Mozilla Wish List
Mark Anthony Collins
As a web designer, I have a couple of wish lists for future versions of
Mozilla...
I like the Server Side Include feature, but would like to see a Client Side
Include. Although some may worry that such a feature may be misused like
frames in order to "claim" content from another site, it could also be very
beneficial:
It would allow multiple sites to work together and include one same set of
HTML. It would also allow web authors working in native HTML to see the way
the page will look on the hard drive and test it out before uploading it to
a server. It would help sites that span multiple servers keep one interface
and allow easy object-oriented web development.
Such a tag could be:
<include src="http://www.whatever.com"> or <include src="main.htm">.
Thus, if I had a site that had 30,000 pages, but all had the same first 12
lines of HTML code and same last 12 lines of HTML code, I could save those
code fragments as Client Side Includes, and have each of the 30,000 pages
display correctly whether it was displayed locally, on a server, or even if
the site spanned 5 servers. If I wanted to change that code, I change once,
and the entire site changes accordingly.
I also think that Mozilla should be able to "equalize" the font sizes
between a Mac & PC. PC font sizes look so much bigger than Mac font sizes,
and this is a major hurdle for web designers. Any attempt to help make
Mozilla for Mac and Mozilla for Windows look identical would be a
heavensend. Considering that a majority of the development on the web is
done on Macs, while a majority of the browsing is done on PCs, this would
make life a lot easier for us all.
In order to help protect the right of web authors to produce whatever kind
of content they want, I would like a content rating tag. The idea behind
this is to give the user the ability to limit what their children have
access to so that the Government doesn't try to push legislature on a
medium they know nothing about. In order to safeguard children, browsers
would also have to be written as a multi-user application, with login and
password. Parents and school administrators would then set the childrens'
access. Pages that don't have pagecontent tags as such should be blockable
through the same protection system.
Syntax would be as folling:
<META PAGECONTENT="">
pagecontent = Hex values for the following types of content (0 = least, F =
most)
nudity, violence, explicit acts, adult language, adult ideas.
(Ex: Content="F06FF"). Alternative syntax could be:
(Content="nude=F, viol=0, expl=6, lang=F, idea=F")
This type would let parents easily configure what types of material their
children could access. Slider bars representing each of the different
levels of content for each user would make administration easier.
Mark Anthony Collins
"The MAC Man"
them...@macsrule.com
Check out my New Column: The MAC Man, on www.macopinion.com!
Ramon Casha
Regarding the client-side-include problem, I have solved it by writing a
program which processes a special tag. I insert the tag <preprocess
include="filename">...</preprocess>, and this program will replace all the
text between the opening and closing tag with the contents of the file. This
is done before I upload to the webserver. By re-running the program the
contents are updated in all files. Due to the nature of SGML, user agents
will ignore the preprocess element and render the contents. I have found it
a very good solution. Unfortunately the program I have written is available
only for Windows (http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Lab/1142) but it's
not too difficult to create a Mac version I guess.
--------------------
Ramon Casha
Mark Anthony Collins wrote in message
<3.0.5.16.1998042...@earthlink.net>...
>As a web designer, I have a couple of wish lists for future versions of
>Mozilla...
>
>I like the Server Side Include feature, but would like to see a Client Side
>Include. Although some may worry that such a feature may be misused like
>frames in order to "claim" content from another site, it could also be very
>beneficial
--- original message truncated ----
Måns Björkman
Mark Anthony Collins wrote:
>
> <include src="http://www.whatever.com"> or <include src="main.htm">.
>
<object data="main.htm">Alt text</object>
Part of HTML 4.0. (http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40)
READ THE SPEC!!!
-Måns
Erik Moeller
><object data="main.htm">Alt text</object>
>
>Part of HTML 4.0. (http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40)
>
>READ THE SPEC!!!
And the rating of sites he proposed is defined in W3C's "PICS"
(http://www.w3.org/PICS/), which will unfortunately be implemented in coming
versions of Netscape. (First thing that should be ripped out in Mozilla.)
Erik Moeller
Mark Anthony Collins
Why shouldn't web browsers have built-in features that accept tags that
allow people to limit access to certain kinds of content? It's much better
than any government trying to tell us that ALL obscenity and indecent
material is banned. The idea of having a voluntary ratings system is so
that we can protect our rights to code whatever we want.
Otherwise, some Senator or presidential wannabe will concoct a half-baked
plan that fully illustrates why that person has no business making or
proposing laws about a medium that he/she knows absolutely nothing about.
Erik Moeller
>Why shouldn't web browsers have built-in features that accept tags that
>allow people to limit access to certain kinds of content? It's much better
>than any government trying to tell us that ALL obscenity and indecent
>material is banned. The idea of having a voluntary ratings system is so
>that we can protect our rights to code whatever we want.
I'll tell you why.
