RE: Cyber 'Nannys"

An anonymous person wrote, in reference to CyberSitter type 'blocking'
software:

"These companies are attempting to provide the services desired by
their customers... They give concerned parents a sense of safety..."

While I do not disagree that these companies should be able to market
their products, I wholeheartedly disagree with the fact that often their
customers (the adults who bought the software or subscribed to he
'service') are not allowed to have a list of what is actually blocked,
and decide for themselves if they want their kids to have access to any
of these sites.  It would be beating a dead horse to describe, here,
the potential value of some of the information that is blocked by these
packages; one only has to take a look at any of the published news
reports (or actually use one's sense of reason) to see that there are
many web sites that contain some of the words that are automatically
bloked by these 'services' that are absolutely not...smut <for lack of a
better term>, hate speech, or illegal/illicitly oriented.

On another, perhaps more severe (to you, Anonymous poster,) angle, they
DO NOT, NOR CAN THEY provide a genuine saftey zone for the children who
are to be 'protected.'  They are providing a false sense of security to
parents who, for one reason or another, feel that they are not able to
provide their children with direction on what to, and what not to, view
on the internet as well as what to do if the instance arises that
something that is deemed taboo happens to pop up on their monitor when
they click on the 'Chutes and Ladders' web site <for example, I don't
know if there is one...trying to be safe and guess that there is not>.

I am assuming that there is no latent support for the use of these
packages in public libraries, so I won't go into that issue.  In
general, these programs are flat out crap.  They purport to do something
that is impossible to accomplish and they often refuse to even inform
their customers what they actually ARE doing.

Scott R. Brower
http://www.infowar.com
http://www.efflorida.org

At 2:49 PM -0800 2/9/98, WebWarrior3@InfoWar.Com wrote:

>While I do not disagree that these companies should be able to market
>their products, I wholeheartedly disagree with the fact that often their
>customers (the adults who bought the software or subscribed to he
>'service') are not allowed to have a list of what is actually blocked,

So you wholeheartedly disagree that they are not giving you a list of what
is blocked...so go use another service.

I don't mean to be flippant. At issue here is a very real issue of free
choice and contracts. Customers cannot "demand" a list of criteria for
blocked sites any more than customers can demand a list of the selection
criteria a bookstore uses, or a magazine editor uses, and so on.

I make fun of Cyber Sitter and other Net.Nannies, but there's no role for
"disagreeing with the fact" (whatever that infelicitous expression may
mean) that they usually don't publicize their criteria.

If you can figure out their criteria, great. Brock Meeks and Declan M.
figured out some criteria a while back in an interesting article. But make
sure that your "disagreeing with the fact" is not translated into calling
for disclosure laws. That way lies statism.

--Tim May


Just Say No to "Big Brother Inside"
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^3,021,377   | black markets, collapse of governments.

Tim May wrote:

> I don't mean to be flippant . At issue here is a very real issue of free
> choice and contracts. Customers cannot "demand" a list of criteria for
> blocked sites any more than customers can demand a list of the selection
> criteria a bookstore uses, or a magazine editor uses, and so on.

Ever hear of consumer protection laws? There are many cases where consumers
are allowed to "demand" information regarding their purchases...you were being
flippant. One subscribes to a magazine because one knows what the focus of the
content is and one chooses to receive that periodical; not because the
magazine MAY have an editorial policy to not cover any stories on the
"Oddities of Toenail Fungus in Bleached Blonde Yaks from Manhattan."

> I make fun of Cyber Sitter and other Net.Nannies, but there's no role for
> "disagreeing with the fact" (whatever that infelicitous expression may
> mean) that they usually don't publicize their criteria.

Pardon my poor choice of words, please.  Looking back on it, I can see that I
could have chosen a better way to express my meaning.  In case you did not get
the gist, let me clarify it for you:  I find it to be an irresponsible
business practice for a company not to provide a customer with information on
exactly what a product does and does not do.  In a case where a product claims
to 'protect' children from certain 'harmful' material, parents should be able
to view these criteria in order to:A) discern whether they agree that the
material is harmful
and
B) make an educated choice regarding which, if any, of these products they
want to purchase.

Saying that a customer can not demand to know what the product does is like
saying that a car manufacturer should not have to tell potential customers if
the engine block is made of aluminum, cast iron, or wood.  Likewise, remember
an agency called the FDA?  Hmm, wonder if one of the reasons we have
ingredient labels on our packaged food is so people can verify that certain
ingredients are not in the products.  Have any allergies, Tim?

