The Net Labelling Delusion
Saviour or Devil
"Any content-based regulation of the Internet, no matter how benign the purpose, could burn the global village to roast the pig."
When PICS was announced by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) in September 1995, it was widely hailed as a stroke of genius. The developers, a group of computer scientists and software manufacturers, promoted PICS as "Internet Access Controls without Censorship". PICS publicity emphasised a [BROKEN LINK] multiplicity of rating systems, voluntary self-rating and labelling by content providers and blocking software installed on home computers.
There seemed no doubt that the PICS developers were as opposed to censorship of the Net as those opposed to the Communications Decency Act (CDA). The theory was that PICS, in facilitating the development of technologies to empower Net users to control their own access to Net content, and that of their children, would reduce the risk of government censorship. PICS was, many thought, the Net community's saviour from censorship.
At a time when attention was focussed on the US Communications Decency Act (CDA), the theory was generally accepted without question. Few people stopped to consider the power of the technology; that, in fact, technology which empowers parents to control the access of their children, equally empowers governments to control the access of their adult citizens.
Less than twelve months after PICS was announced, indications arose in Australia and shortly thereafter in the UK, that governments would enforce or coerce the use of PICS facilitated systems. The probability of mandatory self-rating and prosecution for inadvertently mis-labelling, or failing to label, became obvious. This heralded the beginning of a shift in attitude towards PICS.
Since that time, many of the original PICS advocates have become alarmed by the extent to which PICS makes the Web censor friendly. Increasingly, PICS is said to be the devil.
By late 1997, PICS developers had become less inclined to attempt to gloss over the fact that PICS provides a helpful tool for government censorship. Nevertheless some, if not all, of those people regard the issue as being neither their concern nor responsibility. That, however, is cold comfort to the people who are forced to use the technology they have created.
Some people allege that opposition to PICS results from ignorance and fear. Others regard that as the pot calling the kettle black. PICS was, after all, developed by people fearful of government censorship and who were apparently ignorant of the repressiveness of some governments. Either that, or they like the W3C, do not take the position that unrestricted access to information is a fundamental human rights issue that transcends national sovereignty.
It is high time that people who do support Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights just said no to PICS. PICS, like the now dead CDA that kindled it, threatens to torch a large segment of the Internet community.
This site offers an alternative resource for information about PICS and PICS facilitated systems. Here you will find reasons for the view that PICS is the devil, rather than our saviour.