- Currently, they are two major rating agencies, RSACi and SafeSurf. There's
the choice between these two -- not very much. Then you have NetShepherd,
which is a third party rating agency, and that allows absolutely arbitrary
censorship.
- PICS is supposed to be installed at server level and search engine level,
too. Four major search engines have announced that once PICS has taken off,
they won't index non-rated sites anymore. That eliminates "voluntary".
- SafeSurf asks that site maintainers rating their sites incorrectly are to
be legally punished. SafeSurf has sold a proxy server which had some special
features.
From http://www.peacefire.org/censorware/SafeSurf/, please go there for a
properly formatted text
The SafeSurf proxy server blocks pages if any of the following criteria are
met:
the URL exists in SafeSurf's database of sites to be blocked
the URL or the body of the page contains words or combination of words that
trigger
the filter
the page contains a SafeSurf rating above a given threshold
When a page is blocked, the proxy server indicates which of the above was
the reason for
the blocking. Pages that are blocked due to keyword filtering are sometimes
partially
loaded before being cut off; click here to see the results of trying to load
the Free Speech
page of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, compared to the original.
(The page is
apparently cut off because of a reference to Cohen v. California, in which
the Supreme
Court overturned a man's conviction for wearing a jacket that said "Fuck the
Draft").
The vast majority of blocked pages are blocked due to keyword filtering, as
in the following
examples (in each of these cases, the proxy server either does not load the
page or stops
loading the page part of the way through):
EFF's Internet Censorship and Regulation archive
Free Speech Links from the American Communication Association web site.
Full text of the ruling against the Communications Decency Act, from the
United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
HIV/AIDS: the Global Epidemic, a document published by the United Nations
"Can Congress Censor the Internet?"> -- article on censorship and federal
legislation
"The X-Stop Files" and "The Mind of a Censor", essays on blocking software
from
The Ethical Spectacle
"Turf Wars in Cyberspace", an article on Internet censorship in the United
States from
Scientific American
Free Inquiry -- official publication of the Council for Secular Humanism, a
non-profit
organization supporting separation of church and state
Librarians resist censorship, an article from C-Net's News.com about the use
of
filtering software in libraries
The number of sites in SafeSurf's database of blocked pages is relatively
low, due to the
extremely strict nature of the word filtering mechanism; however, we did
find the following
URL's to be on SafeSurf's list of sites to be blocked:
The American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin
Text of The Odyssey and The Iliad
The National Coalition Against Censorship, a group of 40 national non-profit
organizations "united by a conviction that freedom of thought, inquiry, and
expression
must be defended"
Internet Service Providers Echo Communications and NeoSoft
- - -
PICS is the ultimate net censorship. If only activated in the browser, it is
rather harmless, but if it gets to servers and search engines, it is the
worst that can happen to the net. That's why we should boycott PICS from the
beginning.
Erik Moeller
Mark Anthony Collins
I agree that content should only be blocked at the browser level. They
might as well take our right away to cuss on the telephone... That's what
my standard is all about... We don't need no server blocking... We need a
browser that supports browser-level blocking...
Bill Anderson
Mark Anthony Collins wrote:
>
> Why shouldn't web browsers have built-in features that accept tags that
> allow people to limit access to certain kinds of content? It's much better
> than any government trying to tell us that ALL obscenity and indecent
> material is banned. The idea of having a voluntary ratings system is so
> that we can protect our rights to code whatever we want.
>
> plan that fully illustrates why that person has no business making or
> proposing laws about a medium that he/she knows absolutely nothing about.
Problem is, what if say, Yahoo decides to stop indexing pages with tags that
indicate "adult" content?
I believe all blocking should be user-done, not aut-done by a tag. Self-rating
may work, but only if *only* the browser can reject it. Problem is, I don't see
that as happening.
Perhaps those wannabee censors should be taught better. Knowledge leads to
avoiding such events. We know net-censorship is so close to impossibility it
could be called that, but they apparently don't. Teach them.
--
Bill Anderson Cyberhighway Internet Services, SYCON
"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate."
Plurality should not be assumed without neccesity.
Gregory R. Block
> Problem is, what if say, Yahoo decides to stop indexing pages with tags that
> indicate "adult" content?
Then they're fucked, frankly.
If the most popular search words are amongst those that wouldn't exist in the
"brave new world" of search engines that would switch, those represent eyeballs
that go elsewhere.
And the advertising money goes with them.
No, you'll lose a handful of search engines, the kind that already are careful
about the things they catalog - places like Yahoo that don't actually run robots.
But eyes that leave from one place go to another.
Search engines have yet to do the one thing that will allow them all to coexist:
Specialise. The content was never there for it before; the web was only so big, so
you didn't even think about limiting choices.
The web's expansion will change all that. Now, search engines can only manage a
part of the web; they'll have to pick and choose if they want to go from being a
poor general web searcher into something that can be all-encompassing.
