Slashdot Log In
PICS and the Global Rating System
from the can't-route-around-it dept.
Hundreds of people from around the world are coming together in Munich for a three-day conference, September 9-11. They represent the largest internet corporations and first-world countries. They've been working on this for years. They have millions of dollars. They're very, very serious. And someone forgot to tell them that information wants to be free.
What's going on?
Labels are the big thing. Labels are everywhere. Television has labels, after Congress threatened to not renew station broadcast licenses if the networks didn't comply. Video games have labels, after Congress threatened the gaming industry. Music has labels, after Congress and Tipper Gore (Al's wife) threatened the recording industry. Anyone remember the 80s, when musicians and fans both seethed at the very idea of labels slapped on our music by some politician? Now even MP3.com has a parental advisory icon.
And of course, movies have labels, the motion picture industry being the most dangerous threat to America's youth next to the internet. Hollywood labors under hundreds of censorship laws.
Now Senator Lieberman wants to rate every audio-visual product produced in the U.S. with a violence labeling system. (Lieberman was primarily responsible for the video game ratings and television ratings as well.)
Proponents of these censorship systems sometimes like to call them "voluntary". They're as voluntary as death and taxes. Or as voluntary as not being able to sell your product at all - that's what Lieberman's bill would dictate, if you don't comply. Salon said it well:
"The point has always been to change what actually gets broadcast through the flexing of government muscle. In simpler times, this was known as censorship."
Labels and censorship go hand in hand. The American Library Association speaks plainly: "Labeling is an attempt to prejudice attitudes and as such, it is a censor's tool." Some groups do stand up for what's right. You'll notice you don't see parental advisories on library books. Yet.
Think of how it works in practice: items with labels are stigmatized, attacked by Congress and pressure groups, and eventually - through law or simple bullying - they aren't available anymore. Think of the NC-17 label. All it's supposed to indicate is fare fit for adults - and since adults are 80% of the population, there ought to be plenty of movies made for them. But since most theaters (over 90%) won't run NC-17 movies, and most newspapers won't carry ads for them, any NC-17 movie is doomed to be a failure. And thus the only movies that make it to the theater are those deemed fit for children. Movies bearing that label were easy to attack - just take the most horrible movie you've ever seen (Debbie Does Dallas? The Texas Chainsaw Massacre? Stargate?) and whip up a public frenzy, then say, "We can get rid of this filth if only you'll stop showing NC-17 movies, Mr. Theater Owner." The pressure was applied at different steps in the distribution process - at the movie theater chains and newspapers, rather than at the consumer's end - but the result is the same: you can't see it.
Or you can't see it the way it was intended. Stanley Kubrick was known first for his work, and second for the exacting craft with which he set up every single shot. If even Kubrick's famous final-cut contract couldn't keep the MPAA vultures from digitally painting over his sex scenes, how is any director safe?
But we digress. We were talking about labels, and Internet censorship. These things intersect in a technology called PICS.
PICS stands for Platform for an Internet Censorship System - well, close enough. It's a specification for attaching labels to internet content - Web pages, Usenet posts, chatroom messages, emails... anything. In theory, you could rate anything on any scale you chose - journalist Simson Garfinkel made a tongue-in-cheek PICS rating system to rate pages based on the amount of Simson they contain.
But that is theory. In the real world, you could rate music or video games on the basis of Simson too, but nobody does - because life is short. Just like all the other labeling systems, it turns out that the only Internet labeling systems that anyone cares about are pejorative labels - rating pages for sex, or foul language, or heresy, or violence. Why? Because these are what the censors want to get rid of.
The people getting together in Munich are doing so for the purpose of developing a single, uniform, international rating system to be applied to all Internet content worldwide. It's not a voluntary system - several countries have already declared their intent to make it mandatory, and Jim Miller of W3C (and co-creator of PICS) put it nicely when he said -
"It's going to happen and the publishers are going to resist it as long as they can, but they'll have to realise that they must rate their content or face prosecution."
Who's a publisher? We are. You are, if you post a reply to this thread. If the system gets set up as scheduled, you'll be forced to add a rating to every post you make, every email you send, every webpage you publish - or face prosecution. After all, you're protecting the children.
