From: angels@wavenet.com (Colin Gabriel Hatcher) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Batman on the Internet??? CyberAngels info Date: 26 May 1996 20:34:47 GMT Organization: CyberAngels Lines: 137 Message-ID: References: <4mbb5p$fh5@Networking.Stanford.EDU> <4mdh9d$l0k@Networking.Stanford.EDU> <4mh17e$sme@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> <4n05pt$8bu@asimov.oit.umass.edu> <4ndnhe$bqv@hecate.umd.edu> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- sethf@mit.edu wrote: >1) I still want a copy of your procedure for deciding do something/nothing. I have sent you a copy of our Guidelines. >2) SafeSurf made some statements that implied that they were giving >CyberAngels the SafeSurf database of rated sites, to aid your efforts. >Is this true? (would they give me the same database? I guess I should >ask them, but let me know what you know about it, maybe there's some >confusion about whether CyberAngels has an exclusive deal) Some of our members are helping Safesurf to verify sites that have marked themselves with Safesurf's rating mark. As I understand it there are so far about 30,000 websites who have rated themselves with Safesurf (voluntarily). >3) In the fight-censorship discussion, we were talking about how to rate >the fight-censorship archive (http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/top/). >Everyone should learn about censorship, from the earliest ages. The >archive is not a porn shop. So the owner (Declan) SafeSurf-rated it as >"All Ages", no "theme" of among those listed (the "theme" is fighting >censorship, not sex drugs, etc). You disageed about this. a) What sort >of SafeSurf ratings did *you* think it should get? In order to voluntarily rate your site "Suitable for all ages" with Safesurf, then I believe your site should have: 1) No profanity I haven't come across profanity among the archives of F.C., but it would be hardly surprising to find some. After all, some of the postings are from people who are angry. Can Declan say that no post in the archives contains profanities? 2) No Nudity - that means no pictures of anyone without clothing. I haven't come across any binaries in the archives. 3) No sexual themes - that means no pornography, no information about sex or sexuality, no discussion of pornography, no discussion about sex or sexuality. The F.C Archives contain discussions about sex, as they are discussing government or other groups attempts to regulate or censor such things. Also, archives containing examples of pornography, whether it be fiction, pictures or even discussion of the subject, in my opinion do not satisfy Safesurf's requirement for an "All ages" tag. This seems to me to be an adult discussion. 4) No Violence - that means no imagery or text about violence I haven't come across this in the Archives, but since there is some discussion about Holocaust revisionism, it's possible that the theme of violence is present. That would be one that I would write to Safesurf and ask an opinion on. 5) No Intolerance (Bigotry, Racism) - That means no hate speech on other groups or organizations, and no discussion about hate groups and their activities. The F.C. archives contain discussion about hate groups, including issues arising from the activities of Neo-Nazi groups, and homophobic groups. These kinds of discussions do not seem to me to fulfil Safesurf's requirements for an "All ages" tag. 6) Glorifying Drug Use - no pro drug material I haven't come across this in the archives. 7) Gambling - no discussion or imagery of gambling I haven't come across this in the archives I am not saying that I believe the Fight Censorship site should be banned. I am simply saying that in my opinion it does not seem to satisfy the requirement to be rated "Suitable for all ages" by Safesurf's system. The Safesurf rating system is a voluntary rating system. If you choose to use it, I would assume that you would agree to follow its guidelines. It is my personal opinion that Declan has rated his site "All ages" as a political statement, and also as a test case, to find out what kind of "teeth" Safesurf has when a site mis-rates itself. I believe that Declan has rated the site "All ages" because he believes that the site _should_ be for all ages, rather than by following the Safesurf guidelines - in other words as a political statement. If in your opinion or in Declan's, the guidelines are too vague, and there is some question about what is suitable, then the logical thing to do would be to send in a request to Safesurf and ask their opinion on how to rate the site. I don't think that has been done. The Fight Censorship archives make valuable and educational reading. The discussion here is only about what age group should have access to them. I have written to Safesurf myself and enquired about our own site. We want it to be suitable for all ages, yet it contains discussion of the issue of child pornography. That seems to make it a site for older viewers. Since we are choosing to cooperate with Safesurf on this issue, I will wait for Safesurf's advice. I suspect that Fight Censorship prefers to challenge Safesurf on this issue, in order to gather information on what happens next. What a shame that Safesurf is being seen as the "enemy", when it is a group that opposes government censorship and wears the blue ribbon. >b) What sort of >SafeSurf rating is considered OK for it by CyberAngels (does a == b?) c) >Did you do to the fight-censorship archive whatever it is you do to >naughty sites? And what happens then (or is this still in process?). Personally I would rate it for teens and upwards, because of the adult nature of the discussions, but it is Safesurf who have the say on their own rating system. I am sure we will all find out what happens if a site voluntarily rates itself with Safesurf's mark, and Safesurf disagrees. Isn't that F.C.'s intention? Colin Gabriel Hatcher CyberAngels Director http://www.safesurf.com/cyberangels/ http://proaxis.com/~safetyed/CYBERANGELS/cyberangels01.html angels@wavenet.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQCVAwUBMacKQLrnmi5CcKeBAQHC0gP+OoZXyGzeTOeF0MymySektudo2ysz/Cd7 A/csBuRA8BhQ12QMl8b+SRwCZxchB2KMyUFTen51x+l5QGQadK5R6z4+1JOxgARN KHWxYAsCkWWoeT0YYUDOJDoyO19wQ14XdGYKOL3zxUsHbvhoAZTGZCtE67WHZsZY lf7sWVli0EE= =7Waz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From: sethf@athena.mit.edu (Seth Finkelstein) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.censorship Subject: Re: Batman on the Internet??? CyberAngels info Date: 27 May 1996 10:43:55 GMT Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lines: 261 Message-ID: <4oc11b$8tt@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> References: <4ndnhe$bqv@hecate.umd.edu> Reply-To: sethf@mit.edu In article angels@wavenet.com (Colin Gabriel Hatcher) writes: >sethf@mit.edu wrote: > >>1) I still want a copy of your procedure for deciding do something/nothing. > >I have sent you a copy of our Guidelines. Thank you very much. They are somewhat interesting. I'll study them in detail before commenting further. >>2) SafeSurf made some statements that implied that they were giving >>CyberAngels the SafeSurf database of rated sites, to aid your efforts. >>Is this true? (would they give me the same database? I guess I should >>ask them, but let me know what you know about it, maybe there's some >>confusion about whether CyberAngels has an exclusive deal) > >Some of our members are helping Safesurf to verify sites that have marked >themselves with Safesurf's rating mark. As I understand it there are so Is that a "yes"? They do give you the database? I'm curious as to how you get the sites you're "helping" to "verify". >far about 30,000 websites who have rated themselves with Safesurf >(voluntarily). Well, if you have the database, you could just count it, right? And I could count it. So why don't you just say straight out if you have this information, and if other people can have it too? By the way "voluntarily" ordinarily doesn't mean "out of fear that otherwise the government will impose a system where they would be jailed" >>3) In the fight-censorship discussion, we were talking about how to rate >>the fight-censorship archive (http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/top/). >>Everyone should learn about censorship, from the earliest ages. The >>archive is not a porn shop. So the owner (Declan) SafeSurf-rated it as >>"All Ages", no "theme" of among those listed (the "theme" is fighting >>censorship, not sex drugs, etc). You disageed about this. a) What sort >>of SafeSurf ratings did *you* think it should get? > >In order to voluntarily rate your site "Suitable for all ages" with >Safesurf, then I believe your site should have: Ah, now we're getting somewhere. Note none of this is written out anywhere on SafeSurf or CyberAngels, at least that I could find. Let's also see how the Bible does, for comparison. >1) No profanity Does that mean a SINGLE word disqualifies a WHOLE ARCHIVE? Very few archives could stand up to that sort of standard! >I haven't come across profanity among the archives of F.C., but it would >be hardly surprising to find some. After all, some of the postings are >from people who are angry. Can Declan say that no post in the archives >contains profanities? Can you give a list? Is it just the famous seven words? I could check, if you tell me what to look for. The whole list, now. With the Angelic approval hanging in the balance, I wouldn't want to miss anything. Bible: ISA 36:12 ... hath he not sent me to the men that sit upon the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you? >2) No Nudity - that means no pictures of anyone without clothing. > >I haven't come across any binaries in the archives. Do URL's count? There were some when we were talking about what evidence the Department of Justice was presenting in the CDA trial. >3) No sexual themes - that means no pornography, no information about sex >or sexuality, no discussion of pornography, no discussion about sex or >sexuality. Wow! According to you, "Sexual themes" translates into something like "mention of sex and society in any context". This is certainly non-obvious, and *I* certainly don't think it is at all reasonable. The Bible's full of this stuff, David and Bathsheba, Song of Solomon, Lot: GEN 19:34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. >The F.C Archives contain discussions about sex, as they are discussing >government or other groups attempts to regulate or censor such things. >Also, archives containing examples of pornography, whether it be fiction, >pictures or even discussion of the subject, in my opinion do not satisfy >Safesurf's requirement for an "All ages" tag. This seems to me to be an ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Remember, this is all your *interpretation*. >adult discussion. