Censorware Flaws Shown To COPA Commission 147
The reports themselves make for the most interesting reading; I'll just summarize them here:
FamilyClick
The following sites were blocked on the "18 or older" setting, in other words, the software thinks they were too violent, pornographic, hateful, etc. to be seen even by adults:
- AIDS Day 1997: China Responds to AIDS;
- Diccionario del VIH/SIDA (a dictionary of AIDS-related terms, in Spanish);
- Camp Sussex (a summer camp for low-income children);
- Triangles and Tribulations, an essay on the persecution of gay men and woman in Nazi Germany;
- "Homosexuality: Fact and Fiction", from the Christian Research Journal;
- genealogy of Alice Ficken (her last name means "fuck" in German).
and sodomy laws, pro-family protests of pornography, a defense of Wicca, etc.
Cyber Sentinel
The software's PR blurb says: "At the core of the technology is an advanced recognition engine developed by Security Software Systems engineers (patent pending). This proprietary engine is very fast, very low overhead, and is very accurate."
Blocked sites include:
- CNN.com homepage (because of the story headline "Naples museum exposes public to ancient erotica");
- searches for the term "COPA" on CNet, Wired, Time, and USAToday (because each results page had at least one filthy headline, such as "Back to court for Net porn law");
- The American Family Association (the right-wing group pushing for censorware in libraries and schools, including those surrounding the Slashdot Geek Compound);
- biographies of COPA Commission members Stephen Balkam and Donna Rice Hughes - because they both graduated "magna cum laude" (think about it);
- and, my favorite, the list of papers presented at the COPA Commission!
SurfWatch
This was a more interesting test; Peacefire took a sampling of 1,000 domains from the beginning of the .com zone file, and tested which ones that SurfWatch blocked. (Yours truly wrote the one-liner perl script to find sites that respond to ping; for that, Bennett almost named me co-author before I talked him down from his caffeine high.)
SurfWatch claims that it "adds over 400 new sites to the database every day, while also removing sites that no longer exist on the Internet or that have changed content. Our site database is the most accurate and reliable filtering you can find."
Of the 147 domains blocked, most (96) were clearly "under construction" and were ignored for the test. Of the remaining 51 blocked domains, 42 of them, or 82%, were erroneous blocks.
The 42 supposedly pornographic sites include:
- A-1 Dog Grooming and Kennels;
- American Builders;
- Waterbeds Online;
- A-1 Diamond Limousine;
- Poxy Coat;
- A-Antiques.com.
SurfWatch, for the record, is the software that the American Family Association (see above) and Family Research Council tried to force the Geek Compound's local library to install, earlier this year.
Well.... (Score:5)
1) Even if the software could implement one person's definition of "obscene" 100% accurately, it couldn't do so for more than one person simultaneously.
2) Even if we all agreed that something was obscene, keeping someone (who is old enough) from looking at it is STILL WRONG.
We don't want to move the censorware battle to a place where they keep getting more accurate and we keep pointing out the remaining flaws. We want to start discussing where it is appropriate to target censorware, if anywhere. For instance, I am totally against any kind of filtering in a library or on all ISPs (that is, I don't mind of ChristSoft wants to implement a filter for their members, but I don't want ALL ISPs to start doing it).
Just imagine 5 years from now. FamilyClick is 100% accurate in filtering out those items they think are obscene. They come to Slashdot and say "happy now?" We say, "well, it's accurate---but we don't like it." Too late.
--
CensorWare (Score:2)
Why people would think its anythign else is beyond me. Every time I read these articles I tend to shiver, and then sigh. Shiver because this stuff is popular, and sigh because most people are clueless about the true motives.
You don't want your kid looking at smut? Turn off MTV. You don't want your daughter becoming a devil worshiper? Try instilling a religion You don't want your son smoking pot? Teach him what it does to you.
Something is seriously wrong when you allow technology to be the parent. Nuff said.
Censorware (Score:5)
------------
a funny comment: 1 karma
an insightful comment: 1 karma
a good old-fashioned flame: priceless
Re:What about Slashdot? (Score:2)
Happily reading Slashdot behind SurfWatch.
Censorship on the net (Score:1)
Re:Censorship bad (Score:1)
You wouldn't be advocating government sponsored censorship, would you?
James
Re:Censorship bad (Score:1)
Ah, but you see, the word "censorware" is really a misnomer. You see, although it can be used for censorship, it usually isn't. The primary market for these products is for parents to use in their homes, and for schools to use on their private computer systems. That's not really censorship, because the people using it are completely within their rights (Parents can decide what their kids see, same with the school system), and, more to the point, they're only controlling a certain computer or set of computers. It's no more censored than, say, a newspaper article that only gives one side of the story. Information may be missing, but you can always get to it.
Censorware is flawed, in that it doesn't work. I don't think it ever will, given that everyone's definition of inappropriate is different, but if someone decides a certain product is 'good enough,' then they might as well go for it -- it won't destroy your precious constitutional rights.
