The Big Sellout

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 22:25:50 -0400
From: Michael Sims <jellicle@inch.com>
To: fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu
Cc: jberman@cdt.org, jseiger@cdt.org
Subject: The Big Sellout

It's here.


http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9707/15/cybersmut.ap/index.html

Computer industry to announce anti-smut initiatives

July 15, 1997 Web posted at: 9:59 p.m. EDT (0159 GMT) 
[20 minutes ago.  I'm  quick, aren't I?]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Hoping to avoid a V-chip for the Internet, the
computer industry will announce at the White House on Wednesday it
will provide greater access to anti-smut software and work to flag
Internet sites that are clean enough for kids. 

Weeks after the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a law
designed to keep cyberspace's seedy side away from children, the White
House is urging the computer industry and parent's groups to take
such voluntary steps to make the Internet safe for youngsters. 

"We don't need to reinvent the wheel here and we don't need a V-chip
for the Internet. We have tools out there which are 100 percent
available," said Jerry Berman of the Center for Democracy and
Technology, a group that works to protect computer users' civil
liberties. They just need to be more widely used and understood, he
said. 

President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore, a computer enthusiast,
will host the private meeting Wednesday. About 30 to 40 people are
expected, including representatives from America Online, Netscape
Communications Corp., Microsoft Corp., Yahoo! Inc., the National
Parent Teacher Association, the American Library Association, makers
of screening technology and electronic civil liberties groups. 

The White House has said it wants a solution "as powerful for the
computer as the V-chip will be for the television that protects
children in ways that are consistent with America's free-speech
values." 

Instead of seeking new legislation to force the computer industry to
shield children from Internet smut, the Clinton administration is
pushing voluntary ideas. 

That's welcome news for the industry and electronic civil liberties
groups, which fought to overturn anti-smut provisions in the 1996
telecommunications law. 

"It's a very positive thing to try to come up with a constructive
alternative to legislation," said Andrew Schwartzman, president of
the Media Access Project, a nonprofit media watchdog group. 

No final industry-wide voluntary plan is expected to be announced
Wednesday, but some companies are expected to unveil plans. 

For instance, Netscape Communications is expected to announce it will
back a software standard that allows people, using a Web browser,
either to block or select certain Web sites based on their electronic
labels, said industry and government sources, speaking on condition of
anonymity. Netscape did not return a phone call for comment. 

Microsoft Corp.'s Explorer browser already uses the standard, dubbed
PICS, which can work with more than one labeling or ratings system.
Parents using a browser with the PICS technology could, for example,
call up Web sites designated to be "family friendly" or they could
block sites labeled as violent or sex-filled. 

The Center for Democracy and Technology, meanwhile, is supposed to
debut a Web page that would give parents information on how and
where to get free smut-screening software, Berman said. 

The center estimates all of the major providers of Internet access
to consumers offer screening technology for free or at a nominal
cost. Those providers cover 14 million households, and include AOL,
AT&T WorldNet, CompuServe, Prodigy and Erol's. 

The American Library Association is working on a broader effort. It
has compiled a listing of family friendly Web sites parents can
access separately or through its Web page, said spokeswoman Joyce
Kelly. The listing will be updated and expanded, she said. 

And Microsystems Software Inc., maker of Cyber Patrol, a widely used
screening software, is expected to unveil new technology to make it
easier for owners to label their Web sites, a company representative
said. 

"We're heartened that the industry is taking steps on its own," said
Patty Yoxall, spokeswoman for the National PTA. "We prefer voluntary
efforts over government intervention." 

White House officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, stressed
that in addition to the voluntary efforts for indecent or smutty
content, the government still will enforce vigorously provisions
making illegal any obscene materials carried on the Internet. 

The Supreme Court upheld that provision of the 1996 law on June 26,
even as it overturned provisions aimed at restricting children's
access to indecent online materials. 

Copyright 1997   The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

At 01:07 AM 7/16/97 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>For instance, Netscape Communications is expected to announce it will
>back a software standard that allows people, using a Web browser,
>either to block or select certain Web sites based on their electronic
>labels, said industry and government sources, speaking on condition of
>anonymity.

Should such a system ever see widespread use, which I doubt, I only be a
matter of days before somebody puts up pages featuring gratuitous violence,
hard-core pornography, "how to kill your parents using common household
chemicals", and pages of similar nature. At which point we will quickly
discover just how "voluntary" this "voluntary standard" is.

Sure the CDA was struck down by the Supreme Court. Would a law prohibiting
"mislabeling" of websites be struck down as well? I doubt it.



--Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com>
  PGP encrypted mail preferred.
  DES is dead! Please join in breaking RC5-56.
  http://rc5.distributed.net/

On Tue, 15 Jul 1997, Lucky Green wrote:

> Sure the CDA was struck down by the Supreme Court. Would a law prohibiting
> "mislabeling" of websites be struck down as well? I doubt it.

Didn't the Supreme Court strike down a requirement to have the group that
pays for political advertising on the advertising?  (I thought I heard
this, but I'm not entirely sure..)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Anderson - <Pug Majere>     "Who knows, even the horse might sing" 
Wayne State University - CULMA   "May you live in interesting times.."
randerso@ece.eng.wayne.edu                        Ohio = VYI of the USA 
PGP Fingerprint - 7E 8E C6 54 96 AC D9 57  E4 F8 AE 9C 10 7E 78 C9
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I spoke to Netscape earlier today. The company previously had announced it
would support PICS in a future version of Navigator. Now it's pledging to
support PICS in the *next* version.

