Re: parental control

Andrew Brennan (
Sun, 16 Mar 1997 15:37:11 -0500 (EST)

On Sun, 16 Mar 1997, Mark Badger wrote:

> admins can't know what their reflector is being used for unless they
> monitor it constantly. 24/7 monitoring becomes a job. who pays ?

I'm not overly concerned with incidents of ... oh, save the syllables.
Porn on reflectors. I've run a reflector myself for months at a time
without even looking at the logfiles. Since the occasional video dump
can happen on anyone's reflector (am I wrong?) the targets for change
should be those who will have the finances to support it.

The problem is that porn video feeds are not likely to head toward the
CU-SeeMe users as their marketplace. They've already got VDOlive and
StreamWorks (and now RealVideo) to purvey their materials. Why should
they invest money/time in custom coding to CUSM clients & reflectors??

> i think that's rubbish. it's the "someone else's" responibility ? i
> utterly disagree. it's a parental responsibility imho.

While I must say I agree with you -in principle- I don't expect that
it would hold up that way in the end. If the reflector admins are
most likely to be pulled into a legal matter, it's in their interest
to have some way of protecting themselves.

Unfortunately, I get stuck in resolving the problem that a reflector
wants his system open ... but wants some protection from the network
imbeciles. I don't think it's sufficient to expect parents to cover
little Johnny's eyes - not in this day and age. Parents still don't
entirely know what is available/possible on the net and someone is
*bound* to be offended by a community-defined obscenity.[*]

Maybe a version with parental control in the client and reflectors
configured such that MIN-[MAC|PC]-VERSION only permit the ones that
have this control feature?? I don't like it, but it's a middle-of-
the-road approach that might protect a reflector admin in the end.

andrew. (

[*] Does anyone know of a network-related obscenity case that the
locals/parents were held liable due to their ignorance of what
was available/possible and their inaction to address the issue?