I noted the following on the cypherpunks mail list and would like to make a few comments concerning your recent CNET article which you will find following the comments made by Declan McCullagh.

Since the Supreme Court said the online world should be as free as print, and no self-labeling system exists for magazines or newspapers, why should the Net be any different? Why isn't the Net community opposing "mandatory voluntary" self-labeling systems as staunchly as newspapers and magazines would fight a similar requirement? It's best to ask these questions of Christopher Barr (chris_barr@cnet.com), editor in chief of CNET, who endorsed such a proposal in his column below.

Barr says that he wants to ensure "that only real news organizations claim [the] privilege" of rating as news sites with RSACnews. But who decides what's a news site? Is CNET? pathfinder.com? epic.org, which the government treats as a news site when responding to FOIA requests? The Drudge Report? How about the NAMBLA News Journal?

My report on the possible perils of such systems is at:

http://pathfinder.com/netly/opinion/0,1042,1173,00.html

-Declan

****************

http://www.cnet.com/Content/Voices/Barr/072197/index.html

rating online content can work (7/21/97)

With the Communications Decency Act vanquished once and for all, it's time to explore alternatives for protecting our youth from inappropriate online content. As an independent content provider, CNET's position has always been to give the power to the reader (or the reader's parents) and not the

Let's face it the ratings system has very little to do with giving power to the reader, indeed it is primarily aimed at taking power away from the reader to make decisions for themselves and placing that power in someone elses hands.

government, to decide which sites have acceptable content. And now, President Clinton has been forced to come around to our way of thinking. After initially supporting the CDA, Clinton is recommending that sites rate themselves and that parents use filtering software to set limits for their children.

Self rating systems allow sites to attach labels to themselves to indicate what kind of content the sites contain. The labels are interpreted via the Platform for Internet Content Selection (PICS) technology endorsed by the World Wide Web Consortium standards body. The PICS technology allows any group, such as the PTA or a church, to set content standards that can then be adopted by individual Web sites. There are already several rating services such as the Recreational Software Advisory Council on the Internet (RSACi), Safe For Kids, and SafeSurf. Early on, CNET supported the RSACi rating system and chose to rate both CNET.COM and NEWS.COM.

Controlling content takes two things: content-ratings and filtering-software. A number of software programs, including Cyber Patrol, Cyber Sentry, Internet Explorer, and SurfWatch, already support PICS and can read the rating labels. Such software blocks out any sites that don't correspond to the ratings you've selected. For instance, if your rating system says that images with partial nudity are inappropriate, the software won't load those pages.

To be sure, filtering- or blocking-software is not without limitations. A number of groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Privacy Information Center, support the use of such software on principle, but they also point out that

EPIC certainly does NOT support the use of such software in principle. Please post a prominent correction on your 'news' site. I qualify the terms news site only to point out that whether your site is actually a legitimate news site in the opinion of others will vary and to note that having never heard of CNET before and being cognizant of this particular factual error I have stumbled across and the blatant hypocracy of your arguments I would probably classify it as a 'fantasy site' however I'll withhold judgement until I've seen a little more of CNET. You probably question my ability and right to judge you and I may question your ability or someone elses to judge what is a legitimate news site; so what? Thats the problem, just who will judge who and why should it matter. The concept is absurd and repugnant. Marc Rotenburg, a director of EPIC, has emailed you a thoughtful response and considering the nature of your factual error it would be heartening to see his letter published unedited and in full to correct your error.

filtering software can be used to block any kind of content, not just sexually explicit material, and so it can end up restricting free speech. These groups

Am I correct in assuming from this that so long as only sexual material is blocked this is not restrictive of free speech in your view?

are also fearful that a foreign government could use filtering software to control what content its citizens can access. These are just a few of the thorny issues that the technology introduces.

Do you feel that if the ratings system becomes widely deployed your own government would be above this? What was the nature of the CDA that was recently defeated?? Think again.

Nevertheless, we at CNET feel that content ratings are the best alternative, and we'll continue to rate ourselves using the RSACi guidelines. But we also feel

Yet you go on to say that you yourself should be subject to less onerous ratings due to your self-proclaimed 'news' status. Should we introduce all sorts of exemptions to allow art galleries to publish their nudes on the net, or photographers to publish similar works of art (hint: one mans art is anothers pornography and vice versa), or indeed pictures or text describing the massacres in East Timore which would be offensive and hurtful to many, not the least of which would be members of the Indonesian government; or are such text and images only appropriate when found on a self proclaimed 'news' site?

that different rating systems are necessary to cover different types of sites. For example, sites that carry news stories cannot be accurately rated under the RSACi standards. These were created to allow parents to block sites with nudity, sex, violence, and offensive language. But what happens when you visit a

Oh I get it, the ratings system is good enough for everyone _else_ but not for your own special unique position.

news site that publishes pictures from a war zone depicting death and destruction? Or a legitimate news story about an online scam involving pornography

Are only 'news' sites given constitutional protection in the USA?

sites? Microsoft faces this dilemma: its Internet Explorer supports PICS but several of the rating systems unintentionally block access to its news site, MSNBC.

