Censorware Summit 2.0, from The Netly News

[For details on some of the proposals presented, read the full article.
--Declan]

============

http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/opinion/0,1042,1608,00.html

The Netly News Network (http://netlynews.com/)
December 2, 1997

Censorware Summit 2.0
by Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com)

        If there's one political controversy that promises never to die,
   it's sex and the Net. There seems to be something about the
   combination of children and cyberporn that makes otherwise levelheaded
   adults more than a little worried -- and even a little irrational.

        Enter the politicans, always happy to pacify parents with
   soothing rhetoric. Vice President Al Gore is scheduled to speak this
   morning at a two-day summit dedicated to protecting kids online.

        Of course, the Communications Decency Act's backers had claimed
   that that particularly nasty law (which the Supreme Court found to be
   unconstitutional) did just that. They were joined by the White House,
   which two years ago said "the President firmly supports the
   Communications Decency Act" to "regulate the exposure of children to
   computer pornography."

        This time, however, the White House would like to avoid the same
   embarrassing mistakes -- and, perhaps more importantly, would like to
   avoid pissing off high tech firms that could be hefty campaign
   contributors to Al Gore 2000. Instead of endorsing new federal
   legislation, the Clinton administration says it'll oppose it as long
   as industry regulates itself. And, of course, if firms play ball,
   their CEOs get to share the limelight with the veep

[...]

there's a simple solution to anyone who doesn't
like the so-called "mandatory voluntary" rating systems.

START YOUR OWN!!

anyone is free to create software that filters whatever
sites they deem appropriate, to use whatever algorithms
they think are legitimate.

for example, the the GLAAD agency might come out with
a list of sites they think are appropriate for children
to view that are excluded by other rating systems. I wouldn't
be surprised if some of the rating companies agree to
integrate such a list into their software and give the
end user the choice of whether to turn it on.

what? it takes a lot of time to rate sites? you don't want 
to do it? yet you want to complain about someone else who has taken
the time to do this for customers who have chosen
to pay for it?

there is a legitimate market for filtering software, and
it is growing. who is to say what software can be run on
someone else's computer? who is to tell parents they shouldn't
use a filtering package for their own children?

filtering software can be as simple or complex 
as we wish. ultimately end users are voting with their money.

the froth over the rating systems seems to me mostly
overblown. I do agree however that they should not be
made mandatory based on the law.

the free market is solving the problem. we have ratings
agencies and people (such as GLAAD) who rate the rating
agencies. I don't see anything worth hyperventilating about.

Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:
> there's a simple solution to anyone who doesn't
> like the so-called "mandatory voluntary" rating systems.
> 
> START YOUR OWN!!

  BladderMirror is right in suggesting that there is a genuine
perceived need/market for censorware, and that those upset with
the prospect of having an m-v rating system shoved down their
throat could probably pick up some serious cash by writing a
technologically beneficial and usable censorware product.
  Doing so might well delay the steady Forced Electronic March
To Battan, by providing proponenets of censorship less ammo for
their show-and-tell horror shows to people who already agree 
with them, but who need to be worked into a proper frenzy in
order to feel justified forcing fascist legislation on their
friends and neighbors.

  The danger, of course, in descending into the Belly of the Beast
in order to grab a few of the gold coins from the government and
corporate feeding troughs, is that there always seems to increasing
numbers of coins just a little further down the decreasingly lighted
passageway. As well, one finds oneself being accompanied by more
and more fellow travellers who are trying to convince themself that
there is both physical and moral safety in numbers, until they end
up freefalling in the bottomless pit, convinced that they have the
Great Beast on the run.

> anyone is free to create software that filters whatever
> sites they deem appropriate, to use whatever algorithms
> they think are legitimate.

  I heard two shots I'm So Vlad, but only one seems to have hit
the target. Is the other bullet in your foot?
  Anyone pointing out our 'freedom' to "use" whatever we "deem
appropriate" for our purpose should probably avoid using the word
"algorithms" in the same sentence, lest they encounter return fire
aimed toward the EAR.

> there is a legitimate market for filtering software, and
> it is growing. who is to say what software can be run on
> someone else's computer? who is to tell parents they shouldn't
> use a filtering package for their own children?
> 
> filtering software can be as simple or complex
> as we wish. ultimately end users are voting with their money.

