Subject: The Getgood Files - Susan speaks on censorware in public libraries To: declan@well.com, fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu, Seth Finkelstein From: Susan Getgood Subject: re: Anonymous note to f-c -- CyberPatrol and the CDA Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 08:52:28 -0700 X-Beyondmail-Priority: 1 Message-Id: Conversation-Id: <9704160028.AA23218@frumious-bandersnatch.MIT.EDU> In-Reply-To: <9704160028.AA23218@frumious-bandersnatch.MIT.EDU> Reply-To: Susan Getgood Cc: drdan@kalikow.com > From: Seth Finkelstein , on 4/15/97 8:28 PM: > Now, I want to know how "natural market forces" are going to > operate when we HAVE the CDA, we have States passing their own CDA's > and so many people, such as CyberPatrol, are running around saying > "Push censorware as the solution, because it's Our Saviour From The CDA". That is not what we say. Microsystems' position is and always has been that we are opposed to legislation, CDA in particular, as the means to protect children from inappropriate content on the Internet because: - the law doesn't work (global internet etc) - it infringes on adults 1st amendment rights - software works better to protect kids > > > Microsystems Software is opposed to legislation. We believe it is > > neither in society's best interests, nor in our best interests as a > > corporation for there to be legislation. > > What's the *official* position of Microsystems Software on > legislation requiring use of censorware on public libraries? We are opposed to legislation requiring the use of filtering software in public libraries. We aren't opposed to the use of filtering software in libraries; we believe it is up to the library and the community it serves to make that decision. susan ******* Susan Getgood, Microsystems Software, Inc. 508 879 9000, e-mail susang@microsys.com www.microsys.com / www.cyberpatrol.com Message-Id: <3.0.16.19970416104707.56afa81c@pop.gate.net> X-Sender: liberty@pop.gate.net Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 10:48:33 -0400 To: fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu From: Jim Ray Subject: re: Anonymous note to f-c -- CyberPatrol and the CDA Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu X-Fc-Url: Fight-Censorship is at http://www.eff.org/~declan/fc/ X-Fc-Url: To join send "subscribe" to fight-censorship-request@vorlon.mit.edu -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 08:52 AM 4/16/97 -0700, Susan Getgood wrote: ... >We are opposed to legislation requiring the use of filtering software in public >libraries. We aren't opposed to the use of filtering software in libraries; we >believe it is up to the library and the community it serves to make that >decision. I don't believe this is a logically tenable position. Allow me to elaborate: A hypothetical community includes people who want this software to be mandated for kids - no matter what parents say, people who want use of the software to be the default situation with kids (absent a parental note), a similar default-off (absent a note) group, and people like Seth and me who (for different reasons) have come to the conclusion that libraries shouldn't use this software. Assuming that the first three groups make up 51% of the voters, should their majority be able to force their decision on our minority and spend everyone's tax money on your software? (I wish to leave aside the question of whether there *should* be public schools or libraries at all to avoid the continuing L.- flamewar if possible, though this whole problem would largely disappear given privatization, IMNSHO.) Ultimately, the use of the software requires the purchase of the software (if you are to stay in business) and buying the software requires both tax legislation and a politician with the power to legally make this spending decision. The only other alternative (that I can think of) is a business/church/ whatever buying the equipment, your software, an account, and even perhaps the electricity. I don't see this happening. I needn't repeat that the First Amendment was *not* designed to protect majority opinions. It is distinctly UNdemocratic, and thus I feel that your majoritarian position above CAN'T truly oppose legislation requiring the use of your software, WRT publicly funded institutions. Ultimately, the majority will be able to keep minority political/sexual/etc. speech and ideas unavailable. JMR -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEPAwUBM1TmSDUhsGSn1j2pAQFbUwfQqLT5JPrbERaq4lR8qFN/5+5kXf71WUlH 8BFIO65nSNcRaMMTARQ1Ru+OaeZjtN+toTl97hKZS3ECrlhf281CrhzDCreBzyFx K96AwjoZ8jeDnSwMVS5pzRV9jtV1GlnkK7UNrGaH88GasRoPQTzEnJNnWBGdi1gN yKcIG6PQoMRgmrpJ3xWdYMNd3XgCOgfsKmMdMe5F77jLiLbz7qBccOA9R52W7TJ+ ZC6iV41xqs7id8k7eaNqH7B1c99YXtkGn2PLPdlfzj6wHBxbPVyVXAOV+IEnUMXa j+qm42Q1tUKwFGGwCMkbw61NLI8okOzSM8ruC4XJDf4Kwg== =dz+M -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Regards, Jim Ray "All other nations are drinking Ray Charles beer and we are drinking Barry Manilow." -- Dave Barry http://www.shopmiami.com/prs/jimray/ PGP id.A7D63DA9 98 1F 39 BA 93 86 B4 F5 57 52 64 0E DA BA 2C 71 Message-Id: <199704161525.LAA09486@arutam.inch.com> Comments: Authenticated sender is From: "Michael Sims" To: fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 11:21:32 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Subject: re: Anonymous note to f-c -- CyberPatrol and the CDA In-Reply-To: References: <9704160028.AA23218@frumious-bandersnatch.MIT.EDU> X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.53/R1) Sender: owner-fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu X-Fc-Url: Fight-Censorship is at http://www.eff.org/~declan/fc/ X-Fc-Url: To join send "subscribe" to fight-censorship-request@vorlon.mit.edu Susan Getgood wrote: > That is not what we say. Microsystems' position is and always has > been that we are opposed to legislation, CDA in particular, as the > means to protect children from inappropriate content on the > Internet because: > - the law doesn't work (global internet etc) > - it infringes on adults 1st amendment rights > - software works better to protect kids Of course you're opposed to it. If the net were indecenectomized, your customers wouldn't fear it enough to buy censorware. Can't sell solutions if the problem's been solved in another fashion. The CDA would *ruin* sales of censorware. > We are opposed to legislation requiring the use of filtering > software in public libraries. We aren't opposed to the use of > filtering software in libraries; we believe it is up to the library > and the community it serves to make that decision. ....with as much fear-mongering as possible to ensure that they make the right deci$ion, of course. -- Michael Sims Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 09:13:54 -0700 To: Susan Getgood , fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu From: Lizard Subject: re: Anonymous note to f-c -- CyberPatrol and the CDA Cc: drdan@kalikow.com In-Reply-To: References: <9704160028.AA23218@frumious-bandersnatch.MIT.EDU> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu X-Fc-Url: Fight-Censorship is at http://www.eff.org/~declan/fc/ X-Fc-Url: To join send "subscribe" to fight-censorship-request@vorlon.mit.edu At 08:52 AM 4/16/97 -0700, Susan Getgood wrote: >We are opposed to legislation requiring the use of filtering software in public >libraries. We aren't opposed to the use of filtering software in libraries; we >believe it is up to the library and the community it serves to make that >decision. > >susan In that case, will you send a letter to the Oklahoma legislature informing them that you will not permit your software to be installed on their proxy server? And do the same thing to the City Of Boston? I'd be *quite* impressed with your business ethics if you refused to sell your product to any government, federal or state, which mandated its use. Money, mouth, and all that. Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 02:25:38 -0400 Message-Id: <9704170625.AA29288@frumious-bandersnatch.MIT.EDU> From: Seth Finkelstein To: fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu, SusanG@Microsys.com Subject: re: Anonymous note to f-c -- CyberPatrol and the CDA Cc: drdan@kalikow.com Sender: owner-fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu X-Fc-Url: Fight-Censorship is at http://www.eff.org/~declan/fc/ X-Fc-Url: To join send "subscribe" to fight-censorship-request@vorlon.mit.edu > > From: Seth Finkelstein , on 4/15/97 8:28 PM: > > > > > Now, I want to know how "natural market forces" are going to > > operate when we HAVE the CDA, we have States passing their own CDA's > > and so many people, such as CyberPatrol, are running around saying > > "Push censorware as the solution, because it's Our Saviour From The CDA". > From: Susan Getgood > That is not what we say. That's exactly what you say, taking into account my disdainful paraphrase. THAT'S THE WHOLE "least restrictive means" ARGUMENT, which we've gone around on this list for a long time (and which I think is very questionable, by the way). Look, you just said it below (in market-speak): > Microsystems' position is and always has been that we are opposed to > legislation, CDA in particular, as the means to protect children > from inappropriate content on the Internet because: ^^^^^^^ > - the law doesn't work (global internet etc) > - it infringes on adults 1st amendment rights > - software works better to protect kids ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Stripping away the fluff "... we are opposed to legislation, CDA in particular ... because [in part] ... software [our product] works better to protect kids". As a company, you've been noticeably absent in denouncing the installations of your product *by legislation* in public libraries and schools. Note this is getting off my point, which is the complete and utter absurdity of speaking of "natural market forces" when we have an environment of such direct and indirect government coercion. > > > > > > Microsystems Software is opposed to legislation. We believe it is > > > neither in society's best interests, nor in our best interests as a > > > corporation for there to be legislation. > > > > What's the *official* position of Microsystems Software on > > legislation requiring use of censorware on public libraries? > > We are opposed to legislation requiring the use of filtering > software in public libraries. We aren't opposed to the use of > filtering software in libraries; we believe it is up to the library > and the community it serves to make that decision. So can I sign you up for a letter of opposition to the installation of CyberPatrol in the Boston Public Library? Austin? Elsewhere? Or is your statement above a meaningless nullity, where to "make that decision" because of fear of various liability concerns (i.e., government action) is fine by you? ================ Seth Finkelstein sethf@mit.edu