Return-path: Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 09:29:06 -0500 From: Harry Hochheiser Subject: CYBERSitter and Peacefire To: bmilburn@solidoak.com, bennett@peacefire.org, harry@tigger.jvnc.net, mgordon@pipeline.com Dear Mr. Milburn: The Cyber-Rights working group of Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility is a group of computer and network users concerned about the preservation of free and open expression on computer networks. As citizens and professionals, we are concerned by the ramifications of your recent action in SolidOak's dispute with Peacefire. While Peacefire may have published the names of sites that are blocked by CYBERSitter, presence of this material on a web site does not imply any reverse engineering. Your own description of your product provides a fairly concise description of CYBERSitter's restrictions: "any site that focuses on topics such as adult or sexual issues, illegal activities, bigotry, racism, drugs or pornography". Using this list, any determined individuals with web browsers might easily build a profile of sites that are blocked by CYBERSitter. Several members of our group dowloaded your demo, and quickly verified that your software completely or partially blocks access to sites such as the National Organization of Women (http://www.now.org), and the Yahoo search engine (http://www.yahoo.com). Since CYBERSitter's behavior can be easily categorized, Peacefire's publishing of a list of blocked sites does not justify blocking Peacefire's site, or any similar unsavory activities. Furthermore, your approach to blocking Internet content is deeply troubling from a free speech perspective. While certain individuals have legitimate concerns regarding potentially offensive content on the Internet, CYBERSitter provides on overly broad solution to the problem. By blocking sites that focus on topics such as sexuality and drug use, SolidOak may filter potentially educational materials regarding AIDS and drug abuse prevention. Your web site and product information do not provide enough detail to allow parents to make an informed decision prior to purchase of your product. Furthermore, your unwillingness to provide an appeal process is not at all constructive. By summarily banning certain content providers without providing an opportunity for appeal, you are subverting the self-regulating exchange of information that has been a hallmark of the Internet community. The Internet is large enough to allow peaceful co-existence of firms such as Peacefire and SolidOak. We believe the interests of SolidOak, Peacefire and the entire Internet community would be best served by discussion and cooperation, instead of threats, insults and intransigence. On behalf of the First Amendment and the entire Internet community, we urge you to seek a dignified and amicable resolution to your dispute with Peacefire. Sincerely, The members of the Cyber-Rights working group of CPSR