The Platform for Internet Content Selection, or PICS (http://www.w3.org/PICS), is a simple but powerful technology which facilitates consumer choice on the World Wide Web. It embodies an approach which might, in time, be extended to other parts of the Internet, notably to Newsgroups.

PICS emerged in early 1996. It was developed by MIT’s Computer Science Laboratory for the World Wide Web Consortium, the global body which sets technical standards for the operation of the Web.

Background

The need for PICS grew out of the American Internet industry’s concern about the quality, quantity and nature of material which was starting to appear on the World Wide Web in the early to mid-1990s. Parents in particular were expressing anger and anxieties about the amount of hard-core pornography or illegal material which was accessible by minors, or about the violent images and bad language being used on various web sites.

The more responsible sectors of the industry equally were not happy with the growth in such unseemly traffic. They believed it might put off many decent people and thereby act as a brake on the growth of the overall market. In addition they could foresee potential conflicts with a range of laws, both at home and abroad.

In newsagents shops, in the UK at least, legal hard-core pornography is available but it is generally put outside of one’s the natural line of vision, confined to the top-shelf but under the watchful eye of the shop owner or staff who could, for example, prevent children from accessing it. Alas such physical barriers or forms of supervision will not work on the Internet either for pornography or any of the many other types of materials which circulate there.

In the mass media, on TV, in cinemas and with videos, latterly with computer games and certain types of telephone services, systems of classification, watersheds or warnings have been developed. These act as aids in deciding what to view, buy or use, or what to permit one’s children to view, buy or use. In some cases the prohibitions or restrictions have the force of law.

In the case of the TV, cinema, video and computer software and telephone industries, establishing a regulatory environment, classification system or enforcement mechanisms was relatively easy, if sometimes hard-fought. There are comparatively few points of production, few potential points of distribution and the principal reference point is the laws applicable in a given jurisdiction where there will already be institutions such as Inspectorates or the Police who can ensure compliance.

The Internet is not so amenable to centralised or narrowly-based, or indeed nationally-based solutions. The Internet industry therefore decided they needed to devise a system which could work at a highly devolved level e.g. at the level of the individual publisher or web site owner, on an ISP’s or third-party server, network server, or at the level of an end-user’s machine. There are simply too many points of production and distribution for any other approach to be workable, or possibly acceptable to some. Moreover the additional volume, complexity and breadth of material available on the Internet meant that the sort of relatively simple systems which might work with other media, either will not work at all on the Internet or will be too crude to gain widespread acceptance on the Internet.

PICS is an open system. Strictly-speaking, as it is no more than a protocol or framework for describing material, it does nothing at all on its own. In the words of two of the people most closely involved in the development of PICS it merely

"establishes Internet conventions for label formats and distribution methods…..It is analogous to specifying where on a package a label should appear, and in what font it should be printed, without specifying what it should say."

However the interesting and important thing about PICS is the way in which it works with other software components, principally Ratings Systems, filtering products or labelling bureaux. It is this interaction which allows the consumer, the Internet user, to take control.

Ratings Systems

A Ratings System classifies material according to a given set of variables, generally along an x-y axis. Different systems will use different variables. One of the major Ratings Systems is that developed by RSAC.

The RSAC system relies on self-rating by the publisher who goes to RSAC’s web site to complete an on-line questionnaire. The questionnaire asks the publisher to describe the content of the material under four different headings: Violence, Nudity, Sex and Language. Under each of these headings there will be, effectively, five gradations, ranging from zero, meaning there is no content of that type present, to four, which will entail there being gross, extreme or explicit material of that type present. Advice is offered on how to interpret these gradations and once the questionnaire is completed the RSAC server generates a label which the publisher then inserts in the computer coding of their site. The site is also then entitled to display the RSACi logo, as a badge of the responsible "netizen".

Filtering or blocking software

The PICS label, once affixed to a site, can be read by filtering or blocking software which the consumer will have pre-set on their individual machine or server. Microsoft’s Internet Explorer (from version 3.0 onwards) provides access to the RSAC system as the default. The user of Explorer thus has the option to go into View, Internet Options, Content Advisor, to set the required levels. Anything which exceeds these levels will be blocked from the screen and will not be visible unless a password is given to remove the block.

