---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 12:08:32 -0400 (EDT) From: James Love <love@cptech.org> To: Jonah Seiger <jseiger@cdt.org> Cc: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>, fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu, chris_barr@cnet.com Subject: Re: CDT, RSACi, and "public service" groups Jonah, I think the problems with the RSACi rating system are pretty obvious, and I also think it should be obvious that *any* rating system that would aspire to rate all or even a significant number of web pages would be a bad thing. That said, it seems to me that there exist web pages that are unambiguously inappropriate for children. Has CDT rejected the idea of a very narrowly focused voluntary rating system that would apply to those sites only? I have in mind a simple voluntary tag of the nature: <META NAME="Rating" CONTENT="adult"> that would only be used when the web site wanted to signal that it did not want children to have access to the site? It seems to me that a consensus to use this simple system would take the steam out of the more ambitious (and troubling) PICs type systems, and also do much to eliminate the market for filtering software. I also think it would make it easier for many libraries and schools to permit students to have unrestricted access to the Internet. I know that some people think this simple tagging system is not among the proposals seriously under consideration. But why should we let RSAC or large commerical entities like AOL or Microsoft control this debate? In any event, I was wondering what CDT's thoughts are on this. James Love <love@cptech.org> ------------------------------- James Love Center for Study of Responsive Law | Consumer Project on Technology P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036 | http://www.cptech.org Voice 202/387-8030 | Fax 202/234-5176 | love@cptech.org