[8990] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
sleaze
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Barry Shein)
Tue Dec 14 15:08:41 1993
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1993 15:05:01 -0500
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
To: bukys@cs.rochester.edu
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: bukys@cs.rochester.edu's message of Tue, 14 Dec 93 08:59:23 -0500 <199312141359.IAA02420@slate.cs.rochester.edu>
>From: bukys@cs.rochester.edu
> A huge problem is that access providers do not control what's out
> there or reachable.
>
>The same is true of our phone company, which has the advantage of being a
>common carrier. Even so, there are still controls in place:
>
> * Phone companies put for-pay sleaze services behind special phone
> numbers. It is possible to disable access to those phone numbers
> as a group. Even if not disabled, it is itemized on the phone bill
> so it can't be done in secret.
What this really means is there exist a very small subset of phone
numbers identified very precisely by their 900 or 976 designations
which can be blocked, not by content but in general, this also blocks
completely innocuous services such as those wake-up services or
whatever.
That's really about money, the charging model, not "sleaze", there
just happens to be some correspondence.
But TelCo does nothing about, say, outcall services or just dialing
into a totally non-internet related "Adult GIFs BBS" etc.
Sure, a few specific addresses/services could be blocked, but no
warranty or liability could be assumed that there aren't a zillion
others which aren't blocked.
Consider again the (true) example I gave where someone posted incest
porn to a k12 group.
The analogy with 900 blocking really doesn't work very well in the
current milieu.
> * There are criminal penalties for saying certain things to certain
> people over the phone.
And I'll bet that's largely predicated on who called whom, I'd also be
curious to see that detailed and see if it's all that different from
what I can say to anyone on the street more or less (i.e. thus it
applies, so not very interesting, I can't threaten, harass or defraud
someone via phone, network or face to face.)
>Sleaze purveyors may
>still be free to use the net to distribute their wares, however, the
>threat of criminal prosecution if they make no effort to qualify their
>subscribers may crimp their style a bit.
Makes ya feel good doesn't it, Eliot Ness here, hey, can't think of
any good solutions so let's just take axes to the whole net...for all
the barrels he axed it didn't really do much good in the end did it?
Put another way, I have about the same reaction to this as a
"solution" as you might to my suggesting we reduce the federal deficit
by removing universities' tax-exempt status...hey, it'll help! Don't
bother me with the hard questions, we got the guns...
I'm not saying nothing should be be done, something does need to be
done, but taking strong opiates like "we can't figure out any solution
so let's just arrest anyone caught in the middle" is not my idea of a
useful suggestion.
The only easy solution I can think of is no one under 18 period. I bet
that will be real popular...Al Gore's NII (Adults Only!) But the first
access provider arrested or harassed and that's what you're going to
get in a New York second, I mean, kids don't really account for a
large part of income so why take the risk? Slam.
It's a hard problem, but let's try to resist the cheap shots or we'll
quickly be throwing out the baby with the bathwater, almost literally.
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