Netscape’s Navigator is still the majority browser. It does not currently provide access to a ratings system as part of the browser itself, although the user can buy one of the commercially-available products and use it in conjunction with Navigator. Netscape have confirmed that in the next major release of Navigator they will provide access to a Ratings System in a similar way to Microsoft. It is thought that they too will opt for the RSAC system as the default.

At the time of writing RSACi had been used to rate only 65,000 sites, which is tiny in relation to the total number. However the system is still comparatively new and now the RSACi stock is increasing at a rate of 5,000 per month.

RSAC relies on self-rating and this may eventually be a problem, particularly if any patterns of persistent, deliberate mis-rating start to emerge. One US Congressman has suggested that deliberate mis-rating should be made a criminal offence but so far that has been resisted.

Access to RSAC is free through Explorer but there are a number of other filtering and blocking products which utilise the PICS labels in various ways. Generally they also provide some additional functionality e.g. the ability to control the amount of time that a given person might spend on the PC surfing the Net, or the ability to control the places one is allowed to go, or the ability to block particular pages with particular words. Some of these commercially available products also do some rating on their own account and issue their own labels.

Labelling Bureaux

A number of third-party labelling services have sprung up which, generally in return for a subscription, will evaluate web sites using PICS data and their own assessments, made according to their own value-based criteria. At the moment these tend to reflect age and family oriented values although in time it is imagined they might reflect particular religious or cultural outlooks.

An end-user would programme their browser to work with their filtering or blocking software in such a way that, before it accessed a particular site, it would check with the label attached to it by their bureau of choice, or perhaps by a combination of bureaux.

Censorship or Empowerment?

The fact is that PICS is a software based solution. It can be turned on or off. People need not use any filtering or blocking software or services, or any labelling bureaux. They can if they wish get the Internet fresh and raw, and as unadulterated as their ISP will allow. However PICS and its related products stand ready to assist, if called upon to do so, by those who wish to keep bits of the Internet at bay. In the end it comes down to a matter of personal taste.

If filtering or blocking packages ever became mandatory on the servers of ISPs, and they were set to exclude certain types of material, then one could see how the PICS technology would have paved the way. However it is hard to imagine the circumstances in which such a compulsory system could be made to work in practice. Few countries’ laws would allow it and there will always be a server somewhere else that will be beyond the scope of such dictatorial excess and which would therefore render the censors’ intentions nugatory.

There are other libertarian objections to PICS but a discussion of them falls outside the scope of a paper of this nature.

Other uses for PICS

PICS could be used in other ways which would benefit the consumer who wishes to undertake transactions over the Internet or wishes to access a range of material. For example a PICS label could be inserted which guaranteed that a particular programme or file someone was about to download had been thoroughly checked for viruses. Alternatively it could be used to provide some reassurance that no copyright rules were being infringed by reading or downloading the material concerned.

Related technologies

PICS has made it possible for others to develop products which can search for particular types of information, can inform you about its likely appropriateness, can warn you not to access certain areas, or can block certain sites. In addition other systems have started to emerge which will provide suggestions about parts of the Internet which are most likely to meet your needs or interests.

In the UK BT are marekting "Campus World" to parents as a closed environment within the Internet, allowing access only to sites which they have previously vetted and approved. It is also possible to monitor how an Internet connection is being used on a particular PC or network.

The way forward

There is an urgent need to improve the protection of children who use the Internet and to give Internet users a greater sense of control of their on-line experience. PICS offers to play its part but here we Europeans are at a huge disadvantage.

For historical reasons American interests have dominated the Internet. Even today about 70% of all Internet users in the world are in the USA and Canada. The maintenance of their leadership position is greatly helped by, although is not necessarily dependent on, the current patterns of ownership both of the Internet's infrastructure and the companies who manufacture either the hardware or the software which runs things on the Internet (where American interests again predominate). Thus it is hardly surprising that almost all of the initiatives which I have discussed so far in this paper have originated in the USA and are still run from there.

This predominance by the USA does not always work in the interests of Europeans. PICS provides a good example of what I mean.

Soon RSAC’s Ratings System will potentially be the default ratings system accessible to over 90% of all end users on the Internet all over the world. In that context other technologies and other possible solutions will find it hard to survive or gain acceptance. A critical mass, once established, is hard to dislodge.