The thing I think we ought to watch out for is federally-mandated censorware. That's where the possibility of actual censorship comes up.
Re:Community moderation for selected communities (Score:1)
Unfortunately, it's not like there's a good base list out there that could be used as a seed.
Let me suggest (hopefully without getting flamed) Apple's [apple.com] iReview [mac.com]. They supposedly have teams of people working on listing decent sites. Of course, a list of "bad" sites would still have to be compiled somehow, but the iReview list is a start...
Re:TLDs - .SEX and .XXX (Score:1)
If we set up TLDs for porn sites, most sites would move right over -- after all, they love any kind of advertising they can get, and being able to say that their domain ends in .xxx will attract them. (there would have to be a rule that, say, the owner of a .xxx domain can't use the corresponding .com domain to redirect users, but that could be dealt with.)
The only sites you'll have left are the sites that spammers put up on geocities and them hope somebody gets to before they're taken down, and other similarily shady sites. I really don't know how prevalent they are (I get the emails and so forth constantly, but when I've tried the links they're already down.) so I don't know how much of a problem that is. Still, blocking the .xxx domains would give you a far greater accuracy rate than the censorware products available now.
That would be a Bad Thing (tm) (Score:1)
Otoh, I'd love to see Linux users vote www.microsoft.com down!
)O(
Never underestimate the power of stupidity
The Right Way (Score:2)
If I'm afraid that any potential kids/dependents of mine might see something online that I would consider inappropriate, relying on any flavour of RoboBlock is not the way I want to go. Instead, I'd rather set up a logging facility on my browser. I'd make it clear to them that "my computer, my rules." If I find that they spent a half hour on feelmytits.com (fictional example - I hope), they're going to be confronted about it. In other words, active parenting instead of relying on external morality.
When I worked security, locking the doors wasn't our main job; the employees could do that and it wouldn't prevent determined criminals. Our job was to detect intrusion, to deter it if possible, and to report it after the fact. Not a bad strategy in this situation either, I think.
I have some questions, though. Is there an application for home browser logging of this variety? In reference to other messages here suggesting a consensus-based rating system, do you think an ability to cross-reference a log with such a list (to spot those non-obvious domains) might be useful? And finally, any refinements of this strategy to suggest?
Thanks for your time.
-TBHiX- ;)
Have an amoral geek come down on your head like the Fist of God, all for the low low cost of one spam message!
Bet he's really wondering... (Score:1)
Re:News Flash... (Score:1)
Wow, software that doesn't work perfectly! (Score:3)
Uh, yeah. I got a 404 error a few minutes ago -- clearly these so-called "web servers" are a waste of everyone's time. And those idiots in Congress want to spend money on giving schools Internet access!
Face it, what Peacefire and the YRO crew are opposed to is the possibility that anyone could sit down at any computer and be prevented from accessing anything. If that's what they think, fine. But say that instead of, "Look! A chicken breast recipe is blocked! What a bunch of morons!"
The fact is that filterware is going to be used. No matter how many (+5 insightful) posts we get declaring "When I have kids, I"ll let them view all the porn they want." there is simply no way that some schools and libraries (and parents) aren't going to use filters. And when those filters suck, and can't be configured to support what parents think is or isn't appropriate for their children, the tech community will have its own self-absorbtion and smugness to blame.
Public server that alleviates censorware? (Score:1)
Of course the public proxy server would be the next thing blocked huh?
Re:TLD (Score:1)
The problem with making a .sex TLD is that you make it far too -easy- to regulate. Entire countries could just outlaw .sex without a blink. THe way legislation is passed in the US, we could have it effectively blocked, and upheld in the courts, as unprotected speech. Because it would encompass _ALL_ pornography, the courts wouldn't have to differentiate. Period.
As much as I don't necessarily dig porn, meshing it in with everything else on the net preserves its right to be a sought medium. If you set it as a .sex, you take away that right. And that, flat out is wrong. Whether you dig porn or not.
Re:TLD (Score:1)
I think the point was raised that this would be a horrid mistake, as something like 3-4 companies run the majority of all the porn sites on the net. The namespace would be bought up so quickly that it would be useless after a few months, except to see the pages of a select few companies (i.e. those with money).
--
Censor slashdot? Nah (Score:2)
Why?
Because you can go much, much further.
In every online bulletin board you can find, add to you, add a few selected keywords and a link to a site explaining what the point of this is. That site, for whomever feels like putting it up, should contain a succinct description of what our plan is (put keywords into enough web pages that everything is blocked, showing the true usefulness of censorware) plus links to the EFF blue ribbon campaign, peacefire.org, censorware.org, and a brief description of why censorware is bad.
Don't bother with slashdot -- it's just one of those "hacker sites", after all. And I mean hacker the way the general public uses hacker. Hit the big sites. Hit ZDNet. If Disney has talkbacks, hit them hard. Everywhere you post, put that in your signature and watch the success rate of censorware plummet.
