================= From: gordonr@netnanny.com (GordonR) Reply-To: "gordonR@netnanny.com" <gordonR@netnanny.com> To: "'Declan McCullagh'" Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 10:46:19 -0800 Organization: Net Nanny Software International Inc. Censorship and the Internet Written by: Gordon A. Ross CEO/President Net nanny Software International Inc. The Internet today provides a total open communication facility for all societies on this planet to communicate with one another. Depending on your political and value judgments, this could be good, bad, allowed or disallowed. I am a firm believer in absolute freedom of speech. However, there are numerous organizations, societies, governments, and countries that determine what freedom of speech is according to their own rules. We are capable of developing technology to allow the individual to determine what information is appropriate or inappropriate according to their own value sets - not mine or those of any single government. But in order for this type of technology to work on a global basis, we must set standards, much like the way early telephone networks had to be set up. Back then, if there weren't certain "signaling" standards set within the telecommunication community, people had to go through time-consuming avenues in order to communicate with different foreign groups. It is logical that the Internet will also evolve with a set of standards, and some of them are already in place, such as TCP/IP, HTML, and PICS (Platform for Internet Content Selection). Because each unique group has a different value set, we must develop a standard that all countries can accept and use that does not infringe on their right to govern according to their own constitutions or laws. PICS is such a standard. It allows for self-imposed ratings according to the standards of the individual, organization or country. If ratings are desired, PICS defines how and where a rating label should appear. Browsers and filtering software can read these standards and make decisions as defined by the owner of these software applications. Personally, I do not believe rating should be forced on any single individual or WEB site, much in the same way I do not believe that I should be told when I can use my telephone if it is my telephone. However, I do have concerns about third-party rating systems. There are so many important questions we have to ask: Who is doing the rating? What are their qualifications? Who determines the criteria? How does the system get implemented? With the Internet's massive daily changes, how is content validated? And, more importantly, who validates the content? How would rating work, if it could work at all? There are 60 million-plus pages on the WEB and it takes about one minute per page to rate. To rate every existing WEB page today, it would take about 60 million minutes - or one million hours - or over 114 years. Using 114 people working 24 hours a day, the job would take a full year. But the bad news is that as soon as everything was rated, the process would have to start all over again, because within a year the WEB would change drastically. Even day-to-day changes would be difficult to track. That's why a self-rating system would be the most cost-effective solution - as well as the most politically correct. I would be very concerned if mandatory rating is enforced. We are fortunate to live in a society that allows us the civil liberties that we currently enjoy. No single jurisdiction can - or should - govern the Internet. And technology will always evolve in order to get around this type of government control. There is simply too much content for any single entity to monitor at this time. Many people feel there should be no rating or controls legislated for the Internet. Legislation already exists to enforce proper conduct within a country's Internet access. Technology developed by industry will allow individuals the control they want according to their own personal values. The masses should be educated as to emerging technologies that will offer them choices - and how these technologies can be used safely. Once people understand how the technology can prevent problems, the divisive issues currently facing us will become moot. Today, we function in a global community, and we can no longer isolate ourselves thinking we can "go it alone." The Internet opens up worldwide communications channels. We can discover or share any information at any time from any source, if we so choose. We must strive to preserve the open communication and the free exchange of ideas, while at the same time protect our children when we as individuals feel it is necessary. Technology companies can and will provide the tools for us to accomplish both free speech on the Internet - and protection for our families. The Internet can be a truly wonderful resource for the entire world to share. Approximately 95% of it is, in fact, good. Up until now, we have done a great job of informing the general population of the negatives inherent in a tool like the WEB. But now it's time to educate people about the positive aspects of the Internet, especially as it becomes their major communication facility in the future. What it comes down to is, a simple matter of choice. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- Gordon Ross CEO/President Net Nanny Software International Inc. Suite 108 - 525 Seymour Street Vancouver, B.C. V6B 3H7 Tel: (604) 662-8522 E-mail: gordonR@netnanny.com