Tim, if you think that no web site are unambiguously inappropriate for children, then you are in a state of denial.

Please clarrify this for us: What sites would you classify as unsuitable for children? What would you define as being a child? What justification do you give for supposing certain material to be unsuitable for viewing by a certain class of people?

are a mistake, and should be resisted. However, I do favor a far less ambitious and less informative system (less is more, as far as I am concerned), which involves a simple, single voluntary tag, selected by the web page publisher, at their discretion, of the nature of

<META NAME="Rating" CONTENT="adult">

Would your vision of this be a mandatory system, or totally voluntary? Would clearly rating a site incorrectly be punishable in any way? Datacomms Technologies data security Paul Bradley, Paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul@crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul@cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: FC76DA85 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

Let me you way out on a limb, and suggest the following entries, from an infoseek search for the workd PICS, would be unabiguously inappropriate for children.

Pissing, Fisting and beastiality! We go to great lengths to bring you the Good Old Fashioned ALL AMERICAN Pornography, Just Like Dad Used To Watch! Unfortunately, We can't bring you everything! 55% http://adult.mdc.ca/free/xxxp.html (Size 4.3K)

Absolutely the RAUNCHIEST NASTIEST Barely Legal Anal Bitches ANYWHERE!! The ultimate in anal, double anal, double penetration, sloppy oral, and gangbang action!!! 100% GUARANTEED free xrated pics Action!

55% http://adult.mdc.ca/free/xratedp.html (Size 4.5K)

We can clearly come to no agreement here as I cannot see any material listed above which would be harmful in any way to a viewer, child or not.

I don't think I need much justification to suggest that "the ultimate in anal, double anal, double penetration, sloppy oral, and gangbang action" is unsuitable for viewing by "a certain class of people," --- namely children. Do you seriously dispute this? If so, there isn't much point in debating this.

Yes I do seriously dispute this. Can you tell me what in this material is damaging in any way, can you cite examples, can you give causal evidence of damage?

That's what is going on now. Why one would want to encourage this is beyond me. Maybe fighting for the right to show the "ultimate in anal, double anal, double penetration" to children has redeeming value that I don't appreciate.

Then you fail to see the simple point of the redeeming value of true free speech, there are no grey areas, you either believe it or you don`t. Datacomms Technologies data security Paul Bradley, Paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul@crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul@cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: FC76DA85 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

James Love <love@cptech.org> writes:

Paul Bradley wrote:

...

...

[Pissing, Fisting and beastiality!]

55% http://adult.mdc.ca/free/xratedp.html (Size 4.5K)

We can clearly come to no agreement here as I cannot see any material listed above which would be harmful in any way to a viewer, child or not.

Paul. Do you *have* any children? Jamie

I have children. My views are generally liberal. I could probably come up with a few things I think would not be appropriate viewing/reading at this stage (4 year old?) However, and this appears to be a point being missed here, it is pretty much irrelevant what I think should be appropriate for my children, because the person you are proposing to rate the site is the site's author. It is inevitable that the site's author will have different views about what is suitable for children than any particular parent. Pick 10 people, you'll have 10 different sets of what is suitable. Even if government were to insist that everyone self rated, it would be damn near meaningless. If you as a parent are too lazy to observe what your children read, you could use a third party rating service. I believe that there are several on the market right now. You should attempt to evaluate the rating services to see what they block. Perhaps you would go on the advice of a ratings service rating service. Perhaps you would obtain demonstration versions and form your own opinion. Clearly government mandated self-rating is moving towards thoughtcrime. Third party rating services are services. If you don't like the service, don't buy it, or start up your self in competition. Now where does the need for government come into this picture? General rhetorical question: indeed why have governments at all? Adam -- Have *you* exported RSA today? --> http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/ print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`

On Thu, Jul 31, 1997 at 01:45:15AM +0100, Adam Back wrote: [...]

Even if government were to insist that everyone self rated, it would be damn near meaningless.

I think you are seriously underestimating the usefullness of self-rating. Yes, indeed, there are people who will spoof them, or who may have a completely weird view of the world that allows them an odd interpretation of what the ratings mean, so you won't get 100% coverage. But it is important to remember that less than perfect coverage is completely acceptable. What you have to evaluate is whether the percentage of coverage is worth the trouble. As has been pointed out, a large majority of sites that provide "adult" material (under a very broad definition of "adult") *already* self-rate -- their pages are usually (in my limited experience) plastered with warnings, in fact. And if there was a simple, consistent standard for those already existing self-ratings it would be easy to generate filters for them. Note that this is orthogonal to the issue of whether the self-ratings are government-mandated, and it works independently of government mandate. The reason is that the larger porn sites are in it for the money, and *any* social sanction -- government, mail bombs, bad publicity, mass protest, real bombs etc -- makes it cost effective to do self-rating, if the self-rating is cheap. More interesting than ratings, however, are techniques used to establish credentials for a large class of people. How does one identify oneself as an "adult" in cyberspace? If "adult" means "inhabits a physical human body at least 21 years old" then you have to tie a cyberspace identity to a human body. This is a tricky problem. OTOH, if "adult" means "knows a certain body of knowledge, that only a person who was alive and aware at date X would know", then you have a much different, and really, much easier, problem -- you can devise a test. Such a test should have just a few questions, drawn from a large pool, each of which has a fairly high probability of not being answerable by a child. "I am not a crook" was said by: a) Mickey Mouse, in the "Steamboat Willie" cartoon b) Richard Nixon c) d) Ben Cartrights 3 sons were: a) Jimmy, John, and Sam b) etc c) d) This approach was actually used by -- let's see -- the "Leisure Suit Larry" suite of games, and it was pretty effective at blocking children from playing. [...]

