W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > February 2000

RE: RSAC stupidity?

From: Dave J Woolley <DJW@bts.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 17:48:15 -0000
Message-ID: <81E4A2BC03CED111845100104B62AFB53F3FD3@stagecoach.bts.co.uk>
To: "'www-html@w3.org'" <www-html@w3.org>
> From:	rev-bob@gotc.com [SMTP:rev-bob@gotc.com]
> 
> 
> Well, if it was that way once, it isn't that way now - and I frankly don't
> remember it *ever* being that way.  From the current FAQ, section 4:
> 
	They may have changed their position (as I pointed
	out their site is essentially inaccessible without
	Javascript) but I self rated my home site at the 
	time that the UK was threatening to make it a legal
	requirement and PICS was only months old
	but had to withdraw the rating when it
	was pointed out that it was illegal to rate other
	than by means of their site.

	I never rated with their site because, at the time
	their stated position was that the ratings would be
	free until they expired (about a year) and then
	the situation would be reviewed (I think they needed
	a funding source to continue a free service).

	In practice, it has turned out that RSACi/Safe Surf
	rating is a non-issue for most sites.  The one site
	that I know of that makes an issue of rating probably
	under-rates - they intend to be innocuous, but don't,
	I think, realise how innocuous you have to be to get
	a minimum score in all categories.

	By forged, I mean one that was not issued by their
	site, but hand constructed.
Received on Wednesday, 2 February 2000 12:52:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:42 GMT