--
Re:Well.... (Score:1)
NO. It should not be blocked. If they are old enough to ask questions, they are old enought to be exposed to anything. It is the job of parents to explain what they like or don't like about reality. Censorship is wrong, and I don't want my children exposed to it. I want my children to know they can ask any question. The minute we start blocking ideas/questions of any sort (including "Daddy, what are those naked people doing with those whips?) we make our children a little duller and dumber.... If you don't want your children asking hard questions, by all means, train them to be stupid and fearful.... I want my children to be truly free in spirit bady and mind!
Re:Censorware (Score:1)
Slashdot type community moderated effort ? (Score:5)
Re:Time for lawsuits (Score:1)
---
The American Way (Score:1)
Re:Slashdot type community moderated effort ? (OT) (Score:1)
Like any system it is quite abusable once you know the rules, and have a reason to do so.
--
Make people use them.... before forcing others. (Score:1)
--Mike--
Re:Slashdot type community moderated effort ? (Score:1)
Well, Just like one has the option of reading Slashdot at -1 (who would ?) -- adults or children with supervision could choose to use the web at what ever setting. More over no single person can influence the rating of a certain site as it could be again like slashdot random moderation. The Internet is global too one person cannot rally the whole world, even if they did all they would do is rate a site not block it...
Censorware and research (Score:1)
Even though none of the documents could be considered even remotely pornographic, I would bet that the site would end up being blocked.
You know... (Score:1)
some censorship is good (gasp). child porn for example is sick and degrading.
but banning ideas? thats wrong.
Hard To Believe (Score:2)
Re:Sad (Score:1)
Now you have a different problem. Lots of parents will choose a censorship package at home, which I also have no problem with so long as they do teir research, But I am not about to try to force them to. Then, they'll send their kids to school, and complain about the agreement because the school doesn't provide them with a way to block Live Goat Porn or whatever and still use this valuable research tool we call the net. I have been _required_ to use the net for many different research projects at school. The approach my high school takes is a fairly simple one: They log everything, make rules against innapropriate things, and use the logs to substantiate if needed. I believe there was only one discreet case last year where this was used. (Three people sending inappropriate email through the world's best anonymous mail service [hotmail.com]. I can't claim to agree with the practice, and I've voiced my objections, but there's not a whole lot I can do. It seems more reasonable than many schools.
---
Re:Before you jump all over 'Censorware'.. (Score:2)
On the main page of the site, there is a picture of 3 girls at the camp, the filename for the picture is girls1.jpg this seems like pretty weak evidence to block the site on though.
There is also the possibility that the server hosting the camp's website also hosts a pr0n site and that the camp is blocked because of its IP address.
Help [206.253.208.199]
Re:Wow, software that doesn't work perfectly! (Score:2)
Uh, yeah. I got a 404 error a few minutes ago -- clearly these so-called "web servers" are a waste of everyone's time.
Unlike censorware, webservers do their job 90% of the time. A 404 error is the worst example you could have used, because that's a webmaster's fault, not the software.
Face it, what Peacefire and the YRO crew are opposed to is the possibility that anyone could sit down at any computer and be prevented from accessing anything. If that's what they think, fine. But say that instead of, "Look! A chicken breast recipe is blocked! What a bunch of morons!"
They are saying that. And they're pointing out the utter crappiness of the software by showing that IT BLOCKS THE VERY ORGANIZATIONS WHO DEMAND IT'S USE, among other valuable informational resources.
The fact is that filterware is going to be used.
WE CANNOT LET THAT HAPPEN. The day that you just accept the fact that "YOU WILL BE CENSORED, FOR YOUR OWN GOOD" is the day that they can say "YOU WILL DO AS WE SAY, BECAUSE WE KNOW WHAT'S BEST FOR YOU."
No matter how many (+5 insightful) posts we get declaring "When I have kids, I"ll let them view all the porn they want."
No one says that. They say that as parents, THEY themselves will be responsible for what their children see. They won't simply use iron fist control, they'll make reasons, they'll discuss it, and they'll do it BY THEMSELVES for THEIR children. Parents can use filters all they want. Libraries should never be forced (IMO, should never be permitted) to use bad, innacurate, filtering software.
And when those filters suck, and can't be configured to support what parents think is or isn't appropriate for their children, the tech community will have its own self-absorbtion and smugness to blame.
The filters suck. They're not very configurable now. And the only people we will have to blame is ourselves for letting their use become mandatory.
Censorship is bad. In libraries it's worse, in my opinion, it's as bad as book burning.
Re:Hard To Believe (Score:1)
Re:Make people use them.... before forcing others. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Pron pedlers have kids too. (Score:1)
Seriously.
One thing these family council people don't seem to realise is that most almost all of the people who sell porn are trying to sell it to people over age. Lets face it you really aren't going to get much money from selling to a 6 year old. Lolly money doesn't stretch that far.