General rhetorical question: indeed why have governments at all?

General rhetorical answer: Because people are the way they are. -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent@songbird.com the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44 61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55 http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html

At 12:25 PM -0700 7/30/97, James Love wrote:

Paul Bradley wrote:

...

...

Pissing, Fisting and beastiality! We go to great lengths to bring you the Good Old Fashioned ALL AMERICAN Pornography, Just Like Dad Used To Watch! Unfortunately, We can't bring you everything! 55% http://adult.mdc.ca/free/xxxp.html (Size 4.3K)

Absolutely the RAUNCHIEST NASTIEST Barely Legal Anal Bitches ANYWHERE!! The ultimate in anal, double anal, double penetration, sloppy oral, and gangbang action!!! 100% GUARANTEED free xrated pics Action!

55% http://adult.mdc.ca/free/xratedp.html (Size 4.5K)

We can clearly come to no agreement here as I cannot see any material listed above which would be harmful in any way to a viewer, child or not.

Paul. Do you *have* any children? Jamie

The discussion is shifting, predictably, from the so-called "voluntary" labeling standards to the real issue of what will be banned, mandatorily rated as "adult" material, etc. Regardless of who here has any children, and regardless of whether one thinks bestiality, etc. is appropriate for one's own children, or the children of others, and so on, the Real Issue is this: How will a completely voluntary ratings system, and one which then of necessity allows folks to apply their own notions of appropriateness, protect children? A truly voluntary system, with the ability to either not rate something or to in fact label as one wishes, will not solve the problem James Love apparently wants to solve. The abuse a mandatory ratings system would do to the basic liberties of us all is vastly too high a price to pay just to relieve parents of the responsibility of monitoring what their children are doing and seeing. --Tim May There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws. Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!" ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- 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."

At 10:52 AM -0700 7/25/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:

Jamie, as you know, we disagree on your approach to self-labeling.

For the purposes of argument, let us say that we can agree that some, extreme, sites are unsuitable for children. But the problems arise not on the extremes, but in the great grey center.

Where do you draw the line? Therein lies the rub.

I reject even the "we can agree that some, extreme, sites are unsuitable for children" point. If you don't want your children exposed to some material, stop them from accessing the material. Consider this, if the voluntary mandatory PICS/RSACi system gets deployed, as I expect it will be (The Protection of Our Children Act of 1997, a sure election winning issue), who will decide on what is a mislabeling? And why should it be restricted to sexual issues? Surely there are many good Christians (TM) who will argue that a site devoted to "10 Reasons Jesus was a Fool" is "unambiguously inappropriate" for their little Johnnies and Suzies. And so on. The Net will end up recapitulating the battles which have raged for several decades (and longer) about what materials are suitable or unsuitable for children in school libraries. Again, I view all of my writings, and my Lolita Recruitment Nudist Web Page, as suitable for children of all ages, especially cute little 12-year-old girls!!! (I'm not a perv, though, and I expect them to show some proof that they've started to develop. In fact, I'll create a Web page devoted to how young lolitas can prove they're developing womanhood. Obviously appropriate to all.) Seriously, if their parents don't want them exposed to this kind of site, or to "sexual issues for young women," or "a boy's guide to older men," or atheistic materials, or seditious, treasonous, Cypherpunkish materials, then let those parents block access. (And a "voluntary mandatory" label will not help, as folks like me will _accurately label_ our material so as to appeal to these targets! Accurate by our values. Here lies the real rub.) Oh, and Declan's point that the real issues lie in the middle...well, tell that to the Thomases, of Amateur Action. The real issues lie at the fringes. --Tim May Voluntary Mandatory Self-Rating of this Article (U.S. Statute 43-666-970719). Warning: Failure to Correctly and Completely Label any Article or Utterance is a Felony under the "Children's Internet Safety Act of 1997," punishable by 6 months for the first offense, two years for each additional offense, and a $100,000 fine per offense. Reminder: The PICS/RSACi label must itself not contain material in violation of the Act. ** PICS/RSACi Voluntary Self-Rating (Text Form) ** : Suitable for Children: yes Age Rating: 5 years and up. Suitable for Christians: No Suitable for Moslems: No Hindus: Yes Pacifists: No Government Officials: No Nihilists: Yes Anarchists: Yes Vegetarians: Yes Vegans: No Homosexuals: No Atheists: Yes Caucasoids: Yes Negroids: No Mongoloids: Yes Bipolar Disorder: No MPD: Yes and No Attention Deficit Disorder:Huh? --Contains discussions of sexuality, rebellion, anarchy, chaos,torture, regicide, presicide, suicide, aptical foddering. --Contains references hurtful to persons of poundage and people of color.Sensitive persons are advised to skip this article. **SUMMARY** Estimated number of readers qualified to read this: 1 Composite Age Rating: 45 years

Declan McCullagh wrote:

Jamie, as you know, we disagree on your approach to self-labeling.

