From: mech@eff.org (Stanton McCandlish) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Demon.co.uk, RSACi, PICS, and Usenet censorship Date: 9 Sep 1996 12:11:16 -0700 Organization: EFF mail-news gateway Lines: 125 Sender: daemon@eff.org Approved: usenet@eff.org Message-ID: <199609091911.MAA13934@eff.org.842296274> I'm posting this in its entirety. Copyright could apply, but this has the character of a press release, rather than an article, and I expect that Demon Internet certainly intends wide distribution. A key quote: >Previous experience on the Internet shows that knee jerk reactions don't >work. Since anyone can post whatever he likes on the Internet, wherever he >likes, cutting off the places traditionally used to send pictures or >messages is a like using a dam to clear a polluted river; the rubbish will >back up behind the dam, and finally spill out around it. Take away the >newsgroups that are used by those posting illegal material, and they'll they >will simply post in a new newsgroup. Anyone can create new newsgroups and >anyone can post to them. There is a real danger that these posts will land >in the least expected places, like rec.disney, which has a child readership. >Can we honestly say that any child has been protected? The solution, surely, >has to be to target the people posting the material, stopping it happening >in the first place, just as we now control factory emissions instead of >spending time and money cleaning up public buildings. This is a crucial point myself and others have been making for quite some time, but which the mainstream media, legislators, and law enforcement seem very loath to learn. Let's hope they understand it now. To be fair, it *is* hard to grasp if you don't know a lot about the net. The idea of a massive public messaging and information service in which anyone can do anything, including create whole new forums, is probably a difficult idea to get a handle on if you are used to nothing but television, radio, paper publishing, or at best on of the proprietary online services. Its upon us now to educate the public, the media, and the government on how the Net, especially in this case, Usenet, operates. >This article appeared in the Independent (a leading "quality" newspaper) in >the UK earlier this week. The url is: >http://www.demon.net/news/features/censor.html > >Demon Internet and Censorship > >By James Gardiner > >Published in The Independent, Monday 2nd September. > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >Far from sitting back and letting people misuse the Internet to distribute >child pornography, Demon Internet has been actively looking at ways to >combat the problem. We have been in regular contact with the DTI, the Home >Office and the Police since the beginning of the year. > >We have adopted the new Platform for Internet Content Selection (PICS) >standard, which makes it possible to rate every web page according to its >content. Demon Internet and Microsoft with the Recreation Software Advisory >Committee (RSACi) is pioneering a new Internet standard for rating >newsgroups. Unlike blanket bans, PICS allows the users to choose what is >acceptable for them, locking these options with a password to protect their >children. Demon Internet is the first company to ship Microsoft Internet >Explorer 3.0 which has RSACi ratings built-in. > >Previous experience on the Internet shows that knee jerk reactions don't >work. Since anyone can post whatever he likes on the Internet, wherever he >likes, cutting off the places traditionally used to send pictures or >messages is a like using a dam to clear a polluted river; the rubbish will >back up behind the dam, and finally spill out around it. Take away the >newsgroups that are used by those posting illegal material, and they'll they >will simply post in a new newsgroup. Anyone can create new newsgroups and >anyone can post to them. There is a real danger that these posts will land >in the least expected places, like rec.disney, which has a child readership. >Can we honestly say that any child has been protected? The solution, surely, >has to be to target the people posting the material, stopping it happening >in the first place, just as we now control factory emissions instead of >spending time and money cleaning up public buildings. > >The Internet is international; it's complex and hard to censor and as Trade >Minister Ian Taylor says: > > > >"I do not want to see a situation where the only material on the Net would >be that acceptable to the most restrictive Government in the world. Would >that be good for free speech?" > > > >Our policies will require all our users to RSACi rate their Web pages by the >end of the year and all the recommended software will be PICS enabled as >standard. > >And what of those posting child pornography and other illegal material on >the Internet? PICS can only prevent Internet users from seeing it, but we >are determined to see that it is removed from circulation. We are actively >involved in setting up a Hotline for the public to report illegal >pornography originating in the UK, allowing action to be taken against those >who misuse the net by distributing it. This model has been successfully used >in The Netherlands to eliminate illegal pornography postings. > >Cliff Stanford says: > > > >"Freedom demands responsibility. That is how the UK Internet community needs >to behave: responsibly, constructively, helping to bring child pornographers >to book." > > > >James Gardiner >Marketing Manager >Demon Internet Ltd > >Stephen Balkam >Executive Director, RSAC >Tel: 617 860 9888 >www.rsac.org > > > > -- Stanton McCandlish
mech@eff.org

Electronic Frontier Foundation

Online Activist From: sethf@athena.mit.edu (Seth Finkelstein) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.censorship,news.admin.censorship,uk.net Subject: Re: Demon.co.uk, RSACi, PICS, and Usenet censorship Date: 10 Sep 1996 04:44:17 GMT Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lines: 67 Message-ID: <512rn1$g20@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> References: <199609091911.MAA13934@eff.org.842296274> Reply-To: sethf@mit.edu In article <199609091911.MAA13934@eff.org.842296274> mech@eff.org (Stanton McCandlish) writes: [Demon Internet says:] >>Our policies will require all our users to RSACi rate their Web pages by the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>end of the year and all the recommended software will be PICS enabled as >>standard. >>James Gardiner >>Marketing Manager >>Demon Internet Ltd Excuse me for a moment, gentle readers, I feel the need to vent a little: ARRRRGH! I TOLD YOU SO! I TOLD YOU SO! I TOLD YOU SO! Over the past year I've been trying to get people to stop analyzing things in terms of idiotic Libertarian theories or naive technological optimism. In the very first post I wrote on this, back in November 1995, I talked about: Critically, the government coercion will be mostly done not at the *creator* level, but the *provider* level. This partly answers the questions that come up about "voluntary-ness". The government doesn't say "You must label your pages", your contract with your provider does. [File: http://www.mit.edu/activities/safe/labeling/against-net-label] Wake up already! I've gotten into screaming arguments with EFF people, I talked myself hoarse at CFP'96 with anti-PICS explanations, I've been going on and on over various lists. Stop thinking about the best case in la-la land where there are no ambitious prosecutors, sensation-mongering journalists, and scared ISP's. Start thinking about *the real world*. There's constant government threat, and it's