|
-- common questions about
the initiative
-- clarity about what is meant and what is not meant
-- how it can be accomplished.
- QUESTIONS
Frequently Asked Questions and
Responses
 |
What
will it take to make this initiative a reality? |
 |
Trying to forecast the path that this initiative will take is a
complex issue. The following is happening at this moment:
- LEGAL AND
TECHNICAL RESEARCH.
A legal research team is currently considering some of the following
issues: (a) which categories would be the most important to address
as being potentially harmful to minors, e.g. pornography, how-to
sites on criminal activity, etc. (b) What research and development
has already been done on this topic? (c) What will it take to develop
an international, non-government aligned, non-propriatiery rating
system? (d) Which steps should be taken to bring such a rating
system to the attention of governments and communities world-wide?
It is essential to develop clear and precise language to describe
each category of such a rating system. Not all material that could
be considered as harmful to minors can possibly be addressed since
there are no clear borders about what constitutes content that could
be potentially harmful to minors. It is thus important to carefully
consider what constitutes material that unquestionably fall in this
category so as to focus on the core of what parents are concerned
about. Other groups are working on these same issues, including
the Internet Content Rating Association and Safesurf. We intend
to collaborate with these groups, and/or to support the research
they are currently doing, should it be evident that our objectives
are compatible. The technical research will invesitgate what the
meta tag should look like. At the right time a web site could be
set up to explain the rating system and how to use the meta tag
and its numbers for each category addressed. A number might be a
better idea than a word, since this would better address multi-lingual
content on the web.
- LOBBYING
NETSCAPE AND INTERNET EXPLORER TO PROVIDE THE CAPABILITY TO IMPLEMENT
THE FUNCTIONALITY OF THIS INITIATIVE
Both browsers have already incorporated the RSACi rating system.
This initiative will have to consider the efforts of ICRA and the
RSACi rating system to bring the best security to families internationally.
- TAKE THIS
INITIATIVE TO THE PEOPLE
Every avenue needs to be explored of how to make such a meta-tag
system mainstream. The web community, including ISPs (Internet Service
Providers) should be encouraged to comply with the initiative. An
international legislative initiative should also be considered to
make this initiative as universal as possible. It is essential though
that such a rating system should not belong to any government, but
that it will be endorsed just like the Metric System is currently
endorsed internationally. |
|
But
don't we want to keep the hands of Governments off the Web? |
|
Maybe the counter question should be--is the government not already
on the web and is there not already materials legally restricted?
Yes, in the USA and Europe, the law does prosecutethose who post
certain kinds of pornography. Recently we saw a superb example of
international law enforcement cooperating to track down the origination
of the "I-LOVE-YOU-VIRUS".
It is essential that we protect freedom of speech AND it is essential
that we protect our children from degrading content. This can be
done! It is essential that those publishing materials that are regarded
as possibly harmful to minors, add a meta tag to such pages. Yet,
it is essential that the rating system does not belong to any government,
but that each government endorses the rating system. Thus the role
of a government in this regard would not be interfere with freedom
of speech, but to ensure that all its citizens show respect and
care for the world of the very young who use the Web. This also
applies to adults who are not interested in being ambushed by lascivious
and/or crude and vulgar content. |
|
Can
such a measure really be enforced? |
|
Yes. The argument is whether a self regulated system would work
best or whether governments should be encouraged to adopt the rating
system as a law. Should such a law be in force, law enforcement
would find those who are not in compliance by doing a search with
the preferences set to exclude sites that fit the description of
the law. If a site comes through and it is registered in a country
where the law is in force, the owner of the site and Internet Service
Provider (ISP) of the site would be notified that a particular page/site
needs the appropriate meta tags. If the owner does not comply within
the required time frame, they can be fined as well as the ISP.
