Issue: Online Access: Filtering Software: Filtering the Web
Filtering the Web
Screened out: Chicken-breast recipes, Serbia, ghosts, celibacy sites
By John E. Bowes
Published Sunday, April 16, 2000, in the San Jose Mercury News
My recent web search for a recipe was a non-starter. Chicken recipes were abundant, but
a search on "chicken breast'' yielded nothing specific -- it did no better than a search
on "chicken'' alone. Why? Software installed on some library computers blocked my
request on "breast'' because it was "suggestive'' and thus unfit for public use.
Parents, librarians and schools have all sought shelter from violent, sexual and
indecent content on the World Wide Web. This concern is warranted. The unruly Internet
circulates material on thousands of contentious topics from bomb-making to bestiality.
At the same time, the Web also gives voice to racial, ethnic, sexual and gender
minorities -- and dozens of helpful organizations that comment responsibly upon matters
of violence, sex and other sensitive social issues.
Before joining the filtering bandwagon, we should ask: Does such software work
effectively? Is it the best kind of control for anxious communities?
In response to citizen complaints, three states have laws requiring Internet filters in
schools and libraries. California State Senate Bill 1617, currently in legislative
hearings, would mandate filtering in libraries and would require parents' permission for
all minors wanting Web access.
Regulating anti-social information at the source has failed constitutional tests, as
when the Supreme Court overturned the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Consequently,
states and parents are rushing to protect the consumer end. Internet service providers,
wishing to minimize complaints, now offer "upstream'' filters that regulate Internet
content.
Most filtering software scans incoming content for "bad'' words or phrases: sexy, gay,
make a bomb. Whole groups, topics and categories of opinion are prejudged by their
keywords, deemed offensive and blocked.
Address blocking is more specific: Web sites that the software maker considers
indecent -- or politically unpopular -- go on a master lock-out list.
A third type of filter is even more restrictive: It allows one's Internet universe to be
composed only of "safe,'' pre-screened Web sites. All other locations are blocked.
Filtering is sometimes combined with a second major class of software, monitoring.
Monitoring products do not block offensive content; they record pages for later review
by parents or supervisors. The vast majority of these products operate by stealth,
without notifying the user. Parents and employers are advised to "counsel'' their
children or employees after the fact about proper Internet use.
There are problems with both kinds of software:
Filters make mistakes, blocking useful information and allowing unsavory materials to
pass on to users.
In "Passing Porn, Banning the Bible,'' the Censorware Project
tested one popular product, N2H2's Bess. Bess blocked access to Web sites about
celibacy, cats, ghosts and Serbia -- as well as sites critical of Internet censorship.
Yet many obviously pornographic sites slipped by Bess, such as "stripshowlive.com'' and
"hardcoresex.com''.
It should satisfy no one that safe and risque topics both are abused by filtering. The
semantics and context of language are too subtle for simple stereotypes of "right'' and
"wrong'' sites built on categorical keywords. Though filter products often claim that
"artificial intelligence'' guides their actions, little or no IQ is in evidence.
More than 50 percent of available software can operate in a hidden mode, leaving users
unaware that content is presented selectively or monitored silently.
This is unsatisfactory for libraries and schools, where unfettered access to information
is a hallmark of good academic research and free inquiry.
No agreed-upon standards yet exist for evaluating filtering software. Legislation
mandating filters rarely speaks to the quality criteria these products should meet.
Popular filter software packages sell for as little as $30; some are given away for
free. Are margins great enough to allow continuous updating of products to reflect
rapidly changing Web content, keyword meanings and shifting social standards?
Many filtering programs cannot be adjusted for the type of user, meaning that adults can
be subjected to severe standards set to protect children. In some packages, parents and
schools cannot adjust filtering action for different grade levels or local standards.
The Internet is a mass-reach platform for thousands of groups that cannot make their
views known through costly commercial media like television. It is a way for minorities
to reach out across great distances to gather their communities on a worldwide scale.
But groups bearing oft-filtered terms in their titles -- breast cancer support groups,
sexual and gender minorities, safe-sex education sites -- rarely pass through the
software gates. Filtering and blocking products unfairly exclude them from the
marketplace of ideas.
The best way to protect young people is to train them on how to find valid and socially
useful information from the Web and how to properly handle material that is invasive,
obscene or potentially harmful. If filters cannot be avoided, they should be carefully
assessed for how frequently they are updated, how much users can customize them and how
exactly their blocking works.
Every major advance in media over the past 100 years has caused concern for its effects
on society, particularly children. In each case legislation and industry codes were
advanced, including some that seem very naive in retrospect. In time, wiser solutions
evolved.
The Internet is no different. Filters offer a quick, hidden fix to a complex problem
that won't wear well in the long term -- even for recipes.
John E. Bowes is a communications professor at the University of Washington. He wrote
this article for
Perspective
in the San Jose Mercury News.
top of page
|