been evident for a long time. The above sorts of actions are not a surprise, they're absolutely predicatable if you'll just look at things historically! That's instead of using the techno-libertarian haze that's the favorite on the Net. Every single system put into place as "censor yourselves or the government will censor you" becomes stifling and restrictive. This is the way things work, if the government doesn't run the censorship system directly, businesses buy in and are coerced by government threat to administer the systems themselves. I don't want to hear another Libertarian yammer-drool at me "Duh, but the ISP isn't the government, so it's not censorship". It's not voluntary when you do it to avoid going to jail, that's not the definition of voluntary. Stop thinking about PICS and RSACi and the likes as a savior! In the environment of government threat, they're just another means of censorship. Thank you. I'll try to keep my temper in the inevitable follow-ups (with perhaps the exception of Libertarians who bring up the same dealt-with babbling over and over again ...) For more information, read the Information about Labeling and Rating Systems page http://www.mit.edu/activities/safe/labeling/summary.html of the MIT Student Association for Freedom of Expression http://www.mit.edu/activities/safe/home.html -- 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: gd@ee.ed.ac.uk (Gary Dale) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.censorship,news.admin.censorship,uk.net Subject: Re: Demon.co.uk, RSACi, PICS, and Usenet censorship Date: 10 Sep 1996 09:45:22 GMT Organization: Edinburgh University Lines: 84 Message-ID: <513dbi$pta@scotsman.ed.ac.uk> References: <199609091911.MAA13934@eff.org.842296274> <512rn1$g20@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> In <512rn1$g20@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> sethf@athena.mit.edu (Seth Finkelstein) writes: >In article <199609091911.MAA13934@eff.org.842296274> mech@eff.org (Stanton McCandlish) writes: >[Demon Internet says:] >>>Our policies will require all our users to RSACi rate their Web pages by the > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>>end of the year and all the recommended software will be PICS enabled as >>>standard. >>>James Gardiner >>>Marketing Manager >>>Demon Internet Ltd > Excuse me for a moment, gentle readers, I feel the need to vent >a little: > ARRRRGH! I TOLD YOU SO! I TOLD YOU SO! I TOLD YOU SO! > Over the past year I've been trying to get people to stop >analyzing things in terms of idiotic Libertarian theories or naive >technological optimism. In the very first post I wrote on this, back in >November 1995, I talked about: > Critically, the government coercion will be mostly done not > at the *creator* level, but the *provider* level. This partly answers > the questions that come up about "voluntary-ness". The government > doesn't say "You must label your pages", your contract with your > provider does. >[File: http://www.mit.edu/activities/safe/labeling/against-net-label] > Wake up already! I've gotten into screaming arguments with EFF >people, I talked myself hoarse at CFP'96 with anti-PICS explanations, >I've been going on and on over various lists. Stop thinking about the >best case in la-la land where there are no ambitious prosecutors, >sensation-mongering journalists, and scared ISP's. Start thinking about >*the real world*. There's constant government threat, and it's been >evident for a long time. > The above sorts of actions are not a surprise, they're >absolutely predicatable if you'll just look at things historically! >That's instead of using the techno-libertarian haze that's the >favorite on the Net. Every single system put into place as "censor >yourselves or the government will censor you" becomes stifling and >restrictive. This is the way things work, if the government doesn't run >the censorship system directly, businesses buy in and are coerced by >government threat to administer the systems themselves. I don't want to Exactly. But they also seem to be taking their own initiatives to pre-empt government. That is, they are no reliable supporters of free speech. Know your enemy. >hear another Libertarian yammer-drool at me "Duh, but the ISP isn't the >government, so it's not censorship". It's not voluntary when you do it >to avoid going to jail, that's not the definition of voluntary. > Stop thinking about PICS and RSACi and the likes as a savior! >In the environment of government threat, they're just another means of >censorship. At last, recognition! > Thank you. I'll try to keep my temper in the inevitable >follow-ups (with perhaps the exception of Libertarians who bring up the >same dealt-with babbling over and over again ...) > For more information, read the >Information about Labeling and Rating Systems page >http://www.mit.edu/activities/safe/labeling/summary.html >of the MIT Student Association for Freedom of Expression >http://www.mit.edu/activities/safe/home.html And then read: "Get The Met Off The Net" --Gary Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk From: avedon@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Avedon Carol") Subject: Re: Demon.co.uk, RSACi, PICS, and Usenet censorship Message-ID: Organization: Feminists Against Censorship References: <512rn1$g20@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 18:07:41 GMT X-News-Software: Ameol Lines: 46 sethf@athena.mit.edu (Seth Finkelstein) wrote: > The above sorts of actions are not a surprise, they're > absolutely predicatable if you'll just look at things historically! > That's instead of using the techno-libertarian haze that's the > favorite on the Net. Every single system put into place as "censor > yourselves or the government will censor you" becomes stifling and > restrictive. This is the way things work, if the government doesn't > run the censorship system directly, businesses buy in and are > coerced by government threat to administer the systems themselves. I > don't want to hear another Libertarian yammer-drool at me "Duh, but > the ISP isn't the government, so it's not censorship". It's not > voluntary when you do it to avoid going to jail, that's not the > definition of voluntary. And this is even more true in the UK than in the US. The film industry has ratings for its films, and that means that a lot of distributors won't take films without certain ratings in the US, it's true - but you can still see unrated films _somewhere_, even if they self-rate as "XXX". The federal government has not made it impossible to buy, sell, show or view XXX movies. But in the UK, we had the British Board of Film Censors, a private body that was not a part of the government, for the industry to police itself. And yet...we wake up one morning and discover that it is now illegal to sell any film that doesn't have a certificate from the BBFC (now, interestingly, called "The British Board of Film Classification", although they are even more literally government censors than ever), and the BBFC can refuse a certificate to a film or require cuts to an "18" film (the most "lenient" category) if it is to be certificated at all. One man, James Ferman, has the last word on whether your film will be released. The government or its agents can decide later that they still don't like your film, even though Ferman okayed it, and remove its certificate, but Ferman can stop a film ever from getting into legal circulation at all. How long does anyone imagine it will take for the self-generated ratings that the ISPs create to be legally mandated? A. Carol Feminists Against Censorship http://www.fullfeed.com/hypatia/censor.html ------------------------------------------- "Any sufficiently advanced political correctness is indistinguishable from irony." - Stolen from Jane Hawkins From: Tommy the Terrorist Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.censorship,news.admin.censorship,uk.net Subject: Re: Demon.co.uk, RSACi, PICS, and Usenet censorship Date: 11 Sep 1996 09:05:40 GMT Organization: Dis Lines: 17 Message-ID: <515vd4$1a76@piglet.cc.uic.edu> References: <512rn1$g20@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-XXMessage-ID: X-XXDate: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 10:07:31 GMT The obvious response would appear to be simply to label EVERYTHING 'as hot as possible'. "Yes, we have German shepherds screwing freshly-plucked and still-half-alive aborted fetuses while their 12-year-old mothers nurse them from heroin bottles with blazing red pentagrams on them." A PICS-capable browser treats unrated material as infinitely hot anyway, so you wouldn't even lose any readers for doing it. Of course, if the provider then takes the tack of banning things above a certain rating, at least they have been forced to come out in the open about censorship. But as long as there is ANY provider which one can take, which does not enforce a censorship policy, it is to the client's best interest (especially stability!), and in the spirit of political solidarity, to use that provider to the exclusion of any censor. If the government then goes to banning all such providers, then they have been forced to come out in the open about censorship. At that point, it's time to initiate more revolutionary tactics. PICS is a danger only to those already looking for a way to surrender. From: sethf@athena.mit.edu (Seth Finkelstein) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.censorship,news.admin.censorship,uk.net Subject: Re: Demon.co.uk, RSACi, PICS, and Usenet censorship Date: 12 Sep 1996 07:39:07 GMT Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lines: 41 Message-ID: <518emr$fsj@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> References: <512rn1$g20@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> <515vd4$1a76@piglet.cc.uic.edu> In article <515vd4$1a76@piglet.cc.uic.edu> Tommy the Terrorist writes: > The obvious response would appear to be simply to label EVERYTHING 'as >hot as possible'. "Yes, we have German shepherds screwing This is one for the FAQ. Almost none of the companies putting stuff on the Web will do this. Remember, PICS is being supported by a lot of major players, ranging from Apple and Microsoft to AOL and Prodigy. So the net result of the "let's all rate XXX" idea is that anything coming from independent-minded individuals is stigmatized, and the tripe coming from the organizations that would love to get control of the distribution channels does not have to pass through the "rot your mind" barrier. I don't think this is what you desire. Everybody-resist is a cute fantasy, but that's all it is. >about censorship. But as long as there is ANY provider which one can >take, which does not enforce a censorship policy, it is to the client's >best interest (especially stability!), and in the spirit of political >solidarity, to use that provider to the exclusion of any censor. I fear a) there won't be *one*. or b) even if there are a few, they'll be blocked out from just about everywhere. > If the government then goes to banning all such providers, then they >have been forced to come out in the open about censorship. At that >point, it's time to initiate more revolutionary tactics. They're out in the open now!!! They just want the ISP's to run the system instead of themselves. > PICS is a danger only to those already looking for a way to surrender. No, that's like saying a yellow star label is a danger only to those looking for a way to denigrate themselves. It's part of a *system*, and that affects *everyone*. -- 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: sethf@athena.mit.edu (Seth Finkelstein) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.censorship,news.admin.censorship,uk.net Subject: Re: Demon.co.uk, RSACi, PICS, and Usenet censorship Date: 12 Sep 1996 07:43:51 GMT Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lines: 109 Message-ID: <518evn$ftp@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> References: <512rn1$g20@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> <515vd4$1a76@piglet.cc.uic.edu> <518emr$fsj@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> Here's some very interesting research I've done. The plot thickens ... >>Our policies will require all our users to RSACi rate their Web pages by the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>end of the year and all the recommended software will be PICS enabled as >>standard. >From: Charlie Mullins >I hope this means that Demon will be hosting very few web pages >by the end of the year. I fear it means that all the other ISP's in England will be requiring similar RSACi rating of Web pages by the end of the year. Maybe PICS-RSACi headers for Usenet articles are next. I spent the night researching the background here, and it turns out to be much more layered than just the sort of journalism-trash we know so well. There's a strong context of a censorship system being put in place, it's an almost perfect working out of what I've been talking about in terms of setting up "privatized" censorship. This is not a case where ISP's are competing for customers - here, they're going to compete to appease the government, because the ones which are best at that task DON'T get investigated or worse. This isn't my ranting - "Science and Technology Minister Ian Taylor" was very clear and blunt about it: "Government will face increasingly strong calls for legislation to regulate all aspects of the Internet, unless and until service providers are seen wholeheartedly to embrace responsible self-regulation. In the absence of self regulation, the police will inevitably move to act against service providers as well as the originators of illegal material. [http://www.coi.gov.uk/coi/depts/GTI/coi1319c.ok, from http://www.stonix.demon.co.uk/ and http://www.stonix.demon.co.uk/crackdown/] In short "censor yourself, or we'll censor you". That's what "self-regulation" means, it means the businesses administer the censorship system in place of the government. He goes on: "I welcome moves by the Internet Service Providers Association (ISPA), and others in the industry, to develop an appropriate code of practice. This will help protect both users and service providers on the Internet. My Department is preparing to second a member of staff as the Chief Executive of ISPA to assist in this process. I also applaud recent moves by the Metropolitan Police to encourage greater co-operation with the industry to address some of the problems of illegal material on the Internet." There's quite a bit more to this statement than is evident without context. It turns out the "ISPA" [http://www.ispa.org.uk/] is a group that's interested in imposing a quite severe censorship among its members, the above "code of practice". Guess who's been quoted a lot blowing off ISPA? Demon Internet! How very interesting. But look what he says above - a *minister* of the *government* is going to have close ties with the trade association to "assist" them. At the very least, anyone who opposes the trade organization is opposing someone with the ear of a high-level official. When they're wondering what doors to break down, anyone with that organization's protection will likely be safe, but imagine what's going to happen to those who don't sign on ... Now, this Code