It is important to include the participation of the ISP. If they
might be fined, they will be more than willing to get the site owner
to comply with the law. |
|
What
about the rest of the world where this measure is not enforced? |
|
As you might have noticed, sites from all over the globe can be
displayed when you do a web search. So, if questionable sites in
the USA are tagged and I opt not to retrieve them, what about such
webpages from Japan, Russia or wherever? Yes, they will still come
through and that is a real issue. Yet, they are often not as prominently
ranked as sites in the USA and that would lessen the chance of them
showing up. The fact remains, in order to address this problem effectively,
it is important to view this as a long term solution and to make
this an international effort. |
|
What
about freedom of speech? |
|
Protection of free speech is an essential freedom that we all guard
with vigilance. That is the one side of the equation that has been
carefully considered with this initiative.
We also have to remember that in the real world we do not allow
absolute freedom of speech. Shouting "Fire!" as a joke in a packed
auditorium is not any person's God-given right. In the real world,
an adult stranger having an erotic conversation with your 4-year
old daughter will surely not be greeted with a "well, it's a free
country, and I guess that fellow is allowed to say whatever he wants
to whomever he pleases." Now we have the stage set to inspect conversation
on the Internet. Pedophiles are lurking out there in chatrooms and
there are documented cases of them making contact with children
and molesting them. Now should we say that the Internet is hands-off
and since the pedophile has the right to say what he wants to whomever
he pleases, no government has any right to probe this activity on
the Internet? A tough call, because I do not want government to
lurk out there to invade whomever's privacy they want to, yet how
should we address the obvious misuse of the Internet? We cannot
ignore this issue or refuse to think about it and to simply say,
"Don't worry, things will work out in the end." Computer hackers
used to be seen as 'naughty' and it was perceived that they are
not really criminal--that it was just a nerdy way of having a thrill.
Now with serious intrusions at top security sites and companies
losing big money due to hackers and computer viruses, these guys
are now seen as criminals and vigorously pursued by the law in a
growing number of countries.
So, what does this mean, and what does it not imply? It means that
freedom of speech should be reflected in the virtual world just
like we protect it in the real world. Is it okay in the real world
to sit outside the school gates and to lure some children over to
show them "naughty pictures"? No, it isn't. No one is insisting
that this person is merely exercising his freedom of speech.
The problem with the Internet is this: if someone were to publish
something on the Web, it is accessible to all, small and tall. Yet,
if we match this with reality with the real world, we have a mismatch.
Six and seven year-olds being allowed into adult bookstores to view
whatever they please is not legal, but on the Internet it is. This
is what this initiative is all about. Both the private sector and
government need to help out to solve this problem.
The identification of such sites will not be visible to those surfing
the web, but the web browser could then be enabled to detect such
a page. This means that if you wish to see whatever on the net,
you will be enabled to do so just like now. That is a key point
to this initiative. But if you as a parent for example want to exclude
pornographic sites, you can select that option in your browser,
and since such pages now have to legally comply with identifying
themselves, your family is spared the unintended exposure to such
materials. Isn't that fair? |
|
How will the realization
of this initiative affect individual freedom? |
|
The Internet is composed of 'senders' and 'receivers'. Every website
out there, no matter what it displays, is a sender, and every person
accessing that website is a receiver. When we consider freedom,
we want to protect both. For the senders, we want them to be able
to send anything lawful, and for the receivers, we want then to
receive anything they wish to access. That also means that if there
are materials that you absolutely do not want to receive, your freedom
should be protected. As receivers we receive much in the form of
unsolicited information. This is the price we have to pay for being
in the real world. The protection of the freedom of the receiver
becomes a more critical issue when the receiver is forced to receive
offensive materials and/or materials that can be deemed as harmful
to minors. This initiative is designed to better protect the freedom
of the receivers on the Web, without restricting the freedoms of
the senders. |
|
What
about privacy issues? |
|
Privacy is an important issue. Telemarketers invade our privacy,
and that is legal, but if you were to receive anonymous obscene
calls, you can take legal steps to prosecute the caller. This initiative
will improve the environment on the web so that your privacy will
be respected, so that you will not be ambushed with obscenity. |
|
Could
you give me a more concrete example of how this legislation would
be implemented? |
|
This is an important question. We have to be able to predict and
visualize the repercussions of this legislation. So let's make some
assumptions and create an environment in which this initiative is
working.