For the purposes of argument, let us say that we can agree that some, extreme, sites are unsuitable for children. But the problems arise not on the extremes, but in the great grey center.

Where do you draw the line? Therein lies the rub.

-Declan

Thanks for asking this question. I think it is important. I would have the labeling system be something that suits the publisher of the web page. The web page publisher would decide if he or she wanted to label the site as adult. There wouldn't be a great gray center, in the sense that the author/owner of the web page would make the decision to label or not label. Why would anyone label? As you know, most porn sites already have labeling out the whazoo. (how is this spelled?) The problem is that the label takes so many different forms, browsers can't filter the current labels, and that is why we have so much interest in cybersiter and other AI programs. This would make their existing voluntary labeling systems actually work. The simpler the tagging system, and the less information it conveys, the less likely it could be used to create a much more grandiose content labeling system. This is a pragmatic proposal. I think it makes sense. Jamie <love@cptech.org>

On Fri, 25 Jul 1997, James Love wrote:

...

Tim, if you think that no web site are unambiguously inappropriate for children, then you are in a state of denial. However, while I don't expect to change your mind on that point, let me set the record straight on your note. I don't favor RSACi or other PICS systems. I think these are a mistake, and should be resisted. However, I do favor a far less ambitious and less informative system (less is more, as far as I am concerned), which involves a simple, single voluntary tag, selected by the web page publisher, at their discretion, of the nature of

<META NAME="Rating" CONTENT="adult">

I think this is quite different from RSACi or SafeSurf's system, for the reasons mentioned by my missive to Jonah.

Jamie <love@cptech.org>

Tim May wrote:

...

At 9:16 AM -0700 7/25/97, Declan McCullagh wrote:

...

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 12:08:32 -0400 (EDT) From: James Love <love@cptech.org> To: Jonah Seiger <jseiger@cdt.org> Cc: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>, fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu, chris_barr@cnet.com Subject: Re: CDT, RSACi, and "public service" groups

Jonah, I think the problems with the RSACi rating system are

pretty

...

...

obvious, and I also think it should be obvious that *any* rating system that would aspire to rate all or even a significant number of web pages would be a bad thing. That said, it seems to me that there exist web pages that are unambiguously inappropriate for children. Has CDT rejected

"Unambiguously inappropriate for children"?

No such thing. I can think of many, many things which many consider inappropriate for children (what age?), but which others, including myself, consider perfectly appropriate. I see no particular need to recite examples here.

Even with "obscenity," whatever that is (I seem not to know it when I see it, which would make me a poor Supreme Court Justice), that there are obscenity prosecutions and trials would seem to indicate that such materials are not "unambigously obscene."

The "mandatory voluntary" PICS/RSACi ratings, with penalties (presumably) for "mislabeling," just are another form of content control.

If they are truly voluntary, then people are free to say that a nudist site is appropriate for children, or not to label at all...the null label is just another label.

(Nudist sites, in realspace as well as cyberspace, are a classic example of the difficulty of judging "appropriate for children." Some jurisdicitions are attempting to legislate against children being in nudist camps. They would even claim that children seeing adults and other children nude is "unambiguosly inappropriate." Others disagree. So, how would their web site be labeled?)

The notion that something is "unambiguously" inapproprate, obscene, heretical, treasonous, whatever, is a flawed concept.

--Tim May

There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws. Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!"

...

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."

-- _______________________________________________________ James Love | Center for Study of Responsive Law P.O. Box 19367 | Washington, DC 20036 | 202.387.8030 http://www.cptech.org | love@cptech.org

-- _______________________________________________________ James Love | Center for Study of Responsive Law P.O. Box 19367 | Washington, DC 20036 | 202.387.8030 http://www.cptech.org | love@cptech.org

At 11:05 AM -0700 7/26/97, James Love wrote:

William H. Geiger III wrote:

...

What is your proposal for those who would "mislable" their sites?

People who "mislabel"? I am only proposing a tag for rating=adult. I guess someone could put a rating=adult tag on a page that didn't need it, but who would care? Not me.

Suppose on the other hand that someone had a page that people thought should have a rating=adult tag. Well, the person who didn't use the tag would just have to deal with whatever crap you would get for not ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ You mean like imprisonment and fines?

It is this "crap" and "consequences" we are talking about. There is no requirement that one's writings be labelled as "adult." Leastwise, I've read a lot of stuff in my life, and very rarely (if ever) have I seen much of it labelled as "adult" material.

labeling. If you thought your site had some constitutional right not to label the content adult, then just don't label it. I really don't think this will be that big an issue, but I don't know (no one knows). I think that a significant percent of porn sites would use the rating=adult label in a second if they thought it would get people off their back. Those that didn't use the label could just put up with the consequences, whatever they are. I would expect (and hope) that the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Such as the multiple years in prison that each of the Thomases got?

rating=adult label would be used infrequently, mostly for sites involving explicit sexual images. I don't think a rating=adult label would be much of a barrier to teenagers who wanted access to this type of material, since one could download a browsers in a few minutes that wouldn't block the data. But like a childproof top on aspirin, it would work pretty well with pre-teens, I imagine.

