EPIC letter to CNET.COM and the Internet Community (fwd)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 21:30:26 -0400
From: Marc Rotenberg <rotenberg@epic.org>
To: fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu
Cc: chris_barr@cnet.com
Subject: EPIC letter to CNET.COM and the Internet Community



To Mr. Barr of CNET.COM and the Internet Community,

On July 21 Christopher Barr, editor in chief of CNET,
endorsed Internet rating schemes in a column
titled "Rating Online Content Can Work".
http://www.cnet.com/Content/Voices/Barr/072197/index.html

In this column, Mr. Barr says

  A number of groups, including the
  American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic
  Privacy Information Center, support the use of such
  software on principle, but they also point out that
  filtering software can be used to block any kind of
  content, not just sexually explicit material, and so
  it can end up restricting free speech.

I want to be clear that EPIC, both a plaintiff and counsel in
the challenge to the Communications Decency Act, does not support
the use of blocking software in principle or practice. We do not
support rating systems for the following reasons.

First, we believe that the fundamental purpose of a rating system
-- to allow one person to decide what information another person
may receive -- is contrary to the character of the Internet and
the principles of openness and individuality found in a free society.
Unlike search engines that allow individuals to select information
based on their preferences and desires, rating systems impose one
person's or one organization's viewpoint on another. Such techniques
could be used as easily by governments against citizens and employers
against employees as they could by parents against children, as was
made clear by one of the PICS creators in an early paper on the
topic.

Second, we have already seen rating systems used to block access to
information that could in no reasonable way be considered indecent.
Rating systems have blocked access to political organizations,
medical information, and unpopular viewpoints. In public libraries
and public schools such techniques violate well established First
Amendment freedoms. Such products should be roundly criticized by
Internet publishers, not endorsed.

Third, we believe that over time rating systes are likely to make it
easier -- not more difficult -- for governments around the world to
enforce content-based controls on Internet content. This process is
already underway in many countries which are now considering
PICS-based schemes to implement national content controls. Further,
our reading of the Supreme Court's opinion in Reno V. ACLU is that
content based controls would be upheld in the US once rating
systems and means for age verification and widely available. It
was the nature of the Internet, and not the availability of rating
systems, that produced the wonderful outcome in that case. But
once voluntary standards are in place, statutory controls will
surely follow.

We recognize that the availability of material that some might consider
offensive poses a difficult problem for on-line information providers.
We further recognize that there is indeed some material on the Internet
that is genuinely abhorrent.  But we do not believe you can hide
the world from your children. We should help our children to
understand the world, and then help them make it better. Good
parenting is not something found in a software filter; it takes
time, effort, and interest. And it takes trust in young people to
develop within themselves judgment and reason, and the ability to
tell right from wrong.

We also caution against any efforts to distinguish between bona fide
news organizations and others. The framers of our First Amendment
wisely drew no such distinction, and thus we have avoided the process
of licensing and government approval that othe countries have pursued.
News organizations that today seek to draw such a line may in the
future find themselves placed on the wrong side.

These are difficult issues. It is not easy today to criticize
the ratings proposal which has recently received White House
endorsement.  This fact alone should give those who value
free speech and who opposed the Communications Decency Act
reason to think twice. It is also the reason that we applaud the
American Library Association for its principled opposition to
the use of software filters in libraries.

We hope other organizations will join with EPIC, the ACLU, and
the ALA and recognize that we all  have a common interest in the
protection of intellectual freedom and the openness of the Internet.

We will continue to offer information about the PICS debate at our
web site -- www.epic.org -- so that individuals and organizations
that provide information online can make fully informed decisions
about the desireability of rating systems.

Finally, we hope CNET.COM will reconsider its position on the
rating issue. In the end, it will be the decisions of individual
Internet news organizations and other online publishers that will
determine the openness and accessibility of the Internet for us all.
We share a common interest in preserving the free flow of information
across the Internet.

