---------- Forwarded message begins here ---------- From: sethf@MIT.EDU Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 23:37:48 -0400 Message-Id: <9604270337.AA22787@frumious-bandersnatch.MIT.EDU> To: angels@wavenet.com Subject: Re: Guardian angels, the decency brigade, and cyberseraphim Cc: fight-censorship+@andrew.cmu.edu, mnemonic@well.com, cp@panix.com I have been researching the issue of ratings for some time, and thinking of getting a SafeSurf rating for a few pages as an experiment, so this "patrolling" is pretty interesting: "Gabriel" writes:
The answer is yes. So how can Safesurf be sure that sites registered with them are indeed genuinely kidsafe? Simple - someone has to go and check out all the sites who register with Safesurf.
Now, would you be kind enough to tell me what happens next? Suppose you check out a site and find it is in your opinion not "kidsafe". What do you do in that case? This is not clear from your message. If the essence of the the SafeSurf system is "voluntary" ratings, are you not substituting your own standard? After all, in reference to Declan McCullagh's point about the fight-censorship archives, you say: "Why ask? Clearly a site with a message like this would not be suitable for children to read. That would be an adult site rating." Clearly then, you have some standard you are applying, which seems in this case be roughly "any archive which contains any message with any sexual content, no matter what the context or proportion, does not qualify as "kidsafe" in the CyberAngels view." So, in reality do we not have two standards here, the site's "voluntary" one, and the one the CyberAngels apply to the site? Only if the two coincide will all be well. Thus, is it not reasonable to ask that the CyberAngels at least make clear their criteria? I collect items such as this (ratings systems), I would be very interested in what the CyberAngels have come up with. ================ Seth Finkelstein sethf@mit.edu P.S. I don't know if you're a recent recruit or not, but Curtis Sliwa has a checkered history at best. Given the fabrications in the Angel's past, what can we expect in their future? References: AUTHOR: Goodstein, Laurie TITLE: Guardian Angels' Chief Clouds His Reputation SOURCE: Washington Post SEC,PG:COL: A, 3:1 DATE: Nov 29, 1992 ABSTRACT: Curtis Sliwa, founder of the Guardian Angels, has admitted that some of his 1980s exploits were fabricated to get publicity. AUTHOR: Gonzalez, David TITLE: Police Union to Sue Sliwa over Hoaxes SOURCE: New York Times SEC,PG:COL: B, 6:6 DATE: Nov 26, 1992 ABSTRACT: Ron Reale, the president of the New York City transit police union, said Nov 25, 1992 that his group would file a lawsuit against Curtis Sliwa, the founder of the Guardian Angels, on the grounds that he had injured the union's reputation by faking crime-fighting exploits in order to garner publicity for the Guardian Angels. AUTHOR: Gonzalez, David TITLE: Sliwa Admits Faking Crimes for Publicity SOURCE: New York Times SEC,PG:COL: B, 1:4 DATE: Nov 25, 1992 ABSTRACT: The Guardian Angels' founder and leader, Curtis Sliwa, admitted in a New York Post article on Nov 24, 1992 that he faked six of the group's early crime-fighting exploits to gain publicity. Some former and present associates contend that even more of the group's activities were publicity stunts. TITLE: Curtis Sliwa's Confession SOURCE: New York Times SEC,PG:COL: A, 32:1 DATE: Nov 27, 1992 ABSTRACT: An editorial wonders why so many New Yorkers got taken in by Curtis Sliwa, the Guardian Angels' leader who recently confessed that he and his Angels fabricated several exploits in order to gain public support.