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Typically, that phrase means "pornographic discussion", not "discussion about censorship". But I can see why someone might want to conflate the two meanings. >4) No Violence - that means no imagery or text about violence > >I haven't come across this in the Archives, but since there is some >discussion about Holocaust revisionism, it's possible that the theme of >violence is present. That would be one that I would write to Safesurf and >ask an opinion on. I don't think you could rate the daily newspaper as OK under this standard! Forget Bible examples, it's one long smite-fest and war-fest. >5) No Intolerance (Bigotry, Racism) - That means no hate speech on other >groups or organizations, and no discussion about hate groups and their >activities. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Another very interesting statement. Again, no average newspaper would fit! Bible: ZEC 14:12 And this shall be the plague wherewith the LORD will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth. [Cool! I can just see the special effects ...] >The F.C. archives contain discussion about hate groups, including issues >arising from the activities of Neo-Nazi groups, and homophobic groups. >These kinds of discussions do not seem to me to fulfil Safesurf's >requirements for an "All ages" tag. ^^^^^^^^^^^^ You mean your interpretation of what these *should* mean. >6) Glorifying Drug Use - no pro drug material > >I haven't come across this in the archives. I'll have post some. Wouldn't want it to be left out :-). >7) Gambling - no discussion or imagery of gambling > >I haven't come across this in the archives Bet you will :-). There's lots of "casting lots" in the Bible. >I am not saying that I believe the Fight Censorship site should be >banned. I am simply saying that in my opinion it does not seem to satisfy >the requirement to be rated "Suitable for all ages" by Safesurf's system. What besides "Barney" would, under your views?! That's somewhat hyperbolic, but just about any archive is going to fail one or more of the above, the *newspapers* wouldn't pass, almost all of radio and TV wouldn't pass. A modern dictionary or the Encyclopedia Britannica (has bomb info too!) wouldn't pass!!! THE BIBLE DOESN'T PASS!!!!!! This a long way from dealing with illegal material or porn sites, it's a repressive system which seems designed to shut out any but the most innocuous of material. This why I'm really interested in what happens to people who don't have your views on this, and whether the CyberAngels will hassle them (even if legally) in any way. Tell me if you're going to consider any site which has the Bible and is rated "All Ages" to be misrated. If not, this displays the utter hypocrisy of the ratings. It's a just a system to be selectively enforced to make Web access difficult to those politically disfavored. >The Safesurf rating system is a voluntary rating system. If you choose to >use it, I would assume that you would agree to follow its guidelines. It But all that explanatory material above is, as far I can tell, your own invention completely. I can find nothing about such guidelines on the SafeSurf site. >is my personal opinion that Declan has rated his site "All ages" as a >political statement, and also as a test case, to find out what kind of >"teeth" Safesurf has when a site mis-rates itself. I believe that Declan You say that as if it were a bad thing :-). Now, we don't know if it is a misrating, since we have no *official* statement about whether to apply the categories broadly or narrowly. You apparently construe them much broader than he asserts, and charge he has "mis-rated" his site because of this disagreement. This sort of judgemental political involvement is *exactly* what many people suspect is being pulled as a bait-and-switch by the CyberAngels. Talk about hot-button issues when it sounds good for publicity, but in reality make trouble for people who don't follow a standard you seem to be making up as you go along. >has rated the site "All ages" because he believes that the site _should_ >be for all ages, rather than by following the Safesurf guidelines - in >other words as a political statement. And are you getting involved in this political statement, if so? Wouldn't that be a political maneuver on *your* part? Of course, you have the right to do pro-censorship politicing, just don't lie and say it's about illegal activities. >If in your opinion or in Declan's, the guidelines are too vague, and there >is some question about what is suitable, then the logical thing to do >would be to send in a request to Safesurf and ask their opinion on how to >rate the site. I don't think that has been done. Then SafeSurf *is* a ratings board, not a system provider! So "self-rating" is something of misnomer, its really "doing *their* ratings work yourself". That's the question. Once we establish that, we can start asking about THEIR standards, penalties, etc. without deceptive use of the term "self-rating". >The Fight Censorship archives make valuable and educational reading. The >discussion here is only about what age group should have access to them. I'm glad you don't think it should be destroyed and the people involved jailed or fined (umm, I am correct on that part?). But no, the discussion here is about what sort of prejudicial and pejorative labels it should carry in terms of SafeSurf. >I have written to Safesurf myself and enquired about our own site. We >want it to be suitable for all ages, yet it contains discussion of the >issue of child pornography. That seems to make it a site for older >viewers. Since we are choosing to cooperate with Safesurf on this issue, >I will wait for Safesurf's advice. I suspect that Fight Censorship Great. Let us know if you have to rate it in terms of "Heterosexual themes", and at what level. >prefers to challenge Safesurf on this issue, in order to gather >information on what happens next. What a shame that Safesurf is being >seen as the "enemy", when it is a group that opposes government censorship >and wears the blue ribbon. Umm, anyone can *claim* to opposes government censorship, and put a blue ribbon on their pages. Don't you? If someone opposes government censorship in favor of a system of privatized censorship, backed by government threat, with creepy "enforcers", that hardly makes them a friend of freedom, at least in my view. > >b) What sort of >>SafeSurf rating is considered OK for it by CyberAngels (does a == b?) c) >>Did you do to the fight-censorship archive whatever it is you do to >>naughty sites? And what happens then (or is this still in process?). > >Personally I would rate it for teens and upwards, because of the adult >nature of the discussions, but it is Safesurf who have the say on their >own rating system. I am sure we will all find out what happens if a site >voluntarily rates itself with Safesurf's mark, and Safesurf disagrees. >Isn't that F.C.'s intention? Can you be a little clearer in your answers? I don't want to misunderstand you or have you claiming that I'm misquoting you. I *think* your answer in effect was to part b), "It should be set to level 3, Teens", from the surrounding matter, "Yes, a == b, If I don't think the rating is correct, it's not OK by CyberAngels", and to part c), "Yes, we reported them for ratings-crime, you'll get your wish to see what happens". But I don't want to put words in your mouth, please clarify this. >Colin Gabriel Hatcher >CyberAngels Director > >http://www.safesurf.com/cyberangels/ It was more of a reply than I expected, and perhaps more revealing than intended. -- Seth Finkelstein sethf@mit.edu Disclaimer : I am not the Lorax. I speak only for myself. (and certainly not for Project Athena, MIT, or anyone else). From: angels@wavenet.com (Colin Gabriel Hatcher) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.censorship Subject: Re: Batman on the Internet??? CyberAngels info Date: 28 May 1996 04:56:51 GMT Organization: CyberAngels Lines: 539 Message-ID: References: <4ndnhe$bqv@hecate.umd.edu> <4oc11b$8tt@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> Re article <4oc11b$8tt@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>, sethf@mit.edu. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- To: sethf@MIT.EDU From: angels@wavenet.com (CyberAngels Director : Colin Gabriel Hatcher) Subject: Re: Batman on the Internet??? CyberAngels info Cc: Bcc: X-Attachments: I wonder Seth if you have visited the Safesurf site. It's all pretty clear to me right there. Read: http://www.safesurf.com/ssfaq.htm http://wwwsafesurf.com/sspress9.htm http://www.safesurf.com/ssplan.htm http://www.safesurf.com/classify/index.html Sethf@MIT.EDU wrote: >Well, if you have the database, you could just count it, right? >And I could count it. So why don't you just say straight out if you >have this information, and if other people can have it too? Seth, _if_ you read the Safesurf site material you will find that they state quite clearly that the database of URLs who have rated themselves with Safesurf is available to _anyone_ Does this indicate that you have not read their material? I don't have the entire database from Safesurf. They are feeding URLs to our volunteers and when they have been checked they are returned and exchanged for more. > Ah, now we're getting somewhere. Note none of this is written >out anywhere on SafeSurf or CyberAngels, at least that I could find. >Let's also see how the Bible does, for comparison. I think I should begin by stressing 2 things. Firstly I do not speak for nor represent Safesurf. I think it would be courteous for you to address your questions to them regarding the details of their rating system, which you don't appear to understand. I don't understand why not. Secondly I do not speak for all members of CyberAngels. I speak for myself. CyberAngels has no rating system of its own. We support both Safesurf and PICS which are very very similar. As regards rating Fight Censorship, I took the liberty of filling in the categories myself, based on a visit to the site. I rated it as "suitable for all ages" (like Declan did) and scored it a 3 for every category - 3 stands for Technical Descriptions or References, and would be a rating you applied to news, encyclopaedia, technical discussions, dictionary etc. The rating I got for F.C. looks like this: content='(PICS-1.1 "http://www.classify.org/safesurf/" l gen t for "FIGHTCENSORSHIP TEST" r SS~~000 1 SS~~001 3 SS~~002 3 SS~~003 3 SS~~005 3 SS~~006 3 SS~~007 3 SS~~008 3 SS~~009 3 SS~~00A 3 SS~~100 1))'> I thnk I will post Safesurf's material to this group, since it doesn't appear to be familiar to you. Now the question is, is a rating of "All ages" (SS~~000 1) compatible with ratings of 3 for all the other categories? (3=Technical reference/descriptions of adult themes) For an ideal kidsafe rating the html code looks like this below: content='(PICS-1.1 "http://www.classify.org/safesurf/" l r (SS~~000 1 SS~~100 1))'> This code has no adult themes at all. The disagreement seems to be whether Fight Censorship contains adult themes or not. Declan appears to believe no. I believe yes. > >>1) No profanity > > Does that mean a SINGLE word disqualifies a WHOLE ARCHIVE? Very >few archives could stand up to that sort of standard! "profanity" in this system has 9 sub ratings. I would actually give F.C. a rating of 6 (not 3) for this.6 means "Graphic: Limited use of expletives and obscene gestures" Since F.C. contains adult conversation that seems fair to me. Does this disqualify the archive from being able to say it is suitable for all ages? I believe so. But you would be better asking Safesurf. Or do you think there should be a certain amount of profanities OKd for children? Would 10 be unacceptable but 5 OK? We are not talking here of whether a site should be allowed to have profanities or not - only what the rules are if you choose to follow Safesurf's rating. The rating "For all ages" I think is incompatible with a site that contains profanities. > Can you give a list? Is it just the famous seven words? I could >check, if you tell me what to look for. The whole list, now. With the >Angelic approval hanging in the balance, I wouldn't want to miss anything. I don't have a list of words unsuitable for children. You could write to Safesurf. They might. > Bible: ISA 36:12 ... hath he not sent me to the men that sit >upon the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own >piss with you? I dont think the Bible is suitable for children. See below. >>2) No Nudity - that means no pictures of anyone without clothing. >> >>I haven't come across any binaries in the archives. > > Do URL's count? There were some when we were talking about what >evidence the Department of Justice was presenting in the CDA trial. URLs to my knowledge don't count. As i understand the Safesurf material each site or even page rates itself independently. >>3) No sexual themes - that means no pornography, no information about sex >>or sexuality, no discussion of pornography, no discussion about sex or >>sexuality. > > Wow! According to you, "Sexual themes" translates into something >like "mention of sex and society in any context". This is certainly >non-obvious, and *I* certainly don't think it is at all reasonable. > The Bible's full of this stuff, David and Bathsheba, Song of Solomon, >Lot: >GEN 19:34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said >unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make >him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that >we may preserve seed of our father. Well putting aside the fact that the language is euphemistic, that kind of conversation seems to me to be unsuitable for say a 7 year old child. I never said I think the Bible is a children's book. Normally children's versions of Bibles are rewritten in simpler language, and they leave out the sex stuff. I have never seen a Bible that says "suitable for all ages" on the inside cover. Using the Safesurf rating system I rated the Bible. This is the code I got. Again I said it was for all ages: The Bible appears to me to come in the "Graphic-Artistic" category. Same question. Does a rating for all ages (SS~~000 1) work with all other categories as adult themes category 5 (Graphic Artistic)? I don't think so. The point is that parents can _configure_ their screening software to suit their choices for their kids. I may be a parent who only wants my kids accessing "All ages" stuff. Or I may be a very liberal parent and choose to expose my children to some graphic -artistic stuff. The choice is mine in how I configure the software. >>The F.C Archives contain discussions about sex, as they are discussing >>government or other groups attempts to regulate or censor such things. >>Also, archives containing examples of pornography, whether it be fiction, >>pictures or even discussion of the subject, in my opinion do not satisfy >>Safesurf's requirement for an "All ages" tag. This seems to me to be an > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Remember, this is all your *interpretation*. >>adult discussion. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Typically, that phrase means "pornographic discussion", not >"discussion about censorship". But I can see why someone might want to >conflate the two meanings. Discussing censorship is indeed something that I believe children should be involved in. Discussion of examples of extreme pornography however seems to me to be the adult realm. I would think that the subject matter for discussion about censorship with children would not be pornography, but other forms of expression that was relevant to their experience. Hate speech would be an appropriate subject for discussion with children, since they experience it at school in the form of bullying or intolerance. That also means that discussion of bullying is within the experience of the child and therefore IMHO is suitable as a kids subject - that kind of violence is "in their world", whereas discussion about Bosnia and war crimes would seem to me to be more adult. Since sex is not within a child's experience it would seem to me that it's not an appropriate subject to illustrate or discuss censorship with them. The example that was quoted to me by Declan appeared to be a pornographic story or a pornographic statement containing graphic descriptions of child abuse. He asked me what rating I would give the Fight Censorship archives and I said, based on that story/description alone it was in my opinion not suitable for all ages >>4) No Violence - that means no imagery or text about violence >> >>I haven't come across this in the Archives, but since there is some >>discussion about Holocaust revisionism, it's possible that the theme of >>violence is present. That would be one that I would write to Safesurf and >>ask an opinion on. > > I don't think you could rate the daily newspaper as OK under >this standard! > Forget Bible examples, it's one long smite-fest and war-fest. If I were to rate a daily newspaper I would say it's not for all ages, as it is full of articles about sex, sexcrime, war, violence etc. I would say it's for older kids. In my opinion this kind of subject matter is inappropriate for children (eg ages 1-8). Using the Safesurf ratings I would give the daily news a 3 rating under violence, as "Technical reference/discussion of adult themes". I don't think scoring it a 3 in the "violence" section makes it suitable for all ages. But again you as a parent might have no problem with your child reading "3" rated material, regardless of subject matter. The choice is _yours_ I know a number of kids who _are_ exploring the Internet at age 7 and 8. And of course this should be supervised by parents - but parents need to be able to recognize immediately when a site is unsuitable for a 7 year old. They don't need to watch a movie to find out if it's adult or not. I believe the same should apply to WWW. The Safesurf system seems a really easy way of acheiving this, because instead of the parent having to read the site first and then OK it, the computer can select appropriate sites. Dont confuse the issue though - I am not saying that either the Bible or newspapers should be banned. >>5) No Intolerance (Bigotry, Racism) - That means no hate speech on other >>groups or organizations, and no discussion about hate groups and their >>activities. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Another very interesting statement. Again, no average newspaper >would fit! > Bible: ZEC 14:12 And this shall be the plague wherewith the LORD >will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their >flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their >eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume >away in their mouth. [Cool! I can just see the special effects ...] > >>The F.C. archives contain discussion about hate groups, including issues >>arising from the activities of Neo-Nazi groups, and homophobic groups. >>These kinds of discussions do not seem to me to fulfil Safesurf's >>requirements for an "All ages" tag. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^ > You mean your interpretation of what these *should* mean. "Discussions about intolerance" get a rating of 6 in Safesurf's system. I don't think that is compatible with "All ages" but I may be wrong. As I keep repeating, it is _my opinion_ that children aged between 1 and 8 don't need to watch CNN reporting from Bosnia, nor do I believe that the Bible is suitable for them. For kids we have kids versions of the Bible that tell stories with little morals in them, but do not focus on prolonged and bloody genocidal wars, nor incest and rape, nor even on how exactly babies are made. These subjects are for older kids. Why not open a debate with Ray Soular or Wendy Simpson at Safesurf? From me you are getting it second hand, and it's only IMHO. CyberAngels didn't invent Safesurf's rating system, nor have we attempted to revise it. We are simply helping them out by checking sites. If a site has to have "No profanity" to qualify as "all ages", and we find a site that has rated itself "All ages" but has some curses in it, then we simply return the URL to Safesurf with a comment to that effect. What we are doing is checking that a site that says it has no profanity, has indeed no profanity. Whether that is compatible with that sites age classification (eg "All ages") is down to Safesurf's review committee, not at all to do with CyberAngels. >>I am not saying that I believe the Fight Censorship site should be >>banned. I am simply saying that in my opinion it does not seem to satisfy >>the requirement to be rated "Suitable for all ages" by Safesurf's system. > > What besides "Barney" would, under your views?! That's somewhat >hyperbolic, but just about any archive is going to fail one or more of >the above, the *newspapers* wouldn't pass, almost all of radio and TV >wouldn't pass. A modern dictionary or the Encyclopedia Britannica (has >bomb info too!) wouldn't pass!!! THE BIBLE DOESN'T PASS!!!!!! Of course not! Why do you think Barney was invented? Or Sesame street? Or little fluffy toys? Do little girls need to know about how Barbie and Ken have sex? Or that GI Joe had his finger nails torn out in a Concentration Camp? I dont think so. 7 year olds prefer Sesame street to CNN. Things like Barney belong in a parallel universe that children live in, where animals talk and where magic exists. Sure - it's an innnocent and unreal place, but during the first 7 years of a child's life that is what they need, so that their imagination develops. Of course adults despise Barney - he is not for adults. > This a long way from dealing with illegal material or porn >sites, it's a repressive system which seems designed to shut out any but >the most innocuous of material. Its not repressive because no one has to use it. I find the Safesurf system to be the very opposite of repressive. It's no different from the rest of the world. We allow children between 1-8 to grow and learn and develop without reference to violence, war, sex, crime, drugs, etc. Only later do they learn about the other stuff. Most importantly, children of that age should not be learning about anything that is outside their experience, which means we really don't need to expose them to sex. Child abuse victims see rape as violence. They only know that they have been hurt. And at that age they don't need to know anything else. There is plenty of time later in their life to learn about the adult world. Most under 8s are not at all interested in where babies come from. "Out of Mommy's tummy" is usually good enough as an answer at that age. I speak as a teacher with 20 years experience, teaching every age group from 6 year olds to adult education. >This why I'm really interested in what >happens to people who don't have your views on this, and whether the >CyberAngels will hassle them (even if legally) in any way. Half of our CyberAngels membership don't have my views on this. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and everyone is entitled to lobby their beliefs and to try and change their world. That is freedom and democracy. Our discussion here is about what Safesurf is talking about when they say "No profanity" or "No violence". Everyone is free to agree or disagree. > Tell me if you're going to consider any site which has the Bible >and is rated "All Ages" to be misrated. If not, this displays the utter >hypocrisy of the ratings. It's a just a system to be selectively >enforced to make Web access difficult to those politically disfavored. It is my personal opinion that the adult Bible is not suitable for children aged 1-8. That may not be Safesurf's opinion however. And it also may not be the view of a large number of CyberAngels membership. As i said i give the Bible a "5" in most categories, as graphic-artistic adult themes. >>The Safesurf rating system is a voluntary rating system. If you choose to >>use it, I would assume that you would agree to follow its guidelines. It > > But all that explanatory material above is, as far I can tell, >your own invention completely. I don't run Safesurf or their system. I am merely saying that to me "sexual themes" is a clear description of what is unsuitable for "All ages". >I can find nothing about such guidelines >on the SafeSurf site. Then why don't you write to Safesurf and ask them to clarify your questions! >>is my personal opinion that Declan has rated his site "All ages" as a >>political statement, and also as a test case, to find out what kind of >>"teeth" Safesurf has when a site mis-rates itself. I believe that Declan > > You say that as if it were a bad thing :-). Were I F.C that is exactly what _I_ would do. I would test out the Safesurf system. >Now, we don't know >if it is a misrating, since we have no *official* statement about >whether to apply the categories broadly or narrowly. You apparently >construe them much broader than he asserts, and charge he has >"mis-rated" his site because of this disagreement. This sort of >judgemental political involvement is *exactly* what many people suspect >is being pulled as a bait-and-switch by the CyberAngels. Talk about >hot-button issues when it sounds good for publicity, but in reality make >trouble for people who don't follow a standard you seem to be making up >as you go along. I personally believe that Fight Censorship should ask Safesurf to rate the site, to find out what they think of it. After all, I may be completely wrong in my rating for it. In my opinion F.C. deserves a 3 category for it's material, as it is a site devoted to the discussion of adult themes. Is a "3" suitable for all ages? Ask Safesurf! >>has rated the site "All ages" because he believes that the site _should_ >>be for all ages, rather than by following the Safesurf guidelines - in >>other words as a political statement. > > And are you getting involved in this political statement, if so? >Wouldn't that be a political maneuver on *your* part? Of course, you >have the right to do pro-censorship politicing, just don't lie and say >it's about illegal activities. I spend almost no time at all doing "pro-censorship politicking". I have a different focus. CyberAngels are investigating all kinds of cases on the Net, from the activities of sexual predators, the posting of child pornography and the harassment of numerous people by electronic means or by hate mail. That is our focus. I am not saying that anything at Fight Censorship should be banned. I am discussing what is and is not suitable for children. Fight Censorship understandably focuses on material. CyberAngels actually spend more time focussing on _activities_. Regarding material, most of our energy is on fighting against the trade in child pornography. Individual CyberAngels are utterly free to campaign democratically for whatever they want to. >>If in your opinion or in Declan's, the guidelines are too vague, and there >>is some question about what is suitable, then the logical thing to do >>would be to send in a request to Safesurf and ask their opinion on how to >>rate the site. I don't think that has been done. > > Then SafeSurf *is* a ratings board, not a system provider! So >"self-rating" is something of misnomer, its really "doing *their* >ratings work yourself". That's the question. Once we establish that, we >can start asking about THEIR standards, penalties, etc. without >deceptive use of the term "self-rating". All ratings are reviewed by Safesurf's rating committee (no I am not on it :) ) If you had read their material you would have seen that. If you dont like Safesurf's rating of your site, you don't have to use it. In any rating system you are right when you point out that someone has to say yes or no to a proposal. >>The Fight Censorship archives make valuable and educational reading. The >>discussion here is only about what age group should have access to them. > > I'm glad you don't think it should be destroyed and the people >involved jailed or fined (umm, I am correct on that part?). This is one of the biggest myths about CyberAngels. People