OT Re: CP80

Brian Hawkins brianhks at activeclickweb.com
Mon Feb 12 11:00:29 MST 2007


For anyone who thinks movie ratings are busted and would like a better 
way to tell if a movie is ok for a child check out this page
http://www.kids-in-mind.com/

They break down movie ratings from 1 to 10 in three categories sex, 
violence and profanity.  Very good for rating movies.

Brian

Andrew Jorgensen wrote:
> On 2/12/07, Kenneth Burgener <kenneth at mail1.ttak.org> wrote:
>> I am unsure why you think the implementation is bad.  If you don't like
>> the way they set it up, you have the option to ignore it...
>>
>> "A consumer who wants access to websites within non-compliant countries
>> will continue to have access to all websites, worldwide. Thus each
>> consumer's choice is unrestricted and flexible. "
>
> Really?  What about my kids?  I would surely want unrestricted access
> for the sake of non-compliant countries, etc. but I don't want my kids
> (or myself for that matter) accessing adult content.
>
> And how do we decide what's pornographic or not?  Medical
> dictionaries?  Shakespeare?  Where do we draw that line?
>
>> I think their setup has similar merits to movie ratings.  I know movie
>> ratings aren't perfect, but it at least gives you some idea of the type
>> of content, which is better than nothing.
>
> Maybe it's better than nothing but not by much.  Movie ratings are
> part of the marketing.  If Hollywood wants a PG audience to buy
> tickets they give it a PG rating, likewise with the other ratings.  I
> don't want to get into a discussion about why that system is broken
> but you're going to have much better luck with an independent ratings
> site than you will with the MPAA (aka the interested party).
>
>> I also think this benefits more then browsing children.  Think about
>> office browsing.
>
> Except that it won't and can't work.  For one thing there will always
> be rogue sites.  For another there will always be a way around it.
> One simple example is a proxy site, or even just a real web-proxy.
> Other examples include tor, or any number of other possible overlay
> networks.  The only way to actually restrict this kind of thing
> effectively is white-listing and that would definitely be a bad thing
> to legislate.
>
> Another thing I really dislike about this proposal is that it wants to
> use port numbers at a time when port numbers may finally be on their
> way out.  See http://www.dns-sd.org/
>
> And then there's the line in the resolution that says this:
>
> WHEREAS, credit card verification systems burden credit card
> companies, are expensive and time consuming to establish and maintain,
> and inhibit legal speech;
>
> A couple of comments on that:
>
> "burden credit card companies":  Booo hooo ;-( .  So charge for the 
> service.
>
> "are expensive and time consuming to establish and maintain":  And you
> don't think this new proposal is going to be expensive and time
> consuming to enforce?  If this makes it all the way into law it will
> cost us billions.  Everything the government does costs billions.
>
> "inhibit legal speech":  What?  How?  I'm really failing to see how
> this one works.
>
> I am not opposed to finding a way to make it easier for parents and
> employers to limit access to pornography but legislating technology is
> and never will be the way to do that.
>
> /*
> PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
> Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
> Don't fear the penguin.
> */
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3347 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://plug.org/pipermail/plug/attachments/20070212/480e53dd/attachment.bin 


More information about the PLUG mailing list