NetNanny's Gordon Ross on "Censorship and the Internet"

[Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>]

=================

From: gordonr@netnanny.com (GordonR)
Reply-To: "gordonR@netnanny.com" <gordonR@netnanny.com>
To: "'Declan McCullagh'"
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 10:46:19 -0800
Organization: Net Nanny Software International Inc.


Censorship and the Internet
Written by: Gordon A. Ross CEO/President
Net nanny Software International Inc.

The Internet today provides a total open communication facility for all
societies on this planet to communicate with one another.  Depending on
your political and value judgments, this could be good, bad, allowed or
disallowed.

I am a firm believer in absolute freedom of speech.  However, there are
numerous organizations, societies, governments, and countries that
determine what freedom of speech is according to their own rules.  We are
capable of developing technology to allow the individual to determine what
information is appropriate or inappropriate according to their own value
sets - not mine or those of any single government.  But in order for this
type of technology to work on a global basis, we must set standards, much
like the way early telephone networks had to be set up.  Back then, if
there weren't certain "signaling" standards set within the
telecommunication community, people had to go through time-consuming
avenues in order to communicate with different foreign groups.  It is
logical that the Internet will also evolve with a set of standards, and
some of them are already in place, such as TCP/IP, HTML, and PICS (Platform
for Internet Content Selection).

Because each unique group has a different value set, we must develop a
standard that all countries can accept and use that does not infringe on
their right to govern according to their own constitutions or laws.  PICS
is such a standard.  It allows for self-imposed ratings according to the
standards of the individual, organization or country.  If ratings are
desired, PICS defines how and where a rating label should appear.  Browsers
and filtering software can read these standards and make decisions as
defined by the owner of these software applications.

Personally, I do not believe rating should be forced on any single
individual or WEB site, much in the same way I do not believe that I should
be told when I can use my telephone if it is my telephone.  However, I do
have concerns about third-party rating systems.  There are so many
important questions we have to ask:  Who is doing the rating?  What are
their qualifications?  Who determines the criteria?  How does the system
get implemented?  With the Internet's massive daily changes, how is content
validated?  And, more importantly, who validates the content?

How would rating work, if it could work at all?  There are 60 million-plus
pages on the WEB and it takes about one minute per page to rate.  To rate
every existing WEB page today, it would take about 60 million minutes - or
one million hours - or over 114 years.  Using 114 people working 24 hours a
day, the job would take a full year.  But the bad news is that as soon as
everything was rated, the process would have to start all over again,
because within a year the WEB would change drastically.  Even day-to-day
changes would be difficult to track.  That's why a self-rating system would
be the most cost-effective solution - as well as the most politically
correct.

I would be very concerned if mandatory rating is enforced.  We are
fortunate to live in a society that allows us the civil liberties that we
currently enjoy.  No single jurisdiction can - or should - govern the
Internet.  And technology will always evolve in order to get around this
type of government control.  There is simply too much content for any
single entity to monitor at this time.

Many people feel there should be no rating or controls legislated for the
Internet.  Legislation already exists to enforce proper conduct within a
country's Internet access.  Technology developed by industry will allow
individuals the control they want according to their own personal values.
 The masses should be educated as to emerging technologies that will offer
them choices - and how these technologies can be used safely.  Once people
understand how the technology can prevent problems, the divisive issues
currently facing us will become moot.

Today, we function in a global community, and we can no longer isolate
ourselves thinking we can "go it alone."  The Internet opens up worldwide
communications channels.  We can discover or share any information at any
time from any source, if we so choose.  We must strive to preserve the open
communication and the free exchange of ideas, while at the same time
protect our children when we as individuals feel it is necessary.
 Technology companies can and will provide the tools for us to accomplish
both free speech on the Internet - and protection for our families.

The Internet can be a truly wonderful resource for the entire world to
share.  Approximately 95% of it is, in fact, good.  Up until now, we have
done a great job of informing the general population of the negatives
inherent in a tool like the WEB.  But now it's time to educate people about
the positive aspects of the Internet, especially as it becomes their major
communication facility in the future.

What it comes down to is, a simple matter of choice.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------





Gordon Ross  CEO/President
Net Nanny Software International Inc.
Suite 108 - 525 Seymour Street
Vancouver, B.C.   V6B 3H7
Tel:  (604) 662-8522
E-mail: gordonR@netnanny.com