think we are intolerant of disagreement and are trying to impose "our" will. First of all "we" don't have a will to impose, as we are such a diverse group. In fact we are far more tolerant of disagreement than most of our critics. >But no, the >discussion here is about what sort of prejudicial and pejorative labels >it should carry in terms of SafeSurf. There is nothing prejudicial or pejorative about rating a site "Teens and above". There is nothing prejudicial about saying Playboy is adults only. That is not perjorative either - it is a description. CyberAngels may end up with an adult tag or a teens and older tag - that is not an insult to our site - it's a description as accurate as we can make it within the Safesurf system. We _want_ parents to know what our site contains. >>I have written to Safesurf myself and enquired about our own site. We >>want it to be suitable for all ages, yet it contains discussion of the >>issue of child pornography. That seems to make it a site for older >>viewers. Since we are choosing to cooperate with Safesurf on this issue, >>I will wait for Safesurf's advice. I suspect that Fight Censorship > > Great. Let us know if you have to rate it in terms of >"Heterosexual themes", and at what level. I will let you know what Safesurf say >>prefers to challenge Safesurf on this issue, in order to gather >>information on what happens next. What a shame that Safesurf is being >>seen as the "enemy", when it is a group that opposes government censorship >>and wears the blue ribbon. > > Umm, anyone can *claim* to opposes government censorship, and >put a blue ribbon on their pages. Don't you? If someone opposes >government censorship in favor of a system of privatized censorship, >backed by government threat, with creepy "enforcers", that hardly makes >them a friend of freedom, at least in my view. Well that's the first time anyone has called me a "creepy" enforcer. >> >b) What sort of >>>SafeSurf rating is considered OK for it by CyberAngels (does a == b?) c) >>>Did you do to the fight-censorship archive whatever it is you do to >>>naughty sites? And what happens then (or is this still in process?). >> >>Personally I would rate it for teens and upwards, because of the adult >>nature of the discussions, but it is Safesurf who have the say on their >>own rating system. I am sure we will all find out what happens if a site >>voluntarily rates itself with Safesurf's mark, and Safesurf disagrees. >>Isn't that F.C.'s intention? > > Can you be a little clearer in your answers? I don't want to >misunderstand you or have you claiming that I'm misquoting you. I *think* >your answer in effect was to part b), "It should be set to level 3, Teens", >from the surrounding matter, "Yes, a == b, If I don't think the rating >is correct, it's not OK by CyberAngels", and to part c), "Yes, we >reported them for ratings-crime, you'll get your wish to see what happens". > But I don't want to put words in your mouth, please clarify this. Based on the graphic pedophile pornography that Declan quoted me from the archive, I would give the site an adult tag of 9, that is Explicitly adults only. Based on the site as a whole I would give it Teens and older, with a rating of 3 generally for all categories (Technical discussions of adult themes) CyberAngels has no say whatsoever in how Safesurf rates a site. We are not giving Safesurf opinions when we check a site. We are following their guidelines. If there is any disagreement I believe you will find that Safesurf will open a dialogue with the URL in question and the matter will be resolved without any strong arm tactics of any kind. All sites who rate themselves in accord with Safesurf will get an endorsement from Safesurf to place at their URL . Safesurf may even agree that F.C is suitable for all ages, in which case Declan will have been more on Safesurf's wavelength than I am. Please read the Safesurf material that I post to this group. I think it is a little unfair to ask me to answer questions when the answers are right there at Safesurf's site. Colin Gabriel Hatcher CyberAngels Director http://www.proaxis.com/~safetyed/CYBERANGELS/cyberangels01.html -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQCVAwUBMajRNbrnmi5CcKeBAQHA6wQAkdA+rsCtyBVFyl8mLLwZZflWjDBzC67L GDSKSr1WgORqhRqhyYVsYiP4qyRWl9daxa+fwlGiTZztIKCocuXl4XFTi14rJT4l jqvVgkAcGOwf4UPragJRspi1MP3IBedvMjuud6Wyn97TxNayBvvE7YVZn14XSuk4 cbT/NCzpXFI= =tN6U -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From: sethf@athena.mit.edu (Seth Finkelstein) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.censorship Subject: Re: Batman on the Internet??? CyberAngels info Date: 28 May 1996 13:38:58 GMT Organization: anti-censorship Lines: 690 Message-ID: <4oevli$kr5@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> References: <4oc11b$8tt@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> Reply-To: sethf@mit.edu [Wow, this is long (but interesting?). I edited a few quotes just for space.] In angels@wavenet.com (Colin Gabriel Hatcher) writes: ><4oc11b$8tt@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>, sethf@mit.edu: >I wonder Seth if you have visited the Safesurf site. It's all pretty >clear to me right there. Yes, I have visited the SafeSurf site. I have read all about SafeSurf, RSAC, PICS, the history of ratings systems (e.g. Comics Code, MPAA, Red Channels), and I'm a webmaster myself. So I have quite an extensive background here. If it's so clear to you, perhaps you could cite the relevant passages which back up all your interpretations. >[URL's skipped] >Seth, _if_ you read the Safesurf site material you will find that they >state quite clearly that the database of URLs who have rated themselves >with Safesurf is available to _anyone_ I just checked those links, and I could not find that URL database. This must be around the 10th time I've gone through that site. Have pity on me, and post the relevant section and URL for this database. >I don't have the entire database from Safesurf. They are feeding URLs to >our volunteers and when they have been checked they are returned and >exchanged for more. Returned? As if you can only have a few at time??? Strange. Anyway, thanks at last for the clarification here. >>[ratings ..] >I think I should begin by stressing 2 things. Firstly I do not speak for >nor represent Safesurf. I think it would be courteous for you to address But you are representing yourself in some sort of SafeSurf rating "enforcement" role. After all, you just said they are feeding URLs to your organization to check. So it is to that function that I address my questions. >your questions to them regarding the details of their rating system, which >you don't appear to understand. I don't understand why not. I marvel at how it is so evident to you. Perhaps if you're following a system of "If there's any doubt, it should have the strictest setting", then there's no problem. But being that there is substantial access riding on these decisions, will you forgive us if we don't want to take the broadest possible readings just to avoid trouble (or is that the point ...?). >Secondly I do not speak for all members of CyberAngels. I speak for myself. However, as "CyberAngels Director", I assume you set policy. >CyberAngels has no rating system of its own. We support both Safesurf and >PICS which are very very similar. Umm, actually, SafeSurf is quite clunky and limited compared to PICS, and SafeSurf has defined around a dozen categories, while PICS is wisely finessing the categorization issue (e.g. SafeSurf's getting trouble from the gay-rights group for having a separate "Homosexual themes" setting) But never mind, this is highly technical, I'll forgo saying "you don't appear to understand". >[rated fight-censorship] a 3 for every category - 3 >stands for Technical Descriptions or References, and would be a rating you >applied to news, encyclopedia, technical discussions, dictionary etc. That's nice. I suppose I'd settle for that in a legal battle. But that doesn't seem to be your final judgment, since you give different ratings later on. We really don't need to see what the generated code looks like. > The rating I got for F.C. looks like this: > [Code skipped - I keep thinking I should just insert TCP/IP specs in > arguments about whether it's possible to censor the Internet] >I think I will post Safesurf's material to this group, since it doesn't >appear to be familiar to you. GO FOR IT! >Now the question is, is a rating of "All ages" (SS~~000 1) compatible with >ratings of 3 for all the other categories? (3=Technical >reference/descriptions of adult themes) > >For an ideal kidsafe rating the html code looks like this below: Can we be a non-ideal kidsafe site? I'm serious. >[code skipped] >... The disagreement seems to be whether Fight Censorship contains > adult themes or not. Declan appears to believe no. I believe yes. And this is the core of the matter. For example, if someone asked me "Is profanity a *theme* of fight-censorship?", I'd say "Of course not". When I think of profanity as a theme, I think of Howard Stern (radio talk-show host famous for being a "shock-jock"). I don't categorize a mailing list about opposing censorship as having that as a "theme". That's a very expansive reading of that classification. Same with all the others. In fact, the SafeSurf FAQ (http://www.safesurf.com/ssfaq.htm) does mention this, with revealing obsfucation. "Is the idea to classify sites as child safe or child oriented ?" "The goal is to get all sites to participate. The code allows parents to make specific decisions on what kind a [sic] material that they want their child to download. ..." This conflation of "child-safe" and "child-oriented" is the key tactic of censorship here. First