A self monitoring rating system, such as a TLD, will not be perfect, however it will always be more accurate than ad blocking software. Dishonest people will always try to get around the block etc. This works as long as the system is not unduly forced. Everyone wants to trade with an honest person, so self monitoring your site should be more profitable.
Re:Sad (Score:1)
My ideological problem is who controls by what rules we live--imho, government should control our legal behavior (I'll loosely define that as any behavior which directly adversely affects another individual--though it's much more complex that just that) and we should be responsible for our own moral control.
Scott
Re:Censorship bad (Score:1)
Re:Well.... (Score:1)
It takes you 45 minutes to do your morning drugs? You need to get a wider straw or something.
Re:What I'd love to see... (Score:1)
What I'd love to see... (Score:4)
"mom, why can't I get to www.disney.com?"
'Well hon, I guess its all the 'Mickey Mousing' going on there'
-={(Astynax)}=-
Re:Censor slashdot? Nah (Score:2)
Many crackers out there deface web sites. I propose to them to, instead, change the META tags of the sites they crack to include naughty words. Most web admins won't notice, and most readers won't look at the page source.
Do Yahoo, and Ebay first...
no, please make the .sex domain. (Score:2)
For god's sake let them have their own TLD like they were some sort of country.
And if there happens to be nudity on a few non
Re:Wow, software that doesn't work perfectly! (Score:1)
Re:What about certain TLDs and content rating. (Score:1)
BUT. The concept of voluntary ratings is a dangerous one, seeing that anyone could:
a.) Intentionally misrate their page.
b.) Refuse to use the rating system and
c.) Could be forced off their ISP/Forcibly shut down for either A or B.
Re:Well.... (Score:2)
Making better censorware ensures that companies have better options, so they don't sensor the Sussex Summer Camp or babelfish.
-Alison
Re:Trip to Thailand (Score:2)
Fun with languages!
Re:Slashdot type community moderated effort ? (Score:1)
Also, this opens it up to personal grudges... how long do you think the NSA web site would stay visible to this software? All the hackers and crackers and people paranoid of the government would moderate it down.
Re:Well.... (Score:1)
This is an excellent point and I'm surprised at how seldom people bring it up. I usually read scathing arguments about the inaccuracy of censorware, but what happens when it gets more accurate? It's still censorship. It's like telling them not to do it only on the basis that they can't do it completely.
While we're deciding what is art and what is porn, the politicians, family groups, and software companies will be moving on to censor both.
--
Re:Censorware (Score:2)
//rdj
Re:Before you jump all over 'Censorware'.. (Score:2)
Two years ago I gave a talk to a bunch of two-year college marketing folks (NCMPR [ncmpr.org]) and one of them asked me how to get their site unblocked from these services.
Their college's name? Middlesex Community College
I had a hard time believing (at the time) that they could have been blocked just cause the word "sex" is in their name. I figured there had to be something else (like a student's home page or something) doing this.
Now I have to worry about my own college, because we have a campus located in Sussex County, Delaware. Heaven's forbid if we put up a page that describes the location of the campus...
What I don't understand is the amount of people who get upset and threaten to sue about being on the RBL [vix.com] list, a list that every site is manually dealt with and has instructions for how to get off of it, yet there are no cries from both near and far about this censorware crap.
Re:Legislating morality (Score:1)
For example, there are laws against fraud, rape, robbery, and murder. There is an implicit assumption involved that those things are made illegal because they are morally wrong. One can argue that the basis of these laws is that they constitute an aggression of one party onto someone else, but even this presumes that aggression against another is wrong.
<<<<
This boild down to your rights vs my rights, (the basic version) we both have rights to do pretty much whatever we please AS LONG AS it does not infringe others' rights to do whatever they please. Now raping someone sure as hell is infringing their rights, fraud is more complicated matter but can be equaled to stealing (in many cases) and you don't have right to take the property I own (it infringes my right to use my property).
Noted these are not simple issues but there is no inherent need to make them even more complicated.
Re:The Right Way (Score:3)
"Is there an application for home browser logging of this variety?"
Set up a decent LAN with no direct web access from their machines (ie they don't have masquerading on port 80) and/or use a transparent web proxy. That way you can just examine your squid logs and because of the networking you're forcing all your folks to use the proxy so you don't miss anything.
~Tim
--
Let's give jobs to losers (Score:1)
The fun thing would be to set the filter at its most strict level, then fire up testosterone-souring images of voluntary self-castration and whatnot.. then laugh as the reviewer's horrified shrieks resound within the library walls. Oh the cruelty! =)
Re:Slashdot type community moderated effort ? (Score:2)
So ideally, what you want is many of these lists, created by organizations that at least some people trust. A parent giving their child internet permission could then select "Consumer's Union sites for 10 and under", "Jerry Falwell's favorites", or whatever lists appeal to *them.* But no one gets to choose for someone else's child.
Re:Well.... (Score:2)
Actually, I disgree with this somewhat. Shocking, I realize, but follow me here.