It's the standard knowledge problem - one that scientists and philosophers had long
ago. Once upon a time, it was possible for one man to know all there was to know
about science, philosophy, and medicine. At some point, the body of knowledge
became too large; and since no-one could know the whole any longer, because it
would have taken a lifetime to learn, people began to specialise their knowledge,
so that they could know all *of a subject*.
Specialisation of the search engines is inevitable. Without it, the web will not
become more useful, because the search engines, the primary means of using it, are
becoming ever increasingly inefficient at managing the knowledge. Specialisation
will change that, and leave room for search engines to coexist and compete and
cooperate *without killing each other* by invading the same marketspace.
Right now, there is only one market space. Sooner or later, one of them will do
something that the other search engines don't. That will be the first step towards
specialisation, towards the creation of a new business model, and the creation of a
new era in computer networking as we know it. It will change the web from an
unlikely collection of odd information sources into something that can actually be
used as a knowledge repository.
Until then, search engines will become less and less effective at providing the
content that people are looking for.
But "adult" isn't a categorisation. It doesn't fit the future's specialisation
model very well. One that will affect the business model, as it exists today,
detrimentally. Dividing the internet into "adult" and "not adult" is like trying
to divide the internet into "useful" and "not useful". It's not really a type of
content, it's a moral.
Who knows. Maybe Netscape will offer the first search engine oriented at business
users, gearing its searches towards business-to-business and consumer-to-business
information the same way that it does with the rest of its "community" concepts.
Maybe the new player in the business will be the first to cast the stone at the
glass houses, having the most ability to do so because of its outsider's view.
They would if they were smart. I don't know. I work in Germany. I'm a long way
from Mountain View, and a long way from people I'd categorise as people who were
capable of making and holding their guns to that kind of bold move. :)
:plur,
Greg
Jon Garfunkel
Erik Moeller wrote:
> - Currently, they are two major rating agencies, RSACi and SafeSurf. There's
> the choice between these two -- not very much. Then you have NetShepherd,
> which is a third party rating agency, and that allows absolutely arbitrary
> censorship.
And Surfwatch. I don't have the numbers on who uses what... but SafeSurf is on
the hopelessly unworkable side of the spectrum due to its choice of 10 rating
levels (RSAC has 4, Surfwatch has 2).
> - PICS is supposed to be installed at server level and search engine level,
> too.
Nowhere does it say that. Of course, a search engine can use the tags, and as it
was pointed out, this will help search engines specialize. I don't think we're
near the point where politically-controversial pages are going to be forced out
of the main search engines.
> From http://www.peacefire.org/censorware/SafeSurf/, please go there for a
> properly formatted text
>
> The SafeSurf proxy server blocks pages if any of the following criteria are
> met:
> the URL exists in SafeSurf's database of sites to be blocked
> the URL or the body of the page contains words or combination of words that
> trigger the filter the page contains a SafeSurf rating above a given threshold
This is definitely not part of PICS. Nothing to do with PICS. This type of
software guessing is exactly the type of methodology that PICS would like to
replace.
> PICS is the ultimate net censorship. If only activated in the browser, it is
> rather harmless, but if it gets to servers and search engines, it is the
> worst that can happen to the net. That's why we should boycott PICS from the
> beginning.
So what this is the Mozilla wishlist: I don't mind beating my chest on this
either.
PICS is happening, because we will not turn back from the extension of
standards.
If your ISP or favorite search engine starts filtering, you can always switch to
another. I know there are people out there in countries where the government can
control the ISP, and may, according to Leonard Lessig's nightmare scenarios,
implement PICS at the highest level.
But hey, Iridium goes online this fall.
Jon
--
^`~._,'^`~._,'^`~._,'^`~-__--__--10110104B35CF8AHello World\n
Jon Garfunkel
Princeton University Electrical Engineering Department
http://www.princeton.edu/~garfunkl
609 258-9095
Mark Anthony Collins
Hey, why don't we get people who are in the HTML Writer's Guild, Campaign
For Free Speech on the Web, and browser devleopers everywhere to develop a
system that WON'T SUCK. If we don't take action, someone will! If servers
try to stop content at their level instead of at the browser level, can't
we just change the specs a bit, so browsers will still recognize it, but
the servers won't? If you do nothing, then you might as well help them ban
free thought. Silence is the universal sign of consent...
Erik Moeller
>> - Currently, they are two major rating agencies, RSACi and SafeSurf.
There's
>> the choice between these two -- not very much. Then you have NetShepherd,
>> which is a third party rating agency, and that allows absolutely
arbitrary
>> censorship.
>And Surfwatch. I don't have the numbers on who uses what... but SafeSurf is
on
>the hopelessly unworkable side of the spectrum due to its choice of 10
rating
>levels (RSAC has 4, Surfwatch has 2).
