NYET to censors, REPOST
For those of you who didn't read it all last time... Copyright 1994, Nathan Zook. All rights reserved. Intelectual copyrights pending. NYET-- Non-Youths Exhibit Temperance. Before I start, it may be informative to consider that I consider myself to be a hard-line member of the Christian Conservative movement, and a hard- line advocate of electronic privacy. I am a PhD candidate in mathematics at the University of Texas of Austin, and I got the Electronic Privacy language added to the 1994 Republican Party of Texas platform. I am a member of Trinty Evangelical Free Church, and am twenty-seven years old. As the Internet community continues to grow, the differences of conviction that exists generally in the world find their way into the community. Some demand that newcomers to the net adapt to the mores of this society. Some demand that the net, as a newcomer to the world, adapt to the outside. As recent events have demonstrated, the less reasonable, on both sides, may be endangering the integrity and availablity of the net. Calls for net censorship, it may be expected, will continue to grow unless the net can find some way to police itself. Yet "police itself" is a term that sends the net into fits. My solution, NYET, is for the appropriate users to directly censor the data that they might legitmately lay claim to censoring--data that flows to minors over which they have legal authority and responsibility. Specifically, this is a plan to create two sorts of accounts to the net-- adult and minor. Adult accounts may only be obtained by persons of age eighteen. Minor accounts may only be obtained as adjuncts to adult accounts, refered to as supervisor accounts. Adult accounts would have full access to anything on the net. News readers, telnet, ftp and like software being operated from a minor account would check a file in the adult account to allow access. Newsreaders, in particular, would censor any posts crossed from a non-allowed account. The control files in the supervisory accounts would default to allow-only mode, but could be selected to deny-only. The legal framework that I see important in aiding such a system is as follows: State Level: 1) Declare to hold harmless those BBS operators for charges of Contributing to the Delinquacy of a Minor that obtain and verify the age of account holders, and maintain a NYET system of access for minors. Certain acceptable verification methods specified, with authority to add methods delegated to a regulatory agency. Emphasis to be on ease and speed of verification. Special consideration for in-house systems. 2) Make it illegal to misrepresent age and name data to a BBS. Require BBS operators to maintain a record of age and name of account holders for thirty days after opening of account for hold harmless agreement, and allowing deletion of said data afterwards. 3) Declare aiding in tampering with NYET system to be "Contributing to the Delequency of a Minor". Federal Level: Pass paralell laws for BBSs operating with local numbers from two or more states, or for BBSs operating with 800 numbers. I believe that such a system would protect the full free expression currently enjoyed by the net, while reaffirming parental responsibility in the upbringing of their children. The burden of controlling access devolves all the way to the parents, making charges against BBS operators patently frivolous. Porno charges would then be MUCH more difficult to press, since a jury could be told that specific steps were being taken to prevent access to minors. If parents complained that they didn't want to go to the trouble of spelling out what their children could access, the response is clear: "Oh, so it's not worth the effort to you?" Despite slurs in this group to the contrary, I believe that the proposed us.* heirarchy may well be the first in a series of attempts to censor the net. Remember, we already have had a censor for TV, movies, and radio. It is not really a question of _if_ but _who_ and at _what level_ will this censoring take place. Nathan (Adjusting flame gear)
State Level: 1) Declare to hold harmless those BBS operators for charges of Contributing to the Delinquacy of a Minor that obtain and verify the age of account holders, and maintain a NYET system of access for minors. Certain acceptable verification methods specified, with authority to add methods delegated to a regulatory agency. Emphasis to be on ease and speed of verification. Special consideration for in-house systems.
The best way to impliment this is to have no kind of verification done by the BBS operator on their callers. This is the way that I run my system. I am *NOT* responsible legaly, ethicaly, moraly, etc. for who calls my system and uses it. If mommy or daddy don't want their kids to have virus software or pictures of naked ladies then that is their problem not mine. I refuse to take on a parents responsibility. (period)
2) Make it illegal to misrepresent age and name data to a BBS. Require BBS operators to maintain a record of age and name of account holders for thirty days after opening of account for hold harmless agreement, and allowing deletion of said data afterwards.
Since there is no legal need to demonstrate age why should it be illegal to misrepresent it? Why do I want to become part of the law enforcement community in the first place? I want to run a BBS, not become a oink-droid. As to name, sorry but I specificaly have a 'guest' account on my system and handles are fine as well. People have no responsibility to give me their real name and I have no responsibility to ask. As to deletion, I reserve the right to throw somebody off *MY* system for any reason I deem worthy (incl. having a shitty day). It is my systems and nobody should be able to set my admission standards.
