At 4:33 AM 1/25/96, Mike Duvos wrote:
As I understand it, the basic concept behind the V-Chip is to allow selective blocking of material a particular viewer might find offensive based on content information transmitted along with the program. As long as the program material itself is transmitted unaltered, and there are multiple non-governmental providers of content descriptions catering to the spectrum of human likes and dislikes, this sounds like ideal Cypherpunk technology.
Concerned Parent can set the V-Chip to read from the Children's Television Workshop content service, available for a small monthly fee, and be certain that graphic violence and sex are pixelated on screen, and that bleep words that the child might practice in front of Grandma are garbled.
Mr. Islamic Fanatic can filter out all blasphemy against Allah and his one and only prophet, pork commercials, and women showing
The V-chip described heretofore is considerably less nuanced than this, having only a few states (roughly corresponding to MPAA movie ratings). No switch settings to block Democrat programs, or Feminist programs, or Mormon programs. Just your basic "indecency," with "violence" as lagniappe. And most Cypherpunks would tend to reject it because it is not voluntary (unless you think "so don't buy a television" is a viable voluntary choice). It will add to the cost of t.v.s and VCRs, and possibly interfere with the computer-based options to come. And it's easily defeatable. For one thing, most households have multiple t.v.s or VCRs, any one of which without the V-chip will defeat the system. Also, it is likely that the households "most in need" of this chip--using the logic about unattended children watching violent programs while their parents are away--will be the least likely to buy the brand-new sets and VCRs that have this chip. (I would guess that most families will have existing sets and VCRs for at least the next decade or more.)
What are the dangers of this new technology?
First, the government might want only one description of content, which it controls. My notion of what is offensive probably differs greatly from that of Jesse Helms, for instance.
This is mostly the case. My objection to ratings systems imposed by government is a general one. If video and music is to be rated, why not articles and Usenet posts? The principle is the same. Anyone telling me I have to rate my work, or submit it to a ratings agency, is aggressing against me. Now, if others rate my work (which is already happening with digest services such as "CP-Lite"), this is their business, not mine. But the V-Chip precedent is a precedent for the government to insist that all sorts of content be rated. This should be fought in a free society. --Tim May Boycott espionage-enabled software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^756839 - 1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."