http://www.kids-in-mind.com/
They break down movie ratings from 1 to 10 in three categories sex, violence and profanity. Very good for rating movies.
Brian Andrew Jorgensen wrote:
On 2/12/07, Kenneth Burgener <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:I am unsure why you think the implementation is bad. If you don't like the way they set it up, you have the option to ignore it... "A consumer who wants access to websites within non-compliant countries will continue to have access to all websites, worldwide. Thus each consumer's choice is unrestricted and flexible. "Really? What about my kids? I would surely want unrestricted access for the sake of non-compliant countries, etc. but I don't want my kids (or myself for that matter) accessing adult content. And how do we decide what's pornographic or not? Medical dictionaries? Shakespeare? Where do we draw that line?I think their setup has similar merits to movie ratings. I know movie ratings aren't perfect, but it at least gives you some idea of the type of content, which is better than nothing.Maybe it's better than nothing but not by much. Movie ratings are part of the marketing. If Hollywood wants a PG audience to buy tickets they give it a PG rating, likewise with the other ratings. I don't want to get into a discussion about why that system is broken but you're going to have much better luck with an independent ratings site than you will with the MPAA (aka the interested party).I also think this benefits more then browsing children. Think about office browsing.Except that it won't and can't work. For one thing there will always be rogue sites. For another there will always be a way around it. One simple example is a proxy site, or even just a real web-proxy. Other examples include tor, or any number of other possible overlay networks. The only way to actually restrict this kind of thing effectively is white-listing and that would definitely be a bad thing to legislate. Another thing I really dislike about this proposal is that it wants to use port numbers at a time when port numbers may finally be on their way out. See http://www.dns-sd.org/ And then there's the line in the resolution that says this: WHEREAS, credit card verification systems burden credit card companies, are expensive and time consuming to establish and maintain, and inhibit legal speech; A couple of comments on that:"burden credit card companies": Booo hooo ;-( . So charge for the service."are expensive and time consuming to establish and maintain": And you don't think this new proposal is going to be expensive and time consuming to enforce? If this makes it all the way into law it will cost us billions. Everything the government does costs billions. "inhibit legal speech": What? How? I'm really failing to see how this one works. I am not opposed to finding a way to make it easier for parents and employers to limit access to pornography but legislating technology is and never will be the way to do that. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
/* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
