Declan McCullagh writes:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 14:16:47 -0500 From: Marc Rotenberg <rotenberg@epic.org> To: fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu Subject: The Real Plan: Making the Net Safe for Censorship
That should be Making the Net Safe for SafeSurf. The proposal is a classic example of "if you can't beat 'em in the marketplace, beat 'em in the legislature". It would require a rating system while locking out new competition from the net censorshipratings field. SafeSurf operates a ratings system. Can you say "conflict of interest"? Note provision 3, which stipuates that a rating must be "issued by a ratings service that has a minimum of 5,000 documented individuals usin its system to mark their data." That'd kind of make it hard to start a competing ratings system, wouldn't it?
Here is an example of a proposal being presented at the White House today.
The minds boggles at the number of unconstitutional provisions contained in such a brief text.
Never has a freedom won in a Supreme Court decision been given up so quickly.
Just like the lumber barons who destroyed vast forests for their own profit, too many modern business people are willing to sell out our freedoms in return for profit for themselves. -- Eric Murray ericm@lne.com Security and cryptography applications consulting. PGP keyid:E03F65E5 fingerprint:50 B0 A2 4C 7D 86 FC 03 92 E8 AC E6 7E 27 29 AF