~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Mon, 17 Jun 1996, David E. Smith wrote:
Do we just ignore the fact that these lists [Cyber Patrol, etc.] are outdated within seconds of release?
Yes, because they are still largely effective for their intended purpose. Just as crypto is ultimately economics, so to is blocking software. Parents who wish to make the Internet "safer" for their children will be happy with a 95% solution. That's the way it is with X-rated videos and magazines. While it's not impossible for kids to get their hands on them, it isn't easy. And that's good enough.
I think the point of all this is that unless/until a "smart" filter can be devised, there can't / won't be a good filtering package that will please everyone, or even a majority of someones.
I disagree. I'm sure almost every parent will find a filter that's "good enough" for them. As evidence, look at the current situation. Many (most?) parents object to some of the content on broadcast television. Though they could put a lock on the set or remove it entirely, few do. It's just too much trouble. Instead, they forbid their kids to watch certain shows or otherwise limit the time and topics they allow their kids to watch. Not perfect, but good enough. It will be the same with filters. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~