of Practice they're talking about is a hoot. A draft version came right out and said it's designed to apply to *everyone*: [http://www.ispa.org.uk/draftcodeofconduct.html] "The Code is not just intended to regulate ISP's but could also apply to web authors, customers etc. This can be done quite easily by inserting a standard term into agreements which states that the other contracting party shall not do anything directly, or cause the ISP to do anything, which is in breach of the letter or spirit of the Code. This way if something occurs which is not specifically covered by a contractual terms but infringes the code then a Member will be able to act in relation to that third party in a circumstance where it could not otherwise do so." My favorite provision (this one got removed later from the draft version, to be fair): 1.5.1 Members must ensure that they do nothing which could damage the public image of the Internet industry or of the ISPA. ^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^ But one that's still present: 1.2.1 Services and promotional material do not contain material inciting violence, sadism, cruelty, or racial hatred. [http://www.ispa.org.uk/codenew.html] Here it is. Everything comes together. To recap: 1) Businesses (ISP's) willing to be censored form a trade group 2) Trade group works with government to impose "self-regulation" 3) Those not willing to sign up find themselves in various trouble 4) All authors are censored as a matter of *contract* with the ISP's THIS IS NOT NEW! (except for part 4) It's the Comic Code Authority all over again, it's similar to the MPAA, it's happened many times in the past. People need to start thinking in these terms, now! -- 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: dbell@zhochaka.demon.co.uk ("David G. Bell") Subject: Re: Demon.co.uk, RSACi, PICS, and Usenet censorship Message-ID: <842816154snz@zhochaka.demon.co.uk> References: <512rn1$g20@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> <515vd4$1a76@piglet.cc.uic.edu> <518emr$fsj@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> <518evn$ftp@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> Date: Sun, 15 Sep 96 19:35:54 GMT Organization: C. Bell & Sons Reply-To: dbell@zhochaka.demon.co.uk Lines: 37 Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.censorship,news.admin.censorship,uk.net X-NNTP-Posting-User: dbell@zhochaka.demon.co.uk X-Mail2News-Path: zhochaka.demon.co.uk In article <518evn$ftp@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> sethf@athena.mit.edu "Seth Finkelstein" writes: [Draft ISPA Code of Conduct which may be worked into an ISP's Terms and Conditions] > But one that's still present: > > 1.2.1 Services and promotional material do not contain material inciting > violence, sadism, cruelty, or racial hatred. Well, that kills off alt.sex.bondage for a start. > THIS IS NOT NEW! (except for part 4) It's the Comic Code > Authority all over again, it's similar to the MPAA, it's happened many > times in the past. People need to start thinking in these terms, now! I know a few people in the comics business, some of them involved in producing award-winning comics, and I can't see 'The Adventures of Luther Arkwright' ever getting published with a CCA logo. I doubt it would get past this ISPA code either. The intent seems to be to limit the Internet to material suitable for children. Incidentally, that incitement clause isn't wildly wrong. There are general laws against incitement of racial hatred, and against racial and sexual discrimination. But it does suggest that it was written by somebody with some particular hang-ups of their own. And, even as it is, it is a reasonable condition for the ISPs themselves to adhere to. But it has pitfalls. Is a newsgroup a service provided by the ISP? Is a newsgroup (or equivalent) available only to customers of an ISP something different from a newsgroup distrbuted world-wide? -- David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, Furry, and Punslinger.. From: sethf@athena.mit.edu (Seth Finkelstein) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.censorship,news.admin.censorship,uk.net Subject: Re: Demon.co.uk, RSACi, PICS, and Usenet censorship Date: 16 Sep 1996 06:41:41 GMT Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lines: 81 Message-ID: <51isr5$jf5@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> References: <515vd4$1a76@piglet.cc.uic.edu> <518emr$fsj@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> <518evn$ftp@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> Reply-To: sethf@mit.edu [More on the origin and intent of RSACi. Did you know they have "fines of up to $10,000" *by contract* as penalties for "non conformance" for their earlier rating system?] > From: "Jeanne A. E. DeVoto" > Apart from the cultural (American-censor-centric) issues raised by Charlie > Stross, did anyone else notice that this rating system is lifted directly > from a rating system specifically for computer games? I mean, *very* > specifically; this is not a general rating system, it's one aimed at > cartoon games. Yes, "RSAC" stands for "Recreational Software Advisory Council". They were started as business self-censorship to appease calls for government computer-games censorship: [http://www.rsac.org/press/951213-2.html] "I'll begin with some history. The Recreational Software Advisory Council is an independent, non-profit organization which provides and promotes a voluntary, content-labeling, rating system for recreational software and other media. We were established with the help of the Software Publishers Association in September of last year in a direct response to the threat of legislation from ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Senators Lieberman and Kohl. ..." It's extremely clear, "censors yourselves or we'll censor you". It's the exact same story. Their press stuff isn't shy about this. Oh, there's a lot of fluff about "voluntary" and "objective" and the like, but the mechanics of these systems are set out in great detail: [ From http://www.rsac.org/press/950724.html ] ... It was imperative that the RSAC system had a strongly regulated series of controls to ensure that software publishers and other media providers were not able to cheat the system. The RSAC application includes a three page legal contract that is signed by the producer stating that he or she has fully disclosed all the potentially objectionable material within the product. The software publisher also agrees to adhere to the RSAC regulations regarding the display and use of the trademarked icons and logos. Further, the contract lays out stiff penalties for non conformance, including fines of up to $10,000,removal of product from retail outlets and enforced re-rating. In addition, RSAC regularly audits a percentage of all products that have been rated by the RSAC system. These spot checks ensure that a software publisher is fully aware that their products are closely monitored and reviewed. .... A key part in making the RSAC system effective is the active involvement of major retailers in the scheme. Wal*Mart, the country's leading retailer has announced that they will no longer accept titles unless they have been rated. Toys R Us has made a similar statement. Sears and Target strongly encourage software publishers to rate their products, though they have not, to date, set a time limit after which they will no longer accept unrated products. Senator Lieberman has taken a strong stance on this issue and together with Senator Kohl, continues to try to persuade more retailers to ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ take the Wal*Mart line. ^^^^^^^^ It's not just a private quirk that WalMart is antsy about what they stock. They've got Senators to "persuade" them about it. > It looks to me as though someone simply did a partial search-and-replace of > "content" or "internet[sic] content" for "program" or "game" but didn't > make it complete, and forgot to substitute "user" for "player". I have no > idea how the hell anyone is supposed to rate a web site (that doesn't > happen to be an interactive game) under these rules. For all the talk about "objective" or such, there's really just one question - "Should this material be stigmatized?". If you examine the competing SafeSurf system in detail, you'd see there's a lot of cut-and-paste in it too. It's a myth that they are trying to somehow neutrally sum up the contents, that's just the press line, don't be fooled. These system are designed to do exactly one thing - hang a Scarlet Letter (Scarlet Rating?) on the material, so it can be identified easily so as to make distribution much more difficult. -- 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,news.admin.censorship,uk.net Subject: Re: Demon.co.uk, RSACi, PICS, and Usenet censorship Date: 16 Sep 1996 03:04:49 GMT Organization: Dis Lines: 61 Message-ID: <51ig4h$2h5i@piglet.cc.uic.edu> References: <512rn1$g20@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> <518emr$fsj@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> <518evn$ftp@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-XXMessage-ID: X-XXDate: Sun, 15 Sep 1996 03:56:20 GMT In article <518emr$fsj@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> Seth Finkelstein, sethf@athena.mit.edu writes: > Almost none of the companies putting stuff on the Web will do >this. Remember, PICS is being supported by a lot of major players, >ranging from Apple and Microsoft to AOL and Prodigy. So the net result >of the "let's all rate XXX" idea is that anything coming from >independent-minded individuals is stigmatized, and the tripe coming from >the organizations that would love to get control of the distribution >channels does not have to pass through the "rot your mind" barrier. I >don't think this is what you desire. > Everybody-resist is a cute fantasy, but that's all it is. I don't see why it wouldn't at least be an effective means of protest. Moreover, it seems like a very straightforward response to the demand, which has no effect whatsoever on who can read the material anyway, whether or not they use PICS screening, as far as I know. It also serves a crucial 'shielding' role: an automatic search of PICS classifications by government agents looking for someone to hassle would quickly be bogged down in the pages of civil libertarians with no graphical material at all. Realistically, the number of people who will be unjustly subject to prosecution is equal to the number of enforcement agents divided by the amount of time they need to take to find a prosecutable item, so this would be a Good Thing. (Actually, it could get rather cute: we could set up bizarre loops of pages leading all over Internet promising all sorts of nifty porno stuff that they never, somehow, quite arrive to, but make them so that only government enforcers would stumble across them [maybe a special version for a few select origin IP addresses?] Most amusingly, however, is this: with a reasonable selection of search engines, we might hope to persuade at least one to make searches capable of finding ONLY those pages with the HIGHEST rating, so that we can screen out corporate whores in favor of free-thinking individuals! > I fear a) there won't be *one*. or b) even if there are a few, >they'll be blocked out from just about everywhere. Many of the current providers are ideologically motivated; I don't think they're all going to give up and go away. (now I don't know about Britain; they're too small, and too unfamiliar with the practice of free speech... but they'll surely just get Dutch accounts anyway, like they should have from the beginning!) There will be busts, of course, but aren't there always? They could "voluntarily" give up everything but Disney/kindergarten text and just as many people would be busted in the end. We need to make every single one of those busts serve as a direct impetus toward nothing short of REVOLUTION, so that the government has to back off and make concessions (while still doing its worst more quietly, alas). It's given people breathing room before... Part of keeping the things from being blocked, once again, could be with deliberate high rating. Make it IMPOSSIBLE for the ratings-blockers to offer neat personal pages which are well known to more "free" parts of the Net, and they'll take continual flack for it. In a sense I am not disagreeing with you --- we need to block this mandatory "voluntary" rating scam. But I think this would be one method of resistance working toward that end. Random question: do you think it would be better for people on Demon now to stay on (while quietly getting backup accounts) and demand to be literally thrown off for not rating pages, or for them to quit immediately and switch, thereby denying some amount of revenue, or for them to give the page the highest rating and wait for the "other shoe" (the banning of ratings over some number) to drop before they leave? From: sethf@athena.mit.edu (Seth Finkelstein) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.censorship,news.admin.censorship,uk.net Subject: Re: Demon.co.uk, RSACi, PICS, and Usenet censorship Date: 16 Sep 1996 06:30:10 GMT Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lines: 101 Message-ID: <51is5i$j99@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> References: <518emr$fsj@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> <518evn$ftp@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> <51ig4h$2h5i@piglet.cc.uic.edu> Reply-To: sethf@mit.edu In article <51ig4h$2h5i@piglet.cc.uic.edu> Tommy the Terrorist writes: >In article <518emr$fsj@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> Seth Finkelstein, >sethf@athena.mit.edu writes: >> Almost none of the companies putting stuff on the Web will do >>this. Remember, PICS is being supported by a lot of major players, >>ranging from Apple and Microsoft to AOL and Prodigy. So the net result >>of the "let's all rate XXX" idea is that anything coming from >>independent-minded individuals is stigmatized, and the tripe coming from >>the organizations that would love to get control of the distribution >>channels does not have to pass through the "rot your mind" barrier. I >>don't think this is what you desire. >> Everybody-resist is a cute fantasy, but that's all it is. > > I don't see why it wouldn't at least be an effective means of protest. Because the purpose of a protest is to be HEARD, to draw attention to your cause. Taking actions that insure almost no-one will hear from you is not at all effective in this regard. > Moreover, it seems like a very straightforward response to the demand, >which has no effect whatsoever on who can read the material anyway, THINK. The next step is to impose difficulties on getting to unrated material, the rumored "Exon boxes". That's the historical pattern. >whether or not they use PICS screening, as far as I know. It also serves >a crucial 'shielding' role: an automatic search of PICS classifications >by government agents looking for someone to hassle would quickly be >bogged down in the pages of civil libertarians with no graphical material Whatever method non-FBI people use to find the "real stuff", the FBI can use also. > Most amusingly, however, is this: with a reasonable selection