Re: parental control

Neal Hill (neal@ironhill.com)
Sun, 16 Mar 1997 15:57:50 -0500


At 03:37 PM 3/16/97 -0500, Andrew Brennan wrote:
>On Sun, 16 Mar 1997, Mark Badger wrote:
>
>> 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.

Just got this posting in. I think we're on the same path--

Unfortunately, there *might* be a need for some "client side" locks
for the simple sake of legally protecting ref's.

> 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.

I agree and wouldn't mind that: If you're a parent and want the additional
protection, then buy CUSeeMe (V-chip version)... it'd be an extra 50 bucks.
(Hopefully, the ref versions would be the same.)

I agree that parents *don't* now what out here on the information highway
and should be apprised and aware. After all we teach our kids: On the
highway, look both ways before crossing.

## Neal Hill- Computer Stylist; Professional ENTP
##
###### EMail: neal@ironhill.com OR http://www.ironhill.com/
## ##
### ### Ironhill Systems Incorporated