Or more precisely, the adults. Australia wants to ban the sex categories from its entire population - Germany wants to ban the hate speech categories. Just like at the movies, it's easier if you attack higher up in the distribution chain.
Rather than making it illegal to download Mein Kampf or purchase it from Amazon.com, it's much easier if you make a law that applies to the telecommunications providers. They're big companies. The bigger they are, the less likely they are to buck the laws - and since there aren't many of them, they're easy to monitor for compliance. Civil disobedience isn't in their vocabulary: give them a law, and they'll just implement it. Such as censoring out all material with a certain rating at the backbone.
Oh, it's true that it won't be 100% effective. Banned documents will still be smuggled across the electronic borders. But for most people, in most circumstances, it will be plenty effective. If you like your internet unlabeled, it's just about too late.
by Michael Sims and Jamie McCarthy
(More tomorrow on the Munich conference and recent events in the development of the Global Rating System.)
Big companies break plenty of laws (Score:3)
I disagree. Big companies break laws all over the place if they don't like them. They are able to apply a whole load of pressure to government, too. See how they behave with trade agreements, environmental controls, price fixing, and anything else.
Big companies care about money. Labelling will impose some cost on them, but unless they see it as dramatically affecting their market or sales, it's easier to play along.
To break this, we can try to convince big companies that this _will_ affect their bottom line significantly, but that won't be easy to do.
censorship and "Eyes Wide Shut" (Score:4)
In America, where there is no government censorship, just a "voluntary" industry rating scheme, several minutes of this movie were "voluntarily" digitally altered after Kubrick's death to obtain an R rating.
In England, where there is a government censorship board which can potentially cut any movie, Eyes Wide Shut is opening tonight completely unaltered.
What's the difference? In the case of government censorship, at least the people doing the censorship have some accountability -- they can be voted out of office, and indeed this can be a real danger if they tamper with popular entertainment. By comparison, America's MPAA is a completely shadowy organization which answers to no one and has no accountability whatever. The results are obvious.
Of course, I am infavor of no censorship, private or public. I just want to point out that private ratings boards can be every bit as bad as government censorship.
A Real Solution. (Score:5)
Here's a few ideas to submit to your clueon-lacking congressmen:
Pass federal legislation requiring ISPs to make certain you're an adult before giving you an account. Now the responsiblity falls squarely where it should - on the parent's shoulders. Obvious restrictions would need to be made for public-access terminals, however.
public-key infrastructure. Have several offices around the country (Maybe the DMV could provide this?) that can certify you as an adult and issue you a cryptographic key. This could be used for a variety of purposes - signing legal documents online, filing your taxes online, etc. But without all the privacy-invading extras in our current "national ID" proposal in congress.
Do nothing. A perfectly valid solution - although the most politically incorrect of the three. If your child is determined to get into drugs, porno, or criminal activity - they're going to find a way. As a parent, it's your responsibility to instill the proper values into your children to ensure that they don't. Schools shouldn't be doing it, churches shouldn't be doing it, and the government sure as hell shouldn't be. It's your responsiblity as a responsible parent - Stop slacking and have a talk with your child NOW about this.
--
What this would entail(?); (Score:4)
There would have to be hundreds of thousands of people scouring the net to make sure that every web page met the standards. Or, alternately, you couldn't post a page without it going before a "review board".
This would require constant resources and manpower(from each government / isp / company, etc, ISP, etc) that I don't think people would stand for.
In the end I think the plans, no matter how widely held the beliefs, would fail, because there are too many loopholes(writing a plugin to a browser to parse/strip the "rating banner" or whatnot,using a non-complying foreign host,etc).
Re:More faulty logic... (Score:3)
Yes, actually. It's written into the leases of many theaters that they can't show NC-17 movies. Landlords won't allow it. Also, most movie theaters are owned by big chains, and if they show "The Last Temptation of Christ" in someplace civilized like New York, they will get picketed in Georgia. Since they do business all over the U.S. they have to pander to the religious right.
Governing without laws... (Score:5)
The government has finally figured out the way to circumvent the constitution. The constitution strictly regulates what the government is allowed to do, but it says nothing about what corporations are allowed to do. It has long been established that corporations are allowed to regulate speech, or anything else. It is their right and freedom to do so.