Prima facia the material must have been offensive under their own voluntary guidelines; thus it _should_ be censored. Perhaps self-imposed censorship is running into the same sorts of problems commonly experienced with government imposed censorship.

Because of situations like these, we feel that bona fide news sites should be subject to different criteria. To that end, CNET is also a founding member

No doubt you would.

of the Internet Content Coalition, which seeks to establish ratings for news sites and to make sure that only real news organizations claim this privilege.

Looks to me like an attempt to establish your own little power group to ensure that the rules of censorship you advocate apply to everyone but yourselves whilst at the same time hypocritically proclaiming you support censorship based on ratings.

Users can then choose to allow access to news while selecting another rating system like RSACi that prohibits access to other kinds of sites. We intend to

...which may carry the very same material you propose to publish under your 'special' 'news' category.

use the Internet Content Coalition's guidelines to rate NEWS.COM, while other of our sites, such as GAMECENTER.COM, will be rated using more restrictive systems.

How very convenient and cosy for CNET.

The success of any self-rating and filtering system depends on how well it works and how it's accepted and used. What's your opinion? Do you use filtering

It's a silly idea.

software? Should news sites have a separate rating?

No and no. Should any material I come across be unsuitable for me I find the 'back' button more convenient, easier to set up and allows more discretion.

Email me and I'll put the responses in my next column.

Look forward to seeing my comments up there.

Christopher Barr is editor in chief of CNET.

Once you start advocating exceptions to the very censorship (oops I mean ratings) system you advocate your going to run into all sorts of problems. From your perspective you see 'legitimate news sites' (whatever that is supposed to mean..is CNET as _legitimate_ as say TIME; I hardly think so. If you succeed in establishing this you'll be squashed by the big boys as being illegitimate and new players to the news game will never get a look in as a 'legitimate news site') others will see their own equally worthy interests, perhaps more worthy in the opinion of some, as exceptions to the general rule eg. art galleries, womens sexuality and health centres, moslems offended by christianity, Palestinians offended by Jews, homosexual sites, family planning sites etc etc etc. They all will have valid arguments why they should be allowed to promulgate certain material if you accept that news sites have a valid argument why the full effect of voluntary censorship ratings should not be applied. I once had sympathy for voluntary ratings. I can respect your position somewhat if the ratings are applied _consistently_. That means no exceptions. Exceptions based on utility raises all sorts of difficulties and really just points out how silly the whole idea is in the first place. If, however, you favour such a system go ahead but please don't advocate that different rules should be applied to different people or organizations. My concerns with voluntary ratings are: 1. that they be truly voluntary with _no_, I'll say that again NO coercive power applied to enforce such ratings. 2. the net community, by developing and deploying this software and ratings system is handing governments around the world a means to censor the net. All they need do once such a system becomes widely deployed is step in and pass laws that make it _mandatory_ not voluntary. We see such a proposal already here in Australia where it is proposed ISP s be subject to massive fines for the content carried over the wires unless it can be shown, to the satisfaction of a government authority, they did their utmost to prevent certain content (ie impose a mandatory voluntary ratings system). This plays right into the hands of the government censors who would dismally fail to censor the net unless we, as net users, developers etc, hand them the solution on a plate. 3. to be consistent you should advocate voluntary ratings for books, libraries, magazines, newsletters, news papers, billboards, unsolicited snail mail, government pamphlets etc. I note here the American Libraries opposition to filtering software and the violation of the 1st amendment that would probably occur through the use of such filtering in libraries and some other sites. This brings to mind another question. What enforcement procedures do you have in mind where a site claims to be a legitimate news site under your proposed scheme but your group thinks it is clearly not? Just who is going to decide what is legitimate and what is not? Seems to me this has not been very clearly thought through; or perhaps it has been clearly thought through and you just want to censor everyone else but yourself and your buddies. I give your article 1 out of 10. Resubmit something better researched. -- .////. .// Charles Senescall apache@quux.apana.org.au o:::::::::/// apache@bear.apana.org.au apache@gargoyle.apana.org.au

::::::::::\\\ Finger me for PGP PUBKEY Brisbane AUSTRALIA '\\\\\' \\ Apache