The utter ineffectuality of an "adult" label stopping the behavior which the politicians want stopped is exactly why such a lukewarm proposal as yours--no offense intended--is a poor idea. The next step will be a mandatory rating, with penalties for "mislabelling." (Again, just what is "mislabelling"? If I feel all children should be exposed to sexual materials, or "Huckleberry Finn," whose standards am I supposed to use if not my own?)

Are you calling me a lazy parent? What is the obligation of a parent? To supervise a kids web browsing? Please, I think kids are better off with more privacy, and less parental (and teacher) supervision when they browse the web.

Fine. But it is constitutional to require others to label their writings or utterances in any way. This means that parents cannot count on any labelling system to protect their children from finding sexual material, atheistic material, drug advocacy material, bestiality advocacy material, and recruitments for homosexuality. (For the sake of this argument I'm avoiding inclusion of actual images of things like bestiality and the like, as these may or may not run afoul of the "obscenity" laws. Not that I support obscenity laws. But all of the other things are mostly protected under the First Amendment, and labelling is not required.) As long as ratings are completely and full uncoerced, fine. It's the "crap" and "consequences" you speak of that worry me. If one of the pieces of crap is a $100K civil fine for mislabelling, or one of the consequences is 5 years in jail, then it ain't a voluntary system, is it? --Tim May There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws. Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!" ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- 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."

Ray Arachelian <sunder@brainlink.com> writes:

On Sat, 26 Jul 1997, Tim May wrote:

...

As long as ratings are completely and full uncoerced, fine. It's the "crap" and "consequences" you speak of that worry me. If one of the pieces of crap is a $100K civil fine for mislabelling, or one of the consequences is 5 years in jail, then it ain't a voluntary system, is it?

--Tim May

Of course it's voluntary, citizen unit Tim C. May #0845676FCXV3, it's as voluntary as filing an 1040 form, and it's certainly as voluntary as communist countries had voluntary work for teens who would voluntarily go to work on farms durring their summer vacations.

And let's not forget the thousands of volunteers who helped clean up Chernobyl. A minute of silence... --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <33DCB302.70F58811@cptech.org>, on 07/28/97 at 09:56 AM, James Love <love@cptech.org> said:

What is your strategy to avoid RSACi type systems? To persuade parents that there is no need to censor kids from graphic images of sexual acts? Good luck. Or to suggest something which addresses the obvious problems, and takes the steam out of the more ambitious labeling systems? Or to hope that the status quo survives because it is too difficult to construct an alternative (the stategy that most antilabeling people seem to be relying upon)?

Well there happens to be a little anoying thing called the Constitution of the Untied States of America. In there there is what is know as the First Amendment. In this admendment there is a clause that says "Congress shall pass no law ...". It should be obvious even to you that RSACi or any other manditory labeling system it blaitently unconstitutional in direct violation of the First Amendment. One can not preserve ones freedoms through comprimise. History has shown us this time and time again. I don't know how Tim feels on this but I am not willing to comprimise one inch on this issue. The little Nazi censors need to be squashed like the roaches that they are. Make no mistake about it the issue here is not labeling but censorship. These groups pushing the labeling issue are intrested in only one thing and that is gaining the power to control what others can and cannot say. This is only a steeping stone in their grab for power. Back in the '30 we had a chance to stop the Nazi's and insted the world to the easy route of comprimise and paied dearly for it latter on. The same is true is true now. If we continue to back down and comprimise it will only encourage them to bigger and bolder grabs for power. This is the opening shots of the war for freedom of humanity. Either we fight now for our freedoms or we shall die tomorrow in slavery. - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html - --------------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: cp850 Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000 iQCVAwUBM9y0sI9Co1n+aLhhAQGRsQQAyfT5T63e6HOAy5SjF77JUkc4mzAdTSgQ h+cArttQ1ZpyE6u0mii/tm19lZVl2edAbyJlG4KiE+Z4xf0DzKbpZHQFgFzA6GCm dk7pG2z/LHDdNsGoMwDw0vYy0508HWj/DCAMZvSNjikpq+TQ+NtQ0jS7QFRJZpp2 lnz24paDpwo= =jC/i -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk> writes:

James Love <love@cptech.org> writes:

...

Tim May <tcmay@got.net> writes:

...

Such as the multiple years in prison that each of the Thomases got?

I don't know the Thomases, but did they get "multiple years in prison" for mislabeling? Or for something else?

The Thomases ran an adult BBS and video business in California. The fedz busted them by the following moves:

1. Fed stooge posts Thomases some kiddie porn video tapes 2. Fedz kick down the door 30 seconds later before Thomases even knew they'd received any mail 3. Fedz tried Thomases in some other state with strong puritanical tendencies 4. Fedz locked up Thomases and threw away the key.

it's important to note that the Thomases were acquited on most charges, including all child porn charges, but were convicted on "minor" obscenity charges. The same the Waco survivors were acquitted of almost everything but the "minor" weapond possession and locked up for many, many years based on that. Apparently the juries felt that if the fedz had gone to the trouble of putting together a case, they're obliged to convict of something "minor". --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

Robert is not exaggerating. Jamie's boss is Ralph Nader. Their offices are, maybe, 10 feet away from each other in the second floor of the Carnegie Institute in Washington. -Declan On Mon, 28 Jul 1997, Robert Hettinga wrote:

At 1:52 pm -0400 on 7/28/97, Tim May wrote:

...