So, the government doesn't pass any sort of regulation. Instead, beacuse each of the corporations is dependent on a favorable attitude within the government, the government uses its position to pressure the corporations. The corporations have too much to lose in standing up to the government and so much to gain by giving in that invariably they do.
So, the government asks the telecom carriers to implement a "voluntary" policy of requiring their users to rate publicly viewable content. The telecom carriers comply, and this isn't illegal because the government hasn't made any laws or policies. They just made a suggestion (read threat), and the corporations caved. If an individual doesn't comply they've breached terms of service with the provider and are removed.
If you try to find another provider that doesn't have these draconian regulations, you can't. Since ATT, MCI, Sprint, etc, will give in, then they will extend their regulations to the piering agreements with smaller independent carriers. Before you know it, there's no place that will allow you to interface with the Internet and not rate your content.
The country's founders didn't see this coming. How could they? The constitution isn't meant for such things, which roughly means...
WE ARE SCREWED!
---
Positive vs Negative Ratings (Score:3)
Have there been any earnest attempts at positive labels? Other than a few magazines that use this kind of system, ratings would be provided on how much of a good thing something has. Rather than the ESRBs Violence rating scale you'd rate on a degree of niceness or non-violence or somesuch nonsense.
Of course, this system could always be perverted (Look, it's got a 1 on the Niceness scale, it must involve random and senseless acts of violence towards children!) But at least the spirit of it has a more positive goal: promoting the "good" stuff.
-Andrew
you know... (Score:3)
Ever heard of the expression "the straw that broke the camel's back"? it doesn't necessarily always mean the last possible thing before someone snaps.. it means also, the slow, steady stream of "little things" that keep being added to the mix, i.e., the labels on music.. on tv.. on movies.. on videogames.. on this, that, and the other thing.. a steady stream of "small" changes that will eventually become so overwhelming that you'll hear yourselves screaming "geee, i never saw that one coming" when in fact, and *because* you chose to never see it coming, since "they're only small changes after all" it is your lack of action that made these things possible...and the final straw, the one that breaks the camel's back, is the one that you add, when you say, "well it isnt *my* fault, what can one person do?"
c'mon people.. let's get out of our shells for once and do *something* to stop this
Re:Big Deal... (Score:3)
Most movie chains and many video chains refuse to show NC-17 movies. An NC-17 movie is essentially removed from distribution, just on the basis of a rating. That is censorship.
Likewise, when an R rated movie is shown, theaters will turn away ticket buyers if they don't meet certain criteria. A lesser censorship, but censorship nonetheless. Many music dealers won't sell an album with a "Parental Advisory" label on it.
Ratings in and of themselves are not censorship, but it is a critical element to most censorship schemes. Its no secret that this rating system is intended for similar purposes.
Another one for the script kiddies... (Score:3)
from now...
All right, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Hacker's
Elite -- we'll now see how to turn off PICS
ratings in micros~1 Internet Exploder:
[PaperClip: Hi! I am your personal Internet
Assistant! Are you sure you want to turn
off PICS ratings? This may cause you to
view disturbing material such as Slashdot!]
Of course *NOT*, you little dweeb!
[John Q. Hacker kicks the PaperClip in the
head, making it retreat quickly to the toolbar]
Now remove the key
in the Registry with RegEdit32 and you are all
set!
[At the bottom of the screen: TOTAL ELAPSED
TIME: 00:02:26.3]
You can now download "Mein Kampf" from your
friendly militia site, see "Naked College Asian
Girls With Big Boobs Live!", flame CmdrTaco for
hours on Slashdot, and... the ultimate in sadism
and perversion... (drum roll) Download Red Hat
Linux 9.0 and install it on your unsuspecting
computer!!
BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA!! Have fun, PICS kiddie!!
Welcome to the *real* Internet!
[PICS Rating: -0x0FFFFF: Hacking, Open Source,
Windows2005. DANGEROUS!]
Serious Attack (Score:5)
These folks aren't kidding. They've realized that only a international ratings code can be practically implemented on a global system. They've also gotten a *lot* smarter at selling it. They claim this empowers users to make their own choices and politicians everywhere are likely happily buying this line.
Ok, whats wrong with this picture? Isn't it true that ratings don't harm anyone, they just let us filter our choices effectively? Yes, but there are several problems.
