[KLUG Advocacy] RE: CIPA unconstitutional -- my simple idea ...

[Bryan J. Smith]

On Tue, 2002-06-04 at 11:24, Randall Perry wrote:
> Some control is necessary, if no options are volunteered, the government
> will come to a point of implementing their own rating and ranking system
> "for your protection".
> This problem has a very wide base with residual impact with any
> decision.  There really is no easy answer.

It has been proven that COTS filtering products are filled with
political agendas and poor site selection.  And at the other extreme,
the good filters have very expensive subscription services as they are
designed for corporations.

What we need is not another filtering product or subscription service. 
We need a technology enabler to allow users to choose whom they get
their filtering lists from.  Technical companies should NOT be deciding
the content lists, people should by being able to choose who they get
their lists from.**  The former is the "facist" model, the latter is the
"democratic" model.

[ **NOTE:  My Libertarian ideals are showing.  E.g., I use the same
argument with healthcare -- your employer should NOT be telling you
where you can get your health insurance, you should be able to choose
from a wealth of organizations and have your premiums pre-taxed.  Again,
the former is "facist," the latter is "democratic." ]

E.g., if I'm Catholic, the Catholic organization is large enough they
could pay people they trust to build their own lists which is updated
daily to users for free.  If I'm Republican, another large
organization.  Yes, you still have politically-biased organizations
making decisions, but the _user_ gets to choose the list he/she wants. 
And the lists are available for free -- used on a voluntary basis by
those who want it.

This could get a bit difficult in public institutions though.  E.g., the
NEA is an ignorant lobbyist organization for the Democratic Party IMHO. 
So in the case of libraries and schools, maybe they would be required to
subscribe to more than one list by law -- so there isn't a political
agenda (like the NEA pushes).  Or in larger states, like here in
Florida, California, NY, Texas, etc... the state department of education
could possibly generate their own?  Heck, why can't the parents indicate
what filtering list should be used for their kids?

I mean, isn't that what freedom all about?  Protecting people who want
to be protected, but not forcing those who don't???

The idea is that the underlying technology should be their for people to
use.  Being it Microsoft, a Linux project or the W3C to finally "step
forward" to create this "enabler."  Again, it's just an "enabler" to let
organizations reach their members with the filtering they may use
voluntarily.  And it would even address the filtering issues at
institutions because the _parents_ would choose the filtering list to
subscribe to for their kids, not the school or some political
organization.

This *IS* feasible -- just like any HTTP or other Internet service.  We
just need the standards and software so companies and organizations can
start taking advantage of it!

-- Bryan

-- 
The US government could be 100x more effective, and 1/100th the
Constitutional worry, if it dictated its policy to Microsoft as
THE MAJOR CUSTOMER it is, and not THE REGULATOR it fails to be.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan J. Smith, SmithConcepts, Inc.   mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org
Engineers and IT Professionals     http://www.SmithConcepts.com