V-chip?

Apparently the US government is planning on starting up its V-chip 
program again, which will allow public/cable TV to be censored at will. 
What does everyone thing about this ploy? And whats next? Chips in my 
radio, to prevent music, or a chip in my phone to make sure i dont call 
anyone bad? The V-chip is just as much a privacy/1st amendment violation 
as the clipper chip is/was. I believe the worst part of the V-chip plan, 
is to force all new TV's manufactured or imported to the US, to have this 
new chip. Could this chip even be part of a Chinese lottery? 


					......fiasco

mpd@netcom.com (Mike Duvos) said:

MD> oO F145C0 Oo <fiasco@echo.sound.net> writes:
>> Apparently the US government is planning on starting up its V-chip
>> program again, which will allow public/cable TV to be censored at
>> will. What does everyone thing about this ploy?

	Yes, it is censorship.  At least, it is if you aren't watching
every program on every channel available to you right now, because
your channel selection allows you to censor public/cable TV at will
right now, without the V-Chip.  What the V-Chip does is allow you to
censor what is shown on your television, even in your absence.  I'll
concede that there are positive aspects to this for parents, but I
resent the 'you must install it in all TVs' part. If enough people
want it, they can get TVs with it.

>> And whats next? Chips in my radio, to prevent music, or a chip in
>> my phone to make sure i dont call anyone bad? The V-chip is just as
>> much a privacy/1st amendment violation as the clipper chip
>> is/was. I believe the worst part of the V-chip plan, is to force
>> all new TV's manufactured or imported to the US, to have this new
>> chip. Could this chip even be part of a Chinese lottery?

MD> As I understand it, the basic concept behind the V-Chip is to
MD> allow selective blocking of material a particular viewer might
MD> find offensive based on content information transmitted along with
MD> the program.  As long as the program material itself is
MD> transmitted unaltered, and there are multiple non-governmental
MD> providers of content descriptions catering to the spectrum of
MD> human likes and dislikes, this sounds like ideal Cypherpunk
MD> technology.

	The content information is transmitted as part of the program,
in the between-frame band which is normally not in the displayed area
of the picture, not on a separate signal.  (Now why can't they use
this band for something truely useful, like an automatic time sync and
VCRPlus ID, so that your VCR could pick it up, and know that VCRPlus
ID 69 is on channel 13, and is broadasting with a +2:30 skew from what
you think the time is?)  Because of this, there will be _one_ content
code, not a select-your-rater content method.

	The other reason for not having a select-your-rater method is,
first, the sheer volume of TV broadcasting.  No service could possibly
rate all TV content.  Second, no service could rate _live_ TV, such as
the nightly news, or post-game NFL locker room films.  My guess is
that the producer of a program will get first shot at putting a label
on a program, or not.  Then the distributor will be able to keep the
producers label, change it, add their own, or remove it.  This will
continue until the broadcaster gets to decide whether or not to
transmit a V-Code, and whether to use the last distributors label or
their own.  But do you really think that MTV will use a V-Code?  (It
could be amusing if they did - 10 minutes of blank screen, then 2
minutes of commercials when someone cranks all of their settings to
Full Filter.)

[...]

MD> It should be noted that the V-Chip is currently vaporware, and
MD> exists only in the minds of politicians.  There probably will
MD> never be an actual "V-Chip", just a little additional software in
MD> our already heavily computerized televisions, radios, and personal
MD> computers.

	Incorrect.  The 'V-Chip' exists (at least according to a
demonstration on NBC News ("Home of the Exploding Chevy") the other
night), there just isn't sufficient consumer demand for it to have hit
the market yet.  And, from appearances, it doesn't pixelate the
picture, it blocks the signal entirely.  They should at least have put
a 'Sorry, kiddies, you have to hack your parents passcode to see
this.' message up.  That's the weakness here - it was only a 4 digit
passcode locking the V-Chip level - does anyone really think that some
kid who wants to watch HBO or MTV isn't gonna cycle through the
numbers, even if it is only a few dozen at a time?  Or that there
isn't a reset mechanism for when Pop forgets the code and he really
wants to watch 'Showgirls' on PPV?

-- 
#include <disclaimer.h>				/* Sten Drescher */
1973 Steelers    About Three Bricks Shy of a Load    1994 Steelers
1974 Steelers         And the Load Filled Up         1995 Steelers?
Unsolicited email advertisements will be proofread for a US$100/page fee.

Sten Drescher <stend@grendel.texas.net> writes:

 > Yes, it is censorship.  At least, it is if you aren't
 > watching every program on every channel available to you
 > right now, because your channel selection allows you to
 > censor public/cable TV at will right now, without the
 > V-Chip.  What the V-Chip does is allow you to censor what is
 > shown on your television, even in your absence.

Right.  Freedom of TV viewing belongs to those who own one, even
if they are not always there to supervise the use of the set.
Exactly like freedom of the press.

I personally plan to instruct my TV to display only material
which does not offend my neo-Pagan, Bohemian, and Hedonistic
beliefs.

 > I'll concede that there are positive aspects to this for
 > parents, but I resent the 'you must install it in all TVs'
 > part. If enough people want it, they can get TVs with it.

The last great adventure in forcing manufacturers to put
something in a television set was the "UHF must tune as easily as
VHF" boondoggle.  The number of UHF stations in most areas was
0-1. Note that when cable provided a plethora of channels in a
previously untunable part of the spectrum, market forces
instantly resulted in the creation of "cable-ready" sets in
advance of government prodding.