The company expends a certain amount of resources by having me here. Salary, benefits, cost to light my cube, cost to provide a certain amount of bandwidth, etc. If the amount of work I do doesn't exceed that cost by whatever arbitrary (but consistent) amount the company wants, then I should be fired. So if I am a particularly productive employee, it shouldn't matter if I spend 45 minutes in the morning viewing porn or taking drugs. I'm still a net benefit to the company.
You might argue that I'm not "giving it my all". Well, no. But it's not the company's place to compare what I am doing to what I could be doing. It's the company's place to compare what I am doing to what they are giving me.
Of course, this is somewhat tangential to the actual case of censorship.
--
Re:Censorware == good business to be in, nowadays (Score:2)
If one guy's voting on the Tits of the Week (towview.com), he's creating a potentially "hostile" work environment for which the company can be responsible. And that means big bucks.
That's controlling corporate resources, nowhere near as bad as forcing a library to do what most have fought so strongly against.
I think most of us hate the idea of censorship.. but it's a reality we can't ignore.
No it's not. We hate it, and therefore we must fight it. Just giving in is the WORST thing you can do because it means you're willing to let yourself be CONTROLLED by those who think that THEY KNOW BEST FOR YOU.
I guess my point is to think about investing in some of these companies, like Websense (on the Nasdaq), even if their software is so shitty and it pisses you off.
NO. We should fight them to the point that they no longer have any business. We should not support them at all. One thing ethics tells you is that YOU DO NOT SUPPORT THOSE YOU DISLIKE. In my case, that's Rambus and any company that creates Censorware.
Instead, why not spend that money you'd waste on censorware companies, and help fund the ACLU and the EFF, the primary organizations that help protect our rights?
Re:Ooohhhhhhhhh (Score:2)
Re:TLD (Score:2)
Sure, some of the sites are fairly obvious (to us) as porn sites, but what about the grey areas? Does the sexual content have to be "pornographic", or is mere nudity enough to require a
My point is that there are sites which you and I might not consider to be obscene, sexual or pornographic, but others would.
Basically, this shifts the filtering process from software and into the name registration system. Requiring all porn sites to use a
Re:Well.... (Score:2)
Some material is not appropriate for children. In particular, material on Web sites that say "you must be 18/21 to enter." If a ten-year-old wants to use a computer in a library, that kind of material should be blocked (assuming we can do it accurately, which is currently not the case). If an 18-year-old is using the computer, they should be able to get to those pages, provided that the computer is set up somewhere where passing children aren't going to be watching.
The same applies to a public school. Schools have rules about what is appropriate and what isn't; those same kinds of rules should apply to 'Net access as well.
Businesses should get to choose what kinds of sites you can and can not visit through their Internet connection.
ISPs, however, should leave the choice up to their customers.
--
Common sense? (Score:2)
I would maintain that probably the best thing any parent could do is instill in their child a healthy attitude towards sex. Another thing would be to monitor their on-line activities until they are either responsible or of a certain age.
It amazes me that these people forget that the first line of defense starts out in the homes, with the parents. A kid who is aware of sex and what it is, but realizes that he is not ready for it will not go looking for porn and will stay away from sites dealing with it.
But for those who are for censorship online: You cannot force someone to be good. They must want to be good.
Ciao
nahtanoj
Censorware is not pure evil (Score:2)
And, while they may not be 100% accurate (and depending on which ones you pick they are FAR less accurate) they do what they are supposed to do, which is help to keep kids (or whoever) away from things they shouldn't be looking at. I think they should have to reveal that they have 10% fake blocks (or whatever it is) but that doesn't mean they can't be used for anything. If they are used intelligently they could be a great tool (especially the one(s) with open block lists). There aren't evil anymore than DeCSS is evil because it can be used to do bad things. It's all in how you use it.
Re:Slashdot type community moderated effort ? (Score:2)
Re:Slashdot type community moderated effort ? (Score:2)
This will be good for some people who will see it as being able to have thier cake and eat it too, because they will be able to visit those sites but only for "moderation" purposes. The rest will simply not do it, leaving less than a random, shall we say, population doing the moderating.
"Just because I don't care doesn't mean I won't listen."
Re:Slashdot type community moderated effort ? (Score:2)
Re:no, please make the .sex domain. (Score:2)
Given the existing restrictions on real-world porn shops, I think a case can be made that putting them in a
I don't really agree with it, but I think a reasonable case can be made.
Re:Wow, software that doesn't work perfectly! (Score:2)
Actually I think I will let my kids view all the porn they want. Censorship just gives kids complexes about sex. Ain't nothin' wrong with sex, damnit.
Now that's insightful!
Re:Well.... (Score:2)
Somewhat true, and I certainly am more productive if I take short breaks during the day and do completely non-work-related things, but there is still the issues of sexual harassment. Unless you have an office with a door that closes, you run the risk of another employee seeing you with a naked chick on your screen and filing charges. And the comany is "negligent" if they do nothing to prevent this.
