Re: Protocols at the Point of a Gun

At 3:46 PM 4/17/96, Henry Huang wrote:

>Well good.  Better nonstandardized chaos than a single, arbitrarily
>defined and applied system.  (Ref: "Parental Advisory" stickers, which
>were IMHO totally useless, and a doomed concept from the start.)

These stickers on CDs were actually very useful. Kids could spot more
quickly the juicy stuff. The taste of forbidden fruit is so much better.

Likewise, the "age bit" that some are talking about will be similarly
useful. Minors will be unambiguously identified--no more "is she or isn't
she?"--and actions taken accordingly.

(Several years from now, I see a great hue and cry over the fact that the
"age bit" mandated by "The Children's Internet Protection Act of 1997" will
be used to deny the protection of adult-seeming personnas to children.
Pedophiles and the like will find their tasks easier, and the Act's
supporters will say "But that's not what we intended!!")

I saw a reference to this in the archives of the Cyberia list, though I am
no longer subscribed to it. Not sure who first pointed it out, but it's a
valid point.

--Tim May

THE X-ON CONGRESS:  INDECENT COMMENT ON AN INDECENT SUBJECT, by Steve
Russell, American Reporter Correspondent....You motherfuckers in Congress
have dropped over the edge of the earth this time... "the sorriest bunch
of cocksuckers ever to sell out the First Amendment" or suggesting that
"the only reason to run for Congress these days is to suck the lobbyists'
dicks and fuck the people who sent you there," ....any more than I care
for the language you shitheads have forced me to use in this
essay...Let's talk about this fucking indecent language bullshit.

tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May) writes:

 > These stickers on CDs were actually very useful. Kids could
 > spot more quickly the juicy stuff. The taste of forbidden
 > fruit is so much better.

 > Likewise, the "age bit" that some are talking about will be
 > similarly useful. Minors will be unambiguously
 > identified--no more "is she or isn't she?"--and actions
 > taken accordingly.

This is just another great example of the Law of Unintended
Consequences.

One of the nice things about the Internet is that kids can
explore all sorts of subjects in the safety of their living room,
providing they follow a few simple rules about not giving out
personal information like their age, name, address, and phone
number, and don't arrange meetings or use information they obtain
without checking first with a well-clued caregiver.

An "age bit" definitely qualifies as the disclosure of "personal
information" about the user.

 > (Several years from now, I see a great hue and cry over the
 > fact that the "age bit" mandated by "The Children's Internet
 > Protection Act of 1997" will be used to deny the protection
 > of adult-seeming personnas to children. Pedophiles and the
 > like will find their tasks easier, and the Act's supporters
 > will say "But that's not what we intended!!")

I think the "age bit" will solve a lot of problems we have now
with 50 year old wankers posing as 12 year olds on pedo IRC
channels. :)