- From: Nathaniel Borenstein <nsb@nsb.fv.com>
- Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 18:46:26 -0400 (EDT)
- To: rating@junction.net, Michael Dillon <michael@junction.net>
- Cc: www-talk@www10.w3.org
Excerpts from mail: 6-Jun-95 Re: New Internet Draft on p.. Michael Dillon@junction. (3947*) > The conversation between a browser and a rating server will be a very > light load. Not much more than DNS conversations Do you have any idea how long it took to get the DNS standard settled, and how much longer it took to get the DNS deployed? If the first pass at voluntary kid protection on the net takes that long, we're giving a huge window of opportunity to those who want to see censorship. To repeat: The KidCode idea is explicitly NOT intended to replace the notion of general ratings servers. It is intended to give us a very short-term mechanism to implement a significant level of kid protection (considerably higher than, say, the SurfWatch approach, though completely complementary with it), but to do so in such a way that will be forward-compatible with ratings servers as they emerge. -- Nathaniel -------- Nathaniel S. Borenstein <nsb@fv.com> | When privacy is outlawed, Chief Scientist, First Virtual Holdings | only outlaws will have privacy! FAQ & PGP key: nsb+faq@nsb.fv.com | SUPPORT THE ZIMMERMAN DEFENSE FUND! ---VIRTUAL YELLOW RIBBON-->> zldf@clark.net (http://www.netresponse.com/zldf)
Received on Wednesday, 7 June 1995 18:48:30 UTC