As far as I've seen on their site, they don't have a PICS set for download,
only a proprietary filtering software. Or does it use PICS for censorship?
Even if it uses PICS, http://www1.surfwatch.com/download/ states that it
uses pattern-matching technology and even blocks chat rooms. Great, kids may
not even *talk* about sex anymore. You can read some really scary stories
about SurfWatch at http://www.peacefire.org/censorware/SurfWatch/.)
>> - PICS is supposed to be installed at server level and search engine
level,
>> too.
>Nowhere does it say that. Of course, a search engine can use the tags, and
as it
>was pointed out, this will help search engines specialize. I don't think
we're
>near the point where politically-controversial pages are going to be forced
out
>of the main search engines.
No, the W3 PICS specs did not contain such suggestions. After all, they must
convince everybody that PICS is a voluntary standard. But according to the
"LM Commentary":
"Already four of the leading Internet search engines have said
that, if PICS takes off, they will cease to list unrated material in
searches. As Cassidy Sehgal from the American Civil Liberties Union
describes it, many Web sites will simply 'drop off the Net'."
(referring to SafeSurf)
>This is definitely not part of PICS. Nothing to do with PICS. This type of
>software guessing is exactly the type of methodology that PICS would like
to
>replace.
I know that. I just wanted to reveal the dark past of one of the major
rating agencies out there. (They do not sell the proxy anymore.)
>PICS is happening, because we will not turn back from the extension of
>standards.
In this case, we should. The net does not require any censorship or rating
systems.
>If your ISP or favorite search engine starts filtering, you can always
switch to
>another.
If your favourite Jewish shop is shut down, you can always switch to
another. Or you try to prevent the first chain from being forged.
Erik Moeller
Alia...@everywhere.com
I believe we're going off on a tangent but I just briefly heard
something about a company called Verite that does specialized web
searches for pharmaceutical companys.
--
For best results, use only this return address:
Jon Garfunkel
Erik Moeller wrote:
> As far as I've seen on their site, they don't have a PICS set for download,
> only a proprietary filtering software. Or does it use PICS for censorship?
Indeed, the Surfwatch site does not do a good job of pointing you to their PICS
implemenation. After all, it's free! I actually found the Surfwatch-PICS system
& service info right off the w3c's PICS page.
> >PICS is happening, because we will not turn back from the extension of
> >standards.
>
> In this case, we should. The net does not require any censorship or rating
> systems.
The *net* doesn't require anything, but *people* do. That's why more standards
are added.
> >If your ISP or favorite search engine starts filtering, you can always
> switch to
> >another.
>
> If your favourite Jewish shop is shut down, you can always switch to
> another. Or you try to prevent the first chain from being forged.
Curious analogy. True, the "if you don't like it, move" argument is always the
first one from bigots. But what I'm suggesting is not impossible. At least in
this country, there are enough ISP's for people to choose other ones without
hassle.
Haviv
Bill Anderson
>Problem is, what if say, Yahoo decides to stop indexing pages with tags that
>indicate "adult" content?
so don't use yahoo. go to some "adult" search engine instead. This is like
real life: most bookstores don't push in your face "adult" books. That
doesn't mean that "adult" books are "illegal" and censored. It just means
that most people wouldn't go to bookstores that shoved "adult" books in
their faces and the bookstores respond to _consumer demand_. And people who
like "adult" books end up going to "adult" book stores and they're not
complaining.
On the other hand, the internet doesn't respond to consumer demand.
Everything can be pushed in your face whether you like it or not. Why are
so many people complaining about animated ads? Because people can get away
with it.
I'd bet that given the _chaotic mess_ that we have in the popular search
engines, I'm sure that "adult" lovers wouldn't mind having a narrow focused
search engine just for their interests. Those who don't want "adult"
webpages pushed in their faces would be happy and those who want to find
"adult" webpages will find exactly what they want. Just like in the "real"
world.
</philosophy>
Ari Haviv ha...@worldnet.att.net
http://www.trailerpark.com/phase1/arielb/netscape/ Mozilla's Dominion
Guha
The XML browser in mozilla already has
client side includes and we will likely
have this feature in the html browser
too. Probably using the object tag.
Guha
Mark Anthony Collins wrote:
>
>
> Such a tag could be:
>
> <include src="http://www.whatever.com"> or <include src="main.htm">.
>
Rob
Mark Anthony Collins wrote:
>
> As a web designer, I have a couple of wish lists for future versions of
> Mozilla...
>
> I like the Server Side Include feature, but would like to see a Client Side
As a web designer, you should read the W3C specifications at
http://www.w3.org
That is part of the HTML 4.0 "standard", both in the OBJECT and IFRAME
elements.
Netscape 4.0 sort-of implements this using LAYER and ILAYER, but those
are not
W3C endorsed. (IE3 and IE4 do handle OBJECT and IFRAME already.)
