-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- A link in the PICS FAQ that Declan posted was to The Net Labeling Delusion. For anyone interested in the relationship of PICS/RASCi and censorship I recommend reading this article in detail. It presents a very interesting case for censorship by stealth and argues that since blocking software will block unlabeled sites that mandatory-voluntary labeling is unnecessary and unjustified. It also examines some possible motives on the part of government for advocating such mandatory-voluntary censorship schemes. For the full text see : http://www.thehub.com.au/~rene/liberty/label.html Here is a snip from the introduction.. Protection or Oppression ======================== The developers of PICS say it's an infrastructure which facilitates voluntary labelling and selection of Internet content. They promote it as "Internet Access Controls Without Censorship". Its advocates say it's nothing to do with censorship and can't assist the censors. Meanwhile, PICS has achieved its original objective: to provide an alternative to government censorship legislation, that is, to provide instead a technological means of facilitating censorship. Governments, finally beginning to comprehend the difficulties of blatantly censoring the Net, are becoming enthused about filtering technology. Service providers, desperately hoping to place themselves out of reach of over-zealous governments who would hold them liable for material they carry, are demanding their customers rate and label all their material. Ironically, an increasing number of the original proponents of filtering software are becoming much less enthused as a host of new issues arise. Filtering programs and labelling look set to become privatised censorship disguised as consumer information backed by government coercion. This document does not propose that PICS systems and third party filtering software should be entirely black-banned by Net users. It does, however, suggest that parents and other consumers should ascertain what type of information is, and is not, being blocked and that filtering advocates should be extremely cautious about unreservedly promoting these systems as the saviour of the Net. Contents: Summary What are filtering programs and rating/labelling systems? Labelling has nothing to do with censorship, does it? What is censorship? What is labelling? Labels are just tags, helpful information, surely? Book in libraries are labelled, is there a difference? Are book reviews similar to labels? So, is labelling censorship or not? Is labelling likely to become compulsory? Will labelling protect children from harmful material? Do governments have a legitimate interest in enforcing, or encouraging, labelling? Why would governments seek to enforce labelling? The alleged reasons - To protect children - To enable electronic commerce to reach its full potential The other agenda - Censorship by Stealth: making publication too difficult, costly and risky - Banning access to the rest of the world - Facilitating future changes to censorship laws - Being seen to be doing something How would governments enforce labelling? Legislation Coercion What's wrong with compulsory labelling anyway? What's wrong with the RSACi Rating System? Voluntary labelling is a good idea, isn't it? Conclusion Summary: Indications are mounting that labelling of all content will be made mandatory in Australia. Claims that all material, particularly material unsuitable for children, must be labelled in order to protect children are technologically ignorant at best, insidious at worst. Unilateral action in Australia will increase costs in the burgeoning on-line multimedia industry here, and may force many sites off-shore. Compulsory labelling will restrict quantity and quality of information as a result of: the complexity, unsuitability and inadequacies of some, probably all, rating systems similar to RSACi difficulties associated with lack of technical knowledge overly cautious ratings because it is too much effort, or to avoid potential complaints, or to purposely seek to undermine an enforced system lack of time and/or staff to rate material financial restraints unwillingness to enter into complex legal agreements with ratings organisations unwillingness to provide personal information to ratings organisations which can be used for, or sold to, mailing lists etc. Compulsory labelling will force content providers to: self-censor in accord with someone else's value system place themselves at greater risk of complaints regarding legal material because of the many shades of grey inherent in rating systems. Compulsory labelling enables governments to achieve censorship by stealth as well as facilitate future more censorious laws whilst claiming non-censorious intent. Compulsory labelling achieved by government coercion of private enterprise enables government to avoid all responsibility and criticism for resultant problems and difficulties. Voluntary labelling of material which is suitable and intended for children will provide a child-safe environment. Rating services have the potential to influence community views and attitudes to a greater extent than either existing broadcast media or uncensored access to the Internet. Rating organisations must be required to publicly disclose concise details of rating criteria and value systems to ensure consumers can ascertain what is, or is not, blocked. - -- .////. .// Charles Senescall apache@bear.apana.org.au o:::::::::/// apache@quux.apana.org.au
::::::::::\\\ Finger me @bear for PGP PUBKEY Brisbane AUSTRALIA '\\\\\' \\ Apache
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBM+UAunawhvoxf0r9AQGCuQf/Xf2x7nCYg9m+F5Tanx/azsNrSSODsu8L iZ9sfzAoJBu1cT7KHfPgoQiW3PYAGtWyQRodwiwy8Io2KiYLEsKj6M9ve7uqwn2Z ZdisUZUEcSp4VwGn/O9ULnvfRBg1nCwey075qRgxo4A4jnJ91ALi7KgQZTwpqcPt N/3J9WE5A3rELWr0fgylScgW+48nDueedNz1W806OV1k+SZnZVsvmpg3Aozio19N MGV83llDIjJrJPJul+cCJZR9VipjFtm9S3tYZiNQOXwQF8Jnlm/O2tWDrJ+zmFnx wMzV09D+qoPOEtquSCtmNCcXBzvP4go6Ex4bOAJzi/aK5iBP5eoY2g== =OqAV -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----