Slashdot Mirror
PICS and the Global Rating System
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.)
The example of Kubrick's "Eyes Wide Shut" is a good one. It shows how "voluntary," "industry-driven" rating systems are every bit as dangerous -- and in some cases, even worse in practice than plain old government censorship.
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.
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.
--
Who could rate all of this?
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).
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!
---
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Many of the recent attacks by censors, such as the CDA, showed basic cluelessness about the internet -- laughable attempts to control it from within the legal framework of a single country.
:).
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.
The New York Times web site has a decent article on this subject. anyone who is really interested in this topic might want to check out the following link
r ing_report.html
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
All of this stuff regarding net censorship has me fairly annoyed as well - but I think I see at least one solution. It would require a large amount of work and participation from many people, but it could be done...
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?
Alter Aeon Multiclass MUD - http://www.alteraeon.com
What people fail to notice in this argument is the inherent contradiction between 'labeling' and 'censorship'. Labeling involves actually providing more (albeit biased) information to the consumer so the consumer can make a decision. Censorship involves actually preventing such information from being disseminated altogether. What labeling is, rather than censorship, is an application of moral judgment to the product. People then apply those morals to their own morals to make a decisions. As powerful as the paranoia group makes the government out to be, it is explicitly denied the right to censor material, except in cases where the local community has allowed it the right to do so (eg. pornography). The 'censorship decision' rests cleanly upon the heads of the market.
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.