> I also think that Mozilla should be able to "equalize" the font sizes
> between a Mac & PC. PC font sizes look so much bigger than Mac font sizes,
> and this is a major hurdle for web designers. [..]
It's hard to equalize font sizes even on the same platform, since some
users
prefer larger or smaller fonts depending on their eyesight and screen
resolution
and even video card. But some of us consider this a feature, not a bug.
> In order to help protect the right of web authors to produce whatever kind
> of content they want, I would like a content rating tag. [..]
Already exists as PICS. See the W3C site for more info on that too.
> Mark Anthony Collins
> "The MAC Man"
> them...@macsrule.com
Rob
Rob
Mark Anthony Collins wrote:
>
> Hey, why don't we get people who are in the HTML Writer's Guild, Campaign
> For Free Speech on the Web, and browser devleopers everywhere to develop a
There's no such thing. Once you have a system that rates content
and allows for sites with certain content ratings to be blocked,
there's the potential for abuse.
Rob
Bill Anderson
Haviv wrote:
>
> Bill Anderson
> >Problem is, what if say, Yahoo decides to stop indexing pages with tags that
> >indicate "adult" content?
> <philosophy>
> so don't use yahoo. go to some "adult" search engine instead. This is like
> real life: most bookstores don't push in your face "adult" books. That
> doesn't mean that "adult" books are "illegal" and censored. It just means
> that most people wouldn't go to bookstores that shoved "adult" books in
> their faces and the bookstores respond to _consumer demand_. And people who
> like "adult" books end up going to "adult" book stores and they're not
> complaining.
Yahoo (insert major SE here that suits you) does not "push in your face"
'adult' content. The argument falls to the classical homework assignment.
Little Suzy has an assignment in biology. She gets on the 'censored' Yahoo
search site, and looks for Frog Anatomy. She will not (if Yahoo, et al, are
blocking these) be able to get to any site that contains words such as Sex,
sexual, various references to reproduction & associated anatomical references.
I wholehartedly agree that search engines will need to specialize. We already
see this happening with yahoo's Categories, and various specialized sites
(Pornographic, Audio, Video). However, it all boils down to *who* decides what
should be where, and how. Some are comfortable allowing others to make those
judgements for them, many are not.
I maintain that it should be the browser, controlled by the peole using it.
Perhaps there can be a master config file, maintained by mom-and-dad that
kiddies can't access. Perhaps rather than words being isolated, phrases could
be used. Thereby "The sex life of the African tree frog ..." would not result
in being blocked to Suzy, but other references might be. Granted, this puts the
responsibility in the hands of the parents (after all, we are primarily talking
about 'protecting our children' are we not?), but is that not also where it
belongs anyway?
The InterNet is lauded for being freely available, a non-moderated arena where
anyone can have a view, and none can supress it. By implementing a procedure
for content to be blocked without end-user option, we remove that capability.
One could extend this indexing system even further. We seem to narrow our
discussion to pornography and fail to realize the larger implications. The same
techniques could easily be applied to political views, competitor product
references, etc.. I am not suggesting this would happen, but do we really wish
for the capability for it to be in place?
> On the other hand, the internet doesn't respond to consumer demand.
> Everything can be pushed in your face whether you like it or not. Why are
> so many people complaining about animated ads? Because people can get away
> with it.
Other than SPAM in your email-box, how does the InterNet force things on your
screen?
Don't like ads on a web page? Turn of images. Regarding content-rating/indexing
by search engines, banner-style ads are nearly always graphical, and not
searchable, so those ads would be there regardless of any automated rating
scheme/engine.
> I'd bet that given the _chaotic mess_ that we have in the popular search
> engines, I'm sure that "adult" lovers wouldn't mind having a narrow focused
> search engine just for their interests. Those who don't want "adult"
> webpages pushed in their faces would be happy and those who want to find
> "adult" webpages will find exactly what they want. Just like in the "real"
> world.
> </philosophy>
There are currently numerous "adult content" search engines.
<more_philosophy>
If you don't like it: don't click on it, change the channel, etc..
</more_philosophy>
> Ari Haviv ha...@worldnet.att.net
> http://www.trailerpark.com/phase1/arielb/netscape/ Mozilla's Dominion
--
Erik Moeller
>I maintain that it should be the browser, controlled by the peole using it.
>Perhaps there can be a master config file, maintained by mom-and-dad that
>kiddies can't access. Perhaps rather than words being isolated, phrases
could
>be used. Thereby "The sex life of the African tree frog ..." would not
result
>in being blocked to Suzy, but other references might be. Granted, this puts
the
>responsibility in the hands of the parents (after all, we are primarily
talking
>about 'protecting our children' are we not?),
From what? Can you present any research that shows that pornography is
harmful to children? If they are looking for it, why not let them have some
fun? The more sexuality is integrated into everyday life the better.