  I'm Vlad I'm Vlad I'm Vlad may well be the World's Most Dangerous
CypherPunk. The question is, "A danger to who?"
  There is a legitimate market for "Hit Man" instruction manuals,
and it is growing. Who is to say what words can be printed on someone
else's paper? Who is to tell people they shouldn't use a 'filtering
package' on their enemies?
  The sticky point is that the majority of 'freedom advocates' are
only advocating a 'one-way' freedom--Freedom To Believe As I Do!

  End users are only allowed to use their money to vote for available
and/or approved products, and their 'vote' is often no more meaningful
than those of the people in South America who elected a 'foot powder'
to office because of a political-spoof billboard advertising campaign 
for the product.

> the froth over the rating systems seems to me mostly
> overblown. I do agree however that they should not be
> made mandatory based on the law.
> 
> the free market is solving the problem. we have ratings
> agencies and people (such as GLAAD) who rate the rating
> agencies. I don't see anything worth hyperventilating about.

  Vladder You Than Me is invariably right in most of what he has
to say. The problem is that those taking a polar-opposite view are
also usually right about what _they_ say.
  The Lake of Life is indeed turning over at a faster and faster rate,
and the lines between 'random acts of violence' and 'random acts of
kindness' are becoming increasingly blurred. The same seems to be
increasingly true for 'random acts of logic' and 'random acts of
lunacy.'

  After spending several seconds engaged in deep thought about the
fact that 'It's All Done With Mirrors' and 'Everything You Know Is
Wrong', I have reached the conclusion that 'It Is What It Is' and
that, regardless of what role we have taken upon ourselves to play
upon this mortal plane, 'It's The Only Dance There Is.'
  (Hey! Maybe _I'm_ John Young!)

  I woke up this morning contemplating whether or not it is now true
that Phil Zimmermann is the Enemy (TM) and Bad BillyG is now my
Best Friend In The Whole World (TM).
  The bottom line, as far as I am concerned (although I have a deep-
rooted fear of sounding like our recent "Why can't we just all get
along?" Anonymous Goody-Two-Shoes), is that I hope that both Billy
and Philly remember that "We're here for a good time, not a long
time. So have a good time...the sun doesn't shine every day."

  I carry on my person, at all times, a list of whom I think the 
world would be better off without, in case I happen to get a chance 
to put a bullet between their eyes, or slowly strangle them to death
until the life force has been drained from their sorry carcass and
they are now in the proper mood for sex.
  I do, however, try to keep in mind that whatever the Psychic
Mind Controllers tell us is good to eat will eventually be 
relabelled as poisonous, and vice versa. Thus I prefer not to carry
heavy artillery with me at all times, knowing that the more lengthy
process of strangulation will give me time to sift through my mind
to separate dreams from reality, giving me a chance to reevaluate
my actions and quite possibly leave the target of my insanity with
merely a stern reminder that a certain percentage of the people one
pisses off in life will be psychotic sociopaths.

  After taking a quick peek at the Subject: header of this missive,
I assume that the point of this rambling soliloquy is that it has
been true, throughout history, that "The Revolution is NOW!"
  That has long been the title of the Lists that I compose, using
the 'old' Crayola colors, as Mr. Chainsaw spins eternally in the
background, whispering to me that I may be all that stands between
the mass of humanity and the Great Evil that seeks to destroy us.

  And (admit it...) the same is true of yourself.
  The revolution is *always* NOW, for each and every one of us.
If today's one-and-only choice is between BillyG and LouieFreeh,
then, risking the wrath of Attila T. Hun, I must declare that Bad
BillyG is, indeed, my Best Friend In The Whole World (TM).
  Why? Because I believe that Linux versus WinDolt gives us better
odds in the coming battles than Guns versus Nukes. And I believe
that I have a better chance of survival to fight another day if
I am firing warning shots over Micro$haft's head rather than over
the heads of the the Great Beast whose lair is in DC.

  I try to judge BillyG and PhillyZ with the same standards that
I use to make my personal judgements regarding Declan.
  I consider Declan to be a tried and true ally who has made it
his mission in life to descend into the Belly of the Beast and
report back to us where the 'soft targets' are, and warn us of
the 'fools gold' that is being used to lure us all down a road
that leads to the bottomless trough. I would be sad to have to
put an end to his life if he someday returns from his descent
with glazed eyes, blathering, "GAK is Good!"

