Do Web filters protect your child?

Millions of parents around the country rely on Web filtering software to shield their children from the nasty side of the Internet--porn, predators and other unseemly phenomena.

But according to the U.S. Justice Department, Web filters are not enough to protect minors. The agency voiced its concern about the technology last week as it geared up to defend an antiporn law that's under attack from civil liberties advocates.

The case, which deals with the 1998 Child Online Protection Act, grabbed attention Thursday after the department subpoenaed Internet search companies, including Google and Yahoo, for millions of search records.

Prosecutors said they need the records to understand the behavior of Web users and how frequently they encounter pornography. Internet addresses obtained from the search engines could be tested against filtering programs to evaluate their effectiveness, the agency said in a court filing.

Casting doubt on the usefulness of Web filters should put American families on edge. More than half of U.S. families with online teens use filtering programs, with more than 12 million copies of such software in use, according to a study conducted last year by the Pew Internet and American Life Project. The report indicated that use of filters in U.S. homes grew 65 percent from four years earlier, as children logged on to the Web in ever greater numbers and the online porn industry continued to flourish.

So just how well do such tools really work? Experts say the technology is not flawless but that it's become more sophisticated in recent years. For instance, developers of filters have learned to thwart some of the more common devices designed to disable them and have added more customization features that give parents greater control over the type of material that can be blocked.

"They're not perfect, and it's hard to see how they ever really would be," said Amanda Lenhardt, a researcher at the Pew Internet and American Life Project. "But they are relatively effective. They do a reasonably good job."

The Consumers Union, which publishes Consumer Reports, agrees. The company re-evaluated 11 products in June, concluding that filtering software has improved since a previous report in 2001 but that the products are "still fallible."

"Filters keep most, but not all, porn out," the group writes in an online overview of the report.

The products that scored highest in the Consumers Union's evaluation were Safe Eyes from SafeBrowse.com, Microsoft's Parental Controls, CyberPatrol from SurfControl, Symantec's Norton Internet Security and McAfee's Privacy Service. Most took just minutes to set up, the group said.

"We've come a long way from the days when searching on 'Little Bo Peep' would yield adult sites for the first 20 listings," said Ray Everett Church, a privacy consultant at PrivacyClue, a research firm.

Web filtering software blocks access to objectionable material through a variety of methods, including blacklists, keyword lists, content rating systems and white lists. Blacklists consist of a predetermined set of Web addresses and will not let users visit specific Web pages.

A keyword list actually scans Web sites for undesirable text and, in some cases, images. If it finds a match, the browser refuses to render the site or pops up a warning. White lists, considered the most restrictive method, block access to all sites except those selected by the filter company. Some filters also work in conjunction with Web site ratings, a voluntary system that relies on Web developers providing an honest description of their content.

Some Internet service providers, including AOL, also try to do their part. Twenty-five percent of AOL's 20 million members sign on under parentally controlled screen names.

"It is a robust and multileveled set of controls to help ensure kids don't have access to inappropriate content and do have access to useful and appropriate content," said AOL spokesman Andrew Weinstein.

As advanced as some of these programs have become, Internet

[rcrusoe]

Take responsibility for your children

Some filters are better than others, but the best solution for protecting children online is parental supervision.

Don't let your child have a computer in their room, put it in a public area in your home. Teach them how to avoid the dark/dangerous areas of the net, and only allow them to use the computer when a parent or guardian is at home.

If you don't know how to do the above - Learn.

The government is good at some things. Controlling content on the Internet, a global entity mostly outside the reach of U.S. laws, is not one of them.

[kevinspammons]

I Could Not Agree More

Hear hear! I also find it so hypocritical that the Republicans, the supposed party of eliminating government interference and promoting individual responsibility, would so enthusiastically suppport such a policy. But, then again, considering how they get most of their campaign money from people who think the world is going to come to an end if a kid sees a pair of hooters, I guess I'm not surprised.

[rcrusoe]

Take responsibility for your children

Some filters are better than others, but the best solution for protecting children online is parental supervision.

Don't let your child have a computer in their room, put it in a public area in your home. Teach them how to avoid the dark/dangerous areas of the net, and only allow them to use the computer when a parent or guardian is at home.

If you don't know how to do the above - Learn.

The government is good at some things. Controlling content on the Internet, a global entity mostly outside the reach of U.S. laws, is not one of them.

[kevinspammons]

I Could Not Agree More

Hear hear! I also find it so hypocritical that the Republicans, the supposed party of eliminating government interference and promoting individual responsibility, would so enthusiastically suppport such a policy. But, then again, considering how they get most of their campaign money from people who think the world is going to come to an end if a kid sees a pair of hooters, I guess I'm not surprised.

[Mutex]

Quite frankly,

Who cares? Like the guy said, who's ever been permanently harmed by accidently coming across porn when they were young?