What about kiddie porn? It does exist on the net, just as it exists in real
life. There is absolutely no reason for net censorship, the existing legal
situation is sufficient to locate, identify and arrest anyone who creates or
spreads such pornography. Because of the global character of the net, an
international law for this would help. "But the net is accessible to
children of any age", you may say. I don't think that any child has ever or
will ever come across child pornography on the net without deliberately
seeking it. I don't know any case where a child has been harmed by
information from the internet either.
You may also ask what all this has to do with Mozilla. A lot, I would say.
We should decide NOW whether Mozilla will support one of the systems
developed for
"protecting" children against "smut", the Platform for Internet Content
Selection. Let's not be the ones to forge the first part of the chain, even
if it is a "voluntary" chain.
Regards,
Erik Moeller
Jukka E Isosaari
I agree, and I would like to note one thing overlooked by
most Americans who want these filters.
Several languages have words that have nothing to do with sex,
but are a normal part of it with other meanings. Only their
english context gives them some sexually related-meaning.
For example "sex" means a number "six" in swedish.
Or "slut" which means "stop" in swedish. "Dole"
means a "genital" in arabic.
I am sure there are a lot more examples.
How are you going to protect Arabic children from these
dirty US words? How about the swedish people? Have they
no right to read pages written in swedish?
Will swedish language be banished from the web because of
all the 'Made in America' - filters that everyone will use?
++ J
Dan Brickley
On Thu, 7 May 1998, Jukka E Isosaari wrote:
> On Thu, 7 May 1998, Erik Moeller wrote:
[...]
> > You may also ask what all this has to do with Mozilla. A lot, I would say.
> > We should decide NOW whether Mozilla will support one of the systems
> > developed for
> > "protecting" children against "smut", the Platform for Internet Content
> > Selection. Let's not be the ones to forge the first part of the chain, even
> > if it is a "voluntary" chain.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Erik Moeller
>
> I agree, and I would like to note one thing overlooked by
> most Americans who want these filters.
>
> Several languages have words that have nothing to do with sex,
> but are a normal part of it with other meanings. Only their
> english context gives them some sexually related-meaning.
>
> For example "sex" means a number "six" in swedish.
> Or "slut" which means "stop" in swedish. "Dole"
> means a "genital" in arabic.
>
> I am sure there are a lot more examples.
>
> How are you going to protect Arabic children from these
> dirty US words? How about the swedish people? Have they
> no right to read pages written in swedish?
>
> Will swedish language be banished from the web because of
> all the 'Made in America' - filters that everyone will use?
>
> ++ J
Two issues are being confused here. A critique of word-match algorithms
and a (in my view wrong-headed) critique of PICS. The former suggests that
we could do with richer systems for Web resource classifcation, while the
latter argues against this on the grounds that such information could be
abused.
There _are_ problems with simplistic word-match algorithms for identifying
"adult" (or any other type of) Web content. Automatic classifcation is a
hard problem; this is why PICS was developed (and RDF for that matter).
PICS can represent assertions made about a Web resource irrespective of
whether those assertions came from a human cataloguer or
some cheesy word-matching system. PICS doesn't specify any particular
schema (set of categories, ratings system) nor criteria for whether a
resource falls into one of those categories. PICS can be viewed as
enabling 'machine readable free speech', within the simplistic domain of
Web resource classification. It lets any organisation make any assertions
about anything with a URL. I'm not arguing that the PICS labelling
infrastructure couldn't be abused, just that we should be wary of equating
machine readable information with censorship tools. The general trend on
the Web is towards greater machine readability. The examples above
equally well illustrate the problems with web searching as it now stands.
For example, try searching Altavista for "shaved head FAQ", as I did once
for my temporarily-bald friend. There is a real and pressing need to have
better classification systems for the web, so we can find resources that
match our needs rather than just sharing the same keywords as our
searchterm. PICS (and RDF, which grew out of the PICS effort) is a
key part of this. To argue against implimenting PICS in Mozilla is to
argue against a system for classifying Web resource according to their
content.
More PICS info, including critiques, at http://www.w3.org/PICS/
Dan
Erik Moeller
Dan:
>PICS can represent assertions made about a Web resource irrespective of
>whether those assertions came from a human cataloguer or
>some cheesy word-matching system. PICS doesn't specify any particular
>schema (set of categories, ratings system) nor criteria for whether a
>resource falls into one of those categories. PICS can be viewed as
>enabling 'machine readable free speech', within the simplistic domain of
>Web resource classification. It lets any organisation make any assertions
>about anything with a URL. I'm not arguing that the PICS labelling
>infrastructure couldn't be abused, just that we should be wary of equating
>machine readable information with censorship tools.
Well, PICS is a bit more than that. PICS is already integrated into
Microsoft Internet Explorer since version 3.0, and it is used to enable or
disable filters by the RSACi (other filters can be installed). With the
RSACi ratings, parents can start filtering at "passionate kissing". I don't
think that this is a good thing. It allows each subgroup to execute an
arbitrary version of censorship, thereby matching Cyberspace to their needs.