of >search engines, we might hope to persuade at least one to make searches >capable of finding ONLY those pages with the HIGHEST rating, so that we >can screen out corporate whores in favor of free-thinking individuals! And let's give ourselves the Medal of Freedom while we're at it. >> I fear a) there won't be *one*. or b) even if there are a few, >>they'll be blocked out from just about everywhere. > > Many of the current providers are ideologically motivated; I don't >think they're all going to give up and go away. (now I don't know about No, the ones that won't are going to be investigated for "child porn", have all their machines seized for "evidence", and go bankrupt from legal fees. >Britain; they're too small, and too unfamiliar with the practice of free >speech... but they'll surely just get Dutch accounts anyway, like they >should have from the beginning!) No, they won't. They'll comply, except for a few which will be dealt with in other ways (maybe block lists). >end. We need to make every single one of those busts serve as a direct >impetus toward nothing short of REVOLUTION, so that the government has to aaarrrggghhhh ... all these martyrs. Find me a dozen new pro-bono lawyers, OK? Surely that's a whole lot easier. > Part of keeping the things from being blocked, once again, could be >with deliberate high rating. Make it IMPOSSIBLE for the ratings-blockers >to offer neat personal pages which are well known to more "free" parts of >the Net, and they'll take continual flack for it. How many pagers are there which are "really" needed? How many of these will go along with fighting the rating schemes? How many will continue in the face of a lawyer's letter? I think the answer is vanishingly small. > In a sense I am not disagreeing with you --- we need to block this >mandatory "voluntary" rating scam. But I think this would be one method >of resistance working toward that end. It's way too prone to fantasy for my taste. Electronic freedom is just not a mass movement. And almost all the network freedom lobbying organizations (the ACLU being the only exception I can think of at the moment) have bought into PICS ratings. >Random question: do you think it would be better for people on Demon now >to stay on (while quietly getting backup accounts) and demand to be >literally thrown off for not rating pages, or for them to quit >immediately and switch, thereby denying some amount of revenue, or for >them to give the page the highest rating and wait for the "other shoe" >(the banning of ratings over some number) to drop before they leave? I'd say quitting first (deny revenue), then make a fuss over ratings (increase trouble). But I really can't see it being very effective in either case. Whatever money or trouble generated, it'd have to be huge to outweigh the threat of government prosecution. I don't have a good solution. That's why I want the electronic civil-libertarian community to THINK ABOUT THIS! -- 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,news.admin.censorship,uk.net Subject: Re: Demon.co.uk, RSACi, PICS, and Usenet censorship Date: 19 Sep 1996 05:35:24 GMT Organization: Dis Lines: 144 Message-ID: <51qm2s$2352@piglet.cc.uic.edu> References: <842816154snz@zhochaka.demon.co.uk> <51isr5$jf5@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-XXMessage-ID: X-XXDate: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 05:58:32 GMT In article <51is5i$j99@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> Seth Finkelstein, sethf@athena.mit.edu writes: > Because the purpose of a protest is to be HEARD, to draw >attention to your cause. Taking actions that insure almost no-one will >hear from you is not at all effective in this regard. As I've said, there is no logical difference between who can access a PICS "9"-rated document and an unrated document. Refusing to switch from unrated to maximum-rated is a symbolic protest, which may be of some significance, but it doesn't immediately cost the site any readers if they do switch. Of course, because that rating has no actual effect, there is every reason to question the decision to require it in the first place. Perhaps an *actual* effort that should be made here is to put the question repeatedly to any such provider as to why they are making the demand at all --- their answer might be revealing. > THINK. The next step is to impose difficulties on getting to >unrated material, the rumored "Exon boxes". That's the historical pattern. What I *think* is that we need to stick to the core agenda here: making sure that everyone has the right to put up every kind of information that they desire, without trouble, and making sure that everyone who desires to do so can access that information, without trouble. For openers, why don't you spill the beans on the "rumored Exon boxes"? We're not trying to win the Cultural War in a day here. We're not trying to convince every parent on Earth that little Johnny should have complete access to all of Internet tomorrow. We're trying to preserve the right of adults to communicate, *and* (this is important) also the right of children to communicate when their parents are enlightened and encourage them to do so. While, in theory, every child should have the right to complete free speech and free inquiry, implementing this in practice cannot include a direct assault on the parent's right to set up accounts as he wishes, even crippled, rated accounts. The fight for the other children's rights will have to be won in the libraries, classrooms, and other public Internet facilities. I don't think that it is reasonably possible, and probably not even fair, to stop ratings completely. What we *can* do, and *must* do, is to make sure that they stay every bit as optional as they were ever claimed to be. > Whatever method non-FBI people use to find the "real stuff", the >FBI can use also. Yes, but it's all a question of speed. The longer it takes, the fewer people are hurt. The danger of enforced PICS ratings is that if "offenders" have to rate level-9 material as so, the FBI can just Altavista out their list of people to harass in an afternoon. Unless others deliberately give high ratings to slow them down. > No, the ones that won't are going to be investigated for "child >porn", have all their machines seized for "evidence", and go bankrupt >from legal fees. With PICS or without, people can be attacked in this manner. > aaarrrggghhhh ... all these martyrs. Find me a dozen new >pro-bono lawyers, OK? Surely that's a whole lot easier. Finding martyrs is trivial. We just read the papers... the one thing we can be sure about with censorship, is that there's always SOMEONE who will be "worst". We need to make maximum use of the news in order to develop a cold hatred for all governments of the world. >>[concerning workhorse pages rating themselves too high] > How many pagers are there which are "really" needed? How many of >these will go along with fighting the rating schemes? How many will >continue in the face of a lawyer's letter? I think the answer is >vanishingly small. You're suggesting that they're going to be threatened for rating themselves too high? It's conceivable, of course. But this tactic will lay the government open to the obvious complaint that if a person rates his page too low he's in trouble, and too high he's in trouble, and it's too vague, so there's no right way for anybody. And the complainers, by definition, will be "innocent" sites! It's not victory, but surely it's good press. > It's way too prone to fantasy for my taste. Electronic freedom >is just not a mass movement. And almost all the network freedom lobbying >organizations (the ACLU being the only exception I can think of at the >moment) have bought into PICS ratings. Well hell, if it's not a mass movement, and it's not an elite opposition movement, and the Powers That Be are dead set against it, then we're pretty well screwed, yes? The fact is, there are lots of mass movements that have started from further behind than this one --- most of the people here now BELIEVE in freedom (well, "except for one thing..." but the "thing" differs a lot between them, and so that's just a question of who frames the parameters of the debate). We have a (currently) OPEN communications forum, and tell me how many revolutionaries have had *that* before? So of course this is a mass movement. > I don't have a good solution. That's why I want the >electronic civil-libertarian community to THINK ABOUT THIS! My thoughts run this way: the sure way to get censors unhappy with an Internet feature is to make it USEFUL. So let's make PICS useful, and inevitably, they'll feel duty bound to stop it! To elaborate... a little while back I proposed, humorously, introducing PICS ratings for flaming and fad science. More seriously, we really *could* try to get a lot of new PICS ratings started for things like "boredom" and "institution-specificness" (i.e. instructions on paperwork for a departmental facility available to no one from the general public would rate a 9). More humorously again, we could have "offensive to Democrats" and "offensive to Republicans", and more seriously, include various classifications like "offensive to cows" on behalf of the Hindu hordes who will inevitably... someday... arrive on Internet. The result of making a concerted effort to introduce so many new ratings would be that PICS would have the chance to become *useful*, not just for a few American moralists trying to deny their kids educational material, but for lots of different types of people all over the world. Now the question comes up: "We mandate that you rate your site..." and the person says, but wait, there's 200 different categories of STUFF out there, and nobody even has the whole list... what's official? What's not? (I think there may be some answers for these --- any comments from the experts? But regardless of the ostensible procedure there must be a way to introduce the new ratings de facto, and perhaps even "legitimately".) So we make the censors come out and state their biases... it won't stop them but it might slow them down, especially if we can split them on what they don't want. There's also the mystery rating, the "general" rating for the site. This is probably the only one that *really* counts for the regulators' various evil schemes, and we should do our best to try to screw it up. Having lots of ratings that we can "average" might help; as do philosophical splits. "Well, that *is* a picture of my kid and his friends at the nudist beach, *of course* it's suitable for children because he was there, after all, that's how he was born, and, *what* are you doing about that awful man with a site next to mine rated *9* for flaming that he's peddling to kids as a class 1 site just because it doesn't have pictures..." The end of all these things is that the dweebs making the laws won't be able to avoid the position of having to define what they're made against. In the end, censorship can only involve some bunch of idiot legislators outlawing X, Y, and Z. We can do things to expose this, and to mobilize public opinion against it, and to advance toward an anarchist revolution. Beyond these things, I don't have any clue what you want me to come up with. From: sethf@athena.mit.edu (Seth Finkelstein) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.censorship,news.admin.censorship,uk.net Subject: Re: Demon.co.uk, RSACi, PICS, and Usenet censorship Date: 20 Sep 1996 07:46:11 GMT Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lines: 242 Message-ID: <51ti43$5qh@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> References: <842816154snz@zhochaka.demon.co.uk> <51isr5$jf5@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> <51qm2s$2352@piglet.cc.uic.edu> In article <51qm2s$2352@piglet.cc.uic.edu> Tommy the Terrorist writes: >In article <51is5i$j99@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> Seth Finkelstein, >sethf@athena.mit.edu writes: >> Because the purpose of a protest is to be HEARD, to draw >>attention to your cause. Taking actions that insure almost no-one will >>hear from you is not at all effective in this regard. > > As I've said, there is no logical difference between who can access a >PICS "9"-rated document and an unrated document. Refusing to switch from >unrated to maximum-rated is a symbolic protest, which may be of some >significance, but it doesn't immediately cost the site any readers if >they do switch. But there's no way to make it visible (in the sense of the turn-pages-black), no draw, no "story". So a couple of people think they're doing something rebellious and cool, big deal, who cares? > Of course, because that rating has no actual effect, there is every >reason to question the decision to require it in the first place. >Perhaps an *actual* effort that should be made here is to put the >question repeatedly to any such provider as to why they are making the >demand at all --- their answer might be revealing. There's a logical problem here, something like removing the last segment of train because that's the one most likely to be in an accident. The answer is that you can't be *sure* and unrated page deserves to be stigmatized, but a maximum-rated page is wearing it's Scarlet Letter, so there's no confusion or argument about it. >> THINK. The next step is to impose difficulties on getting to >>unrated material, the rumored "Exon boxes". That's the historical pattern. > > What I *think* is that we need to stick to the core agenda here: >making sure that everyone has the right to put up every kind of >information that they desire, without trouble, and making sure that >everyone who desires to do so can access that information, without >trouble. I wish. But the difficulty is in first explaining how the systems for repression of information are being set up, and what effects they are likely to have. This is turning out to be extraordinarily difficult. >For openers, why don't you spill the beans on the "rumored Exon boxes"? No great secret - if there can be controls in software, why not controls in hardware? I can just see the justification - "We don't carry bad-rated material over our net router, just like a store doesn't stock X-rated movies". > We're not trying to win the Cultural War in a day here. We're not I'm trying to convince civil-libertarians to think about these problems, as opposed to being so uncritical and accepting here. Those are my modest goals. >encourage them to do so. While, in theory, every child should have the >right to complete free speech and free inquiry, implementing this in >practice cannot include a direct assault on the parent's right to set up >accounts as he wishes, even crippled, rated accounts. The fight for the It can include a direct assault on the imposition of ratings schemes through government threat, coercion, and force. > I don't think that it is reasonably possible, and probably not even >fair, to stop ratings completely. What we *can* do, and *must* do, is to >make sure that they stay every bit as optional as they were ever claimed >to be. That's a nice hope. Too bad every single historical case I've studied says it won't happen (or "optional" like "agree to this or be shut-out of 99% of the market"). On encryption, do you think we should just concentrate on