After reading several of James Love's posts, I think we are either just talking at cross purposes, or that he hasn't thought carefully about the constitutional issues. Maybe both. In any case, this'll probably be my last response to his points.

Jamie Love is one of those nasty Naderites who believes that what the government shouldn't control, the plaintiff bar should.

I killfiled him on com-priv a long time ago, and, when Tim started rastlin' ol' Ralph-once-removed here on cypherpunks, I killfiled Love here, too.

Oddly enough, Love has a mailing list with lots of fun government-baiting goodies in it, so he's not all that bad. Chalk it up to broken clock disease, I guess...

What is your strategy to avoid RSACi type systems? To persuade parents that there is no need to censor kids from graphic images of sexual acts? Good luck.

Persuation is not the point, it is not necessary to persuade people that censorship is morally wrong in order for it to be so. Datacomms Technologies data security Paul Bradley, Paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul@crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul@cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: FC76DA85 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

On Wed, 30 Jul 1997, James Love wrote:

Paul Bradley wrote:

...

...

What is your strategy to avoid RSACi type systems? To persuade parents that there is no need to censor kids from graphic images of sexual acts? Good luck.

Persuation is not the point, it is not necessary to persuade people that censorship is morally wrong in order for it to be so.

Well, if persuasion is "not necessary," then why do you care about anyone's views on this?

On your other point, I really don't agree that is morally wrong to take steps to prevent children from having access to pornography. People may propose ways of doing this which are objectionable, but the basic goal is hardly immoral. Indeed, many think it is immoral not to protect children.

This makes an assumption that sexual material harms children. Do you have any data or studies that actually shows that to be true? Curiosity about sex and sexuality is a normal part of growing up. Protecting them from any sort of information on sex or sexuality does not provide them any sort of service, and may in fact, cause them harm. Pornography is a nice buzz word, but it hides the real issue. Pictures and words intended to describe sexual behaviour. How this became such a touchy issue is not due to any factual findings, but more due to moral and emotional responses to the material by adults. It is because of the sheltering attitudes by the adults claiming the moral high ground that we have so many people with confused attitudes about sex and sexuallity. This is where the real harm comes in. Ignorance helps no one. (Except the moralists pointing fingers and screaming "I told you so!". The idea that children are somehow scarred and harmed by sexually explicit material is without any foundation or evidence. (Assuming they are able to get real unfiltered information to make a correct descision and are not getting guilt tripped for wanting that information.) Note, I am not talking about sexual contact or any of the other boogie men that the moralists and control freaks try to bring up. Adolecence is supposed to be a time to prepare for adulthood. They are going to form some sort of opinion one way or another. If they get no information or support before they are 18/21, they are going to wind up pretty screwed up. alan@ctrl-alt-del.com | Note to AOL users: for a quick shortcut to reply Alan Olsen | to my mail, just hit the ctrl, alt and del keys.

It generally is not morally wrong to take steps to prevent children from having access to pornography, provided they're your children or you have a custodial relationship.

I used to be of broadly this opinion, and still am conviced it is so, However, I think we have to separate saying something is not morally wrong from encouraging it, I believe parents may censor their childrens access to information as they see fit, but I don`t think they should. Datacomms Technologies data security Paul Bradley, Paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul@crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul@cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: FC76DA85 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

...

Persuation is not the point, it is not necessary to persuade people that censorship is morally wrong in order for it to be so.

Well, if persuasion is "not necessary," then why do you care about anyone's views on this?

I don`t give a fuck about anyone elses views, however, I debate such points here and elsewhere for my own personal pleasure, the real power to change things comes through the use of technology, not debate.

On your other point, I really don't agree that is morally wrong to take steps to prevent children from having access to pornography. People may propose ways of doing this which are objectionable, but the basic goal is hardly immoral. Indeed, many think it is immoral not to protect children.

Foo. I see no point in pursuing this any further. Datacomms Technologies data security Paul Bradley, Paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul@crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul@cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: FC76DA85 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

At 12:17 PM -0700 7/28/97, James Love wrote:

Tim, on the one hand, you seem to be saying that you have constitutional rights, which would make the government's enforcement of labeling systems illegal. On the other hand, you seem to express concern that the government will succeed at making such labeling mandatory. I'm not sure which case you believe to be true, or if you are still unsure how courts will rule on this issue down the road.