I believe that such a system would protect the full free expression currently enjoyed by the net, while reaffirming parental responsibility in the upbringing of their children. The burden of controlling access devolves all the way to the parents, making charges against BBS operators patently frivolous. Porno charges would then be MUCH more difficult to press, since a jury could be told that specific steps were being taken to prevent access to minors. If parents complained that they didn't want to go to the trouble of spelling out what their children could access, the response is clear: "Oh, so it's not worth the effort to you?"
Protect the full expression of everyone but the BBS operator. Folks a BBS is equivalent to a newspaper or other 'press'. The only person on there who has a 'right' is the person operating it. Don't give it up just because somebody else is too busy to trust their kids. The burden of cotrolling access devolves to the parent...period. You sue me, I sue you in Federal court for civil liberty infringement. Porno doesn't exist except in a seriously neurotic or anal retentive persons midget mind. We are born naked, we die naked, why is it not ok to look at living people naked? My general responce is that if 'your' god will allow sin why can't you?
Copyright 1305, El-Tim Shabbaz Al-May.
NYET-- Non-Yids Extinguish Traitors.
Before I start, it may be informative to consider that I consider myself to be a hard-line member of the Islamic Students movement, and a hard- line advocate of electronic privacy.
We Islamic Fundamentalists are very worried about the exposure of Allah's children to the den of vipers that Infidels call "the Net." ("The Pit" is a much better name, in more ways than one.) NYET proposes to create two sorts of accounts on the net: Believers and Infidels. Believers would be denied access to all but the blessed groups (currently, only alt.fan.salman.rushdie.kill.kill.kill). Infidels would be denied access to all groups.
The legal framework that I see important in aiding such a system is as follows:
1) Declare to hold harmless those BBS operators for charges of Contributing to the Delinquacy of Allah's Children that verify the age of account holders, and maintain a NYET system of access for Believers...
2) Make it illegal to misrepresent age and name data to a BBS. Require BBS operators to maintain a record of age and name of Believers.
3) Declare aiding in tampering with NYET system to be "Contributing to a Crime Against God."
I believe that such a system would protect the full free expression currently enjoyed by the Pit, ensuring that blashemers are detected and punished, that illegal publications are halted, that children are not exposed to evil ideas, and the Pit is cleansed of Non-Believers.
God is Great! Allah's Humble Sword of Vengeance, --El-Tim Shabbaz Al-May --
On Fri, 29 Jul 1994 nzook@math.utexas.edu wrote:
Specifically, this is a plan to create two sorts of accounts to the net-- adult and minor. Adult accounts may only be obtained by persons of age Ok. This is arguable itself, but there are a couple comments in the legal framework section that are VERY imprtant.
State Level: 1) Declare to hold harmless those BBS operators for charges of Contributing to the Delinquacy of a Minor that obtain and verify the age of account holders, and maintain a NYET system of access for minors. Certain acceptable verification methods specified, with authority to add methods delegated to a regulatory agency. Emphasis to be on ease and speed of verification. Special consideration for in-house systems. Sure, this is great. No problems. This should include visual inspection for those who can be verified at a glance, or personal knowledge(like a conversation about what you were doing when kenedy died, or the working of a company a child would not remember.)
2) Make it illegal to misrepresent age and name data to a BBS. Require NO! 2 options.,
Make it illegal for a MINOR to misrepresent age and name data to a BBS. or Make it illegal to misrepresent age bracket(minor, adult) to a BBS.
BBS operators to maintain a record of age and name of account holders for thirty days after opening of account for hold harmless agreement, and allowing deletion of said data afterwards. The deletion of said data is a nice touch. I think that this could be subject to the same slippery slope arguments that has been used with the FFL, though, uping the requirements, raising the time, adding information.
Don't give them an electronic platform that they can amend things onto that we will all regret.
3) Declare aiding in tampering with NYET system to be "Contributing to the Delequency of a Minor". ????? This would seem to be covered by 2), what is the deal? Forgeries? If so, I would be concerned about enforcemnent.
Federal Level: Pass paralell laws for BBSs operating with local numbers from two or more states, or for BBSs operating with 800 numbers. NO! Just cover them in both states. We know that the feds will try and turn this into a national id card and database, they have tried with healthcare, drivers licences, tax data, ......... the list is as long as my arm.
I believe that such a system would protect the full free expression currently enjoyed by the net, while reaffirming parental responsibility in the upbringing of their children. The burden of controlling access devolves all the way to the parents, making charges against BBS operators patently frivolous. Porno charges would then be MUCH more difficult to press, since a jury could be told that specific steps were being taken to prevent access to minors. If parents complained that they didn't want to go to the trouble of spelling out what their children could access, the response is clear: "Oh, so it's not worth the effort to you?" True, I agree that an effort to head this off is warented, and would work for this here. Send me private e-mail for further discussion.
Roger Bryner.
participants (4)
-
Berzerk -
Jim choate -
nzook＠math.utexas.edu -
tcmay＠netcom.com