making sure Clipper is "voluntary"? >> Whatever method non-FBI people use to find the "real stuff", the >>FBI can use also. > > Yes, but it's all a question of speed. The longer it takes, the fewer >people are hurt. Why do you think the FBI can't have a few people who are as smart as all the other consumers? What method do you have for widespread distribution that the FBI can't use just as well as anyone else? > The danger of enforced PICS ratings is that if >"offenders" have to rate level-9 material as so, the FBI can just >Altavista out their list of people to harass in an afternoon. Unless >others deliberately give high ratings to slow them down. So we give them a list of people to harass for sex, and people to watch for as subversives. This is supposed to be an improvement? >> No, the ones that won't are going to be investigated for "child >>porn", have all their machines seized for "evidence", and go bankrupt >>from legal fees. > > With PICS or without, people can be attacked in this manner. But you missed the point that the attacks here can be very effective in getting rid of all the ISP opposition to imposed ratings. Require everyone you serve to rate with RSACi, the FBI doesn't bother the business, oppose this plan, and it's bye-bye machines, hello expensive legal fees, and so on. That'll work! >> aaarrrggghhhh ... all these martyrs. Find me a dozen new >>pro-bono lawyers, OK? Surely that's a whole lot easier. > > Finding martyrs is trivial. We just read the papers... the one thing >we can be sure about with censorship, is that there's always SOMEONE who >will be "worst". We need to make maximum use of the news in order to >develop a cold hatred for all governments of the world. Disaffection is not the same as effective activism. They are worlds apart. >>>[concerning workhorse pages rating themselves too high] > >> How many pagers are there which are "really" needed? How many of >>these will go along with fighting the rating schemes? How many will >>continue in the face of a lawyer's letter? I think the answer is >>vanishingly small. > > You're suggesting that they're going to be threatened for rating >themselves too high? It's conceivable, of course. But this tactic will I made the mistake of taking that point seriously. I meant 1) Nobody in that position is going to get into a fight and 2) Even if they did, RSAC could simply legally dictate their rating Part 2 is just a formalistic aspect. I severely doubt it would ever be reached. >lay the government open to the obvious complaint that if a person rates >his page too low he's in trouble, and too high he's in trouble, and it's >too vague, so there's no right way for anybody. And the complainers, by The last part is false. The "right" way to rate is the one that RSAC tells you to do. You can't claim vagueness then. >definition, will be "innocent" sites! It's not victory, but surely it's >good press. Why do you think the spin will be the one you'd like? How about "This site tried to confuse law-enforcement and shield pornographers and perverts, but the RSAC committee showed they could put a stop to that sort of interference and attempts to subvert the utility of their designations". They might even be able to play up the "objective" hype. >> It's way too prone to fantasy for my taste. Electronic freedom >>is just not a mass movement. And almost all the network freedom lobbying >>organizations (the ACLU being the only exception I can think of at the >>moment) have bought into PICS ratings. > Well hell, if it's not a mass movement, and it's not an elite >opposition movement, and the Powers That Be are dead set against it, then >we're pretty well screwed, yes? Some days I get very depressed about this :-(. >The fact is, there are lots of mass >movements that have started from further behind than this one --- most of >the people here now BELIEVE in freedom (well, "except for one thing..." And this is somewhat anti-depressing regarding the above. But not of equal power ... >but the "thing" differs a lot between them, and so that's just a question >of who frames the parameters of the debate). We have a (currently) OPEN >communications forum, and tell me how many revolutionaries have had >*that* before? So of course this is a mass movement. The "of course" doesn't follow. Having a few dozen people flaming each other a lot is not the same as a mass movement. >> I don't have a good solution. That's why I want the >>electronic civil-libertarian community to THINK ABOUT THIS! > > My thoughts run this way: the sure way to get censors unhappy with an >Internet feature is to make it USEFUL. So let's make PICS useful, and >inevitably, they'll feel duty bound to stop it! The problem here is that as long as it retains its usefulness to *them*, then that's all that matters. In fact your proposal here will in my opinion just make things a lot worse, by contributing to the fantasy that PICS is for a multitude of classification systems, rather than as is fast being clear, the support for *ONE* censorship system. > Now the question comes up: "We mandate that you rate your site..." >and the person says, but wait, there's 200 different categories of STUFF >out there, and nobody even has the whole list... what's official? What's "We mandate that you rate your site WITH RSACi". That's official. That was the point of this thread! Nothing "unclear" there. >"legitimately".) So we make the censors come out and state their >biases... it won't stop them but it might slow them down, especially if >we can split them on what they don't want. THEY'VE BEEN STATING WHAT THEY WANT FOR MONTHS! THAT'S WHAT RSACi IS ABOUT! That's the reason for all the press releases about who's signing up, deployment in browsers, and so on. It's been out in the open all along, but for various reasons very few people look at it. >Having lots of ratings that we can "average" might help; as do >philosophical splits. "Well, that *is* a picture of my kid and his There is a straight simple answer to all this - Your contract with RSAC says you do what RSAC wants. If you're a troublemaker, they just give you the "right" rating, end of story (if you get off that easily ...). > The end of all these things is that the dweebs making the laws won't >be able to avoid the position of having to define what they're made >against. RSAC does this in great gory detail, didn't I just post Charlie Stross's article explaining it? See http://www.antipope.demon.co.uk/charlie/nonfiction/rant/rsaci.html This has NEVER been a problem. The people who write the regulations are often *extremely* clear about many do's and don't's. From the Comics Code to the Singapore Broadcasting Authority, the stuff makes for funny reading, but it doesn't seem to be much of a liability in practice. > In the end, censorship can only involve some bunch of idiot >legislators outlawing X, Y, and Z. We can do things to expose this, and >to mobilize public opinion against it, and to advance toward an anarchist >revolution. Beyond these things, I don't have any clue what you want me >to come up with. If wishes were horses ...I don't seem to be very successful in mobilizing popular opinion, I'm not even doing very well with civil-libertarians. While I don't think I'm exactly a voice in the wilderness, the background does seem to be a concert of popinjays and a pack of yipping chihuahuas. Anarchist revolution? We're advancing to a very tight set of controls. It may not be the CDA in its pure form, but a combination of prejudicial ratings and blockings could be extremely effective censorship. And the prospects just aren't encouraging. -- 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).