Dictatorships will certainly embrace PICS. So, it cannot only be abused, it
*will* be abused if it becomes a standard. Preventing a youth from accessing
AIDS information is already abuse.
The other part is that PICS isn't so voluntary at all. There are third party
rating agencies, which allows absolutely uncontrolled censorship. One of
these third party rating system is "Net Shepherd", and guess what, they're
Catholic-conservative.Then there's IBM integrating PICS into their Javelin
servers and Altavista & Co. announcing that they will implement censorship
through PICS as soon as it "gets off".
PICS can be used to give pages content labels, but there are other and IMHO
better concepts to achieve this. Searches based on client-side neural maps,
for example. I am working with some friends on ideas how this can be
implemented. PICS will simply not work if it is based on authors labelling
their own pages -- unless there is some kind of coercion, for example
through search engines or governments. And third party rating agencies are
most dangerous and not voluntary.
When I look at the PICS specifications, I do not get the feeling that it was
designed to be a language for classifying content. The different rating
systems will only lead into chaos, or there will be monopolization. PICS was
designed to become a tool for censorship adapted to specific moral values,
and all manifestations of PICS I've seen so far are such tools. The main
problem with search engines is that most people don't know how to use them,
and that's why they usually don't get the results they want. Exclusion of
wrong buzzwords is unknown to most netizens.
I have not taken a closer look at RDF yet, but from what I've read, it
combines client- and server-side site maps. This looks like a good approach
to me. PICS, on the other hand, does not deserve any defense. It deserves to
be banned from the net -- and from Mozilla -- before it's too late.
Regards,
Erik Moeller
ron.w...@netshepherd.com
> The other part is that PICS isn't so voluntary at all. There are third party
> rating agencies, which allows absolutely uncontrolled censorship. One of
> these third party rating system is "Net Shepherd", and guess what, they're
> Catholic-conservative.Then there's IBM integrating PICS into their Javelin
> servers and Altavista & Co. announcing that they will implement censorship
> through PICS as soon as it "gets off".
Hmmm. I didn't know that I was Catholic-conservative. I always considered
myself an Agnostic. And I am pretty sure none of our employees are Catholic
either.
We only provide the tools for communities of like minded people to rate
internet content for themselves. How the community is operated is up to
sponsoring organization. In addition no one is forced to use PICS or any
other filtering system for that matter. (The default setting in IE is OFF, no
filtering.)
The choice is out there.
Cheers!
Ron Warris, Founder & CTO
Net Shepherd Inc.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Erik Moeller
>Hmmm. I didn't know that I was Catholic-conservative. I always considered
>myself an Agnostic. And I am pretty sure none of our employees are Catholic
>either.
All I know is that NetShepherd cooperates/cooperated with the Catholic
Telecom. I don't measure people by their words but by their deeds.
>In addition no one is forced to use PICS or any
>other filtering system for that matter. (The default setting in IE is OFF,
no
>filtering.)
True -- so far. But spreading PICS with the browsers may give it enough
support to allow national firewalls, search engine blocking and PICS
proxies.
>The choice is out there.
Why?
Regards,
Erik Moeller
Erik Moeller
Your own press release. My headline would have been: "NetShepherd announces
new Index Librorum Prohibitorum". I can only restate my opinion that this
has a lot to do with Mozilla and we should decide NOT to implement PICS.
<CUT>
21 May 1997
Net Shepherd Inc. and Catholic Telecom Inc. Develop World’s Largest
Christian Community on the Internet
160 Million Christians will have a true Internet community experience [Jesus
he knows me!].
Calgary, Alberta, Canada, May 21, 1997 - Net Shepherd Inc. has agreed with
Catholic Telecom Inc. to create the world’s largest and most comprehensive
Internet ratings and reviews database from a Christian perspective. As of
March 1997, Net Shepherd Inc. had rated 97% of the English language sites on
the Internet as indexed by AltaVista [Note that this is third-party rating.
Does anyone really believe that there will be no arbitrary censorship in the
form of wrong ratings in such a system?].
"We will provide the world’s 160 million Christians with a reliable
‘Christian’ way for them to surf the ‘net," says James Mulholland Jr.,
president of Catholic Telecom Inc. "Once in place the Net Shepherd/Catholic
Telecom Internet database will act as a guide, dare I say shepherd [What a
coincidence!], among this vast uncharted terrain called the Internet."
Net Shepherd will use its proprietary research technology and methodology to
build and manage a customized ratings and reviews databases that will
reflect the values and beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church. This database
can then be used by Catholic Telecom's customers to filter their viewing
through the protection application, NetShepherd 2.0, or Microsoft’s Internet
Explorer. The major benefit of NetShepherd 2.0 client software is that it is
designed to provide the Internet user with choices and control over their
Internet experience rather than censorship [Censorship is such a nasty word!