the hot-buttons are pressed, throwing around pornography, harassment, hate, etc. There "safe" is used to mean something like "not porn". But when the system is actually put in place, a swindle is pulled, with "safe" meaning "unobjectionable to the most repressive". The fight-censorship archives are hardly a porn shop, so they are "child-safe" when that sense means any variant of "obscene" or "obscene for minors". As to the sense of "Would Senator Jesse Helms be offended?", that seems to be what's really at issue. >>>1) No profanity >> Does that mean a SINGLE word disqualifies a WHOLE ARCHIVE? Very >>few archives could stand up to that sort of standard! > >"profanity" in this system has 9 sub ratings. I would actually give F.C. >a rating of 6 (not 3) for this.6 means "Graphic: Limited use of expletives >and obscene gestures" Since F.C. contains adult conversation that seems >fair to me. Yes, I know all about the sub-ratings. The question is about what a SINGLE word does with regard to the classification. >Does this disqualify the archive from being able to say it is suitable for >all ages? I believe so. But you would be better asking Safesurf. Or do What I'm asking you, as CyberAngels Director, presumably making policy, is if you find an archive of fairly technical discussion where the owner has rated it as not having profanity as a theme, etc, "All Ages", do you hassle them along the lines of "You're in violation of (our reading of the) SafeSurf standard, this message has the phrase "Cut the crap". That's containing profanity as theme. Either remove that message and any like it or change your rating to be more restrictive, or face legal action for being in violation of your SafeSurf agreement!" Saying SafeSurf should do this also counts as hassling in the above. Do you see where this has a lot of potential for selective enforcement against organizations you don't like? >you think there should be a certain amount of profanities OKd for >children? Would 10 be unacceptable but 5 OK? Ah, the "bloody-head" argument. You see, this works great on sound-bite radio shows, where the host is saying "You have 15 seconds to respond, we've go to to move on, ...". But here on the net, I can take time at length to point out the rhetorical function it is serving. Either you have to hold to the position that a single word requires restricting any book, or you have to come up with some other system .The single-word criteria then gives the absurdist position of preventing use of dictionaries and Encyclopedias and much other classic reading material. Do you really think it's OK to foster such ignorance? >We are not talking here of whether a site should be allowed to have >profanities or not - only what the rules are if you choose to follow >Safesurf's rating. The rating "For all ages" I think is incompatible with >a site that contains profanities. Are your thoughts on this CyberAngels policy? You *can* answer that. >I don't have a list of words unsuitable for children. You could write to >Safesurf. They might. Oh, that would be another wonderful item for my collection. See http://www.mit.edu/activities/safe/humor/aol-vulgarity-memo >>[ Bible: ISA 36:12 ... piss with you?] >I dont think the Bible is suitable for children. See below. WOW! This is certainly productive. It's really hard to get people in favor of content ratings or restrictions to objectively place the Bible in them. We'll definitely return to this point. >>>2) No Nudity - that means no pictures of anyone without clothing. > >URLs to my knowledge don't count. As i understand the Safesurf material >each site or even page rates itself independently. So references to where nudity can be obtained don't come under the nudity theme? This is another completely un-obvious ruling. >>>3) No sexual themes ... >>[Lot and daughters] > >Well putting aside the fact that the language is euphemistic, that kind of >conversation seems to me to be unsuitable for say a 7 year old child. I >never said I think the Bible is a children's book. Normally children's >versions of Bibles are rewritten in simpler language, and they leave out >the sex stuff. I have never seen a Bible that says "suitable for all >ages" on the inside cover. The Bible is, however, commonly given to the youngest of minds by people who are very keen on promoting censorship. Given its track record of being "linked" to all sorts of violence and social ills, their position is very hard to support. >Using the Safesurf rating system I rated the Bible. ... >[Code omitted] > >The Bible appears to me to come in the "Graphic-Artistic" category. > >Same question. Does a rating for all ages (SS~~000 1) work with all other >categories as adult themes category 5 (Graphic Artistic)? I don't think so. For once in my life I have met an honest labeller! I am surprised. >>The point is that parents can _configure_ their screening software to suit >their choices for their kids. I may be a parent who only wants my kids No, the point is that some content providers are pressured to put all sorts of scary labels and ratings on their pages, as another form of censorship (since this situation DOES involve government threat). >accessing "All ages" stuff. Or I may be a very liberal parent and choose >to expose my children to some graphic -artistic stuff. The choice is mine >in how I configure the software. But only certain people are in the position of being labelled. I want to see a category of "Religious themes", to block out all the sites promoting this harmful irrationality. What do do think are my chances of getting SafeSurf to accept that category, and would the CyberAngels patrol for violators? >Discussing censorship is indeed something that I believe children should >be involved in. Discussion of examples of extreme pornography however >seems to me to be the adult realm. I would think that the subject matter >for discussion about censorship with children would not be pornography, Here we come back to the conflation of "child-safe" vs. "child-oriented". Discussion of extreme violence takes place every day on newspapers, radio, etc. A few months ago, one of the tabloids had big bloody pictures of the corpse of Nichole Simpson, right in the supermarket checkout counter where all the little toddlers went by in the shopping carts. There is no label on them as "adults only". I do not see why the much more technical discussion on the fight-censorship list should be so stigmatized. >but other forms of expression that was relevant to their experience. Hate >[summary: what's in a child's experience - snipped for space] Again, "child-safe" vs. "child-oriented". There's a vast difference between making up a presentation, and trying to pressure a site into carrying a label they oppose, saying this reading material should be forbidden to certain ages. And I'm not a sex-educator, but I think some would have some very strong words for you on this topic. >The example that was quoted to me by Declan appeared to be a pornographic >story or a pornographic statement containing graphic descriptions of child It appeared to me to be a parody of religious-right net smut fetishing, but that's another issue. >abuse. He asked me what rating I would give the Fight Censorship archives >and I said, based on that story/description alone it was in my opinion not >suitable for all ages And that's very interesting, because it illuminates the "single-word, any message" rules you are using, which are not obvious at all. >>>4) No Violence - that means no imagery or text about violence >> I don't think you could rate the daily newspaper as OK under >>this standard! > >If I were to rate a daily newspaper I would say it's not for all ages, as >it is full of articles about sex, sexcrime, war, violence etc. I would >say it's for older kids. In my opinion this kind of subject matter is >inappropriate for children (eg ages 1-8). There's a big different between when people can get the best use of material (one apparent meaning), and whether it should be kept from them if they are interested (another meaning). Confusing these two very different concepts is much too common in this area. >Using the Safesurf ratings I would give the daily news a 3 rating under >violence, as "Technical reference/discussion of adult themes". I don't >think scoring it a 3 in the "violence" section makes it suitable for all ages. Now, I want to see if any newspapers have signed up with SafeSurf, and how they rate themselves (see where the database can be very useful). And whether CyberAngels considers them ratings-criminals if they have an "All Ages" ratings. >But again you as a parent might have no problem with your child reading >"3" rated material, regardless of subject matter. The choice is _yours_ But the *default configuration* of the blocking programs I have seen is to block EVERYTHING. And that's what worries me as an overall system (backed up by government threat, I have to keep in people's minds). > I know a number of kids who _are_ exploring the Internet at age 7 and 8. >And of course this should be supervised by parents - but parents need to >be able to recognize immediately when a site is unsuitable for a 7 year old. Ah, but what counts as "unsuitable"? The Atheist parents get no help from SafeSurf here. Will you join me in recommending a "Religious themes" rating? Nor do the Feminist households, or the Anti-Feminists or the Marxists, or the Libertarians ... Only a very few groups are catered to as to their concept of "unsuitable". > They don't need to watch a movie to find out if it's adult or not. >I believe the same should apply to WWW. The Safesurf system seems a Books don't carry ratings. I believe the same should apply to WWW. >really easy way of achieving this, because instead