[David Arbogast]

Children

Young children can be harmed by adult content. You don't have to agree, you just have to respect the opinion of parents, who want to decide how and when to introduce the subject to their developing children. In *most* cases, adult media does NOT accurately reflect reality... making this a child's first exposure to the "adult" world can create a warped sense of reality.

[Mutex]

Quite frankly,

Who cares? Like the guy said, who's ever been permanently harmed by accidently coming across porn when they were young?

[David Arbogast]

Children

Young children can be harmed by adult content. You don't have to agree, you just have to respect the opinion of parents, who want to decide how and when to introduce the subject to their developing children. In *most* cases, adult media does NOT accurately reflect reality... making this a child's first exposure to the "adult" world can create a warped sense of reality.

[bemenaker]

The Government is smoke screening

The government's intent here is not just limiting the access of pornography to kids. If that was their intent they would be taking a totally different approach on this subject. The current administration is trying to launch an outright attack on pornography in general.

If the government really wanted to make pornography easy to filter out so that you could simply protect you kids, they would not have opposed the .xxx high level domain. In fact, they would have embraced it, and put a caveat in there that all pornography MUST be in the .xxx domain.

The government refusing to accept and embrace the .xxx domain shows that they have no interest in actually working to rectify the problem, and allow pornography on the internet, and make an easy way to filter it out for kids. This tatic shows that they have one intent, and one intent only, to remove pornography from the internet. (Like that is possible)

[Mutex]

One question,

Why?

Also, surely children accessing images of violence is going to harm them a lot more.

[David Arbogast]

Foolish Theory

<<The current administration is trying to launch an outright attack on pornography in general. >>

Another foolish left-wing conspiracy theory. Your xxx domain example is just horrible. The government knows that publishing content under .com, .net, .org, etc, is a right, and they did not interfere with the industry's ability to publish content under any domain they choose. You see, they were PROTECTING the rights of the adult entertainment industry. You really have it backwards.

And now, they are doing a STUDY to determine which methods best accomplish the goal of upholding the adult-content distribution problem, and they were careful to ask for data that would not violate any person's rights.

The governmetn is working to address everybody's concerns in this matter while protecting our freedoms. Your loony conspiracy theory is... just that. Loony.

[DannyJock]

What about respecting the feelings of religous people?

What about the fact that I cannot walk into a petrol station or supermarket (In the UK)without being tempted to look at those pics. If you are going to allow porn(which I personally see as much much worse than legalizing drugs)atleast keep it in the news agents but not where
I have to buy my essentials because it infringes on my rights as not respecting me being a religous person. The same applies to putting pictures on cosmetic products which show partial nudity or billboard adverts. In other words freedom and respect go hand in hand. Otherwise you have anarchy. What I am saying is consider the feelings of religous people as well even if you may not have the same beliefs as them.That is what a multicultural society and democracy is all about.

[bemenaker]

The Government is smoke screening

The government's intent here is not just limiting the access of pornography to kids. If that was their intent they would be taking a totally different approach on this subject. The current administration is trying to launch an outright attack on pornography in general.

If the government really wanted to make pornography easy to filter out so that you could simply protect you kids, they would not have opposed the .xxx high level domain. In fact, they would have embraced it, and put a caveat in there that all pornography MUST be in the .xxx domain.

The government refusing to accept and embrace the .xxx domain shows that they have no interest in actually working to rectify the problem, and allow pornography on the internet, and make an easy way to filter it out for kids. This tatic shows that they have one intent, and one intent only, to remove pornography from the internet. (Like that is possible)

[Mutex]

One question,

Why?

Also, surely children accessing images of violence is going to harm them a lot more.

[David Arbogast]

Foolish Theory

<<The current administration is trying to launch an outright attack on pornography in general. >>

Another foolish left-wing conspiracy theory. Your xxx domain example is just horrible. The government knows that publishing content under .com, .net, .org, etc, is a right, and they did not interfere with the industry's ability to publish content under any domain they choose. You see, they were PROTECTING the rights of the adult entertainment industry. You really have it backwards.

And now, they are doing a STUDY to determine which methods best accomplish the goal of upholding the adult-content distribution problem, and they were careful to ask for data that would not violate any person's rights.

The governmetn is working to address everybody's concerns in this matter while protecting our freedoms. Your loony conspiracy theory is... just that. Loony.

[DannyJock]

What about respecting the feelings of religous people?

What about the fact that I cannot walk into a petrol station or supermarket (In the UK)without being tempted to look at those pics. If you are going to allow porn(which I personally see as much much worse than legalizing drugs)atleast keep it in the news agents but not where
I have to buy my essentials because it infringes on my rights as not respecting me being a religous person. The same applies to putting pictures on cosmetic products which show partial nudity or billboard adverts. In other words freedom and respect go hand in hand. Otherwise you have anarchy. What I am saying is consider the feelings of religous people as well even if you may not have the same beliefs as them.That is what a multicultural society and democracy is all about.

