From: Tommy the Terrorist Newsgroups: alt.censorship,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.culture.www,alt.cyberspace Subject: Re: CyperPatrol censors animal rights web sites Date: 5 Jun 1996 05:37:38 GMT Organization: Dis Lines: 36 Message-ID: <4p36f2$2l52@piglet.cc.uic.edu> References: <4omdjv$1tc@epsilon.qmw.ac.uk> <4ovtj1$dhf@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net> <4p1dm0$nbj@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> <4p22mh$kn3@panix2.panix.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-XXMessage-ID: X-XXDate: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 06:33:08 GMT In article <4p1dm0$nbj@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> Seth Finkelstein, sethf@athena.mit.edu writes: > It gets so wearying dealing with people who can't intellectually >handle anything but a *direct* exercise of government power. No matter >how many times it's pointed out that the system is an *indirect* >exercise of government power, they write the same stock reply, along the >lines of "The private agent acting under the government threat is not >the government itself, so IT'S NOT CENSORSHIP.". Do you *now* wish to I share your low opinion of such arguments; unfortunately, it so happens that in this case they are in the right. The reason for this is that (as far as I know) not even the crazy bastards in the legislatures have attempted to *mandate* anyone's use of the Cyber Patrol "service", or have shown any sign of trying to force ISP's to check whether the client is using it (yet). The result of this is simple: instead of FIXING Cyber Patrol's problems, so that they "only" censor sex pictures and naked pictures and dead bodies (except animal-rights sites and some approved science courses...) we should try instead merely to TAKE ADVANTAGE of this error of theirs, in order to make it clear how arbitrary any form of censorship, whether purchased voluntarily or mandated by the government, must be. To force them to FIX their problems, and present a "consensus" view of What Ought To Be Legal, is actually a form of collaboration with the enemy, by which you reveal to them the best strategic positions for attack, and beg them to take advantage. It is not our job to beg them to be a better "Cyber Patrol" --- it is our job to marginalize and eliminate them and all their ilk, so that even children will have the right to roam cyberspace at will, and the notion that a parent would raise a child to be unable to handle *any* form of written content with his own mental capability will seem barbaric. This isn't cast in stone, since it's a matter of tactics; if you can enlighten me as to why you think the other approach would be beneficial, then please do. From: sethf@athena.mit.edu (Seth Finkelstein) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.censorship,alt.culture.www,alt.cyberspace Subject: Re: CyperPatrol censors animal rights web sites Date: 7 Jun 1996 05:11:15 GMT Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lines: 112 Message-ID: <4p8dlj$bos@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> References: <4p1dm0$nbj@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> <4p22mh$kn3@panix2.panix.com> <4p36f2$2l52@piglet.cc.uic.edu> In article <4p36f2$2l52@piglet.cc.uic.edu> Tommy the Terrorist writes: >In article <4p1dm0$nbj@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> Seth Finkelstein, >sethf@athena.mit.edu writes: >> It gets so wearying dealing with people who can't intellectually >>handle anything but a *direct* exercise of government power. No matter >>how many times it's pointed out that the system is an *indirect* >>exercise of government power, they write the same stock reply, along the >>lines of "The private agent acting under the government threat is not >>the government itself, so IT'S NOT CENSORSHIP.". Do you *now* wish to > > I share your low opinion of such arguments; unfortunately, it so >happens that in this case they are in the right. The reason for this is Sigh. The definition of censorship I'm using in this case is roughly "The suppression of information due to government power". I think this is the most restrictive of common definitions, what I call the "Libertarian" definition. But the following is NOT an aspect of my definition: a) The exercise of government power must be crude, blatant, and direct - any subtlety, sophistication, or indirection makes it NOT CENSORSHIP. b) The information suppression must be total, complete, and perfect - if any marginalized markets exist anywhere, then it's NOT CENSORSHIP. These two items seem to actually be tagged onto the term by some people. It sounds silly when put that blatantly, but that's what's happening. >that (as far as I know) not even the crazy bastards in the legislatures >have attempted to *mandate* anyone's use of the Cyber Patrol "service", >or have shown any sign of trying to force ISP's to check whether the >client is using it (yet). However, they have passed a law which carries heavy criminal penalties (up to two years in jail!), and that is providing great force behind these programs, because