No contradiction. I believe many constitutionally protected things are nevertheless violated by various laws, with the courts taking many years or even decades, or never, to overturn these laws. I don't believe any requirement to label one's writings, or one's other works, will pass constitutional muster. This doesn't mean I will stand by while PICS/RSAci systems which are drifting rapidly in the direction of "mandatorily voluntary" (!) are being debated, even if I think the Supreme Court will eventually overturn the law(s). Same reason many of us opposed the CDA. And the same lack of contradiction that it was unconstitutional. (Your argument, applied to the CDA, would apparently be: ".. on the one hand, you seem to be saying that you have constitutional rights, which would make the government's enforcement of the CDA illegal. On the other hand, you seem to express concern that the government will succeed at enforcing the CDA. I'm not sure which case you believe to be true, or if you are still unsure how courts will rule on this issue down the road." It is possible, and often wise, to oppose legislation even if one is convinced it is unconstitutional and will eventually be struck down by the Supreme Court. And, of course, many severely unconstitutional laws have yet to be struck down by the Court.)

I think that the cyber porn debate would be more of less ended if there was an agreement of the standard meta tag for adult material.

But I don't see this happening. The debate is so polarized, and people are trying to prove so many different things, that it seems unlikely that there would be much of a constituency for what I am proposing.

At last we agree on something. There is no universally agreed upon standard. I tried to use the Huck Finn example, because it's been a recurring and easily understandable example. I suppose I'll have to use the "fisting and pissing" example you yourself brought up. Believe me, there are folks who _want_ children to see their writings and whatnot on this topic. Any non-mandatory labeling system will, perforce, run smack into this issue.

For one thing, I think there is a big difference between a simple rating=adult system, used on tiny number of porn sites, and the more ambitious RSACi or other PICS systems. It seems to me that you think they are basically equivalent (trying not to put words in your mouth).

No, I have not attempted to compare the two. What I have consistently argued is that for the ratings systems to successfully (though this is arguable, too) shield little Suzie and Johnny from "fisting and pissing" articles and sites, the ratings will be made mandatory. And external standards will be imposed. (Otherwise it's up to the personal opinion of those doing the rating, or not. If Joe Pervert honestly believes his "Fisting and Pissing Playhouse" _should_ be visited by nice little blonde girls, and he labels his site as "Suitable for all nice little girls," you can see the problem.) Note again that I am not arguing for such ratings. Far from it. Just the opposite. I am saying it is utterly disingenuous for folks like you and other supporters of PICS/RSAci to claim that ratings can be completely voluntary because there will be unaninous, universal, and unambiguous agreement on what constitutes material suitable for children.

Could be that this whole debate is much ado about nothing, since nobody wants to to use the RSACi system, and maybe the incompetence of those who want to be rating bureaus will delay action on this for years.

Expect legislative action this year or next. Even if overturned in a year or two, it's good for reelection prospects. --Tim May There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws. Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!" ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- 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."

After reading several of James Love's posts, I think we are either just talking at cross purposes, or that he hasn't thought carefully about the constitutional issues. Maybe both. In any case, this'll probably be my last response to his points. At 7:56 AM -0700 7/28/97, James Love wrote:

Tim May wrote:

...

It is this "crap" and "consequences" we are talking about.

This "crap" and "consequences" are what is happening before your eyes. Law enforcement efforts, new legislation, complaints by church groups, parents -- pressure on Yahoo and other searching sites, etc., being called names.

Of course. But some of this "crap" and "consequences" are what we are fighting, as they are applications of force which make the "voluntary" labelling standards hardly voluntary at all. If "law enfrorcement efforts" and "new legislation" are not considered coercion, what is? And in another post, you cited some sexual material as an example of what you claimed was "unambiguously adult" material. Now you may think this, and maybe even may think this, in terms of my personal views, but NAMBLA is certain to disagree, which means the "unambiguously" part is ipso facto false. So, again I make the point that a Board of Censors or somesuch must get involved...I am not advocating this, just reiterating that your point that official censorship is not needed because some materials are "unambiguously adult" is incorrect. I urge you to carefully think about these issues.

...

There is no requirement that one's writings be labelled as "adult." Leastwise, I've read a lot of stuff in my life, and very rarely (if ever) have I seen much of it labelled as "adult" material.

Why label it then? I won't. I think people should resist labels on text. 99 percent of the concerns over web pages has to do with graphics..... I would suggest dealing with the most obvious and legitimate complains, but drawing a line where it made sense too.

I wasn't saying I planned to label my writings. I was making the point that if "crap" and "consequences" (such as the law enforcement actions and legislation you yourself mention above) befall those who mislabel their sites, then surely this will not be confined to images alone. The "fisting and pissing" stuff you cited in another message will be equally unsuitable for children--many will claim--even if it is in the form of stories, attempts to recruit, etc. We have already seen this in the SurfWatch and KiddySafe filter debates, where the inclusion of certain words is enough to get a site blocked. (Understand that I am not arguing against KiddySafe's "rights" to do this, only noting that words are clearly as important to some folks as images.)

...

...

their back. Those that didn't use the label could just put up with the consequences, whatever they are. I would expect (and hope) that the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Such as the multiple years in prison that each of the Thomases got?

I don't know the Thomases, but did they get "multiple years in prison" for mislabeling? Or for something else?

You should acquaint yourself with the Thomas case, as in "Amateur Action." Any search engine will turn up lots of details.

...

(Again, just what is "mislabelling"? If I feel all children should be exposed to sexual materials, or "Huckleberry Finn," whose standards am I supposed to use if not my own?)