So my company, where the President is the only one of 2000 employees who has a door on his office pretty much needs to have censorware. Although they have one computer that has a direct connection in the company library. But it still holds that if the company can somehow keep me from viewing pr0n without keeping me from translating press releases into English, I would be much happier.
A little story (from my old job):
I (the only female out of 7 students sharing this office) had a picture of a scantily clad woman as the background on my machine at work. My boss could care less, but he got yelled at by his boss when he walked into the office and saw this up there. She wasn't naked mind you, just wearing a bikini. My boss's response was pretty much "I don't care, but it might be a good idea if you took it down" it was stealing too much of my color map anyway, so I complied...
-nosilA
Re:Censorware (Score:2)
All the minors should need permission to make that decision. And once a parent lets their kid have unlimited internet access, then they shouldn't complain about dog kennel sites using the word "bitches"
the AC
Re:Before you jump all over 'Censorware'.. (Score:2)
----
Community moderation for selected communities (Score:4)
My mental image of the whole thing is a library with controlled and uncontrolled (or minimally-controlled) terminals, where uncontrolled terminals were only available to adults and controlled terminals were available to children. Uncontrolled terminals could access pretty much anything; controlled terminals could access sites already in the database with a ranking (within an category) above a level set by the local staff. Unlisted sites being accessed from the controlled terminals would be bounced to someone else for approval (I'm imaginging this going to someone supervising the children's area of the library). Alternatively, children's terminals could be in one of two modes: private but limited to approved sites or monitored but allowed pretty much uncontrolled access. That way if little Johnny is looking at porn/bomb howtos/drug recipes/whatever, someone shadowing the terminal can see it and either shut down access to the site or go have a talk with Johnny.
On the moderation side, scoring would be a bit more complex than /.'s - moderators could be ranked, and moderators with higher ranks would have more influence on the scoring. Similarly, moderators with low ranks or moderators who abused the system could be given less influence and eventually dropped. By doing this, you could hopefully prevent "poisoning" of the system by people with agendas. Ranking could be handled by something similar to /.'s meta-moderation, but probably more automated. If librarian A puts a site in a category and librarians B, C, and D all disagree with that assesment, A's ranking (overall or within that category) goes down. There could even be a way for the general public to "nominate" sites for moderation with suggestions as to categories.
The biggest headache with the whole thing, I think, would be who does the moderating, particularly early on - it's not like most libraries have people sitting around doing nothing who could just take it on as an additional duty. Unfortunately, it's not like there's a good base list out there that could be used as a seed.
One interesting thing is that if such a system was developed it could have commercial potential as well - perhaps a version of it that did not include the ability to moderate, but which did allow the use of frequently-updated copies of the score files from libraries. By providing it to libraries for free, a company would both help libraries avoid community pushes for censorware with an agenda and gain access to a pool of site raters.
Overall, there are all sorts of potential approaches to the problem of protecting people from disagreeable information, the problems are that there are so many different ideas of what's considered disagreeable and there are so many different ideas of who needs to be protected. On one end, you have people who believe that what's appropriate is no restrictions at all; on the other you have people who believe that all access should be tightly controlled; in between you have the bulk of the populace. In the US the general tendency is probably toward less control, but the tight-control people are noisy. Assuming that somewhere in the middle (limited control) is where things are going to end up, the problem becomes one of ensuring that the controls that go into place are not too restrictive, and that's where I think approaches like this could come in.
Finally, before people jump all over this as advocating censorware, I lean toward the less-control end personally, but I think that there are some things that need to be discussed with children before they're exposed to them unsupervised. Children who think and parents who teach them to do so are the way to go, but in our current society I'm not sure how much we can depend on that.
Re:Slashdot type community moderated effort ? (Score:3)
Re:Wow, software that doesn't work perfectly! (Score:2)
Filterware doesn't work. It doesn't block most porn and it does block stuff that isn't porn. And yet, even with the obvious information that it just plain doesn't work, our government (or parts of it anyway) want to MANDATE it for public institutions and often for adult use. While the loss of a certain chicken recipe is hardly going to convert us to a dictatorship, censorship is a slippery slope. Already many of these censorware sites block www.peacefire.org simply because they discuss the flaws of the programs and there is currently no way to force them to remove politically blocked sites from their blocking lists.
Censorware is used by these political groups to try and mandate a philosophy or religion that many of us feel is inappropriate for our government to mandate. While you may be comfy with this notion, that is your perogative, but the constitution is fairly clear on censorship based on religious criteria.
I for one do not wish to live in a nation where information on sex and drugs cannot be found simply because some group has decided that my innocence would be shattered by viewing it.
Frankly, anything that censors what I see without my consent is in my eyes an abomination. I have never had too much information to help me decide how to live my life. Too little information, however, has often bitten me. If the cost to prevent this is to also allow my son to have more information than I might like then so be it. I doubt a few nekkid pictures will cause any lasting damage to my son's fragile psyche, but not knowing when a drug combination is dangerous might kill him.