the government's said they *might* be useful in defense. You're right in a way, they haven't actually said "CyberPatrol IS a defense", they've talked about "good-faith efforts", and people *hope* CyberPatrol will be one of these. So the labeling bandwagon-jumpers are not even getting a guarantee. But to deny the government aspect of this is rank absurdity. The proponents come right out and say it: "Jeff Davis,AT&T Worldnet agent"<4ovtj1$dhf@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>: >It is relevant. What these programs do is circumvent the NEED for ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >governments to censor content. (emphasis added) [By the way, what "need"? I don't see any "need".] "Dave McClure, Executive Director, AOP." (press release I just posted): "The only way to fend off these attempts is to demonstrate that the industry has an effective system for parental control and that outside interference is unnecessary. The SafeSurf FAQ (http://www.safesurf.com/ssfaq.htm): "Proof that the Internet community will implement solutions on its own can convince [Legislators] of alternative solutions to censorship. So why does this keep getting blocked out by the ideological filtering? How much more specific do they have to be? Do they need to scream "USE OUR PROGRAM OR THE GOVERNMENT'll GETCHA!"? In fact, they basically do say that, albeit much more politely. > The result of this is simple: instead of FIXING Cyber Patrol's >problems, so that they "only" censor sex pictures and naked pictures and >dead bodies (except animal-rights sites and some approved science >courses...) we should try instead merely to TAKE ADVANTAGE of this error >of theirs, in order to make it clear how arbitrary any form of >censorship, whether purchased voluntarily or mandated by the government, >must be. Ah, but if it's not established that we're dealing with *government censorship*, there's a massive yammer of "THAT'S THEIR RIGHT, DO YOU PROPOSE FORCING PEOPLE TO VIEW EVERYTHING, etc., etc. etc.". I've gone through this very many times now. > To force them to FIX their problems, and present a "consensus" view of >What Ought To Be Legal, is actually a form of collaboration with the >enemy, by which you reveal to them the best strategic positions for >attack, and beg them to take advantage. What's your proposed strategy? Really, I'm interested. Remember, any criticism of the programs in the abstract will immediately be met by a chorus of the *yammer* above. I mean, if all the examples I give above can come out and state how much the need for their system is based in government threat, and are getting off so lightly as to being censors, what makes you think any other, comparatively minor, criticisms would matter? > It is not our job to beg them to be a better "Cyber Patrol" --- it is >our job to marginalize and eliminate them and all their ilk, so that even >children will have the right to roam cyberspace at will, and the notion >that a parent would raise a child to be unable to handle *any* form of >written content with his own mental capability will seem barbaric. OK. HOW? "Make the revolution, Comrade"-type arguments don't sound very good to me. > This isn't cast in stone, since it's a matter of tactics; if you can >enlighten me as to why you think the other approach would be beneficial, >then please do. Oh, I'm all for hearing some other approach. Now, HOW do you plan to "marginalize and eliminate them and all their ilk"? Me, I'm just trying to get people out of the blinkered net.libertarian mindset and *THINKING* about stuff like CyberPatrol as a *problem*, not a *solution*. And arguably, I'm not doing a very good job of it. Now, if I can't make this relatively minor change in a subculture I know well, just how achievable is your proposed cultural reform? -- Seth Finkelstein sethf@mit.edu Disclaimer : I am not the Lorax. I speak only for myself. (and certainly not for Project Athena, MIT, or anyone else). From: hmiller@io.com (Herman Miller) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.censorship,alt.culture.www,alt.cyberspace Subject: Re: CyperPatrol censors animal rights web sites Date: 10 Jun 1996 02:11:38 GMT Organization: Illuminati Online Lines: 38 Message-ID: <4pg08q$r1o@anarchy.io.com> References: <4p1dm0$nbj@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> <4p22mh$kn3@panix2.panix.com> <4p36f2$2l52@piglet.cc.uic.edu> <4p8dlj$bos@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> In article <4p8dlj$bos@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>, sethf@athena.mit.edu says... > >> To force them to FIX their problems, and present a "consensus" view of >>What Ought To Be Legal, is actually a form of collaboration with the >>enemy, by which you reveal to them the best strategic positions for >>attack, and beg them to take advantage. > > What's your proposed strategy? Really, I'm interested. >Remember, any criticism of the programs in the abstract will immediately >be met by a chorus of the *yammer* above. I mean, if all the examples I >give above can come out and state how much the need for their system is >based