[8409] in www-talk@info.cern.ch
Re: Agent-mediated access, kidcode critiques, and community standards
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brian Behlendorf)
Tue Jun 20 22:52:32 1995
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 17:16:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Behlendorf <brian@organic.com>
To: Dave Kristol <dmk@allegra.att.com>
Cc: m.koster@nexor.co.uk, www-talk@www10.w3.org
In-Reply-To: <9506202204.AA10404@ig1.att.att.com>
On Tue, 20 Jun 1995, Dave Kristol wrote:
> Martijn Koster <m.koster@nexor.co.uk> said:
> > My suggestion of using a KidCode HTTP header didn't provoke much
> > response, while I think it has some advantages: the user gets the
> > choice, it scales, it can be added to exisiting code easily, scales,
> > doesn't require a third party infrastructure, and will be quite easy
> > to establish as a standard since it is a simple extension to http. It
> > can also easily coexist with community schemes.
> >
> > I'd appreciate some feedback: is the lack of support for protocols
> > other than HTTP perceived to be a big problem? Will UR[CA]
> > infrastructure takes as much time to deploy as adding a header to
> > existing code? Is the rush for an interrim solution justified? Is an
> > HTTP header a good idea?
>
> Okay, here's some feedback. I prefer a KidCode header. I think
> building the information into the URL is a bad idea for all the reasons
> stated previously.
>
> A KidCode-capable client could block access to "unrated" documents that
> have no KidCode header, or it could just call them "unrated" and
> display them. That could be a configurable option.
I prefer a KidCode HTTP header to encoding it in the URL, but it has its
limits as an "answer" to censorship. How would a browser use that
information effectively unless it was mandated? Let's say the KidCode
headers are used to indicate "bad" attributes of a resource, and the kids'
browser is told to "block any sites with bad kidcode headers", that
doesn't block sites that don't rate themselves. It's not truely
preventative - and in fact, it would emply some sort of enforcement
(analogy: films not rated by the MPAA are generally not shown in movie
house chains in America) and the threat of suits from people who think a
site's rating wasn't conservative enough. There's a big difference
between allowing a content provider to rate themselves as a public
service and requiring it. Self-rating could too quickly follow down the
"requirement" path.
Rating for appropriateness *has* to be done by third parties. Self-ratings
can be used to aid their task, but can't be relied upon, really.
Brian
--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--
brian@organic.com brian@hyperreal.com http://www.[hyperreal,organic].com/
