Re: Criticism of Kidcode (was Re: KidCode: Next steps )

Kee Hinckley (nazgul@utopia.com)
Tue, 20 Jun 1995 14:03:34 -0400


Message-Id: <v02120d16ac0cbc4835fd@[204.57.39.3]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 14:03:34 -0400
To: sdw@lig.net (Stephen D. Williams)
From: nazgul@utopia.com (Kee Hinckley)
Subject: Re: Criticism of Kidcode (was Re: KidCode: Next steps )
Cc: lilley@afs.mcc.ac.uk, m.koster@nexor.co.uk, nsb@nsb.fv.com,

At 1:54 PM 6/20/95, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
>>
>> At 3:41 PM 6/19/95, lilley wrote:
>> >Those influential (and monied) groups who care about such things can the=
n
>> >finance the proxies and their URC resolvers to implement whatever type
>> >of cens^H^H^H^Hfiltering is desired.
>>
>> A proxy based system really doesn't scale, money or no-money.
>
>I think you're wrong: All ISP's, companies, and Internet sites with more
>than a few users should have proxies for http, ftp, nntp (Newsservers
>are the most common proxy of course).  Of course single global proxies
>don't work, but neither would a small set of central news servers.

Single global proxies are what was mentioned as an alternative.

Your quick summary sound intriguiing, but too terse to evaluate.

Kee Hinckley      Utopia Inc. - Cyberspace Architects=81    617/721-6100
nazgul@utopia.com                               http://www.utopia.com/

I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.