Re: HTTP Futures

Brian Behlendorf (brian@wired.com)
Wed, 30 Nov 1994 14:17:23 -0800 (PST)

On Wed, 30 Nov 1994, David Koblas wrote:
> We are neglecting on form of access control that I think might be
> just as important "parental control". Something similar to what
> is seen on records, videos and games. How many "families" are
> going to want to let their "young and easily influenced" children
> loose on the web?
>
> If the client<->server interaciton provides the ability for preferential
> content hiding, it will make things much more acceptable to a wider
> audiance.
>
> Maybe something like:
> <CLIENT>
> Content-Guidance: {*,violence,sex,...}={specifer}
> <SERVER>
> Content-Guidance: sex=MPAA-R (i.e no male nudity, only simulated sex)

Yet another situation where collaborative filtering can help. If the MPAA
had an online presence and a public key to have digital signatures
verified, then they could go around the net attaching their 'G' Seal of
Approval on the Barney page, their 'PG' SOAP on the Nancy Drew page, their
'R' SOAP on the Oliver Stone page, and their 'X' SOAP on www.playboy.com.
Browsers could be written that would only only allow the viewing of
MPAA-signed G-rated pages, or one of a group of signatures - no reason the
MPAA should be the last word in this. Of course, setting the default home
page to http://www.mpaa.org/ would be in order too.

While I personally abhor the thought of prohibiting the flow of
information, I am pointing out that it could be technologically
accomplished rather elegantly.

Prometheus

--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Your slick hype/tripe/wipedisk/zipped/zippy/whine/online/sign.on.the.ish/oil
pill/roadkill/grease.slick/neat.trick is great for what it is. - Wired Fan #3
brian@hotwired.com brian@hyperreal.com http://www.hotwired.com/Staff/brian/