PERSPECTIVE ONE: You are putting up a web page about how to gain
illegal access to secure governmental computers in the USA, Canada,
and Germany. You go to a web site that explains the meta tags.
The site provides you with the precise legal language describing
the categories of information that are deemed to be potentially
harmful to minors. Each category has a number. It is this number
that you will insert into a meta tag on the page where this information
is provided. You find the category "Providing HOW-TO Information
about Illigal Activities" and the number associated with it is
"CRIM021" and you go to your web page and add the following meta
tag: <META Name="Caution" Content="CRIM021">
PERSPECTIVE TWO: You are a parent and you want your children to
enjoy access to the Web. You use a web browser that has incorporated
this meta tag capability. In the setup of your browser, you as
a family sit down together and you discuss what kinds of content
you do not wish to access. You all agree that sites that belittle
and demean others (by race, gender, nationality, religion, etc)
are not a standard that you accept in your home. You also decide
not to access sites that openly encourages criminal activity.
As a family, you accordingly select the types of sites that you
wish not to access. The browser will now shun these sites, based
on the meta tag information provided.
PERSPECTIVE THREE: You work for law enforcement. Your task is
to ensure compliance with this law within the country. You select
to block sites that provide HOW-TO Information about criminal
activities. With this block turned on, you search for such sites.
Two sites inside the USA show up. You look at the HTML code and
they have not included the meta tag in their web pages. You send
a warning to both the ISP (Internet Service Providers) and to
the owners of the web pages. They have 7 days to comply. The one
site complies within a day. The other site does not comply. They
are fined, including the ISP and the owner of the web page, and
the web site is removed until it complies with the law.
|
|
Why
even bother? Is this not a futile effort? |
|
Let's face it, the Internet is a global thing, and we will never
be able to regulate this vast and exponentially growing beast. That
is true to a large extent. It is true just as contraband is a global
thing and it will never be controlled either. That does not mean
that assuming a laissez faire approach is ideal in either situation.
Consider the "saving-the-star-fishes" example. Someone was walking
on the shore, throwing back star fishes that had washed up. An observer
watched him and said: "This is crazy! There are so many thousands
of them washed up on the shore, you will never be able to make a
dent in the natural course of nature!" The star fish thrower said:
"Well, it matters to this one, and to this one, and ..."
If we can improve the Internet environment to help children access
these materials, it matters to them, each one of them. For many,
it was this unpremeditated access to pornography that lead to desensitization,
addiction, and an urge to act it out. In this instance it is so
true, an ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure. |
|
Is
there not something better we can do? |
|
So, this initiative is going to put a lid on this stuff, right?
Unfortunately not. There is not one measure that will ever do that.
We have to accept the ground rules. We cannot devise an initiative
that will control what people say. The best protection is good instruction
in the home. Beyond that we have to come up with creative solutions
to protect the innocent. Filtering and static and dynamic closed
web environments are some popular options. We have to spread understanding
of these options. This initiative would be a first layer of protection
for the thousands, if not millions, who fall in the following categories:
(a) they are ignorant about what is really out there to experience,
(b) they are not well informed about how to avoid undesirable material
effectively,
(c) they are not techno savvy and they thought they were okay, and
they sometimes discover about a year too late that they have a real
problem with one of their children.
In trying to live long you realize that it is not a singular thing
will prolong your life. It is the collective efforts of good diet,
exercise, avoiding stress, etc. that will be most meaningful. Likewise,
we have to look for as may ways as possible to create a more child-friendly
environment on the Web. |
If you have a
question, or if you would like to share your views, please contact us.
ICI Home Page | The
Problem | Some Current Solutions
| F A Q
Your Contribution | Relevant
Links | Contact Us by Email
Last updated: Aug, 2005
|