PICS is the wrong approach becuase it oversimplifies the ratings of content, because it places the ratings made by the author in the payload itself, and because third-party ratings systems are cut out of the loop (effectively). One computerish way to think of this is that the "binding" is too early. At the time of distribution, say, I mark my work something with some PICS label, based upon my best understanding of the PICS labels, ratings, agencies, and laws. But once set, the "binding" has been made. Later reviews or reviews by other entities cannot affect the binding, at least not for this distributed instance. And of course it is quite likely that things important to others in their ratings are not as important to me. I might even ignore certain points, not even seeing the need to point out things in the work. This is inevitable, as there is no uniform view of truth, no uniform set of values and priorities, and no hope there ever can be such a monistic view. Consider the recent example of AOL's lists of banned words, even words in "harmless situations" (e.g, the example someone cited of "tits" being banned, despite being the name of a bird...would an animal-lovers Web page or posting with "Tits and Asses!!!" prominently in the title be PICS labelled as obscene? Some would surely think so.). A much better solution is to let the unique ID block of an article--the Usenet article ID, or some hash of the headers, whatever--be a pointer that other ratings servies could then use to provide for their customers or clients as a filtering mechanism. This would allow as many ratings services to exist as clients would be willing to support. Sure, there are _time delays_ in the evaluation process, as, for example, the Catholic Index reviews Web pages and Usenet posts, but all evaluation causes delay. This puts the burden on those proposing to filter content. More importantly, the "payload" does not carry some particular set of fairly-arbitrary PICS evluations. Binding by the censors instead of by the originator, which is as it should be. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I 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: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."