> If you can figure out their criteria, great...

Huh?  Where did that come from?

> But make sure that your "disagreeing with the fact" is not translated into
> calling
> for disclosure laws. That way lies statism.

There are already consumer protection laws.  I don't think that this is a
concentration of extensive economic controls in the State, do you?  Really,
Tim...

It is neither my option nor is it my responsibility to change someone's little
paranoid mind should they confuse consumer protection with statism, that is a
job for a psychiatrist or a professor.

Scott R. Brower
http://www.infowar.com
http://www.efflorida.org

At 12:40 AM -0800 2/10/98, WebWarrior3@InfoWar.Com wrote:
>Tim May wrote:
>
>> I don't mean to be flippant . At issue here is a very real issue of free
>> choice and contracts. Customers cannot "demand" a list of criteria for
>> blocked sites any more than customers can demand a list of the selection
>> criteria a bookstore uses, or a magazine editor uses, and so on.
>
>Ever hear of consumer protection laws? There are many cases where consumers
>are allowed to "demand" information regarding their purchases...you were being
>flippant. One subscribes to a magazine because one knows what the focus of the

No, I was _not_ being flippant (which was what I said). I was being
libertarian.

As far as I'm concerned, absent a contract, anyone who "demands" something
from me is on thin ice.

Like I said, if you're unhappy that CyberSitter or NetNanny will not
provide you with information you wish to have, use another service.

But don't cite "Consumer Protection Laws."

--Tim May


Just Say No to "Big Brother Inside"
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^3,021,377   | black markets, collapse of governments.

Tim May <tcmay@got.net> writes:

> As far as I'm concerned, absent a contract, anyone who "demands" something
> from me is on thin ice.
>
> Like I said, if you're unhappy that CyberSitter or NetNanny will not
> provide you with information you wish to have, use another service.

So I can't demand that the censorware peddlers not mailbomb me?

The mentally retarded pedophile Guy Polis tried to mailbomb me from his
former eviljay@bway.net account, and bway.net pulled his plug in minute.

Is that censorship?

---

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

There are many bad laws on the books. Doesn't mean they're good ones,
WebWarrior3.

Many "consumer protection" laws in truth hurt consumers through more
government regulation, reduced competition, and higher prices.

-Declan


At 03:40 -0500 2/10/98, WebWarrior3@InfoWar.Com wrote:
>Ever hear of consumer protection laws? There are many cases where consumers
>are allowed to "demand" information regarding their purchases...you were being
>flippant. One subscribes to a magazine because one knows what the focus of the
>content is and one chooses to receive that periodical; not because the
>magazine MAY have an editorial policy to not cover any stories on the
>"Oddities of Toenail Fungus in Bleached Blonde Yaks from Manhattan."

>There are already consumer protection laws.  I don't think that this is a
>concentration of extensive economic controls in the State, do you?  Really,
>Tim...
>
>It is neither my option nor is it my responsibility to change someone's little
>paranoid mind should they confuse consumer protection with statism, that is a
>job for a psychiatrist or a professor.

Tim May wrote:

> As far as I'm concerned, absent a contract, anyone who "demands" something
> from me is on thin ice.

When you purchase or sell anything you enter into a contract with the other party,
hence:UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE Article 21) In this Article unless the context
otherwise requires "contract" and "agreement" are limited to those relating to the
present or future sale of goods. "Contract for sale" includes both a present sale
of goods and a contract to sell goods at a future time. A "sale" consists in the
passing of title from the seller to the buyer for a price (Section 2-401). A
"present sale" means a sale which is accomplished by the making of the contract.

As far as I can tell, every state other than Louisianna have accepted the UCC as
their state business law.  Additionally, many states have a law similar to:

Deceptive Practices SDCL 37-24-6

It is a violation of state law:
(2) To knowingly and intentionally conceal, suppress or omit any material fact in
connection with the sale or advertisement of merchandise.

> Like I said, if you're unhappy that CyberSitter or NetNanny will not
> provide you with information you wish to have, use another service.

I never implied that I would use such trash...I trust that my eight year old my
daughter understands what to do if she comes across something that is not
appropriate for her viewing as far as our family values are concerned. Thanks you
for permission, however, should I ever feel the need to allow a corporation to be
(in your terms) Big Brother to my daughter, I will feel justified in that you have
personally given me the leave to do so.

> But don't cite "Consumer Protection Laws."

Why not?