  Bad BillyG has managed to become the richest and one of the most
powerful people in the world while committing only minor atrocities
while providing vast, if futurally questionable, benefits for humanity.
  I have no fondness for BillyG for knocking some of my computer
industry friends on their ass while going for the big score, but 
neither do I have a fondness for my hockey opponents when they
knock my teamates on their butt while I am watching from the 
players bench. 
  Good PhillyZ, after having done an enormous amount of good in
the arena of privacy and encryption, is now in a position of 
having to peek into the mouth of the Great Beast, in order to
spread strong crypto into the area where the great mass of
humanity resides. If he deems it useful or necessary to descend
into the Belly of the Beast in order to work toward the spread
of strong, privacy-enabling encryption, I do not plan to abandon
him too readily and begin viewing him as the Enemy.
  At the same time, I reserve the right to make my own personal
decision as to when it becomes necessary to put my friends or
enemies out of 'my' misery, because the Revolution is NOW!

	Heaven and Earth are impartial;
	They see the ten thousand things as straw dogs.
	The wise are impartial;
	They see the people as straw dogs.

  It is too late in the game to waste time defending old definitions
which no longer apply. The future is in motion, and there will be a
great cost associated with not moving with it.
  Caesars throughout history have shown us that there is a thin line
which separates allies, strange bedfellow, and enemies--and the line
is constantly moving.

  We are fast approaching Instant Karma.
  The future is now.
  The Revolution is NOW!

TruthMonger

Problem is, I work about three blocks from Ground Zero. All this talk of
soft targets makes me nervous, you know.

BTW, I'm going to check on the Secret Service Christmas tree ornaments and
how much they cost. I'll post later on today if our office manager tells me
they're still available. (The U.S.S.S. is on the top floor of my building
and they give us a deal.)

-Declan


At 10:49 -0600 12/4/97, TruthMonger wrote:
>  I try to judge BillyG and PhillyZ with the same standards that
>I use to make my personal judgements regarding Declan.
>  I consider Declan to be a tried and true ally who has made it
>his mission in life to descend into the Belly of the Beast and
>report back to us where the 'soft targets' are, and warn us of
>the 'fools gold' that is being used to lure us all down a road
>that leads to the bottomless trough. I would be sad to have to
>put an end to his life if he someday returns from his descent
>with glazed eyes, blathering, "GAK is Good!"

On Tue, 2 Dec 1997, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:

> there's a simple solution to anyone who doesn't
> like the so-called "mandatory voluntary" rating systems.
> 
> START YOUR OWN!!

I've mentioned this half in jest before, but why don't all
the moralistic fanatics petition their church to come up with
filtering software.

That way you could be sure what kind of stuff your church
were filtering out.  In doing so you would be providing
a powerful check on the values of your religious institution.

Since hard-core profit motives would be eliminated you could
check if your church actively filters specific sites.  This
is something the net-nanny software doesn't allow you to do
because their filter lists are proprietary.

I know the RC church has plenty of additional clergy to 
devote to such a noble task  ;-)

The types of filtered information are up to your church:

Anyone care to submit major censoring categories for each
church? ;-)  Maybe the best way for cypherpunks to attack
this is to come up with free generic filtering software that
any well recognized group can develop filtering lists for.
Wait -- a name is coming to me -- GNUSitter?

Please append your filtering categories here:

Roman Catholic:
Jewish:
Lutheran:
Pentacostal:
Baptist:
Southern Baptist:
Scientologist:
Davidian:
Statist:
Morman:
Subgenius:

All hail Eris!

jim

> Anyone care to submit major censoring categories for each
> church? ;-)  Maybe the best way for cypherpunks to attack
> this is to come up with free generic filtering software that
> any well recognized group can develop filtering lists for.
> Wait -- a name is coming to me -- GNUSitter?

How about a variant on this idea: a cypherpunks web filter that filters 
out all content which has any of the following:

Superstitious religious claptrap
Moralising on porn etc.
Anti free speech rhetoric
All government departments
All Anti-drug "war on some vegetables" rubbish
etc.
etc.
etc.


And specifically filters in as a random start page for the browser any of 
the following:

Pornography
Free speech advocacy
Hate speech 
Violent, filthy, disgusting, explicit pages showing images of death and 
torture.
Any pages graphically depicting the stories and parts of the bible the 
religious types like to forget about.

        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"