-Declan


On Tue, 15 Jul 1997, Lucky Green wrote:

> At 01:07 AM 7/16/97 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> >For instance, Netscape Communications is expected to announce it will
> >back a software standard that allows people, using a Web browser,
> >either to block or select certain Web sites based on their electronic
> >labels, said industry and government sources, speaking on condition of
> >anonymity.
> 
> Should such a system ever see widespread use, which I doubt, I only be a
> matter of days before somebody puts up pages featuring gratuitous violence,
> hard-core pornography, "how to kill your parents using common household
> chemicals", and pages of similar nature. At which point we will quickly
> discover just how "voluntary" this "voluntary standard" is.
> 
> Sure the CDA was struck down by the Supreme Court. Would a law prohibiting
> "mislabeling" of websites be struck down as well? I doubt it.
> 
> 
> 
> --Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com>
>   PGP encrypted mail preferred.
>   DES is dead! Please join in breaking RC5-56.
>   http://rc5.distributed.net/
> 
> 
>

Brian Lane wrote:
> 
> Declan McCullagh wrote:
> >
> > I spoke to Netscape earlier today. The company previously had announced it
> > would support PICS in a future version of Navigator. Now it's pledging to
> > support PICS in the *next* version.
> >
> > -Declan
> 
>   I don't care if Netscape supports PICS or not, as long as I still have the
> freedom to turn that option off (and that it is preferrably not enabled by
> default, or indicates in an OBVIOUS way that it is active).
Even better, lets support web browsers that do not support PICS or any
other
rateing system.

 
>   This whole thing is a load of shit though. The government is professing
> to have control over thousands of private computers and networks. No one
> has to put their kids on the net (IMHO the damn thing is a large waste of
> time, they should be reading books or building things instead), so it must
> be the parents decision to give them access -- It is therefore the parents
> responsibility to monitor their kids activities, not the governments and not
> everyone elses.
Agreed.  I would extend that to say that it is the parents responsiblity
to
teach their kids to be able to handle the unknown in a responsible way.

-Doug

Declan McCullagh wrote:
> 
> I spoke to Netscape earlier today. The company previously had announced it
> would support PICS in a future version of Navigator. Now it's pledging to
> support PICS in the *next* version.
> 
> -Declan

  I don't care if Netscape supports PICS or not, as long as I still have
the
freedom to turn that option off (and that it is preferrably not enabled
by
default, or indicates in an OBVIOUS way that it is active).

  This whole thing is a load of shit though. The government is
professing
to have control over thousands of private computers and networks. No one
has to put their kids on the net (IMHO the damn thing is a large waste
of
time, they should be reading books or building things instead), so it
must
be the parents decision to give them access -- It is therefore the
parents
responsibility to monitor their kids activities, not the governments and
not
everyone elses.

  My webpage will proudly remain unlabeled by any labeling standard.
Anyone got a good design for a 'No Lables, Never' sticker to add to our
pages?

  Brian  

-- 
-------------------< http://www.eskimo.com/~nexus >--------------------
EET, Embedded Systems Programmer     PGP email OK     Linux Afficionado
====[  9E83F5D5/C1 BD 82 44 7C 4E 4D 5B  8E D3 FD A0 04 11 A4 AF  ]====

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

In <33CD6C29.C60338E7@eskimo.com>, on 07/16/97 
   at 05:49 PM, Brian Lane <nexus@eskimo.com> said:

>  My webpage will proudly remain unlabeled by any labeling standard.
>Anyone got a good design for a 'No Lables, Never' sticker to add to our
>pages?


I'll have to whip somthing up and put it right next to my NOTScape
Enhanced & Netscape Unhanced logo's on my web page. :)

Of cource Netscape was never on "our" side to begin with so I can't call
their support of this crap a "sell-out" just typical.

- -- 
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
William H. Geiger III  http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii
Geiger Consulting    Cooking With Warp 4.0

Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice
PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail.
OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html                        
- ---------------------------------------------------------------

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: cp850
Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000

iQCVAwUBM81kHY9Co1n+aLhhAQEbugP+MDGhceE2uacQV32QquPtdfJKNPSHD5Pj
wyXier8KS5iJ8UqtjNhCBYQFyxKp/mrvXwmU0JyVW7y7solu6SJbgPAhthcqWI8e
V221FnUFBumz913YMq08t3ocOOH6d0ycCwzp4BW5t01MUs+AIAvLiIZwPb8R37Xa
KhS8QbOIwHo=
=M6m2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Brian Lane writes:

:   My webpage will proudly remain unlabeled by any labeling standard.
: Anyone got a good design for a 'No Lables, Never' sticker to add to our
: pages?
 
How about an image of a label with the words ``this is not a label''
on it?

--
Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH
 EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu    URL:  http://samsara.law.cwru.edu   
     NOTE: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists

"Peter D. Junger" <junger@upaya.multiverse.com> writes:

> 
> Brian Lane writes:
> 
> :   My webpage will proudly remain unlabeled by any labeling standard.
> : Anyone got a good design for a 'No Lables, Never' sticker to add to our
> : pages?
>  
> How about an image of a label with the words ``this is not a label''
> on it?

I think a better approach would be to rate all of one's pages as being very
nasty, and post a disclaimer that those who rely on 'ratings' shouldn't be
allowed to see it, irrespective of contents.

I dont know much about this Web page design stuff. Can someone please post
a recipe for 'rating' a page to be max-nasty, both sex and violence-wise?

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

On Thu, 17 Jul 1997, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:

> I think a better approach would be to rate all of one's pages as being very
> nasty, and post a disclaimer that those who rely on 'ratings' shouldn't be
> allowed to see it, irrespective of contents.

Hell it would probly get you more hits from the drool and click crowd.

Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia see the url in my header. 
Never trust a country with more peaple then sheep.  ex-net.scum and proud
You Say To People "Throw Off Your Chains" And They Make New Chains For
Themselves? --Terry Pratchett