RE: Cyber 'Nannys"

[Tim May <tcmay@got.net>]

At 2:49 PM -0800 2/9/98, WebWarrior3@InfoWar.Com wrote:

>While I do not disagree that these companies should be able to market
>their products, I wholeheartedly disagree with the fact that often their
>customers (the adults who bought the software or subscribed to he
>'service') are not allowed to have a list of what is actually blocked,

So you wholeheartedly disagree that they are not giving you a list of what
is blocked...so go use another service.

I don't mean to be flippant. At issue here is a very real issue of free
choice and contracts. Customers cannot "demand" a list of criteria for
blocked sites any more than customers can demand a list of the selection
criteria a bookstore uses, or a magazine editor uses, and so on.

I make fun of Cyber Sitter and other Net.Nannies, but there's no role for
"disagreeing with the fact" (whatever that infelicitous expression may
mean) that they usually don't publicize their criteria.

If you can figure out their criteria, great. Brock Meeks and Declan M.
figured out some criteria a while back in an interesting article. But make
sure that your "disagreeing with the fact" is not translated into calling
for disclosure laws. That way lies statism.

--Tim May


Just Say No to "Big Brother Inside"
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^3,021,377   | black markets, collapse of governments.