Thus we see how something which essentially sprang out of US domestic concerns is on the verge of becoming a world-standard. In principle this is, of course, not a problem. In reality it is potentially disastrous. The RSAC system uses (specifically) American terminology and is informed by American
mores. It is too narrowly American and, frankly, too simplistic and crude: this is hardly surprising given that it sprang from the US computer games industry.

In its current form and on its current trajectory the adoption and widespread use of RSACi/PICS in Europe will either not happen at all, or will be greatly delayed as we all wait for the emergence of an alternative system which Europeans will find more congenial. In the meantime Europe's children will have gone unprotected, with who knows what consequences or results?

However, even assuming that a full-throated European alternative did emerge there would then still will be difficult questions to face in relation to getting Microsoft and Netscape to incorporate the new "Euro-friendly" system into their browsers, promoting it to Internet publishers and so on. This is the critical mass point again: with the weight already behind RSACi it is entirely possible, if not probable, that no alternative system will get anywhere for a very long time, if at all. Natural monopolies can very easily emerge in the global village. RSAC is already the ratings system used by the great majority of the 100 most-visited web sites in the world, and the RSAC site itself now ranks 35^th in the top 100.

Thus it seems to me clear that it would be far better if we could negotiate with RSAC to get them to modify their system so that it can evolve into a truly worldwide one. There is a willingness in principle on the part of RSAC to do this but, at the moment, given the prevailing ethos of self-regulation, the torch is being carried by European NGOs with very few resources. In this case the principal torch-carrier is the UK's Internet Watch Foundation (on whose Policy Board I sit as an unpaid member).

The IWF has established excellent working links with RSAC and with sister bodies in a number of EU Member States, as well as with their Australian and Japanese counterparts (who share our view) but the whole thing is essentially being run on a shoe-string and with no apparent heavyweight backing at official level.

But there are still a number of obstacles ahead. From the EU's point of view, putting such reliance on NGOs seems to me to be problematic under a number of different headings. Also within a framework of self-regulation we have to recognise that some of the interests behind some of the NGOs involved in this are themselves closely tied to American interests and therefore do not care that much about the outcome. Alternatively their short-termist perspective means they will not feel sufficiently motivated to ensure the success of the project within an appropriate timeframe.

The EU's announcement in November (Action Plan to Promote Safe Use of the Internet) recognised the importance of ratings systems but does not seem to me to have understood the urgency and strategic nature of the issues raised.

While the funds allocated are large, there still seems something odd about saying to private industry and NGOs, "Please submit bids and we will give you 50% of the funds". It is a bit haphazard. The EU ought to have its own explicit agenda which it ensures is delivered.

The way in which the funding rules have been drawn up may conform with standard EU practices and procedures, but they still do not meet the needs of the moment. For example, they do not adequately recognise the importance of the work that is already underway. The emphasis is on funding new work or new initiatives whereas the EU really needs to boost some of the existing processes, either by taking them over itself, or in some other way.

In my view, and it pains me greatly to say it, the UK's IWF simply does not have access to the right sort of funds to complete its work quickly enough. If things are left as they are, by the time the IWF gets the money together the game might be over.

I am not suggesting that the EU should refuse to fund or support non-PICS or non-RSAC-linked initiatives. I can understand why you might want to hedge your bets to some degree and there clearly is great scope for developing third-party Ratings Systems which respond to particular cultural, linguistic, religious or other concerns, or which boost the availability or accessibility of Internet content in European languages other than English.

But somehow or other I am suggesting that the EU should say "We recognise the strategic importance of developing a PICS-based ratings system which will enjoy widespread support in Europe and which could form the basis for discussions with our American and other colleagues in helping a truly global system to emerge. Therefore we are going to support such a process in the following ways."

The Commission and other EU institutions need to become actively engaged at official level in winning support for this approach among individual Member States, thereby increasing the political support for the project and strengthening our (final) negotiating position with the Americans and other interests.

It seems to me that Europe must try harder to speak with a single voice. Having a laissez-faire attitude, or relying on self-regulation, could be fatal to Europe's longer-term strategic interests. We have a lot of catching-up to do and relying on private industry alone seems to me to be an error, not least because so much of that industry is itself owned by non-European interests or walks in the shadow of non-European interests. The Internet companies, in the main, see their home country as their operational base. They see Europe simply as a market, an outpost. They might be very good citizens at home but they are largely indifferent towards Europe’s domestic agenda. Is this a classic case of market failure?