cryptoanarchy.wiki

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

1997-07-26 - Re: Yet another self-labeling system (do you remember -L18?)

Header Data

From: “William H. Geiger III” <whgiii@amaranth.com>
To: James Love <love@cptech.org>
Message Hash: 6afe4a278765312ffbc1410e970dca10cb530fd1cbb26a3e011eb268733aee66
Message ID: <199707260708.CAA30671@mailhub.amaranth.com>
Reply To: <33D8F403.245C04CD@cptech.org>
UTC Datetime: 1997-07-26 07:20:55 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 15:20:55 +0800

Raw message

From: "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii@amaranth.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 15:20:55 +0800
To: James Love <love@cptech.org>
Subject: Re: Yet another self-labeling system (do you remember -L18?)
In-Reply-To: <33D8F403.245C04CD@cptech.org>
Message-ID: <199707260708.CAA30671@mailhub.amaranth.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In <33D8F403.245C04CD@cptech.org>, on 07/25/97 
   at 02:44 PM, James Love <love@cptech.org> said:

>Declan McCullagh wrote:
>> 
>> Jamie, as you know, we disagree on your approach to self-labeling.
>> 
>> For the purposes of argument, let us say that we can agree that some,
>> extreme, sites are unsuitable for children. But the problems arise not
>> on
>> the extremes, but in the great grey center.
>> 
>> Where do you draw the line? Therein lies the rub.
>> 
>> -Declan


>     Thanks for asking this question.  I think it is important.  I would
>have the labeling system be something that suits the publisher of the web
>page.  The web page publisher would decide if he or she wanted to label
>the site as adult.  There wouldn't be a great gray center, in the sense
>that the author/owner of the web page would make the decision to label or
>not label.  Why would anyone label?  As you know, most porn sites already
>have labeling out the whazoo.  (how is this spelled?)   The problem is
>that the label takes so many different forms, browsers can't filter the
>current labels, and that is why we have so much interest in cybersiter
>and other AI programs.  This would make their existing voluntary labeling
>systems actually work.  The simpler the tagging system, and the less
>information it conveys, the less likely it could be used to create a much
>more grandiose content labeling system.  This is a pragmatic proposal.  I
>think it makes sense.


What is your proposal for those who would "mislable" their sites? I am
sure that you are not under the assumption that everyone will have the
same ideals of what is appropriate for children and what is not.

How do you handle the web site for alt.sex.sheep.bah.bah.bah if the owner
decides to self rate it Y-7?

Self-rating and/or browsers that can read these self-ratings will be of
little good except as a stepping stone to maditory rating system because
they are unable to solve the precieved problem of children accessing
website that their parents do not want them to see.

Even if you could convince "Enough-is-Enough" and the rest of Donna "2 bit
hore" Rice's cronnies that voluntary ratings was worth a try they would be
shortly back to DC pushing for manditory legislation because they wouldn't
like the way people were self rating their web pages.

You have two major groups pushing for rating systems:

1) Lazy parents that do not wish to be bothered with the obligations of
raising their children.

2) "Born again" censors like Rice want the power to control what people
can and can not say.

The problem is that no rating system can satisfy these groups. Just as
voluntary rating will be used as a stepping stone to manditory rating,
manditory rating will be used by these same two groups for the outright
baning of certian forms of speech (their true agenda).


- -- 
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
William H. Geiger III  http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii
Geiger Consulting    Cooking With Warp 4.0

Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice
PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail.
OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html                        
- ---------------------------------------------------------------

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: cp850
Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000

iQCVAwUBM9mU2o9Co1n+aLhhAQEDqwQAmz1IdvFJ7gNOu07bi02na4P0vbQzveRS
ym/HgrtC+Oda/v9smPNb9BqUdQOY1NL42YHHoHx5gB6SrTVYN07ShejmBMDmyFI8
m8ly7AfQtPW4SdMiDXei+/Q2xddoM2XTE/WvTjJDk3y+Bzt0F8kHqr+Hs9T7HiIX
3N+B4l9EmVc=
=dTH/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Thread