in government threat, and are getting off so lightly as to being >censors, what makes you think any other, comparatively minor, criticisms >would matter? It might be helpful to back up a step. The government threat is a result of pressure from groups like the Christian Coalition and other groups that claim to have the interests of "family values" in mind. It wouldn't have gone this far if it were just Exon and Coats. If the government threat didn't exist, there'd still be a market for products like Cyber Patrol. If the CDA is repealed, I don't think the software is likely to vanish. The concerns of the moral-majority types might seem stupid, but how is Cyber Patrol that much different from proposed anti-spam measures like NoCeM? It's certainly less intrusive and destructive than the spam cancels that are currently being used. For some people, adult-oriented material is as objectionable as spam. If they choose to use products that are aimed at minimizing their experience of spam, why should that upset anyone? -- new & improved home page! +-------------------- |"You have passed a law that will get less respect Thryomanes (Herman Miller)| than the 55 m.p.h. speed limit dead bang in the (hmiller@io.com) | middle of the First Amendment." - Steve Russell From: sethf@athena.mit.edu (Seth Finkelstein) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.censorship,alt.culture.www,alt.cyberspace Subject: Re: CyperPatrol censors animal rights web sites Date: 10 Jun 1996 13:52:43 GMT Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lines: 79 Message-ID: <4ph9bb$f6m@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> References: <4p36f2$2l52@piglet.cc.uic.edu> <4p8dlj$bos@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> <4pg08q$r1o@anarchy.io.com> Reply-To: sethf@mit.edu In article <4pg08q$r1o@anarchy.io.com> hmiller@io.com (Herman Miller) writes: >In article <4p8dlj$bos@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>, sethf@athena.mit.edu >says... >> >>> To force them to FIX their problems, and present a "consensus" view of >>>What Ought To Be Legal, is actually a form of collaboration with the >> >> What's your proposed strategy? Really, I'm interested. >>Remember, any criticism of the programs in the abstract will immediately >>be met by a chorus of the *yammer* above. I mean, if all the examples I >>give above can come out and state how much the need for their system is >>based in government threat, and are getting off so lightly as to being >>censors, what makes you think any other, comparatively minor, criticisms >>would matter? > >It might be helpful to back up a step. The government threat is a result of >pressure from groups like the Christian Coalition and other groups that >claim to have the interests of "family values" in mind. It wouldn't have >gone this far if it were just Exon and Coats. If the government threat If you're saying government threat means there is a constituency for the threat, that's not astonishing. The point is that this constituency seeks to force everyone else to obey their rules. And there are more sophisticated ways of doing so than straight criminal penalties, such as labeling systems enforced by the threat of criminal penalties. >didn't exist, there'd still be a market for products like Cyber Patrol. If >the CDA is repealed, I don't think the software is likely to vanish. Oh sure. And the Legion of Decency is still around, and still issues ratings. Have you ever heard of those ratings? No? Because they don't *matter*. CyberPatrol would still exist, but it wouldn't have all the people rushing to be banned by them and distributing their program in *hopes* that that will provide a defense from many years in Club Fed. How many book authors do you know who "voluntarily" submit their material to the _Index Prohibitorum_ (probably misspelled)? How many books stores post that list prominently, and put stickers on books saying "This book is forbidden by the Catholic Church". That's the difference between the Religious Right on their own, and when they have the force of law behind them. >The concerns of the moral-majority types might seem stupid, but how is Cyber >Patrol that much different from proposed anti-spam measures like NoCeM? Because there is a law that says you go to jail for up to two years *per count*, and people *hope* that stuff like CyberPatrol will be a defense. Even if the law is overturned, there's still a lot of palpable threat. >It's certainly less intrusive and destructive than the spam cancels that are >currently being used. Just on a free-speech theory point, spam cancels are supposed to be content-neutral, while CyberPatrol is specifically content-prejudiced. >For some people, adult-oriented material is as objectionable as spam. If >they choose to use products that are aimed at minimizing their experience of >spam, why should that upset anyone? Here we go again. The moving to the abstraction. The strange amnesia that overtakes everyone about the real world. "If we forget all about this business of years in jail, then ...". Sure, there's absolutely no difference whatsoever between "adult-oriented" material and spam, except that the former is content-prejudiced and has the government threatening and implementing criminal laws, and the later is content-neutral and has zero notice from the government. Just like there's absolutely no difference between an elephant and a gnat, except that the first is big and heavy, and the second is small and light. But they're both "animals", so why would one care about killing one as opposed to the other, or think the extermination tools are any different? After all, an elephant gun and a flyswatter are both "products that are aimed at killing animals", so if someone uses one or the other, why should that upset anyone? This is the level of the ratings defense. Over and over and over again. -- Seth Finkelstein sethf@mit.edu Disclaimer : I am not the Lorax. I speak only for myself. (and certainly not for Project Athena, MIT, or anyone else). From: jaed@best.com (Jeanne A. E. DeVoto) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.censorship,alt.culture.www,alt.cyberspace Subject: Re: CyperPatrol censors animal rights web sites Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 14:37:53 -0700 Organization: Only on my good days Lines: 24 Message-ID: References: <4p1dm0$nbj@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> <4p22mh$kn3@panix2.panix.com> <4p36f2$2l52@piglet.cc.uic.edu> <4p8dlj$bos@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> X-Geek-Code: GS/MU/TW$d-@s++:+a33C++$>++++$U@P--LE--W+>+++N+++K++!W---!OM++$V--PS+++>+++++PEY++PG@+++@5?X>+R@tv-b+++DI+++D?G+e++>++++h+>-r@z* In article <4p8dlj$bos@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>, sethf@athena.mit.edu (Seth Finkelstein) wrote: > Oh, I'm all for hearing some other approach. Now, HOW do you > plan to "marginalize and eliminate them and all their ilk"? Me, I'm just > trying to get people out of the blinkered net.libertarian mindset and > *THINKING* about stuff like CyberPatrol as a *problem*, not a *solution*. > And arguably, I'm not doing a very good job of it. Now, if I can't make > this relatively minor change in a subculture I know well, just how > achievable is your proposed cultural reform? Seth, the thing is that CyberPatrol and like rating schemes *are* a solution. Third-party rating is an interesting, useful, and worthwhile technology. The fact that various administrators and legislators have indicated an intention to misuse this technology for the purpose of censorship is an area of legitimate, serious concern. But it seems to me that by inveighing against the whole idea of third-party rating, on the grounds that threats have been made to misuse it in this way, you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. -- "The information superhighway is a revolution that in years to come will transcend newspapers, radio, and television as an information source. Therefore, I think this is the time to put some restrictions on it." - U.S. Senator James Exon From: sethf@athena.mit.edu (Seth Finkelstein) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.censorship,alt.culture.www,alt.cyberspace Subject: Re: CyperPatrol censors animal rights web sites Date: 8 Jun 1996 20:00:59 GMT Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lines: 90 Message-ID: <4pcm5r$893@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> References: <4p36f2$2l52@piglet.cc.uic.edu> <4p8dlj$bos@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> Reply-To: sethf@mit.edu In article jaed@best.com (Jeanne A. E. DeVoto) writes: >In article <4p8dlj$bos@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>, sethf@athena.mit.edu >(Seth Finkelstein) wrote: >> Oh, I'm all for hearing some other approach. Now, HOW do you >> plan to "marginalize and eliminate them and all their ilk"? Me, I'm just >> trying to get people out of the blinkered net.libertarian mindset and >> *THINKING* about stuff like CyberPatrol as a *problem*, not a *solution*. >> And arguably, I'm not doing a very good job of it. Now, if I can't make >> this relatively minor change in a subculture I know well, just how >> achievable is your proposed cultural reform? > >Seth, the thing is that CyberPatrol and like rating schemes *are* a solution. A solution to what? As I'll quote "Jeff Davis, AT&T Worldnet agent" again (<4ovtj1$dhf@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>): >It is relevant. What these programs do is circumvent the NEED for ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >governments to censor content. (emphasis added) [By the way, what "need"? I don't see any "need".] >Third-party rating is an interesting, useful, and worthwhile technology. >The fact that various administrators and legislators have indicated an >intention to misuse this technology for the purpose of censorship is an >area of legitimate, serious concern. So where's the community-wide serious concern? On what lists have I been missing it? All I've seen is a headlong rush to embrace this stuff, with very rarely a doubt or dissent. Part of that has to do with tactics in the Communications Decency Act trial, and I understand the reason there. But still, I don't