First, as the article pointed out so well, there is a stigma attached to the ratings that will encourage self-censorship, and inhibit people from seeking out contrary or disturbing views.
Second, think what an enabling technology this is for organizations to track down all the web sites in their area that displease them and start a campaign of legal threats to their ISPs. You think AOL is going to take a case to the supreme court so you can express an unpopular opinion? Don't count on it. Count on it even less if your site shows sexual imagery or violence. Also don't forget it makes it *easier* for tech savvy kids to find the interesing sites
Third, you've got to consider the possible abuses of the system. In how many countries will it be necessary to bribe someone for a good rating? How many web providers will be legally attacked for misrating controversial content? How many countries will use this to supress political opposition? Or sexual minorities?
Maybe you wouldn't mind being forced to wear a badge at all times that stated your religion. After all, this just empowers people to know something of your biases and culture. I know I'd fight such a measure with all at my disposal, and I don't think this plan is far different.
Source material (Score:5)
http://webserver.law.yale.edu/infosociety/filte
This is one of four different documents being presented on internet rating systems at the conference. The paper addresses a number of the subjects that posters have begun to question. In particular, I like the ratings model in which multiple different ideologically biased groups are able to release competing ratings criteria.
Regardless, it might make sense to try to seperate this discussion into a couple broad areas. The first might be whether or not any type of rating system is desirable. The second topic being "Assuming that it is necessary to have some form of ratings system imposed, what is the best way to implement such a beast".
richard
Virtual communites, virtual underground? (Score:5)
The way I figure it, we _have_ the network infrastructure in place already. People can get information from one place to another without difficulty. So why not make our own virtual community that has no restrictions on it? A bit of a precedent has already been set with so called 'private clubs' which bypass local laws by being a private instead of public place. How about private networks?
The idea is that if the regular network traffic is monitored, construct a private network on it with encryption, and send the data through it anyway. Hell, you don't even need to have internic - set up your own DNS and do it correctly this time. Have it be community regulated, or whatever turns out to be most workable.
At the most extreme end, the virtual community could even go so far as to declare independence from any other nation.
I dunno, just some random ramblings... but it cant be done without strong encryption. As a side note, why don't all network packages ship with encryption facilities in them by default? Why doesnt my telnet connect to my telnetd with RC-5 straight out of the box?
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Re:Encypted stuff (Score:3)
If you look at people like Janet Reno, for example, you have all these law-enforcement people talking about how having good crypto in the hands of the ordinary folk is such a dangerous thing. They can't monitor it and see if it's big bad terrorists or drug dealers that are trying to kill your kids and rape your wife. Can crypto be banned effectively? No, probably not. However, there are a lot of things that are 'banned', even though their complete removal would be impossible. As examples, I offer: Underage drinking; Pot; Cocaine; Nuclear Proliferation. What I think could very well happen is that crypto would be 'banned', causing a hassle for those of us that would like to stay within the bounds of the law*, while the very people from whom the government is trying to keep crypto away are using it without any real hinderances.
But I stray from my point & the point of this news item. What I'm getting at here is that one of the reasons to be so concerned about mandatory voluntary self-rating is that methods that could be used to circumvent it will be prosecuted and also put into forbidden territory right along with unpopular speech.
* - You can rest assured that should crypto become illegal in any fashion, I would sooner disappear in a Stalinistic fashion than be considered 'law abiding', even though I normally consider myself to be a lawful citizen.
Bad Arguments Against Labels (Score:3)
How do these labels aid and abet censors? How do they prejudice attitudes? Or do they simply convey information? How is a label on Quake saying "First Person Shooter" censorship?
Proponents of labels call them "voluntary". Salon says they are mandatory. Maybe if Salon and the proponents were talking about the same thing a useful discussion might ensue, but Salon is undoubtedly more interested in fanning the flames. Applying the label is not voluntary. What is voluntary is your choice. In a non-voluntary system I have no choice about purchasing NC-17. In a voluntary system that choice remains, there is simply a label which categorizes them. In a voluntary system no government agency prevents the movie companies from producing NC-17 movies. No government agency prevents movie theaters from filming them. The choice to show or not show an NC-17 film is VOLUNTARY.
Claiming that what movie theaters perform is censorship is as misguided as claiming that when Slashdot refuses to run an article about sports it is censorship.
