Re: Internet Advertiser's Blacklist Re: Internet Advertiser's Blacklist> 2. Who gets included?
>
> Everyone who is pointed out to me...
>
That's what worries me - someone has appointed themself as the one who
will decide who is and who is not to be blacklisted.
This is not how we operate in a democracy.
This idea, well-meaning though it may be, is scary because someone
(who is this person) is assuming the power to harm others.
Maybe it will all be okay and we will all agree with those who
should be blacklisted - at least at first.
But down the line a few years, when there are 10 or 100 times as many
people on the Net and the Blacklist has become an institution that
can wield real power, what then?
Will the Blacklist owner always be benign?
It's too easy to remember Europe in the 20's and 30's, the U.S. in the
late 40'sand early 50's when voluntary blacklists ruined the lives of
many people.
What is wrong with a blacklist is that it does not provide due process
for those it indicts. Indictment is equal to conviction. There is
no peer review, no hearing for the accused, none of the protections so
important in our democratic society.
I say no to blacklists. That's just not the right way to cure the problem.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Bob Novick, Impulse Research Corp, Los Angeles - bnovick@netcom.com
Public Opinion Research & Consulting - 310-559-6892 - fax: 310-839-9770
8829 National Blvd., Ste 1006, Culver City, CA 90232 U.S.A
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++