see a whole lot of wondering "Gee, there are whole lot of forces out to grab control of the net - what sort of effective use can they make of this technology? What then? What happens if there AREN'T a thousand different ratings systems, but just ONE that "matters"?". There's an astonishing amount of focus on what would happen in the best case, but scant attention given to other situations. Schematically, I keep hearing "You can't prove the best case won't happen" or "The best case is better than the worst CDA-case" or "The *concept* produces this nice outcome in the best case". And I'm not arguing any of that. But people just don't seem to be thinking about anything *other* than the ideal here. > But it seems to me that by inveighing against the whole idea of > third-party rating, on the grounds that threats have been made to misuse > it in this way, you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Proposition 1: Historically, every ratings system put in place as an "alternative" to government censorship has turned into a stifling, repressive system Observation 1: These systems are being put in place as an "alternative" to government censorship leading to: Conclusion: They will become stifling and repressive. Note this is at heart an *inductive* argument, not a *deductive* one (though I've put in a deductive style), as I recognize it's debatable. So no logic-chopping, please. Now, I do NOT assert any of the following: "Ratings systems are intrinsically censorship", "No labels have any valuable uses", "Selection as a concept is against free speech", and so on. I'm trying to talk about what these ratings systems are likely to become *in the specific context of the situation we are in*, and always getting replies addressed to the abstraction, the ideal. The above is a good example: "... inveighing against the whole idea of third-party rating ...". Is it because I went for a just a *paragraph*, in a long article, without chanting the appeal-to-Libertarian mantra: IT'S ABOUT GOVERNMENT FORCE, GOVERNMENT THREAT, GOVERNMENT COERCION. The men with guns, the State, the criminal justice system, etc. When the government makes threats, people *listen*. It has an effect (a chilling effect). It's a powerful engine of compliance. I'm just uninterested now in the topic of "What would this technology be used for if we ignore any government-backed censorship efforts?". It's like asking "Why might people wear a pink triangle button in a world where homophobia was unknown?" It's a question totally divorced from the oppressive context that fuels the thing in the first place. This is not the first time in history that ratings systems have come up, and they have a long background of being censor's tools. Why is it just so very difficult to deal with applying that background to current proposals, as opposed to pretending they were created in a vacuum? Labeling: http://www.mit.edu/activities/safe/labeling/summary.html File: http://www.mit.edu/activities/safe/labeling/against-net-label -- Seth Finkelstein sethf@mit.edu Disclaimer : I am not the Lorax. I speak only for myself. (and certainly not for Project Athena, MIT, or anyone else). From: Tommy the Terrorist Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.censorship,alt.culture.www,alt.cyberspace Subject: Re: CyperPatrol censors animal rights web sites Date: 12 Jun 1996 06:27:03 GMT Organization: Dis Lines: 61 Message-ID: <4plnvn$ng2@piglet.cc.uic.edu> References: <4p9kkh$h7v@piglet.cc.utexas.edu> <4pdfoo$qva@newsserv.cs.sunysb.edu> <4pg08q$r1o@anarchy.io.com> <4ph9bb$f6m@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-XXMessage-ID: X-XXDate: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 07:13:22 GMT Guys, hold on a minute. I'm not sure that we're talking on the same wavelength here. The "ratings schemes" that *I've* heard about, were supposed to be implemented on the purchaser's *own* computer. Like "SafeSurf", the only one I actually bothered to look at. When the purchaser buys such a scheme, his kids might be screwed over (unless they figure out a hack!) but it's between him and them. It's not right, but it's not part of widespread censorship. And they give the parents a *choice* of which "ratings system" to use, so that at least there's the possibility that the ones who are afraid of naked pictures will still let their kids read about animal rights and gay marriage and whatever else. One person said that there were internet providers considering implementing such a scheme at *their* end, and that is dangerous. Because it dramatically decreases, and pools together, customer choice; it makes his choice readily apparent from even the vaguest knowledge of who he's patronizing, and it turns the competition for customers of these censorship services into something that can be rammed down their throats, at best by greedy corporations, and at worst by the government. The first scheme is NOT censorship, *except* of the child by the parent. The second is a scheme for censorship of the *paying adult* by the provider, so that he doesn't even (apparently) have the OPTION to let his kids look at whatever