From: "Jeanne A. E. DeVoto" <jaed@best.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 15:37:53 +0800
To: fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Feasibility of censoring and jamming pronography and racism in informatics
In-Reply-To: <m0x4X7j-0003bFC@ulf.mali.sub.org>
Message-ID: <v03007800b02d7abe0879@[206.163.82.166]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



At 11:17 PM -0700 8/29/97, Tim May wrote:
>At 12:54 PM -0700 8/29/97, Ulf Möller wrote:
>>"SUBSCRIBER PROTECTION: In this scenario [...] it would be necessary
>>for access providers to use firewall and PICS technology (in some
>>instances implemented with in proxy applications)
["protection of society" yadda yadda]
>
>Well, so much for PICS being "voluntary." It seems the Euro-fascists are
>already planning to incorporate it as a control mechanism.
>
>(But, then, only fools thought PICS would be a "voluntary" self-ratings
>system.

You forgot firewalls, Tim. Only fools thought firewalls would be voluntary.

Also, proxy servers. So much for proxy-server technology being "voluntary";
pity the poor fools who claimed it had legitimate applications and should
not be banned because of the probability that it would also be used for
immoral purposes such as censorship.

(Not that I disagree with you about the Europeans, or at least those who
wrote this document. This paragraph was particularly interesting:
"The principal social objection to this policy scenario [i.e. people
deciding for themselves what they want to see and read] is that it does not
in any way act to reduce abuse [by which the authors appear to mean
'publication of content they consider offensive'] either on the Internet or
in the 'real' world."
Seldom does one see so clearly laid out the reasons for opposition to
personal freedom: letting people make their own choices Doesn't Punish
Those with Bad Ideas.)

--
"I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you recover your keys."