Scott R. Brower
http://www.infowar.com
http://www.efflorida.org

Declan McCullagh wrote:

> There are many bad laws on the books. Doesn't mean they're good ones,
> WebWarrior3.
>
> Many "consumer protection" laws in truth hurt consumers through more
> government regulation, reduced competition, and higher prices.
>
> -Declan
>

I do not claim to be a specialist in consumer protection and you may be right that
there are many laws that end up hurting consumers.  I don't know of any, but they
may be there...You mentioned:

Government regulation, as in your car or kerosene heater has to meet certain
criteria before it is sold?

Reduced competition, as in the case where a company wants to produce an item that
is unsafe or does not do what it is supposed to and is not allowed to market it?

Higher prices--I would rather pay a higher price and know that if the product does
not perform as indicated or purported I have recourse than pay less for a product
that does not work and end up being stuck with it.  Ya get what ya pay for (not
including taxes) generally, or you get what you can afford as the case may be. I
seriously doubt that consumer protection laws have kept anyone from being able to
afford a product they would have otherwise been able to enjoy.

Scott R. Brower
http://www.infowar.com
http://www.efflorida.org

At 10:38 AM -0800 2/10/98, WebWarrior3@InfoWar.Com wrote:

>When you purchase or sell anything you enter into a contract with the
>other party,
>hence:UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE Article 21) In this Article unless the context
>otherwise requires "contract" and "agreement" are limited to those
>relating to the
>present or future sale of goods. "Contract for sale" includes both a
>present sale
>of goods and a contract to sell goods at a future time. A "sale" consists
>in the
>passing of title from the seller to the buyer for a price (Section 2-401). A
>"present sale" means a sale which is accomplished by the making of the
>contract.
mer Protection Laws."

I suppose that your point is that the UCC somehow relates to your argument
that filtering companies must supply customers with their filtering
criteria?

This is a serious distortion of the UCC, and, if applied, would mean:

-- a chip company would have to provide the internal workings of chips
sold, else they would be violating the disclosure laws

-- a restaurant critic (analagous to a net.nanny filter, essentially) would
have to provide access to his selection criteria

-- the editor of any magazine or newspaper would have to explain his
reasons for reporting some stories and not others, for including some
editorial remarks and not others, and so on.

My point about "absent a contract" is that sometimes there _are_
arrangements to supply internal workings of chips, restaurant selection
criteria, etc. If there are such arrangements, then a customer can sue to
get performance. But absent such prearrangements, a customer cannot
generally demand information on how products were built, on what went into
them, and so on.

A customer of Cyber Sitter or Net Nanny is free to ask the companies
involved what their criteria are, just as  in the above cases he may ask
the companies for more details. But if these companies decline to give
trade secret information, or information they choose for whatever reason to
keep to themselves, there is no recourse.

Except in a few cases (wrongly, I believe) involving food and drug
products, under FDA rules. Importantly, there are absolutely no such
requirements for labelling of "speech," or editorial decisions, which is
precisely the service being provided by Cyber Sitter and Net Nanny types of
services.

I believe any attempts to force, through law, the disclosure of editorial
selection criteria would quickly be struck down by the courts as a
violation of the First Amendment.

(Except in the usual cases involving recommendations about drugs, health
benefits, etc. And, no, I don't believe "psychological health" could be a
justifiable reason for the courts to accept laws forcing editors to
disclose their selection criteria.)

Face it, Cyber Sitter is saying "We think these are sites your child can
visit. " Forcing them to disclose their criteria--or even forcing them to
list all sites they disapprove of--is an infringement on their editorial
rights.

(And please don't anybody cite "commerce" as a justification...it hasn't
been a justification to regulate the speech of newspapers, publishers, or
other commercial ventures....)

--Tim May

Just Say No to "Big Brother Inside"
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^3,021,377   | black markets, collapse of governments.

Tim May wrote:

> I suppose that your point is that the UCC somehow relates to your argument
> that filtering companies must supply customers with their filtering
> criteria?
>
> This is a serious distortion of the UCC, and, if applied, would mean:
>
> -- a chip company would have to provide the internal workings of chips
> sold, else they would be violating the disclosure laws

I hardly think that the parameters they choose to use can be construed as a trade
secret.

> -- a restaurant critic (analagous to a net.nanny filter, essentially) would
> have to provide access to his selection criteria

Restaurant critics do supply criteria, this, once again, is not a trade secret.
What is more, this is not analogous to filtering packages.  A critic will provide
information on both what he or she likes and dislikes as well as the location and
name of the restaurant.  They make recommendations which their 'readers' (not
customers) can choose to follow or ignore.