Would anyone have much sympathy if food producers said (or content labelling): "It's going to happen and the food producers are going to resist it as long as they can, but they'll have to realise that they must label their content or face prosecution." Does anyone here actually relish the idea of living in a world where you have no idea what is in your food, your clothing, that unopened shrinkwrapped box?
I'm sure if you are already against labels everything this article said resonates with you and everything I've said is utter crap. But when I read this article I just don't see a single good argument against labels. Maybe there are, but I don't see them here.
missing the point (Score:3)
And why are only businesses & governments represented?? Isn't the bulk of web sites NON COMERCIAL?? Who's representing the average Joe at this event??
The case for Censorship on the Internet (Score:3)
I agree.
Think about it: why won't newspapers run ads for these movies? Why won't theatres show them? Because of public stigma. A newspaper would suffer huge backlash if it started running NC-17 ads. Theatres would likely be boycotted to a certain extent. This stigma against NC-17 ratings is not, and never was, the government's problem. It happened because many people in this country have some morality left. Most people not only don't want these kinds of products, but they also react against them, the same way Nike has been ostracized for its unfair labor practices, the same way a McDonald's would be shunned for selling Joe Camel toys. Is a movie theatre any less a family place than McDonald's? How about the Internet, then?
Many object to government trying to "legislate morality." Well, let's face it, laws are supposed to legislate morality! That's why we have laws! Things like don't steal, don't rape, don't kill; all of our laws legislate morality, the only question is whose.
There is nothing threatening about a rating system. Let's face it, all you're trying to protect if you're against it is your right to get pornography and gut-spattering violence off the Internet. A lot of guys are enslaved to their related addictions and get panicky when the rest of the world gets near their so-called constitutional rights.
Let ratings go on ahead. It won't hurt anyone except perverts and violence lovers.
Re:Parents, do your job! (Score:3)
Interesting questions. I have two 'school age' children, and I am constantly being given advice on how I should be raising them. This advice rarely comes from people who don't have kids themselves; non-parents(?) seem to have a lot of opinions about how my kids should behave, but not on how I should get them there. Which is as it should be.
That said, you would not believe the number of people (again, most of whom are parents themselves) who tell me that I am not raising my children properly because I am doing something different than they would, but will also tell me that my children are some of the best behaved they've ever met. I have had this said in the same sentence! The fact that there is probably a connection between my parenting style and my childrens' behavior seems to be completely lost on them. I think this is extremely significant in light of all the calls for various types of censorship ('voluntary' or otherwise) we see today. Basically, we hear parents saying that it's not their fault if their children are bad; it's some bogeyman outside influence. Parents today don't seem to want to deal with the fact that they are the single overriding influence on their child's behavior. Clue for you all - if your kid has problems, there's a 99.9% chance it's your fault. Period.
I'll relate my favorite incident, then I'll get off my soapbox. A gentleman I worked with was giving me some rather strong advice in how I should be dealing with my son, who had gotten in a fight in school the day before. No, he didn't start it, but the school felt he shared responsibility for not avoiding it. I don't always feel this is a correct assumption, but in the particular circumstances of this incident I thought it was fair. Anyway, my coworker was holding forth in rather strong language on how I should be handling my son, how I should be dealing with the situation, and how doing it any differently would result in disaster in terms of who my son would be as an adult. Standard 'you're doing it all wrong, do it my way' fare. He felt he had an inside track on the problem because he was a member of a religious group whose stated purpose is to bring back the strength and values of the American family (no, this is not to say all religious people are this way; it's only significant here because this was his justification for feeling that he was right and I was wrong).
I was going to ask him what was up these days with his (19 year old) son, but I didn't have the heart. I already knew. He had started his prison term the day before.
This is going to keep happening (Score:3)
This kind of thing has always been going on.
However, technology brings people closer together, and in these cases this exaggerates the existing friction.
The cheapest / easiest way to reduce friction from conflicting beliefs is to limit interaction between people. However, I believe that this to be suboptimal. Another way is to limit or eliminate beleifs conflicting with the majority. I also feel that to be a poor solution. But there are people who feel that these solutions are acceptable or even desirable.
