NASA (PICS again)

[Mark Ellis]

David Burt said:

>My thoughts are this:
>
>1) It points out the main shortcoming of self-rating PICS: There are no
>sanctions for offenders.
>

There are only potential civil sanctions.   Here's an excerpt from the
terms of use for RSACi labels found at
http://www.rsac.org/register/terms.html

<SNIP>--------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Applicant shall discontinue use of RSACi labels and agrees to re-rate
its site if there are changes to the content of its site which would
require Applicant to modify its responses to the Ratings Application.

5. Applicant agrees that RSAC has the right to audit and inspect the Rated
Web Site to confirm that Applicant's use of the Assigned Rating
meets the established standards and specifications of RSAC.

6. In the event that the rated content does not meet the standards and
specifications of the Assigned Rating, or there is any material
misrepresentation or violation of the Ratings Application, RSAC may, after
written notice and an opportunity for Applicant to defend before
RSAC the basis for the Assigned Rating, take appropriate action, including
but not limited to corrective labeling, consumer and press
advisories and postings on appropriate Web Sites. If, after written notice
by RSAC, Applicant fails to remedy such default in the manner and
within a reasonable time specified by RSAC, then RSAC may, at its option
and by written notice, immediately terminate this license to use
the Assigned Rating and any other RSAC Mark in connection with the Rated
Web Site.

7. Upon termination, Applicant shall discontinue any and all use of the
Assigned Rating and other RSAC Marks on the rated content and
refrain from using any confusingly similar mark or name.

</SNIP>---------------------------------------------------------------------
-----

I'd be interested to know if RSAC has ever terminated a license or sued a
terminee.

And Paul Neff said:
>
>The following is the META tag containing the RSACi-assigned PICS rating
>for
>www.nasa.com:
>
><META http-equiv="PICS-Label" content='(PICS-1.0
>"http://www.rsac.org/ratingsv01.html" 1 gen true comment "RSACi North
>America Server" by "repstein at host.net" for "http://www.host.net/" on
>"1996.04.16TO8:15-0500" exp "1997.07.01TO8:15-0500" r (n 0 s 0 v 0 1
>0))'>
>
>If I am reading this correctly, and if I'm not will someone please
>correct
>me, doesn't the "n 0" in the last paranthetic statement denote "no
>nudity"?
>If so, is the site owner somewhat obligated to change that rating to "n
>1"
>which denotes "revealing attire" if accepting advertising along those
>lines?
>
>Just wondering what people's thoughts are.
>

The PICS label above is not for http://www.nasa.com but for
http://www.host.net. They are using a label generated for another page. The
label has also just expired. I'm copying this to repstein at host.net to see
what kind of response I get (if any)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Ellis
Computer Services Technician            Phone: 604.231.6410
Richmond Public Library                 Email: mark.ellis at rpl.richmond.bc.ca
Richmond, British Columbia
----------------------------------------------------------------------------