- From: James C Deikun <jcdst10+@pitt.edu>
- Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 18:12:43 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Marc Salomon <marc@matahari.ckm.ucsf.edu>
- Cc: www-talk@www10.w3.org, bede@scotty.mitre.org
On Mon, 26 Jun 1995, Marc Salomon wrote: > James C Deikun <jcdst10+@pitt.edu> wrote: > > |You miss my point: the kid would be buying gum, not cigarettes. > > Really? The kid would be buying net.access to much more than gum and cigs. No, that's what the proxy at the school is for. It wouldn't let 'cigs' and so forth in, barring human error somewhere (which could occur in any case). > Finding porn on the web right now is akin to if a kid stumbled across adult > magazines in the trash in the street and picked them up. No one turned the kid > onto the free material, but it is hardly realistic that the person who left > this recycling out and accessible should have put up a fence around the > questionable material. Controlling access to for-pay service is a tractable > problem. Yes, and a person with cash but no 'ID' could presumably be denied access to porn-for-pay even without an external ratings authority, couldn't s/he? > Returning to the content filtering question, perhaps a scheme based on trust > and communication between parent and kid (family values?) would be more quickly > implemented, effective, scalable and less influenced by the puritanism and hype > of American presidential politics [sic]. > > The UA could be rigorous in maintaining a log of sites accessed by the user > (user name, URI, <TITLE>, time spent on page, images downloaded), perhaps even > saving compressed HTML for a while. Parents and kids could discuss beforehand > appropriate sites for the kid, with the kid knowing that a log was being kept. > Parents could review the log and take whatever appropriate action they > considered necessary if the kids abused the privilege. This is implementable right now in responsible families, but it isn't realistic to assume that people (at least in America) will be willing to do any work to raise their kids, so unfortunately it isn't a stable and viable solution. The lazy and irresponsible will get their satisfaction somehow--the problem I'm attempting to address is keeping them from bringing down half the net in the process. > Combined with brute force client-side site/object regexp filtering, for > disobedient kids whose parents still wanted them to have net access, this would > be a good interim step until the hard work gets done. It'll never be popular unless people become capable of comprehending the essential differences between the Net and TV. How would regexps deal with pictures anyway? > For those who say that replacing browsers is slow, and that this should be done > at the proxy server level, wait until we see the advertisements (probably > unwanted on a web page near you) offering a 'safe' browser for only $149.99! > Aren't your kids worth it? There are suckers born (again?) every minute, and > someone could get very rich off this. If s/he could abscond with the money before s/he got caught, presumably s/he could. -- James "grep" Deikun
Received on Tuesday, 27 June 1995 18:13:33 UTC