Re: Piggy Bank and rules

From: Phil Archer <phil.archer_at_icra.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 14:27:00 +0100

>>
>> Not really - the RDF data is always hosted on the site
>> itself, not on our server. We expect to make available a
>> "manifest" (an RDF dump) of sites on which the accuracy of
>> the label has been verified but it is unlikely that we would
>> have the resources to operate a live database that could be
>> interrogated on the fly by an unlimited number of clients.
>>
>
>
> I think it would be useful to take an inverse approach.
>
> 1. Allow access to only those sites that are present in the ICRA
> manifest.(one can modify PB to do the checking)
>
> 2. Periodically, PB will contact ICRA to obtain an update (much like virus
> definitions for antivirus)
>
> Some might see (1) as too restrictive, but presumably this is to protect
> kids from online predators and whatnots, better safe than sorry.

The idea is that the person who creates the content is the best person to
describe it. The ICRA manifest would be a subset of labelled sites, i.e.
those that have asked (and perhaps paid) us to review their label and which
we are happy to say "yes, we believe the label to be accurate." The manifest
can then be downloaded by clients periodically so that they can see that
"someone has had a look and agrees with the label."

The manifest won't include any labels (descriptions), just an assertion that
the labels on the site can probably be trusted. The subtle differences are
important in distinguishing between parental choice and censorship which
ICRA is as opposed to as everyone else. If the manifest is whole story then
there's no difference between what we do and what the commercial filtering
companies do.

Phil.
Received on Tue Apr 12 2005 - 13:27:39 EDT