Let the kids censor their parents' feed! (Score:4)
It's only parents that have trouble with alleged pornography. Under-age kids either don't understand what they're seeing, or they react with "Yuk!" or else they think it's hilarious (and you've got to admit, rubbing squishy bits together has to be the funniest thing on the planet), and older kids positively love it.
And since kids understand the technology far better than their parents anyway and can easily bypass any block they like, it's really they that ought to be doing the censoring to protect their parents.
Re:TLD (kind of long... sorry if I ramble) (Score:5)
What bureaucrat(s) get to decide which companies are "porn" and which companies merely have "erotic" or "adult-themed" content? And if you find your site branded with the scarlet "S" and subsequently blocked, to whom may you appeal?
Will sites dealing with homosexual lifestyles, erotic fiction, transcripts of Supreme Court nominee hearings, or pro-life/pro-choice advocacy be labelled with ".sex" because of their "adult" content? Does an online gallery of the collected works of Robert Mapplethorpe or David Hamilton warrant the imposition of a .sex domain?
Defining pornography is pretty tricky. D.H. Lawrence, James Joyce, Allen Ginsburg, Henry Miller, and other notable 20th century writers all faced accusations of obscenity. I realize that you probably have a very clear idea of the kind of sites that should be given a .sex TLD, and I probably wouldn't disagree with any of your choices; but, unfortunately, I don't think we can depend on the same rational objectivity on the part of any board of de facto censors.
As another poster has observed, it will be all-too-convenient to enforce a blanket ban on anything with a .sex TLD, and certain lobbying groups will doubtless see to it that such a ban is enforced on campuses and in libraries, or required of local ISPs in small and not-so-small towns across the nation. After all, what elected official wants to be on record with such an "anti-family" position as supporting access to those dirty .sex domains?
Remember the rationale behind the NC-17 rating? The X rating wasn't intended to merely represent pornographic films. The Oscar-winning Midnight Cowboy, for example, was rated X. Eventually, however, X came to signify hardcore, and porn merchants used XXX as another marketing tool. The MPAA eventually adopted the NC-17 rating, ostensibly to allow serious filmmakers to release adult-themed films without being saddled with the same rating as Debbie Does Dallas.
Unfortunately, NC-17 is the financial kiss of death. Why? "Family" newspapers mostly won't run advertisements for NC-17 movies. Most major theatre chains won't show them. Major studies routinely require R-rated films to be delivered (such as the case with Kubrick's last film).
The same thing has happened with "Parental Advisory" labels on rock and rap albums, to a degree, but I won't go into that here; I'm afraid I might have rambled on too long, as it is.
In a nutshell, requiring a new .sex domain opens an entirely familiar can of worms. Whether it's labeled Censorware, Parental Advisory labels, or the Hayes Commission, it's still the same can we've been opening since the Comstock Act.
Re:You know... (Score:2)
Re:Slashdot type community moderated effort ? (Score:3)
You only need to look at who gets sent to Washington to realize the truth of this statement.
Re:Trip to Thailand (Score:3)
---
Well never get rid of these things (Score:4)
Re:Slashdot type community moderated effort ? (Score:3)
Of course, we could always vote on the voters to establish a trust metric. Then we would have to vote on those votes to see if they were valid, and so forth and so on.
Censorship bad (Score:3)
It is quite clearly dangerous, and to protect the rights of all Americans, it should be banned. At the moment, only some sites are restricted, but what if the next version "protects" people from sites that advocate other "dangerous" ideas like free software. Somehow, I don't think the people who write these programs would worry too much if people can't access sites about Linix.
Re:Censorware is not pure evil (Score:2)
-Vercingetorix
Let's not forget one thing .. (Score:4)
We're talking about absolute control here. Right now, the Internet is not as important as TV, but it will be much more important in the near future, and if there's a single company (or an oligarchy of companies) that's in control of what children can see, without public scrutiny, they can do whatever they want. And they will probably get away with it.
That's why the censorware issue is so extremely important, and that's why Mattel went after the guys who cracked the Cyber Petrol filter list. It's not because of accidental overblocking, it's because of the power of intentional censorship by conservative organizations. In schools and libraries, imagine that!
--
Re:no, please make the .sex domain. (Score:2)
I love these debates. First off.. isn't smut to you -- but it might be smut to concerned parents not wishing their young children to see naked women. CAse in point. The Poseidon Adventure [sacbee.com] where a local christian home schooling group 'clothed' the naked Poseidon that was standing near a convention center they were attending. The main quote -- and principal fact we must remember here is.. "What is art in one person's eye is not art in another's,".
If this is deemed offensive, what makes you think other art that incorporates nudity or perhaps other potentially questionable content wont' be silenced? How do we know the Venus DeMilo won't be categorized in the .sex TLD?
Their Reply (Score:2)
The place I used to work explained that they had to strictly monitor every site you went to, not because you might look at something inappropriate, but because some passerby might and could then sue for sexual harrassment.