they want, which is the prohibition of the only sane choice. And it opens the door to far worse. It is our RESPONSIBILITY to boycott all providers who censor, either by yanking newsgroups or by developing "filtering" interfaces that they ram down the throats of unsuspecting customers who want to let their kids use the computer. - - - - - As for the reaction I was suggesting, it was simple: the animal rights organizations have lists of their supporters, addresses, telephone numbers. They send out newsletters, run public events. They have POWER, and if they care about this at all, they can use that power to tell their supporters --- especially those with computers and kids --- that Cyber Patrol CENSORED this site, and that they should not use that service. If that means dumping that censor service, fine. If it means having to dump the whole ISP, so be it. They should not appeal to Cyber Patrol from a position of weakness, but from a position of victory. Let Cyber Patrol come begging to THEM. - - - - - As for censorship of children: there are two rights here --- the right to free communication, and the right of parents to raise their children as they see fit. I do not wish to deny either right here --- I don't want to suggest that government force be applied against parents who censor their kids. BUT the kids *do* have a right to free speech, and I do not want to see government force be used to deny children that right --- at our expense, and perhaps even at the expense of parents who want to raise their children to be free. As for parents, well, parents make many decisions, and many mistakes. I think that what is best is if they allow kids complete access to everything, and give them the level of support they need to back them up through that. I am not going to try to FORCE them to stick to that, however. The coincidence of two rights does not give the government carte blanche to destroy them both. From: sethf@athena.mit.edu (Seth Finkelstein) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.censorship,alt.culture.www,alt.cyberspace Subject: Re: CyperPatrol censors animal rights web sites Date: 13 Jun 1996 12:57:22 GMT Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lines: 93 Message-ID: <4pp37i$dav@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> References: <4pg08q$r1o@anarchy.io.com> <4ph9bb$f6m@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> <4plnvn$ng2@piglet.cc.uic.edu> Reply-To: sethf@mit.edu In article <4plnvn$ng2@piglet.cc.uic.edu> Tommy the Terrorist writes: >Guys, hold on a minute. I'm not sure that we're talking on the same >wavelength here. Various system differ in the details. The basic thread remains the same: Use fear of prosecution as an engine to enforce compliance with the mechanism for suppressing content. From this viewpoint, direct criminal sanctions are just the crudest way. Ratings schemes are a more sophisticated method, with the advantage that the actual administration of the system is pushed onto a private agent. >The "ratings schemes" that *I've* heard about, were supposed to be >implemented on the purchaser's *own* computer. Like "SafeSurf", the only That's some talk of "Exon boxes", dumping material at the router level. >one I actually bothered to look at. When the purchaser buys such a >scheme, his kids might be screwed over (unless they figure out a hack!) >but it's between him and them. It's not right, but it's not part of >widespread censorship. Two things: Making participating in the scheme on the content producer end "involuntary" is a big part of the process, and making the default setting a blocked setting is what I'm worried will be used to provide widespread censorship. > And they give the parents a *choice* of which >"ratings system" to use, so that at least there's the possibility that >the ones who are afraid of naked pictures will still let their kids read >about animal rights and gay marriage and whatever else. But in fact, the way these "choices" are structured makes this pretty laughable. This whole thread started when dozens of animal-rights groups found they were banned by CyberPatrol for "Gross"-ness. >One person said that there were internet providers considering >implementing such a scheme at *their* end, and that is dangerous. It's the next logical step. Don't be surprised. Again, it's important to realize we aren't living in an abstraction. Don't expect that when the censors are defeated on one front, they'll just pack up and go away. No, other methods will be tried. >The first scheme is NOT censorship, *except* of the child by the parent. It's censorship when providers are coerced into it by fear of government prosecution. >The second is a scheme for censorship of the *paying adult* by the >provider, so that he doesn't even (apparently) have the OPTION to let his >kids look at whatever they want, which is the prohibition of the only >sane choice. And it opens the door to far worse. Hear hear. >It is our RESPONSIBILITY to boycott all providers who censor, either by >yanking newsgroups or by developing "filtering" interfaces that they ram >down the throats of unsuspecting