Sincerely,

Marc Rotenberg, director
EPIC





==================================================================
Marc Rotenberg, director                *   +1 202 544 9240 (tel)
Electronic Privacy Information Center   *   +1 202 547 5482 (fax)
666 Pennsylvania Ave., SE Suite 301     *   rotenberg@epic.org
Washington, DC 20003   USA              +   http://www.epic.org
==================================================================

the EPIC letter shows a rather severe misunderstanding of
what many interenet ratings systems are intended to accomplish.
I've written on this subject here and will rebut some of the
claims of the EPIC letter by Marc Rotenberg. (keep in mind,
as you read the following, I am violently opposed to *involuntary* 
rating systems.)

*voluntary* rating systems are in fact another glorious expression of 
free speech, and anyone who advocates free speech will find
themselves in a paradoxically inconsistent point of view
in rejecting such systems.  just as anyone should be free to 
disseminate information,  anyone should be free to comment on
that information. ratings are nothing but "information about 
information" and anyone who claims otherwise would be like someone
arguing for the existence of "illegal bits", as TCM lovingly likes
to call them. amusingly, I have seen TCM argue against voluntary rating
systems here, making the distinction that they are not free speech
but the road to ruin.

PICs was designed from the beginning to be voluntary, and support
voluntary ratings. how is a company that tells you what are some
"hot web pages" different from one that tells you about ones that
are "offensive to children"? there are many of the former that
I've never seen any cypherpunks argue against. surely EPIC would
consider them a good idea. why are the latter a bad idea? what's
the difference between these "good bits" and "bad bits"? answer:
there is none, except in the minds of people who have kneejerk
opinions but not deeply thoughtful insights.

the argument that voluntary rating systems can be quickly
turned into an involuntary one is specious. it's like saying that
if some people are allowed to public fascist magazines, we're
in danger of turning into a fascist country. obviously it's the
same argument the government scaremongers make against free speech.

cypherpunks like to talk about "technical solutions" to problems.
I would like them to begin to understand that a means by which
public opinion is altered is in fact in many cases the only 
possible "technical solution" to some problems. I submit that no amount of 
ingenuity in technical solutions can circumvent a government
or majority of the population that is opposed to your endeavor.
the solution is in part to change public consciousness.  and
to give credit where it is due, the cpunks have done a very 
admirable job of this through the mailing list.

hence, if we have a government that is trying to make voluntary
things mandatory (such as ratings), and clamp down 
on the public, don't you think
you're evading the whole issue by trying to find more ingenious
ways to hide? you're evading the basic question, which is, 
why did the government become like that? why have you accepted
the questionable conclusion that it cannot be changed? do you
think perhaps it became that way because of that opinion? which
came first, the apathy or the tyranny? the lines blur, don't you
think?

if other governments are going to use PICs to manipulate their
public, than is the problem PICs or the governments that are
in that situation? do you think that getting rid of PICs is going
to solve the problem of bad governments? answer: no!! you can
get rid of every opportunity for what you think is a bad government
to exercise its badness, and it will find some ingenious new
way of being bad!! the answer is to fix the government, not to try
to change the ten-bazillion different things it may get its hands onto. one 
problem, one solution.

on to the letter...

>I want to be clear that EPIC, both a plaintiff and counsel in
>the challenge to the Communications Decency Act, does not support
>the use of blocking software in principle or practice. We do not
>support rating systems for the following reasons.
>
>First, we believe that the fundamental purpose of a rating system
>-- to allow one person to decide what information another person
>may receive -- is contrary to the character of the Internet and
>the principles of openness and individuality found in a free society.

a silly restatement of what rating systems do. what mr. rotenberg
fails to note is the obvious distinction between a voluntary and
an involuntary rating system. only the later have the property that
"one person can decide what another can recieve". in fact all rating
systems in existence today are voluntary and merely *advisory*.
they are just *opinions* that people can choose to follow.

>Unlike search engines that allow individuals to select information
>based on their preferences and desires, rating systems impose one
>person's or one organization's viewpoint on another. 

so does a NEWSPAPER!!! perhaps we should ban them!! or is it that
they don't really "impose" anything???

