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

On Jun 23, 11:02pm, Kee Hinckley wrote:

> The problem is what to do with unrated sites.

Right, this is a real problem. Let's call it the "Orwellian
dichotomy" in honor of the bit in "1984" where they talk about
what Big Brother does and doesn't like and say something like:
 "What is not forbidden is permitted"
 "No, what is not permitted is forbidden".

(That was 1984, wasn't it? It has been a long time since I read it.)

I would certainly hope that most groups using ratings would take
the more relaxed approach. However, if some want to take
the second point of view, far be it from me to stop them.

> what's the easy mechanism for a site to notify all
> interested rating parties (who knows how many) that they shouldn't be
> viewed by kids?

I suggest that some organization set up a list of filtering bodies.
When a new group wants to start making their ratings available for
the purpose of filtering, they advertise that fact by getting a
listing. I have no idea who should run such a thing, what their
policies should be, etc.

I think Kee is right about the "what is not permitted is forbidden"
stance resulting in massive quantities of requests for positive

> I haven't read the SOAP proposal (a pointer please?). Am I missing
> something fundamental?

No, you are not missing anything. This problem is not addressed in the
URC spec or requirements.

There is no specific SOAP proposal that I know of. The URC stuff is


Ron Daniel Jr.                email:
Advanced Computing Lab        voice: (505) 665-0597
MS B-287  TA-3  Bldg. 2011      fax: (505) 665-4939
Los Alamos National Lab
Los Alamos, NM,  87545    tautology: "Conformity is very popular"

Received on Monday, 26 June 1995 14:33:20 UTC