of the parent having to >read the site first and then OK it, the computer can select appropriate sites. Perfect statement of what this is all about - automated censorship by prejudicial and pejorative labeling. >Dont confuse the issue though - I am not saying that either the Bible or >newspapers should be banned. Oh, I understand. Not "banned", just highly restricted when they are in electronic form. >>>5) No Intolerance (Bigotry, Racism) - That means no hate speech on other >... >"Discussions about intolerance" get a rating of 6 in Safesurf's system. I >don't think that is compatible with "All ages" but I may be wrong. "Graphic discussion"? I thought that referred to the group rating itself, not ABOUT another group. Another aspect to learn ... By the way, what intolerant group is going to CALL themselves an intolerant group? Another argument created by the system. >As I keep repeating, it is _my opinion_ that children aged between 1 and 8 >don't need to watch CNN reporting from Bosnia, nor do I believe that the >Bible is suitable for them. For kids we have kids versions of the Bible ... But CNN and the Bible aren't pressured into carrying labels to scare away parents, schools, businesses, and so on. >Why not open a debate with Ray Soular or Wendy Simpson at Safesurf? From As soon as the "Agreement" for fight-censorship comes in, that's the next step. >me you are getting it second hand, and it's only IMHO. CyberAngels didn't >invent Safesurf's rating system, nor have we attempted to revise it. We >are simply helping them out by checking sites. And this is exactly why I'm dealing with you now, because of all your claims about what it means and what should be covered. I think the system has a lot of room for maneuvering in it, and the potential for the CyberAngels to take advantage of that in sending out threatening letters to sites that don't fit *their* reading of the system is quite alarming. It is YOU who's promoting an enforcement program by an organization which has at best a shady reputation, for being publicity-hounds who do shameless PR-hype on the one hand and dubious vigilantism on the other. >If a site has to have "No profanity" to qualify as "all ages", and we find N'th time, this has yet to be stated by SafeSurf. Don't you think you should have very clear official ruling on this before going off "patrolling"? >a site that has rated itself "All ages" but has some curses in it, then we >simply return the URL to Safesurf with a comment to that effect. What we >are doing is checking that a site that says it has no profanity, has >indeed no profanity. Whether that is compatible with that sites age But you've slid to "no profanity" from "profanity is not a theme". This sort of *interpretation* has a lot of potential for selective enforcement. >classification (eg "All ages") is down to Safesurf's review committee, not >at all to do with CyberAngels. In other words, you *are* a lobbying group. You read the system, you come up with your views on what it should mean, and you then complain to SafeSurf about it. This is *NOT* enforcement, this is *NOT* patrolling, this is blatant politicing. Which is your right, but don't try to disguise it, as you appear to be doing. That's why your organization has such a slimy reputation. >>>I am not saying that I believe the Fight Censorship site should be >>>banned. I am simply saying that in my opinion it does not seem to satisfy >>>the requirement to be rated "Suitable for all ages" by Safesurf's system. >> >> ... A modern dictionary or the Encyclopedia Britannica (has >>bomb info too!) wouldn't pass!!! THE BIBLE DOESN'T PASS!!!!!! > >Of course not! Why do you think Barney was invented? Or Sesame street? ... >... >Concentration Camp? I dont think so. 7 year olds prefer Sesame street to CNN. No one is proposing to force a 7 year old to watch CNN. But CNN doesn't have to broadcast an identifying signal so that it can be restricted. It doesn't have to festoon itself with ten different labels to scare away viewers. It's not being threatened with years in jail by the government if the parents get it and their child *likes* to watch it. >Things like Barney belong in a parallel universe that children live >in, where animals talk and where magic exists. Sure - it's an innocent >and unreal place, but during the first 7 years of a child's life that is >what they need, so that their imagination develops. ... What you call "innocence" seems to be "enforced ignorance". Remember, we've removed everything from the Bible to the dictionary to the newspapers to the encyclopedias to CNN to an anti-censorship mailing-list archive, all sharing the stigma of not being "for all ages" Their imagination will develop because they'll have nothing else! >> This a long way from dealing with illegal material or porn >>sites, it's a repressive system which seems designed to shut out any but >>the most innocuous of material. > >Its not repressive because no one has to use it. I find the Safesurf >system to be the very opposite of repressive. And by the same token no-one has to stay out of jail for years either. It's a very strange definition you have there. >It's no different from the rest of the world. We allow children between ^^^^^ >1-8 to grow and learn and develop without reference to violence, war, sex, >crime, drugs, etc You obviously live in a nice neighborhood, never read the paper or the listen to the news, and have some sort of fantasy about what sort of information control is possible (and desirable). Personally, in a country which has a *shameful* record when it come to infant mortality and child poverty, I find the moralistic posturing above really sickening. > Only later do they learn about the other stuff. Most >importantly, children of that age should not be learning about anything >that is outside their experience, ... >There is plenty of time later in their life to learn about >the adult world. Most under 8s are not at all interested in where babies >come from. "Out of Mommy's tummy" is usually good enough as an answer at >that age. In other words, keep them in as much ignorance as possible. They might learn something the moralist doesn't want discussed. That's the censorship impulse, quite openly revealed now. >I speak as a teacher with 20 years experience, teaching every age group >from 6 year olds to adult education. The you should know all about the dangers of forbidding access to information. Pity you seem to be on the other side. >>what happens to people who don't have your views on this, and whether the >>CyberAngels will hassle them (even if legally) in any way. > >Half of our CyberAngels membership don't have my views on this. Everyone >is entitled to their opinion and everyone is entitled to lobby their >beliefs and to try and change their world. That is freedom and democracy. This is empty rhetoric which doesn't address my question about what happens to people who cross you. Having a bunch of "CyberAngels" censor by various hassling tactics might be completely legal, but it's sure despicable and deserves to be exposed. >Our discussion here is about what Safesurf is talking about >when they say "No profanity" or "No violence". Correction again: "Profanity Theme" or "Violence Theme" >Everyone is free to agree or disagree. Yes, but if some people propose to try to apply some sort of intimidation based on their view, with government threat at the root, they should be revealed as censors. >> Tell me if you're going to consider any site which has the Bible >>and is rated "All Ages" to be misrated. ... >>It's a just a system to be selectively >>enforced to make Web access difficult to those politically disfavored. > >It is my personal opinion that the adult Bible is not suitable for >children aged 1-8. That may not be Safesurf's opinion however. And it >also may not be the view of a large number of CyberAngels membership. As >i said i give the Bible a "5" in most categories, as graphic-artistic >adult themes. Are you going to report religious sites for ratings-crime, if they don't agree here? >> But all that explanatory material above is, as far I can tell, >>your own invention completely. > >I don't run Safesurf or their system. I am merely saying that to me >"sexual themes" is a clear description of what is unsuitable for "All ages". And you're saying any reference makes it a theme, which is completely unclear. And then you're saying the CyberAngels lobby about this, which is your right, but puts you in a judgemental political realm which you keep trying to deny in your PR-hype. >>I can find nothing about such guidelines on the SafeSurf site. > >Then why don't you write to Safesurf and ask them to clarify your questions! Because *YOU* keep saying it's the "SafeSurf system", not "my personal idiosyncratic view that I make up as I go along, and if you don't fit it, you get enmeshed in CyberAngels enforcement." >I personally believe that Fight Censorship should ask Safesurf to rate the >site, to find out what they think of it. After all, I may be completely >wrong in my rating for it. Then why bother with all this "self-rating" and CyberAngels blather. Why not just have SafeSurf rate all the sites to begin with? >In my opinion F.C. deserves a 3 category for it's material, as it is a >site devoted to the discussion of adult themes. Is a "3" suitable for all >ages? Ask Safesurf! Again, if they are a ratings board, why don't they just send out their rating? The answer is, of course, that the system is full of rhetorical bait-and-switch, designed to make it appear far more appealing than it would be when the truth is known. No-one has the manpower to do all this rating, so various levels of threat are invoked. Threat from the government, to get people to use the ratings system