But choice is always good. You should however be careful with "control"].
Catholic Telecom also plans on creating a custom ‘Christian’ search site
like the ones offered by AltaVista. This will provide customers with safe
and secure searches within acceptable Christian community standards.
"The Catholic Telecom ratings database is just one more step for us in
Internet ‘Community’ building," says Don Sandford, president and CEO of Net
Shepherd Inc, "By characterizing the ‘net according to the beliefs and
ideals of special interest groups we are making the net more useful. It isn’
t about censorship but the right to choose what you want your family to be
exposed to." [The right to censor your family. And with the Catholic
Telecom, who knows what really happens with the rating labels? They can be
used for server-side censorship as well. I haven't followed the Cathtel
story, but I think I remember they announced to be the first ISP to offer a
"Christian internet connection" -- I really don't know how voluntary that
is.]
NetShepherd 2.0 is a family-friendly Internet protection application and
service that works with any Internet browser. It rates Internet sites by
age-appropriateness using a seven level age scale, similar in design to the
movie and television rating systems. Easy-to-use and completely
personalized, users can change the ratings if they don’t agree with them. It
also filters chat and news groups according to the maturity of the content
[Great features! Sorry, I can't talk to you, my computer is PICS-enhanced!].
Net Shepherd and Catholic Telecom will continue to work together in bringing
customers a unique and personalized Internet service [We've all been waiting
for this.].
Net Shepherd Inc. is traded on the Alberta Stock Exchange under the symbol
WEB. Net Shepherd Inc. adds value to the Internet by enabling on-line
communities to rate, review and filter information. For more detailed
information about the Company and its solutions, visit our On-line Business
Center, www.netshepherd.com.
CTI (Catholic Telecom Inc.), is the brainchild of American publishing
entrepreneur James S. Mulholland, Jr. of Hillsdale, N.J., Information is
available from Catholic Telecom at www.cathtel.com.
Contacts:
Lisa Strong
Communications
Net Shepherd Inc.
Tel: (403) 281-8917
email: lisa....@netshepherd.com
Don Sandford
President/CEO
Net Shepherd Inc.
Tel: (403) 218-8913
E-mail: don.sa...@netshepherd.com
The Alberta Stock Exchange has neither approved nor disapproved the
information contained herein.
</CUT>
ron.w...@netshepherd.com
> Your own press release. My headline would have been: "NetShepherd announces
> new Index Librorum Prohibitorum". I can only restate my opinion that this
> has a lot to do with Mozilla and we should decide NOT to implement PICS.
Yup! We did work with Catholic Telecom. We are also working with AltaVista,
Arabia On-Line and several other organizations as well. We provide the tools,
they provide the people. Doing business with an organization does not mean we
are a part of that organization.
The choice is out there!
Erik Moeller
>Yup! We did work with Catholic Telecom. We are also working with AltaVista,
>Arabia On-Line and several other organizations as well.
"Yup! We did supply weapons to the Iraq. We also supplied weapons to Japan,
France and Indonesia. We provide the tools, they provide the army. Doing
business with a country does not mean that we
are a part of that country."
(It is obvious that more people were killed by Catholics than by Saddam's
armies. It is also obvious that Catholicism has caused a millenium of
stagnation and maybe one should choose more carefully with whom to
cooperate. Ah, no, please no thread about catholicism. This really does not
belong here.)
Regards,
Erik Moeller
liz...@mrlizard.com
In article <6ivo22$pue$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, ron.w...@netshepherd.com wrote:
>
>> Your own press release. My headline would have been: "NetShepherd announces
>> new Index Librorum Prohibitorum". I can only restate my opinion that this
>> has a lot to do with Mozilla and we should decide NOT to implement PICS.
>
>are a part of that organization.
>
Giving 'the tools' to Catholic Telecom and Arabia On-Line is, to my mind,
about as innocent as handing the thumbscrews to the torturer.
You're mixed up with some Very Bad People. At the least, you're guilty of
aiding&abetting censorship.
Paul Chamberlain
I just joined the channel, hope I don't step on any toes...
Bill Anderson wrote:
> Problem is, what if say, Yahoo decides to stop indexing pages with tags that
> indicate "adult" content?
Two words: naughty.com
Movie ratings have kept porno out of blockbuster video but it hasn't
kept porno out of AAA News and Magazines. The worst thing that could
come of content rating is routers that refuse to deliver porno. Even
then, you would eventually end up with an Internet-X that supported
porno delivery. And I'd still stand behind the option of my Mom
getting service from an Internet-G service provider.
Of course, change the word "porno" to "rebel" for a different view.
--
Paul Chamberlain, Olympic Web Dev | "Don't speak unless you can improve
t...@austin.ibm.com 512/378-4351 | on the silence." -Spanish proverb