🚀 go-pugleaf

(Some of the responses are from the mailist "hkinternet",
sorry if this message duplicates)

First of all, let me clarify my points:

1) My method proposed centain censorship for children server only.
2) The censorship is based on _address_ but not _content_.  Address
   here include URL/IP Address/Domain Name/Newsgroup name, whichever
   is appropriate.

I urge everyone to read my article (Big5) at:

  http://www.cs.cuhk.edu.hk/~clement/articles/inman.html

because I've already tried very hard to present the whole picture in
that article.  The whole picture involves methods (how we can do it),
philosophy (do we really need it), effectiveness (is it the
best way to do it, what are the other alternatives), 
responsiblities (do ISP's have any, how much should be their part),
feasibilities (is it technically doable), impact (will it
harm the development of the Net and will it hurt our freedom
of speech).

I've thought about my model for almost 9 months before I finally
articulated my idea into the article.  I've discussed my model
with some network guru and system administrators.  They help me
to refine my model to the present form. (Of course, any misconception 
and error are mine, not theirs :-)

==== To answer some of the response:

Charles> Movies can see everything they show before they show it.  ISPs cannot
Charles> screen everyhting that pass through. There are even privacy laws
Charles> against us doing it, not only that it is technically impossible.  

Cinema (with their film category system) is a good but
not a prefect metaphor.  Let's consider another metaphor: Cable TV.  
When Cable TV
start to carry movies by Playboy/Penthouse, of course they
may say they do not see everything (from P/P) before they show it
(assume some are live broadcast), however, Cable TV take
a very responsible approach: they demand age-proof from subscripers.

Similarly, many sites declare themselve adult sites, and they
have warning messages for minors/children on the first home page.
Their address are well known.  Many of them even submit their
address to net-filtering software companies such as Net-Nanny and
Surf-Watch.  In other words, owners of those sites also do not
welcome children to access their sites.  

Under this case, should our ISPs do something to screen these
sites ?

Charles> Prodigy in the US billed themselves as a "family" service before. 
Charles> Later, when one of their users posted a message that was inflammatory,
Charles> Prodigy was sued.  It is legally dangerous for ISPs to get into 
Charles> censoring because that invites lawsuits.

Medical Doctors may mis-treat some of their patient 
occassionally, some by bad-luck, some by negligence (and invite lawsuits
also :-( ).  Should they stop practicing ?  If they can cure 
999 patients and mis-treat 1 patient, do you think they are 
legally dangerous ?  Let's weigh the merits and demerits.

I think Prodigy may have made too strong a claim when they advertised
(as "family" service).  I acknowledge your point that even
filters are applied, there are still cyber-poron materials
can get thru'.  I think this message may need to be pronounced
more clearly to clients when ISPs promote the "children server"
businesses.  (Just like every one understand Medical Doctors can
never guarantee their diagnonsis cure you)

Charles> I am very much against pornography etc.  But if we start censoring 
Charles> the net now this way, arbitrary censorship including poliitcal 
Charles> censorship will have an easy excuse.

I treasure the freedom of speech as much as most people in HK,
if not more.  This is exactly why
I am so concerned of this matter (of cyber-poron).

If we (Net enthusiats) don't do something to give
a good answer to the society, someone else (Politican, government
etc, usually they
don't understand technologies) will do it for you,
usually in a stupid/harsh way.  I am referring to 
the German Government order on AOL and the (even more stupid)
telecom reform bill in USA.

Charles> Thenshould the telcos put in "children's telephone networks"?
Charles> In the end, parents have the ultimate responsibility.  We will
Charles> support them, educate them, etc.  

I agree that parents have a major responsibility.  But the support from
ISPs are not enough.  Do you expect someone who even haven't touch
computer for any time to set up net filtering software for their
kids ?  Putting that burden to parents is like saying that we don't
need to order newstand owner to wrap those adult magazines in
plastic bags and refuse any purchase from kids because whenever
kids go to any newstands, they are escorted by their parents, and
their parents will educate them so on so fro ...

Charles> In the end, don't tell me more people get dirty stuffs from the
Charles> net than off the street.  THe net is not society's problem. 
Charles> Freedom of information only breaks barriers.

I am not sure if there are more dirty stuffs on the Net than
the street,  but
I encourage you visit the AfterDark Adult Link and the sites
it points to, it is an
eye opener.   However, for sure we have a double-standard between
information on traditional media (cinema/magazines) and the
Net.

Charles> We also provide blocking software that users can purchase if 
Charles> they like.  If we provide a children's server and an adult's 
Charles> server, the children can still access the adult's server.

No, children should not have accounts/password for using adult's
servers.  And the children server is firewall/proxy filtered that
major adult sites access are blocked.

Charles> I do not believe it is an ultimate way at all.  In a sense, I
Charles> look at it also as a gimmack from the ISPs to give the parents
Charles> the wrong impression that everything will be ok. That is even
Charles> more dangerous.  Then they will not learn about the Internet.

As I said, ISPs should not over-claim the "cleaness" of the children's
servers.  Just as Medicial Doctor should not over-claim that they
can cure any patient under their treatment.

Charles> 
Charles> We have all these "Chun-Chi" educataional programs these days,
Charles> that encourage the parents to do things with the kids, including
Charles> reading etc. Why not the net!!??

But do you know that with the current image of the Net (that
it is full of poron. stuff), some parents even don't allow their
kids to play around with it, not to mention parents themselves will
try it out?


Do you know is why net filtering software are so popular in USA ? the
Net has a bad images among parents.  Of 
course, as I said many time, client-side net filtering software
have lots of limitation).

Adrian> Although I am only 16 years of age this year, I think the problem on hand
Adrian> can be solved by a VERY simple approach.  Many ISPs have more than ONE
Adrian> telephone dial-up line...  So if we want to prevent children accessing
Adrian> cyber-pornography, then all the ISPs have to do is restrict ALL access to
Adrian> pornography except one or two phone lines.
Adrian> 
Adrian> In other words, opening new telephone lines to INTERNET WITH access to
Adrian> pornography for the adults and only people above 18 can login to those
Adrian> telephone lines...  Am I right?

Charles> Funny.  How do you prevent the childrens' from dialing in to the other
Charles> number?  

No, Charles. It is simple.  Any access to server is
protected by password/account, so adult's server won't be accessed by
children.  Adrian has his point, actually what he think
is subsumpted in my model (apart from some technicalities).

Having say that, as a side-track, please don't label adult's servers as
poronographic servers: they are just un-filtered.  Similar, I
feel curious since when poronographic/violence films were
started labelled as adults' films: are adults only interested
in poron/violence stuff ?

John> The ISP also have to keep two separate modem pools and two separate 
John> news server, etc etc.  Those are substantial further investment and
John> radical change to the way the business and the technical side are

Yes.  But as I said, ISPs should think about the social consequence
of their businesses.  And also, I think introduction of children
server should help ISPs to penetrate the family market. There are
around 1.8 millions families in HK.  Good marketing people
should think what is the obstacle in getting into this market.
Uncontrolled porongraphy is one of (but not the only one, of course) 
obstacle.

==== end of my responses ===

Rgds,

LEE, Yui-wah (Clement)
Hong Kong