Why would you want to label a book? There isn't a demand for this in bookstores and libraries. Why do this on the Web?

I give up. Really. You seem determined to miss nuances. I was not making an argument for labeling books...far from it. I was making the point that many would like to see online materials comparable to "Huck Finn" labeled. And that this is clearly wrong. Not wrong if folks want to truly voluntarily label a site containing "Huck Finn" as being "unsuitable for children" or "offensive to some colored people," or whatever floats their boat. But wrong if "crap and consequences" befall anyone who _fails_ to warn children away or who deliberately "mislabels" (!!) their "Huck Finn" site as being "suitable for children" when some religious or parents group thinks otherwise. (To forestall Jim's likely literalist question, "Why do you think "Huck Finn" is unsuitable for children?," let me state that I don't think it is. But many school boards and minority groups have said they think it is, and so it provides a good example of where the voluntary self-labeling is ambiguous. And, like I said, even the "fisting and pissing" is apparently ambiguous to NAMBLA.)

I think labeling of text, in general, is a very bad idea. I can imagine some cases where authors might want to label some text with an adult tag. But I don't really think this is something that should be encouraged. I don't think this is the hot button issue that graphics (and films) are.

We agree. None of us are encouraging it. At least none of us on the Cypherpunks list, I don't think. You're missing the real point. The vast majority of Web sites which are now being blocked by the various Net.nanny filters are mostly of _text_ ! These are the sites discussing teen pregnancy, birth control, homosexuality, early childhood sexual experiences, medical advice, incest topics, and so on. Very seldom are _images_ involved. The notion that "voluntary self-labeling" would apply only to sites carrying images is laughable. That you would argue that text-only sites would not be subject to the "voluntary self-labeling" of PICS/RSAci shows that you simply haven't thought about this much. (The recent debate about news organzations being perhaps exempted from self-labeling their online news is indicative of this...their online releases are almost solely text, and "adult" images play almost no role in their products. And yet there is active debate about whether they'll have to label their stuff. Think about it.)

...

As long as ratings are completely and full uncoerced, fine. It's the "crap" and "consequences" you speak of that worry me. If one of the pieces of crap is a $100K civil fine for mislabelling, or one of the consequences is 5 years in jail, then it ain't a voluntary system, is it?

Well, one might see various forms of mandatory labeling. And indeed one might see more and more pressure for more and more complex and objectional forms of labeling (labeling that seeks to provide more and more "information" about the content").

Ah, you admit that the "voluntary" labeling will likely become not-so-voluntary.

What is your strategy to avoid RSACi type systems? To persuade parents that there is no need to censor kids from graphic images of sexual acts? Good luck. Or to suggest something which addresses the obvious problems, and takes the steam out of the more ambitious labeling systems? Or to hope that the status quo survives because it is too difficult to construct an alternative (the stategy that most antilabeling people seem to be relying upon)?

I have no "strategy" for dealing with the censorious tendencies of parents, just as I have no "strategy" for solving problems they have with their children watching too much television, or playing video games too much, or hanging out with the wrong crowd. These are problems for _them_ to solve, not for me, and not for the government. (I can't believe I have to explain this.)

_______________________________________________________ James Love | Center for Study of Responsive Law P.O. Box 19367 | Washington, DC 20036 | 202.387.8030 http://www.cptech.org | love@cptech.org

It is really scary that someone with your shallow understanding of the basic, core issues of liberty and constitutionality is apparently a lobbyist in Washington. But not surprising. --Tim May There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws. Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!" ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- 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."

James Love <love@cptech.org> writes:

Tim, on the one hand, you seem to be saying that you have constitutional rights, which would make the government's enforcement of labeling systems illegal. On the other hand, you seem to express concern that the government will succeed at making such labeling mandatory. I'm not sure which case you believe to be true, or if you are still unsure how courts will rule on this issue down the road.

What about the possibility (gasp) that the government might rush ahead and do things which were illegal, and unconstitutional? The US is littered with laws, taxes, court decisions which are clearly unconstitutional. The problem is that there is this set of people who like to do a thing called "compromise", and this leads down a slippery path. Sooner than you expect you end up with dietary recommendation laws (ingest a few non-government approved foodstuffs, find yourself locked up - eg many drugs), 50% effective taxation even thought the people who wrote the constitution and federal papers were clearly against this, and it is also clearly unconstitutional. Your comments on ratings sound a lot like compromises.

I doubt that Huck Finn is going to be the defining issue of this debate.

True. But that's what it'll come to long term. Goverment always starts from an extreme case.

At various points, things are more or less voluntary.

Are taxes voluntary? Car insurance? Driving license? Dog license? Not straying from government dietary recommendations? Not taking notice of governmental "rating services"? You can't get much closer to the first amendment than that last one.

But when you have endless commercial spamming, or make no effort to make it easy to filter porn from k-12 classrooms, then you may end up with more rules that you might want. In this sense, rules will be result of a failure to solve problems informally.

Spam has technical solutions. Charge postage. Problem solved. (Or have a look at hashcash for a temporary solution: http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/hashcash/ ) You want government anti-spam laws? Kids might read porn? Feh. Kids watch porn on TV. Kids look at porn mags from shops, or passed around at school. Kids pass porn mags around at school from age 10 or lower. Libraries contain all sorts of stuff kids could read which would fail government "rating services". So do book stores, newspapers.