customers who want to let their kids use >the computer. A wonderful sentiment. But I doubt many will follow it. > As for the reaction I was suggesting, it was simple: the animal >rights organizations have lists of their supporters, addresses, telephone It's more complex, though. This case is just a particular example. Remember what "Jeff Davis, AT&T Worldnet agent" said - "Who cares what other content is filtered out as well as sexually explicit material". If that's a widespread attitude, there's a real problem. Because the sexual material is used as the reason for widespread deployment (government force involved), and then everything else CyberPatrol happens to dislike is piggybacked along. > As for censorship of children: there are two rights here --- the >right to free communication, and the right of parents to raise their >children as they see fit. I do not wish to deny either right here --- I >... > The coincidence of two rights does not give the government carte >blanche to destroy them both. I don't know of any proposal to make ratings systems or CyberPatrol programs *illegal*. I certainly haven't said anything like that. I just want them at the level of the Catholic Church's "Index of Prohibited Books" - the fanatics are welcome to it, but don't use criminal laws to back it up. I hope that the overturning of the CDA takes some steam out of these censorship efforts. But I suspect that straight criminal laws having failed, we will see even stronger attempts to use other tactics. -- Seth Finkelstein sethf@mit.edu Disclaimer : I am not the Lorax. I speak only for myself. (and certainly not for Project Athena, MIT, or anyone else). Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk From: avedon@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Avedon Carol") Subject: Re: CyperPatrol censors animal rights web sites Message-ID: Organization: Feminists Against Censorship References: <4p36f2$2l52@piglet.cc.uic.edu> Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 17:39:39 GMT X-News-Software: Ameol Lines: 59 Tommy the Terrorist wrote: > I share your low opinion of such arguments; unfortunately, it so > happens that in this case they are in the right. The reason for > this is that (as far as I know) not even the crazy bastards in the > legislatures have attempted to *mandate* anyone's use of the Cyber > Patrol "service", or have shown any sign of trying to force ISP's to > check whether the client is using it (yet). Yet. Because the ACLU et al. case has prevented the CDA from coming into force. Yet. Seth's point might be more obvious if the law were actually brought into force. If it were, someone would have to come up with ratings for "indecency" in posts and we'd probably find ourselves forced to create ratings (according to that someone else's judgement) for our own posts. At that point, we'd be forced to conspire in effective self-censorship, either deleting all potentially "indecent" material from our posts/pages or having to grade our material in such a way as to make it technically invisible to people using certain net-nanny devices. Bear in mind also that the CDA makes it a crime to knowingly expose minors to "indecent" material. So I'm not just being offered the opportunity to filter what I (or my children) see on my computer screen, but being forced to filter what someone else, including perhaps my own children, may see. Since I know that, as things presently stand, some minors will see Usenet posts, I am being told I may become a criminal if I write material for Usenet that the censors may see as "indecent" but which I may see as vital to young people if they are to develop a healthy sexuality. Now, if some ignorant jerk wants to set their software up so that it automatically skips/kills any post with Certain Words in it, that's their business and their loss, but they can do that with or without a CDA. (The same goes for idiot parents who think they can "protect" their kids from dirty words on the internet that they are more likely to learn from their playmates.) But I see no reason why I should have to participate in their mass hallucination that explicit depictions or discussions of sexual matters (or excretory functions) are somehow beyond the pale and should not be seen by the "vulnerable" in internet materials. The point is that _I_ do not accept their evaluation of certain content as "indecent", and I don't see why I should have to label my own content as indecent _as if_ I agreed with them. Their labelling theory is based on their own political and religious principles, and I have no obligation to accept their definitions, since my religious and political principles clearly differ from theirs. No one has asked me whether I consider right-wing religious dogma to be "indecent" and would like to protect my children from exposure to such rubbish, for example. That one kind of political thought is clearly being privileged over another under the CDA - legislation made by Congress - is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment. Avedon Feminists Against Censorship http://www.fullfeed.com/hypatia/censor.html