are just *opinions* that people can choose to follow.

>Unlike search engines that allow individuals to select information
>based on their preferences and desires, rating systems impose one
>person's or one organization's viewpoint on another. 

so does a NEWSPAPER!!! perhaps we should ban them!! or is it that
they don't really "impose" anything???

>Such techniques
>could be used as easily by governments against citizens and employers
>against employees as they could by parents against children, as was
>made clear by one of the PICS creators in an early paper on the
>topic.

the government could also use duct tape to suffocate its citizens.
perhaps we should outlaw duct tape? because it has the potential
to be misused by governments?

>Second, we have already seen rating systems used to block access to
>information that could in no reasonable way be considered indecent.

FALSE. these rating systems block access to information when people
volunteer to use the databases. presumably, they SUBSCRIBED TO THOSE
BLOCKING SERVICES FOR EXACTLY THAT SERVICE, I.E. BLOCKING. if I 
subscribed to a blocking service, I would certainly expect that
they did block some sites, wouldn't you? your fuzzy brained thinking
fails to distinguish again between voluntary and involuntary, 
Mr. R...

>Rating systems have blocked access to political organizations,
>medical information, and unpopular viewpoints. In public libraries
>and public schools such techniques violate well established First
>Amendment freedoms. Such products should be roundly criticized by
>Internet publishers, not endorsed.

misleading use of the word "block".  when people stop using the
word "block" in a context where it is clearly not applicable
we'll all be better off. suppose I say to my butler, "please stop
me from eating greasy food" and he stops me. was that involuntary?
did he "block" me against my will?

>Third, we believe that over time rating systes are likely to make it
>easier -- not more difficult -- for governments around the world to
>enforce content-based controls on Internet content. This process is
>already underway in many countries which are now considering
>PICS-based schemes to implement national content controls.

many countries are now considering the best ways to torture their
subjects with rubber hose. perhaps we should regulate rubber hoses
this moment.

 Further,
>our reading of the Supreme Court's opinion in Reno V. ACLU is that
>content based controls would be upheld in the US once rating
>systems and means for age verification and widely available. It
>was the nature of the Internet, and not the availability of rating
>systems, that produced the wonderful outcome in that case. But
>once voluntary standards are in place, statutory controls will
>surely follow.

bzzzzzzzzzzt, only if we have an orwellian government, in which case
you will have much worse things to worry about than a silly PICs
standard. technology is not the problem, but governments who misuse
it. no amount of ingenuity in technology 
will protect you from a bad government. fix the government!!

a flimsily-put-together letter, Mr. R, quite a disappointment.