 > The content information is transmitted as part of the
 > program, in the between-frame band which is normally not in
 > the displayed area of the picture, not on a separate signal.

There is currently no official standard for encoding content
information for television programs.  Manufacturers of various
flavors of "parental control devices" have at times demonstrated
their technology as the "V-Chip" on Network Nightly News
programs. This includes devices which can do selective
pixelation, as well as those which merely render the set
inoperative during programs having a specific rating.

The bandwidth required to transmit content information second by
second is very small. It is not a foregone conclusion that such
information will be carried exclusively via the video blanking
intervals, or that it will be available from only a single
source. Indeed, with the movement towards digital encoding of
television, it is doubtful that blanking intervals themselves
will be around much longer.

 > The other reason for not having a select-your-rater method
 > is, first, the sheer volume of TV broadcasting.  No service
 > could possibly rate all TV content.  Second, no service
 > could rate _live_ TV, such as the nightly news, or post-game
 > NFL locker room films.

No one is suggesting that all raters will rate all programming.
Movies will probably be the first things raters will provide
content tracks for.  Next will be widely carried programs in
syndicated reruns, and top rated first run shows.

Eventually, use of the technology will proliferate, much as the
use of closed-captioning has.

Much money will be saved in not having to physically edit media,
and in having the intelligence at the displaying end. One will no
longer have to have a theatrical release of a movie, a television
version, a version for European airlines, a version for American
airlines, a version for Islamic airlines, etc ad nauseum.  Porn
will no longer have to be edited into Hard-X, Soft-X, and R
versions before being distributed.

 > Incorrect.  The 'V-Chip' exists (at least according to a
 > demonstration on NBC News ("Home of the Exploding Chevy")
 > the other night), there just isn't sufficient consumer
 > demand for it to have hit the market yet.  And, from
 > appearances, it doesn't pixelate the picture, it blocks the
 > signal entirely.

Please see prior comments about Nightly News demonstrations of
alleged V-Chip technology.

Once a standard for encoding content information is established,
it is unlikely that there will be some universal specific
"V-Chip" that will be used by all manufacturers.  Instead, the
functionality will likely be implemented in whatever software
controls the display appliance.  It's not a complicated
application, and hardly worth a processor of its own.

--
     Mike Duvos         $    PGP 2.6 Public Key available     $
     mpd@netcom.com     $    via Finger.                      $

oO F145C0 Oo <fiasco@echo.sound.net> writes:

 > Apparently the US government is planning on starting up its
 > V-chip program again, which will allow public/cable TV to be
 > censored at will. What does everyone thing about this ploy?

 > And whats next? Chips in my radio, to prevent music, or a
 > chip in my phone to make sure i dont call anyone bad? The
 > V-chip is just as much a privacy/1st amendment violation as
 > the clipper chip is/was. I believe the worst part of the
 > V-chip plan, is to force all new TV's manufactured or
 > imported to the US, to have this new chip. Could this chip
 > even be part of a Chinese lottery?

As I understand it, the basic concept behind the V-Chip is to
allow selective blocking of material a particular viewer might
find offensive based on content information transmitted along
with the program.  As long as the program material itself is
transmitted unaltered, and there are multiple non-governmental
providers of content descriptions catering to the spectrum of
human likes and dislikes, this sounds like ideal Cypherpunk
technology.

Concerned Parent can set the V-Chip to read from the Children's
Television Workshop content service, available for a small
monthly fee, and be certain that graphic violence and sex are
pixelated on screen, and that bleep words that the child might
practice in front of Grandma are garbled.

Mr. Islamic Fanatic can filter out all blasphemy against Allah
and his one and only prophet, pork commercials, and women showing
more than 100 square centimeters of exposed epidermis.  Uncle
Ernie can program his set to beep loudly when shots of nude
adolescent boys are about to appear in foreign films.  Everyone
has a filter which they can tune for their own viewing and
listening enjoyment, and a free market system of content
description services will cater to every conceivable taste.

What are the dangers of this new technology?

First, the government might want only one description of content,
which it controls.  My notion of what is offensive probably
differs greatly from that of Jesse Helms, for instance.

Second, once content descriptions become available, they might be
used to control content at the transmission end, not the viewing
end.  Congress could mandate that the same information that Uncle
Ernie uses to alert himself to "interesting" scenes, be used at
the transmitting end to pixelate the same material. V-Chips for
consumer products are our friend. V-Chips for broadcasters and
publishers are not.

It should be noted that the V-Chip is currently vaporware, and
exists only in the minds of politicians.  There probably will
never be an actual "V-Chip", just a little additional software in
our already heavily computerized televisions, radios, and
personal computers.

One desirable side effect of the V-Chip.  It will probably have
the effect of extinguishing hysterical reactions to nudity, sex,
bleep words, and special effects violence, by allowing people to
gradually increase what they are exposed to as they become
tolerant of it.  Sort of the opposite of aversion therapy.

Perhaps in the distant future, the population will wonder what
the thing was ever used for, and why anyone bothered to develop
it.

Just a few random thoughts...

--
     Mike Duvos         $    PGP 2.6 Public Key available     $
     mpd@netcom.com     $    via Finger.                      $