Publicity on PICS

The following may give an example of how companies and governments want
PICS to be used, instead of how it should be used (market-based ratings not
for censorship).
	-Allen

>Copyright 1996 Nando.net
>Copyright 1996 Reuter Information Service

>PARIS (May 9, 1996 12:41 p.m. EDT) -- A consortium of leading computer firms
>launched a global rating system Thursday enabling parents to shield their
>children from sexually explicit and violent material on the Internet.

>The firms also hope the system will protect them from angry governments who
>blame the largely unpoliced international computer network for bringing
>pornographic material across their electronic borders.

>"We do believe it will provide legal protection in a situation where adult
>material is being distributed to minors," said Andrew Gray, European general
>manager of CompuServe. "It will very much strengthen our position in these
>kind of situations."

>The system, an industry standard known as PICS -- for Platform for Internet
>Content Selection -- has been in the works for nearly a year, and will take
>several more months to become a useful tool for parents and educators, its
>primary targets.

>Under the system, 39 internet-related firms including giants America Online,
>CompuServe, Microsoft, Prodigy and Netscape Communications will soon give
>their customers software enabling them to block access to material they
>judge objectionable on the Internet's Worldwide Web.

>The software will enable parents and teachers to filter out pages according
>to their own choice of level of violence, sex, nudity and language.

>At the same time, providers will be urged to rate their pages by filling out
>an electronic questionnaire resulting in a "grade" for each site, on a scale
>ranging from zero, the most innocuous, to four for each category.

	What was I saying about pressure to rate?

>The system depends for its ratings on voluntary compliance by Internet
>providers. However parents will also have the option of simply blocking out
>all unrated pages, simply by checking an electronic box on their computer
>screens.

	This is, of course, assuming that "Internet content providers" won't
simply rate their pages as suitable for all ages.

[...]

>But there is no way to use the system to seek out pornography or violence on
>the web, officials insisted.

	Yeah, right.

>"To content-providers, I would say, 'Rate your sites' To parents I would
>say, 'Set the levels for your children.' And to governments, I would say
>humbly, 'Think again before censoring the net,"' Stephen Balkam, executive
>director of the Recreational Software Advisory Council, told a news
>conference.

	Note again the pressure for self-rating.

>"CompuServe supports selection and not censorship, empowerment and not
>restriction," Gray said, announcing that his firm would begin distributing
>the necessary software to customers in July.

>Netscape, whose Netscape Navigator Internet-browsing software is the most
>widely used in the world, will begin offering a new version incorporating
>the ratings capability by the end of the year, Technology Director Martin
>Haeberli said.

>"Parents and educators must have some way, some tool, to enable them to
>moderate what is available," Haeberli said.

	Only if you approve of parental censorship.

>Internet firms around the globe have been under the gun from governments to
>better police their offerings that offend local sensibilities, which vary
>considerably from country to country.

>A strength of PICS is that "it allows as many countries as would like to set
>up a rating system," said Jim Miller, a research scientist who helped
>develop the system. Adhering to the system would still be up to individual
>households, however.

	Whatever became of market-ratings? Admittedly, they may mean that each
country will be encouraged to given an example system... but I still don't
like the idea of government involvement.

[...]

>>At the same time, providers will be urged to rate their pages by filling out
>>an electronic questionnaire resulting in a "grade" for each site, on a scale
>>ranging from zero, the most innocuous, to four for each category.
>
>	What was I saying about pressure to rate?

this is really horrible. I hope that no precedent of having internet
providers involvement in ratings is *ever* established. this proposal
reeks. separate ratings from content and delivery.

>>The system depends for its ratings on voluntary compliance by Internet
>>providers.

ugggghghghghg. not my ideal use of PICS. I hope that people don't
begin to believe that PICS is this system.

>>But there is no way to use the system to seek out pornography or violence on
>>the web, officials insisted.

I don't know why that would be a problem.

>>"To content-providers, I would say, 'Rate your sites' To parents I would
>>say, 'Set the levels for your children.' And to governments, I would say
>>humbly, 'Think again before censoring the net,"' Stephen Balkam, executive
>>director of the Recreational Software Advisory Council, told a news
>>conference.
>
>	Note again the pressure for self-rating.

"content-providers" != internet providers. that former is OK. the
latter is a horrible nightmare. please, please, please, 
I hope this system is not asking/demanding people who run hardware 
& communication services to get into the rating business.
 such a thing is atrocious and odious
and exactly what should be avoided.

>>A strength of PICS is that "it allows as many countries as would like to set
>>up a rating system," said Jim Miller, a research scientist who helped
>>develop the system. Adhering to the system would still be up to individual
>>households, however.
>
>	Whatever became of market-ratings? Admittedly, they may mean that each
>country will be encouraged to given an example system... but I still don't
>like the idea of government involvement.

the government becomes just another rating agency. I don't like it either.
but as long as we emphasize, "the individual always has the ultimate
decision", which fortunately this press release does,
little can go awry, hopefully.