> -- the editor of any magazine or newspaper would have to explain his
> reasons for reporting some stories and not others, for including some
> editorial remarks and not others, and so on.

As I said before, when one subscribes to a periodical, one has a good idea of
what is within their editorial policy.  It would be unreasonable to expect a
publisher to provide every potential story.  Whereas, it would not be
unreasonable to expect a magazine on Anthropology to publish an article on a
recent discovery of major scientific import.

> My point about "absent a contract" is that sometimes there _are_
> arrangements to supply internal workings of chips, restaurant selection
> criteria, etc. If there are such arrangements, then a customer can sue to
> get performance. But absent such prearrangements, a customer cannot
> generally demand information on how products were built, on what went into
> them, and so on.

Equating a decision of what material is what is not acceptable  with the internal
schematics of chips is really far fetched.

People buy these packages (filtering software/services) with the understanding
that they will 'protect' their children from certain content.  Without being able
to look into what content is actually blocked a customer is being duped into a
false sense of security.  Additionally, they will never get to see what is
actually blocked.

> Except in a few cases (wrongly, I believe) involving food and drug
> products, under FDA rules.

So you don't think that ingredients should be labeled on pre-packaged food?
Shit, I guess you don't have any allergies.

> Importantly, there are absolutely no such
> requirements for labelling of "speech," or editorial decisions, which is
> precisely the service being provided by Cyber Sitter and Net Nanny types of
> services.

But CyberSitter ad Net Nanny DO label their editorial decisions by providing a
list of what TYPE of material they block, and as Declan pointed out, Net Nanny
provides a list.  They simply provide no proof that they actually do block sites
on any such basis.  The CyberSitter fiasco with Jonathan Wallace and Peacefire
last year is an example of material that is being blocked that does not fall into
line with their declared criteria.

> I believe any attempts to force, through law, the disclosure of editorial
> selection criteria would quickly be struck down by the courts as a
> violation of the First Amendment.

As stated above, they DO disclose the framework of their criteria, it is evidence
that these criteria are actually followed that is absent.

Scott R. Brower
http://www.infowar.com
http://www.efflorida.org

Some of my articles are at:

  http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/spoofcentral/censored/

As for the market, it's already deciding. NetNanny does NOT encrypt its
list of blocked sites and is using that as a competitive advantage.

-Declan

At 23:23 -0800 2/9/98, Tim May wrote:
>At 2:49 PM -0800 2/9/98, WebWarrior3@InfoWar.Com wrote:
>
>>While I do not disagree that these companies should be able to market
>>their products, I wholeheartedly disagree with the fact that often their
>>customers (the adults who bought the software or subscribed to he
>>'service') are not allowed to have a list of what is actually blocked,
>
>So you wholeheartedly disagree that they are not giving you a list of what
>is blocked...so go use another service.
>
>I don't mean to be flippant. At issue here is a very real issue of free
>choice and contracts. Customers cannot "demand" a list of criteria for
>blocked sites any more than customers can demand a list of the selection
>criteria a bookstore uses, or a magazine editor uses, and so on.
>
>I make fun of Cyber Sitter and other Net.Nannies, but there's no role for
>"disagreeing with the fact" (whatever that infelicitous expression may
>mean) that they usually don't publicize their criteria.
>
>If you can figure out their criteria, great. Brock Meeks and Declan M.
>figured out some criteria a while back in an interesting article. But make
>sure that your "disagreeing with the fact" is not translated into calling
>for disclosure laws. That way lies statism.
>
>--Tim May
>
>
>Just Say No to "Big Brother Inside"
>---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
>Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
>ComSec 3DES:   408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
>W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
>Higher Power: 2^3,021,377   | black markets, collapse of governments.

> >While I do not disagree that these companies should be able to market
> >their products, I wholeheartedly disagree with the fact that often their
> >customers (the adults who bought the software or subscribed to he
> >'service') are not allowed to have a list of what is actually blocked,
> 
> So you wholeheartedly disagree that they are not giving you a list of what
> is blocked...so go use another service.


I second that, it is strange how easily it is to bait supposedly 
libertarian list members into saying statist things about "consumer 
protection laws" and other such examples of state force and coercion 
over businesses. 

I do not go out, but a piece of software, then "demand" that I am 
given the source code and an explanation of why each line was written 
in the particular way it appears, of course this is all an aside to 
the real point that people should know better than to try to 
"protect" children from speech they don`t like.


--                  
                            Paul Bradley 
                      paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk
       "Why should anyone want to live on rails?" - Stephen Fry