Any solution is going to have the same problem as the original conflict - meta-beliefs (ideals on how to mediate interactions between possibly conflicting beliefs) are a lot like beliefs, in the sense that there are lot of them and they don't all agree.
Any institutionalized resonpse to these issues must embrace one set of meta-beliefs, even if it is able to maintain neutrality on the beliefs which come into conflict.
The United States' official traditional meta-belief of choice is a live-and-let-live freedom-of-speech stance. However, once a law is passed it's a big deal to un-pass it, and with hundreds of legislators passing laws day in and day out, for two hundred years...
In theory the body of laws should sort of flutter around near the consititution, and the noise of the random legislation should cancel iself out, but if you're doing a random walk in which its easier to go one way than another, you're a lot less likely to stay put.
Whenever I hear of one of these acts (the CDA, PICS, whatever) I think "That's it, I'm outta here." but
Does anyone know of any country that deals with this kind of thing well?
Difference Between Censorship & Labeling (Score:5)
So far, the market has responded to the labeling phenomena positively. Otherwise, you wouldn't see Congresspeople pushing for it. Everyone makes the assumption that the MPAA censors because the government tells it to, and as an example, gives forth Eyes Wide Shut. No one bothers to ask why the MPAA gave its rating. The MPAA is influenced by the very same industry it regulates. Releasing an uncut version of Eyes Wide Shut could potentially have harmful effects for the movie industry, especially in America which is predominantly a morally conservative country (despite what MTV would have you believe). Morally conservative people tend to boycott things that threaten their morals, of which Eyes Wide Shut might possibly have done. Boycotting things means business is lost. Boycotting things also means public outcry. Public outcry means Congress gets a stick up their panties. Sticks up panties lead to a strongly-led backlash. The movie company is ruled by the almighty dollar. Offending the moral conservatism of the country, despite your personal liberal views, does not bode well for the industry (nor the country, I might add).
Labeling, though, does offer consumers more information and more information means "better" decisions about what products to buy. Again, we live in a morally conservative country where the majority of parents don't want their children visiting potentially sociologically harmful material. PICS gives these parents more information and the ability to actually parent. So what if maybe the child can't get access to the local Gay & Lesbian organization or the Bible because certain words are spoken. Let parents parent their children. Parenting is about making certain mistakes and learning from them.
Take a look at history and how labels have truly affected sales, and how labels have adjusted to the marketplace. It used to be that any album with a swear word had a Parental Advisory sticker on it. Now, you'll be lucky if the worst rap album has that sticker. NWA threw this nation's retailers into a tizzy, but now, there's CDs with ten times more 'offensive' lyrics sitting in the same store with Neil Diamond. Why? The labels are still around. The stores are the same. What's changed is the market. The market loves the stuff. The almighty dollar rules again. But still, labeling is still used as a form of information dispersal.
The point is, government isn't driving these movements, the populace is, and the market will determine the outcome. Right now, a lot of you seem to be disagreeing with the majority of America, and the only way you're going change things are by changing popular sentiment. You shouldn't be chiding the government in this case. Chide the people. Stir up popular sentiment, not government support. Don't just write your congressperson. Write your newspaper. Speak with your local television news. If it's really that important, change the people's minds. The legislation will follow.
Libertarians say Gates "a hero". Try again.. (Score:3)
Sorry, but as a rule I wouldn't trust any political party to reflect my beliefs or act on my behalf.
Witness the Liberatarians, who have depicted Bill Gates as (ha!) an American hero. It's the "boy individualist becomes liberator of millions and captain of industry" angle that Microsoft would love for us to believe. I assume that most /.'ers would vomit at this idea, & rightfully so. But the Libs have swallowed it whole, practically canonizing the schmuck.
It's kind of consistent with their way of thinking: stick to a few absolute principles (e.g. "people who make money in a free market are inherently good"), and extend them in a facile way to ridiculous conclusions, real world contradictions be damned.
On the other hand, if the Libertarians actually campaigned to remove this type of censorship (be it .net, TV, flicks, whatever), I'd throw a few votes their way. But the Teeming Millions(tm), who prefer to be led like cattle, won't be doing so, so what's the point..
-----
Re:censorship and "Eyes Wide Shut" (Score:3)
"You got your Conservative views in my Liberal Agenda!"
"You got your Liberal Agenda into my Conservative views -- Why its delicious!"