[8356] in www-talk@info.cern.ch
Re: New Internet Draft on protecting children AND free speech
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Nathaniel Borenstein)
Wed Jun 7 19:38:33 1995
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 19:30:52 +0500
Errors-To: procmaster@www19.w3.org
Reply-To: nsb@nsb.fv.com
From: Nathaniel Borenstein <nsb@nsb.fv.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <www-talk@www10.w3.org>
Excerpts from mail: 6-Jun-95 Re: New Internet Draft on p.. Duncan
White@surrey.ac.u (5046)
> So I suggest that the work should be
> done at the existing server end, within the framework of HTML rather than as
> separate GETs or new http commands.
Bear in mind a couple of prices paid for doing it in those ways:
Doing it at the HTML level is wasteful of bandwidth *and* is
Web-specific and doesn't permit kid-protecting firewalls.
Doing it at the HTTP level isn't as bad regarding bandwidth, but it is
still Web-specific and still doesn't facilitate kid-protecting
firewalls, unless they're much more stateful than firewalls generally
are.
The KidCode proposal has the best possible implications for net
bandwidth, works for ftp & news, and is specifically designed to permit
the construction of kid-friendly subnets protected by kidcode-smart
firewalls.
> Of course, the biggest issue here is the whole subjective/objective indexing
> problem, where one culture's "suitable for all" may offend a particular
> cultural or religious belief elsewhere. I would strongly discourage any
> "moral majority" approach to ratings where a single faction within the US
> tries to impose its moral code on the rest of the world.
Exactly. This is why we need multiple rating/certification authorities.
> Instead, I would argue that we must restrict ourselves to factual indexing,
> using an agreed set of cataloguing keywords in a consistent way. As some
> sensible people once said "implement mechanism, not policy" :-)
This sounds nice, but the facts just aren't remotely codifiable here.
In some Islamic countries, a picture that shows a woman's calf might be
considered nudity. In New York, pictures of a topless dancer might be
rated PG. What key words could possibly suffice to describe things in
such a way as to meet all those different sets of standards and
worldviews? I think the only hope is rating/certification authorities,
which will lead to Baptist-approved web browsers, sites approved by a
particular Ayatollah, and so on.
In any event, I think the need for a short term solution here is really
urgent. If some kind of kid protection for the web doesn't come soon,
the drumbeats for censorship will only get louder. I think the
general-purpose indexing idea is great, but it's also a can of worms
that won't be dealt with in the short term.
> Now, how would this link up with Acrobat and PDF which presumably don't have
> HTML headers :-)
With this question, you get close to the core of the KidCode proposal.
There's only one thing that remotely resembles a universal handle on
data on the Internet -- the URL. That's why we made it the focus of the
KidCode proposal. -- Nathaniel
--------
Nathaniel S. Borenstein <nsb@fv.com> | When privacy is outlawed,
Chief Scientist, First Virtual Holdings | only outlaws will have privacy!
FAQ & PGP key: nsb+faq@nsb.fv.com | SUPPORT THE ZIMMERMAN DEFENSE FUND!
---VIRTUAL YELLOW RIBBON-->> zldf@clark.net (http://www.netresponse.com/zldf)
