Re: Surf-filter lists

>Vlad: How can consumers make an informed decision as to which filter
>they wish to purchase, if they are not told exactly what information
>each product is filtering out?
>
>Meeks et al may be guilty of flamboyant, emotionalistic prose, but I
>find the concept that the public is expected to buy various filters
>without knowing what they filter...frankly, ridiculous.


Flamboyant prose? Moi? Never!

More to the point, as I wrote at the end of the original CWD, it's a
bait-and-switch maneuver. Go after porn, they say, but the censor political
information.

And you don't know about it.

-Declan

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Tue, 16 Jul 1996, Declan McCullagh wrote:

> More to the point, as I wrote at the end of the original CWD, it's a
> bait-and-switch maneuver. Go after porn, they say, but the censor political
> information.

ARGH!  I've been keeping quiet about this for a while, but I thing I 
gotta say something before I throttle my Zip drive...

<rant>A Private organization cannot "censor" anything.  The fundamental 
definition of the word require some agent of the government take action 
to censor.  To accuse Surf-Watch, net-nanny, AOL, MSU, AT&T, or whatever 
of "censorship" accomplishes nothing except to make us look the 
fool.</rant> 

I agree that the problem with the "bait-and-switch" filtering of net 
materials by these various filtering packages needs to be addressed.  If I 
want to protect my kids from seeing alt.naughty.pictures, I shoudl still 
be able to unfilter political and health speech.  The real problem isn't 
censorship, it's disclosure by the makers of filtering packages about 
what exactly their packages are going to filter for me and my family.  
However, in the upcoming war of filtering packages (and it will get ugly) 
trade secrets are going to make any company hesitant to reveal what it is 
they are filtering and what criteria they are using to determine if 
something qualifies.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: PGP Signed with PineSign 2.2

iQCVAwUBMe0jezokqlyVGmCFAQH0SAP+ONXs2f4GxjIrC6cp2sc9CgTrebL4cBWB
UqpH4H3UO0TiKZN4T6MGVC6kCA3OwQnd0DNC0f0D6+iZTPkwN228Am6ZH4+t9hZs
OrmCbZCiWZipLfT1gphIHqFHSqIQ506LkkGgLK0gjsS2ahrI+cNYJA3yYBviMkB1
zuj1KRJ+pMk=
=ddI5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
____           Robert A. Hayden      <=> hayden@krypton.mankato.msus.edu
\  /__     Finger for Geek Code Info <=>    Finger for PGP Public Key
 \/  /           -=-=-=-=-=-                      -=-=-=-=-=-
   \/        http://krypton.mankato.msus.edu/~hayden/Welcome.html

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GED/J d-- s:++>: a- C++(++++)$ ULUO++ P+>+++ L++ !E---- W+(---) N+++ o+
K+++ w+(---) O- M+$>++ V-- PS++(+++)>$ PE++(+)>$ Y++ PGP++ t- 5+++ X++
R+++>$ tv+ b+ DI+++ D+++ G+++++>$ e++$>++++ h r-- y+**
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Robert A. Hayden wrote:

> <rant>A Private organization cannot "censor" anything.  The fundamental
> definition of the word require some agent of the government take action
> to censor.  

I think you need a new dictionary.  I don't see any reason why I shouldn't
use the word "censor" to describe the action of a parent clipping articles
from "Weekly Reader", for example.

Whether some instance of censorship is interesting in a legal sense of
course hinges on whether a government is involved.

______c_____________________________________________________________________
Mike M Nally * Tiv^H^H^H IBM * Austin TX    * For the time being,
       m5@tivoli.com * m101@io.com          *    
      <URL:http://www.io.com/~m101>         *    three heads and eight arms.