-----
Censorship bad, but filtering good! (Score:2)
Censorship, the government declaring that you can't publish or read information on $SUBJECT, is bad. Adults have the inherent right and responsibility to make their own determinations on what information to expose themselves to.
Filtering software is ENTIRELY different. As a parent, I want some assurance that my tax dollars aren't supplying my children with porn through the library or public school system. You are not being censored! If you want to download porn, go ahead. Just don't think the government, through schools and libraries, has any obligation to assist.
It also seems that you have a choice. One of the following will happen:
- Filtering in all forms will fail and those who don't want to be exposed or shouldn't be will withdraw from the internet.
- Filtering will succeed somehow as software technology improves to make it possible.
- A reactionary legislature will make it illegal.
The first isn't bloody likely with our ludicrous demand that every school be wired. (WHY?)Most here are arguing vehemently against the second.
You're left with the third, which is what you're going to get. Real censorship, not the voluntary filtering which is being offered now. Be careful what you wish for. You *WILL* get it.
Censorware == good business to be in, nowadays (Score:2)
If one guy's voting on the Tits of the Week (towview.com), he's creating a potentially "hostile" work environment for which the company can be responsible. And that means big bucks.
I think most of us hate the idea of censorship.. but it's a reality we can't ignore. I guess my point is to think about investing in some of these companies, like Websense (on the Nasdaq), even if their software is so shitty and it pisses you off.
True.
Re:Make people use them.... before forcing others. (Score:2)
TLD (Score:3)
It doesn't stop pages from companies in other countries, or illegal pages, but any veteran computer user can tell you that you can't really reliably censor the net. As soon as you make a smarter filter, they'll make craftier pages.
The TLD provides a simple, cheap, effective solution for all law-abiding sites.
Sad (Score:5)
This censorship software is clearly ridiculous, and seems like it has barely improved since the first versions were released. This only adds to the ridiculousness of the demands to censor public access.
On an somewhat sad sidenote, the network administrator of my high school system is also totally against censorship and tracking of websites, but when upgrading servers last year had software installed which COULD do both (but didn't). Apparently he felt that given the attitude in the school system, it was only a matter of time before mandatory censorship and tracking would be the status quo.
Scott
Trip to Thailand (Score:5)
Time for lawsuits (Score:3)
I feel certain that it will remain possible to trick the censorware in both directions for the foreseeable future. There will continue to be false negatives and false positives. The problem is that the image these companies are selling doesn't match with the fine print about the product reliability. And the actual performance has been proven to be even worse than that several times for some of them.
Err... Thai, not taiwanese. (nt) (Score:2)
Re:TLDs - .SEX and .XXX (Score:2)
but I disagree that any sites should be required to house thier domains there.
Instead, the clearly pornographic sites (those that deem themselves to be
of an sexual nature that would normally be subject to screening
only by adults over the age of 18) should be encouraged to migrate their
domains into the
This will act both to allow the domain change without oversight by some
faceless bureaucrat(s); and will give the porn-meisters a better way of
focusing their marketing efforts to an audience that is both interested
and able to pay for thier services. In addition AFAIK, the XXX can be
internationally identified with a specific level of adult activity
(aside from those who still count with Roman Numerals), whereas SEX
is more ambiguous between different cultures, social groups,
and educational levels.
The
health and education that may not in themselves be seen (by some groups)
as pornographic. PlannedParenthood.sex, STD.sex, and even DrRuth.sex
could become respected alternatives which can provide more in-depth advice
for adults, while still allowing for both parental discretion, and providing
an educational resource thru the standard
I realize there will still be opportunites for abuse, but I'd think that
most web-promoters would be more likely to follow the path of least
resistance to continuing success, than to try and buck a trend.
Re:Let's not forget one thing .. (Score:2)
I used to have no objection to censorware as long as it wasn't tax funded, figuring (incorrectly) that parents would learn by experience how stupid it was, and the companies that made it and shamelessly lied about its abilities would go under like they should. I was wrong, though. All of these companies already knew that a market consisting of all-but-the-dimmest-parents is a losing proposition, and they ALL want tax money, every damned one of 'em.
What I don't understand about the phenomenon (and no lawyer, not even the estimable Mr. Tyre, has explained this to my satisfaction) is why we don't see taxpayer-class-action type lawsuits for fraud and misrepresentation against these companies. I'd sign on, because (as always) I object to penny-one of my taxes going to this crap in libraries instead of books, etc. and I'd object even if the invariably-crappy software were somehow truthfully represented as effective and accurate at blocking "bad" sites, which it's obviously not & never has been. Seems like an open and shut case to me, and far more questionable cases get settled every day (I'd like a percentage of that legal fee if this works!).
Or maybe I'm missing something?
JMR
So basically... (Score:3)
Before you jump all over 'Censorware'.. (Score:5)
What about Slashdot? (Score:2)
Re:Slashdot type community moderated effort ? (Score:2)
It just wouldn't work
Ooohhhhhhhhh (Score:5)