and do the work themselves. Threat from SafeSurf, to get people to read the system in a restrictive manner, without anyone having to actually declare that. Threat that The CyberAngels Are Watching. Suddenly, it looks a lot more stark than the pretty press releases. >I spend almost no time at all doing "pro-censorship politicking". ... All of this ratings stuff seems to be a disguised form of it. >CyberAngels are investigating all kinds of cases on >the Net, from the activities of sexual predators, ... [hype snipped] Can the hype, will you? Or back it up. This isn't an ignorant media program, it's a highly knowledgeable audience. Does "investigation" mean "collect a few lurid postings for the next TV show?". > I am not saying that anything at Fight Censorship should be banned. I > am discussing what is and is not suitable for children. Being blocked by default because it's not "suitable for children" isn't quite banned, but it's still repression. >Fight Censorship understandably focuses on material. CyberAngels actually >spend more time focussing on _activities_. Regarding material, most of >our energy is on fighting against the trade in child pornography. Oh, please. You mean "most of our PR hype is about child pornography". >Individual CyberAngels are utterly free to campaign democratically for >whatever they want to. This is why I keep asking about *policy*. >All ratings are reviewed by Safesurf's rating committee (no I am not on it >:) ) If you had read their material you would have seen that. I did. I want to hammer at the point because of all the "self-rating" propaganda. >If you dont like Safesurf's rating of your site, you don't have to use it. ... And I don't have to stay out jail for a few years for not taking "good-faith measures" under the Communications Decency Act. As long as we have government threat, government coercion, as a potential factor, these systems are not "voluntary" in any normal sense of the word. >> I'm glad you don't think [f-c] should be destroyed and the people >>involved jailed or fined (umm, I am correct on that part?). > >This is one of the biggest myths about CyberAngels. People think we are >intolerant of disagreement and are trying to impose "our" will. First of Well, you've done a pretty good job of explaining how you plan to go about it. >... >In fact we are far more tolerant of disagreement than most of our critics. This is almost funny: "We'll entertain the thought of you being jailed or not jailed. You only think you should not be jailed. Thus, we're more tolerant of disagreement". Ha ha. >>discussion here is about what sort of prejudicial and pejorative labels >>it should carry in terms of SafeSurf. > >There is nothing prejudicial or pejorative about rating a site "Teens and >above". Sure there is. It means a jillion browsers have it blocked by default, because the government's threatening to send people to jail for years for every instance of naughty words seen by minors. That's prejudicial and pejorative in my book. >There is nothing prejudicial about saying Playboy is adults only. You really should read up on some of the history. Again, this is often a potential jail issue, not an abstract one. >That is not perjorative either - it is a description. It's a description that's connected to a censorship *law*. That makes it prejudicial and pejorative. >CyberAngels may end up with an adult tag or a teens and older tag - that >is not an insult to our site - it's a description as accurate as we can But it is a prejudicial and pejorative tag. >make it within the Safesurf system. We _want_ parents to know what our >site contains. There's a big difference between what a site *contains*, and what some ratings board chooses to *label* it. This confusion is a major factor in label-based censorship systems. Hmm, how about a category of "Vigilantism"? >>backed by government threat, with creepy "enforcers", that hardly makes >>them a friend of freedom, at least in my view. > >Well that's the first time anyone has called me a "creepy" enforcer. I mean it to apply to the whole organization. In my view, the whole "Angels" bit is at best real close to the line. I'm not big fan of the theory that says we turn over all our protection to the State, but big egos running around with their own agendas and organizations in the name of law-enforcement just gives me the creeps. They always talk a nice line about security, but they have a nasty tendency to be trying to set up their own para-military system of justice. >Based on the graphic pedophile pornography that Declan quoted me from the Ooooh. I can see the flood of subscription requests already ... >archive, I would give the site an adult tag of 9, that is Explicitly >adults only. Based on the site as a whole I would give it Teens and >older, with a rating of 3 generally for all categories (Technical >discussions of adult themes) Which wins? >CyberAngels has no say whatsoever in how Safesurf rates a site. We are >not giving Safesurf opinions when we check a site. Sure you are, you just explained how you have an interpretation which you send to SafeSurf. > We are following their guidelines. Again, WHERE ARE THESE GUIDELINES?!?! > If there is any disagreement I believe you will find that >Safesurf will open a dialogue with the URL in question and the matter will >be resolved without any strong arm tactics of any kind. http://www.safesurf.com/ssfaq.htm (see, I *have* read this stuff): "Severe legal penalties will be reserved for those sites containing adult material which entice children by coding themselves as child safe." - What type of penalties do you envision ? Severe legal penalties currently exist for anyone who sexually abuses children. The same penalties can be applied to anyone who abuses the system to entice children to adult material. ... That's just a FAQ, and it already sounds pretty strong-arm to me. The same penalties for "sexually abus[ing] children" for a ratings dispute? Ouch! >Safesurf may even agree that F.C is suitable for all ages, in which case >Declan will have been more on Safesurf's wavelength than I am. And would invalidate a lot of the so-called guidelines you've written above. >Please read the Safesurf material that I post to this group. I think it >is a little unfair to ask me to answer questions when the answers are >right there at Safesurf's site. I would love to see the sort of detail you keep saying exists. I eagerly await that explanatory document you seem to think exists. -- Seth Finkelstein sethf@mit.edu Disclaimer : I am not the Lorax. I speak only for myself. (and certainly not for Project Athena, MIT, or anyone else). From: ram@mbisgi.umd.edu (Ram Samudrala) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.censorship Subject: Re: Batman on the Internet??? CyberAngels info Followup-To: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.censorship Date: 28 May 1996 06:52:56 GMT Organization: The Centre for Advanced Research in Biotechnology Lines: 54 Message-ID: <4oe7s8$nma@hecate.umd.edu> References: <4ndnhe$bqv@hecate.umd.edu> <4oc11b$8tt@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> Reply-To: me@ram.org Colin Gabriel Hatcher (angels@wavenet.com) wrote: >> Ah, now we're getting somewhere. Note none of this is written >>GEN 19:34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said >>unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make >>him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that >>we may preserve seed of our father. >Well putting aside the fact that the language is euphemistic, that kind of >conversation seems to me to be unsuitable for say a 7 year old child. I >never said I think the Bible is a children's book. Normally children's >versions of Bibles are rewritten in simpler language, and they leave out >the sex stuff. I have never seen a Bible that says "suitable for all >ages" on the inside cover. Say, didn't anyone here play "doctor" with the girls in the neighbourhood when they were seven? Or was I just lucky? Now what happens if people started posting the above paragraph (or the entire Bible, what the heck) into alt.fan.barney (or whatever it is, if there's one) which I presume you think is okay for all children? (I am not sure how the Safesurf rating is applicable to newsgroups, if at all, but I had to ask.) >Since sex is not within a child's experience it would seem to me that >it's not an appropriate subject to illustrate or discuss censorship >with them. You know, people from other countries like Europe tell me that America's all screwed up sexually (pun unintended), and I usually argue against that opinion. Sometimes I wonder. A child at 7 usually knows a lot more than you think they know. If a child at 7 isn't taught about sex, issues about consent, etc., then it might well become the child's experience. How many people who've been sexually abused as kids by adults have said they didn't know it was wrong? How do you tell them sexual abuse is wrong? I think if a child is capable of grasping what sexual abuse is, then it should be taught what it is. You can't hide the issues and hope it'll go away. If you're lucky, nothing much will happen since the kid'll figure it out eventually. If you're not... you'll have a confused kid on your hands. C'mon, you think the Bible is inappropriate for a person of 7 to see it on the Internet, but a kid these days sees sex being used to plug products everywhere---from the supermarket counter to TVs to movies. Further, a child of 7 can goto a public library and pull out the Bible (or other books, magazines, and comic books that all contain sexual content and violence). --Ram me@ram.org || http://www.ram.org || http://www.twisted-helices.com/th He is most powerful who has himself in his own power. ---Seneca