********* Subject: censorship story on salon Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 09:49:17 -0700 From: Joseph Lasica <jlasica@microsoft.com> To: "'declan@well.com'" <declan@well.com> Declan, Hey, thought you'd be interested in the lead story today in Salon, the one on the Ratings police. ********* [I've attached the first part of the story below. Visit the web site for the complete article; it's well worth a read. --Declan] http://www.salonmagazine.com/july97/21st/ratings970731.html RATINGS TODAY, CENSORSHIP TOMORROW The Net industry is rushing to embrace ratings systems for the Web. The technology will help parents keep their kids away from porn. It can also help anyone censor anything. BY JOSEPH D. LASICA A few years from now, when we look back at what crippled the Internet as a global forum for the free exchange of information, at least we'll know it was done with the best of intentions. Who, after all, could oppose Internet ratings if they create a "family-friendly" online world? And so, to make the Net safer for kids and to avert government regulation, the Internet brain trust has banded together to push rating, filtering and labeling technology -- a private-sector techno-fix to cleaning up the Net. President Clinton has signed on and has used his bully pulpit to jawbone companies that were wavering on the issue. And the news media have covered the president's initiative with the gusto of a pep rally. With all this firepower behind them, ratings are coming to a Web site near you -- in fact, to all Web sites, if proponents have their way. And a panoply of would-be censors -- from foreign despots to home-grown zealots and pandering politicians -- couldn't be happier. "What's happening now is a move toward the privatizing of censorship," says David Sobel, legal counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC). "It's likely to destroy the Internet as it's existed up till now." There are a great many ironies here, but the greatest irony is that the censorship will be self-imposed -- we're doing it for the sake of family, parents, children. In truth, Internet ratings are being driven by the changing business interests of the major players involved. In the last go-around over muzzling the Internet, Net users, the computer industry, the media and civil liberties groups all united against the government's Communications Decency Act -- which the Supreme Court buried last month. This time around, the lineup is a lot more lopsided. On one side: the U.S. government, the high-tech industry, most major media outlets and a vocal cast of parents' organizations, child-safety advocates and anti-obscenity groups. On the other: the American Civil Liberties Union, EPIC, the American Library Association, a smattering of university scholars and that guy over there waving the "No ratings" sign. Why have the software companies and Internet firms gone over to the other side? Certainly, they're spooked by the specter of Congress passing a "son of CDA" bill. But it goes beyond that. Internet ratings dovetail nicely with big business's desire to make the Internet safe for God, apple pie and commercialism. The "dark side" of the Net -- hackers, foreigners, political extremists, geeks, "phreaks," porn purveyors, hate groups, people who SHOUT IN ALL CAPS AND USE EXCLAMATION MARKS!!! -- will largely be banished to an unrated no-man's land where browsers and search engines fear to tread. So it was no surprise that the invitation list to the Internet summit at the White House on July 16 bore names like Netscape, America Online and IBM rather than names like geekboy or cybergrrrl. At the meeting, President Clinton announced a "parental empowerment" initiative that would give parents the tools to shield children from obscenity, violence and antisocial messages on the Net. Although every idea on the table is software-based, the administration couldn't resist dubbing the plan the "E-chip," a cousin of television's V-chip, which will block unsuitable programming. [...] ------------------------- Declan McCullagh Time Inc. The Netly News Network Washington Correspondent http://netlynews.com/