RE: Cyber 'Nannys"

[Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>]

Some of my articles are at:

  http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/spoofcentral/censored/

As for the market, it's already deciding. NetNanny does NOT encrypt its
list of blocked sites and is using that as a competitive advantage.

-Declan

At 23:23 -0800 2/9/98, Tim May wrote:
>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.