---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 12:48:48 -0400 From: Lauren Gelman <gelman@acm.org> To: declan@well.com Subject: Cnet's stance on content filters

Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 17:40:12 -0400 To: chris_barr@cnet.com From: Lauren Gelman <gelman@acm.org> Subject: Cnet's stance on content filters Cc: Bcc: X-Attachments:

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

First, I think there are a number of problems inherent in any content filtering system, some of which you discuss in your column.

Given that, I think the main problem with the Internet Content Coalition approach is how, and who, will determine what is a "real news organization" is and what "bona fide news sites" are. Is this the job of the ICC? You completely ignore this issue both in the column and on the ICC web site. What are the criteria that categorize Cnet as a "news organization? Would EPIC and the ACLU (cited in your column) also fall under that category? What about listservs where news is disseminated?

The U.S. Public Policy Office for the Association for Computing (USACM) web site http://www.acm.org/usacm disseminates news about computer policy related issues as well as USACM position pieces on those issues. It also archives back- issues of the "ACM Washington Update", a bi-weekly electronic newsletter. Is the USACM web site a "bona fide news sites"?

I believe these are important questions which need to be addressed before Cnet endorses any content-filtering approach to censorship. "Privilege" needs to be defined before Cnet or any other group can seek "to make sure that only real news organizations claim this privilege."

-Lauren Gelman Associate Director USACM

/\ /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ Association for Computing, + http://www.acm.org/usacm/ Office of U.S. Public Policy * +1 202 544 4859 (tel) 666 Pennsylvania Ave., SE Suite 302 B * +1 202 547 5482 (fax) Washington, DC 20003 USA + gelman@acm.org