I think that the cyber porn debate would be more of less ended if there was an agreement of the standard meta tag for adult material.

That is an interesting suggestion. OK, I agree: you standardize a porn meta-tag. No requirement to use it. Perhaps a few porn sites will even use it to increase their web hits. Kids will figure out how to do a web search _for_ adult rated pages. However I don't think it would appease the law happy, attention hungry politicians. The problem is that you can bet your bottom dollar that the law happy idiots in government will want to draft shit-loads of laws to back it up. Voluntary it won't be. A basic rule of thumb: don't negotiate, compromise with, vote for, or talk to politicians, it encourages them, and you will always, always come out worse off. Slogan graffittied on a bridge around here: "don't vote, it only encourages them" Rule #2: new laws never, never give you more freedom. Adam -- Have *you* exported RSA today? --> http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/ print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`

At 10:49 AM -0700 7/25/97, James Love wrote:

Tim, if you think that no web site are unambiguously inappropriate for children, then you are in a state of denial. However, while I don't expect to change your mind on that point, let me set the record straight on your note. I don't favor RSACi or other PICS systems. I think these are a mistake, and should be resisted. However, I do favor a far less ambitious and less informative system (less is more, as far as I am concerned), which involves a simple, single voluntary tag, selected by the web page publisher, at their discretion, of the nature of

<META NAME="Rating" CONTENT="adult">

So long as it is completely voluntary, and I am free to label my sites as "Suitable for children," whatever they contain, I have no problem with your proposal. (And marking my sites "suitable for children" may help me to recruit some fine young lolitas to my nudist site, so I may actually _like_ your system.) However, if you or Justice Rehnquist or Louis Freeh or Ralph Reed should _disagree_ with my "voluntary" labeling of my site as "suitable for children," and should then bring the courts into the process in a prosecution or other action against me, then it will hardly be "voluntary," will it? And since my standards of what is "suitable" and what is "not suitable" may well differ from your standards, etc., why not just have an Office of the Censor to resolve these issues so that I won't later be charged? (I don't mean this as a cheap shot, by the way. I am sure you would recoil in horror at the concept of an Office of the Censor. However, what other option exists, given that I would otherwise have no idea what my site should be "voluntarily" rated as? I happen to think my nudist web page is indeed a good place for healty young lolita girls to come and hang out. My values. Yours may be different.) There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws. Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!" ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- 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."

At 2:07 PM -0700 7/25/97, nospam-seesignature@ceddec.com wrote:

Why is everything considered to be a federal government v.s. total anarchy debate?

It's not.

A PRIVATE organization could set up objective standards for content and then produce ratings for sites (using a digital signature technique). Whether your site has nude pictures is something measurable. There can also be subjective standards. If you find religion offensive, you can go to sites rated as safe by an atheistic association. If they misrate things, switch organizations.

Few of us have problems with this approach. This is what I was advocating when I said parents should control what their children get access to. Or, more broadly, people can use whatever standards they wish. But this is not what the debate has been about. If you think this, you haven't been reading the threads about the proposed penalties for "mislabeling" a site, the "mandatory voluntary" notions, etc.

You can make a movie and say it is rated "G", but you cannot use the MMPA's reputation capital to do so. If you say it has been rated "G" by the MMPA, it either has been, or your are committing fraud.

Yes, yes, yes. We all agreed with this a couple of years ago when this came up.

If you said "suitable for children", and the common opinion was that it wasn't, you would develop a reputation for mislabeling, lying, fraud, or psycosis. If you keep calling a Stetson hat a potted plant, you lose reputation capital. And then people stop believing you on other issues such as "I know what I am talking about when it comes to programming".

Again, yes, yes, yes. Sadly, your view and my view on this is _not_ what is being discussed in Washington. In fact, Washington need not even be involved in the slightest way to implement a purely private system such as this. That they are says it all. --Tim May Voluntary Mandatory Self-Rating of this Article (U.S. Statute 43-666-970719). Warning: Failure to Correctly and Completely Label any Article or Utterance is a Felony under the "Children's Internet Safety Act of 1997," punishable by 6 months for the first offense, two years for each additional offense, and a $100,000 fine per offense. Reminder: The PICS/RSACi label must itself not contain material in violation of the Act. ** PICS/RSACi Voluntary Self-Rating (Text Form) ** : Suitable for Children: yes Age Rating: 5 years and up. Suitable for Christians: No Suitable for Moslems: No Hindus: Yes Pacifists: No Government Officials: No Nihilists: Yes Anarchists: Yes Vegetarians: Yes Vegans: No Homosexuals: No Atheists: Yes Caucasoids: Yes Negroids: No Mongoloids: Yes Bipolar Disorder: No MPD: Yes and No Attention Deficit Disorder:Huh? --Contains discussions of sexuality, rebellion, anarchy, chaos,torture, regicide, presicide, suicide, aptical foddering. --Contains references hurtful to persons of poundage and people of color.Sensitive persons are advised to skip this article. **SUMMARY** Estimated number of readers qualified to read this: 1 Composite Age Rating: 45 years