>Such techniques
>could be used as easily by governments against citizens and employers
>against employees as they could by parents against children, as was
>made clear by one of the PICS creators in an early paper on the
>topic.

the government could also use duct tape to suffocate its citizens.
perhaps we should outlaw duct tape? because it has the potential
to be misused by governments?

>Second, we have already seen rating systems used to block access to
>information that could in no reasonable way be considered indecent.

FALSE. these rating systems block access to information when people
volunteer to use the databases. presumably, they SUBSCRIBED TO THOSE
BLOCKING SERVICES FOR EXACTLY THAT SERVICE, I.E. BLOCKING. if I 
subscribed to a blocking service, I would certainly expect that
they did block some sites, wouldn't you? your fuzzy brained thinking
fails to distinguish again between voluntary and involuntary, 
Mr. R...

>Rating systems have blocked access to political organizations,
>medical information, and unpopular viewpoints. In public libraries
>and public schools such techniques violate well established First
>Amendment freedoms. Such products should be roundly criticized by
>Internet publishers, not endorsed.

misleading use of the word "block".  when people stop using the
word "block" in a context where it is clearly not applicable
we'll all be better off. suppose I say to my butler, "please stop
me from eating greasy food" and he stops me. was that involuntary?
did he "block" me against my will?

>Third, we believe that over time rating systes are likely to make it
>easier -- not more difficult -- for governments around the world to
>enforce content-based controls on Internet content. This process is
>already underway in many countries which are now considering
>PICS-based schemes to implement national content controls.

many countries are now considering the best ways to torture their
subjects with rubber hose. perhaps we should regulate rubber hoses
this moment.

 Further,
>our reading of the Supreme Court's opinion in Reno V. ACLU is that
>content based controls would be upheld in the US once rating
>systems and means for age verification and widely available. It
>was the nature of the Internet, and not the availability of rating
>systems, that produced the wonderful outcome in that case. But
>once voluntary standards are in place, statutory controls will
>surely follow.

bzzzzzzzzzzt, only if we have an orwellian government, in which case
you will have much worse things to worry about than a silly PICs
standard. technology is not the problem, but governments who misuse
it. no amount of ingenuity in technology 
will protect you from a bad government. fix the government!!

a flimsily-put-together letter, Mr. R, quite a disappointment.

>   A number of groups, including the
>   American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic
>   Privacy Information Center, support the use of such
>   software on principle. 

Then they have no principles worth speaking of.


>   But they also point out that
>   filtering software can be used to block any kind of
>   content, not just sexually explicit material, and so
>   it can end up restricting free speech.

So sexually explicit material is no longer classified as speech?

> could be used as easily by governments against citizens and employers
> against employees as they could by parents against children, as was
> made clear by one of the PICS creators in an early paper on the
> topic.

This is not a valid point, parents restricting what their children learn 
about is the best way to fuck a child up.

> We further recognize that there is indeed some material on the Internet
> that is genuinely abhorrent.  But we do not believe you can hide
> the world from your children. We should help our children to
> understand the world, and then help them make it better. Good
> parenting is not something found in a software filter; it takes
> time, effort, and interest. And it takes trust in young people to
> develop within themselves judgment and reason, and the ability to
> tell right from wrong.

Quite so, this is why I never have seen the viewpoint which says that 
parents should not allow children to view sexually explicit material, 
which I can under no circumstances see as being harmful (with the 
possible exception of violent pornography). However, no material is 
harmful in and of itself, it is the attitude the child has towards such 
material that defines it`s worth, if a child sees a picture of a violent 
rape and finds it unpleasant and distasteful that says a lot for the way 
the child has been educated, if the child is interested by it and finds 
the material in good taste then I`m sure I can leave it to you to draw 
your own conslusions as to the success level of the parent in educating 
the child.

Of course any violent material can be harmful, but only if the child is 
brought up to find it acceptable to carry out real violent acts.

        Datacomms Technologies data security
       Paul Bradley, Paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk
  Paul@crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul@cryptography.uk.eu.org    
       Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/
      Email for PGP public key, ID: FC76DA85
     "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"