[Erik the Beige]

This is incredibly easy to fix

This problem has such an easy fix I'm not in the least bit surprised someone hasn't thought of it.
The .XXX domain name. Get it going. If a site is to be pornographic, it MUST be labeled with .XXX domains. Then, to block porn, simply block all .XXX domains.
If someone is caught hosting/making a pornographic site that is not .XXX, then massive fines and jail/prison time occurs.
This can't be that hard to figure out. And I'm sure other countries will jump on this idea. It can also be applied to gambling sites (.GAM) or... ok, now I'm drawing a blank as to what other sites people want to block. But there is no reason this simple idea won't work... other than it being too easy for any government to catch on to.

[VI Joker]

Only if a question is answered

Just one question. Who determines what is porn? Until you get everyone to agree on what is porn and what is not the .xxx domain will not work.

[cryhavoc2112]

Easy in Thoery, Difficult in Real Implementation

I am in agreeance with the statement of this proposed fix. However, getting even our own country to conform to the proposed separation has proved quite difficult. And who makes the classification and what is that criteria? Do sex education sites get .xxx tags? What agency would govern that and what recourse do sites that feel they have improperly been labeled have? What about forums and newsgroups? "Inappropriate content" can be classified as more than just a porn site, including text as well as media.

My point here is that it takes active monitoring, and there is no infrastructure in place at this time to do so outside of filtering applications.

[David Arbogast]

Will NOT work.

First, how do you enforce this rule around the world??

Secondly, you are proposing to take away a freedom/right... A company can buy whatever unclaimed domain they can think up... and publish the content that they choose to publish. This is a freedom. Now you want to tell everybody in the country what domain extensions they must use, and what content belongs under which domain extension... never going to work. How do you police THAT?? Subpeona more records from Google, I suppose........

[Erik the Beige]

This is incredibly easy to fix

This problem has such an easy fix I'm not in the least bit surprised someone hasn't thought of it.
The .XXX domain name. Get it going. If a site is to be pornographic, it MUST be labeled with .XXX domains. Then, to block porn, simply block all .XXX domains.
If someone is caught hosting/making a pornographic site that is not .XXX, then massive fines and jail/prison time occurs.
This can't be that hard to figure out. And I'm sure other countries will jump on this idea. It can also be applied to gambling sites (.GAM) or... ok, now I'm drawing a blank as to what other sites people want to block. But there is no reason this simple idea won't work... other than it being too easy for any government to catch on to.

[VI Joker]

Only if a question is answered

Just one question. Who determines what is porn? Until you get everyone to agree on what is porn and what is not the .xxx domain will not work.

[cryhavoc2112]

Easy in Thoery, Difficult in Real Implementation

I am in agreeance with the statement of this proposed fix. However, getting even our own country to conform to the proposed separation has proved quite difficult. And who makes the classification and what is that criteria? Do sex education sites get .xxx tags? What agency would govern that and what recourse do sites that feel they have improperly been labeled have? What about forums and newsgroups? "Inappropriate content" can be classified as more than just a porn site, including text as well as media.

My point here is that it takes active monitoring, and there is no infrastructure in place at this time to do so outside of filtering applications.

[David Arbogast]

Will NOT work.

First, how do you enforce this rule around the world??

Secondly, you are proposing to take away a freedom/right... A company can buy whatever unclaimed domain they can think up... and publish the content that they choose to publish. This is a freedom. Now you want to tell everybody in the country what domain extensions they must use, and what content belongs under which domain extension... never going to work. How do you police THAT?? Subpeona more records from Google, I suppose........

[chassoto--2008]

No, they don't...

That's MY job.

[David Arbogast]

You can't take a job from the police

It is also the government's job to enforce laws, whether you help them out or not. Just like cops have to sit and clock speeders, adult content distribution has for a long time been regulated and monitored for compliance. Its great that you do your part... now lets not cut the teeth out of our laws.

[chassoto--2008]

No, they don't...

That's MY job.

[David Arbogast]

You can't take a job from the police

It is also the government's job to enforce laws, whether you help them out or not. Just like cops have to sit and clock speeders, adult content distribution has for a long time been regulated and monitored for compliance. Its great that you do your part... now lets not cut the teeth out of our laws.

[Sure Thing]

Yes changes have to made

Its complete chaos on the web right now. You will hit porn sites whether you intended or not that is guaranteed. I wanted to go to dilbert.com and typed dilber.com by mistake and it took me to a porn site and that was at WORK!! Also one time in college I was looking for the legend of Zelda and typed zelda.com and it was a porn site (that site was later sued by Nintendo). Point is porn sites are competing for customers and they're trying to take advantage of any keywords even those usually used by kids (like game name) and also using typos which any one can make. If adults who are not looking for porn will stumble on it, imagine what happens with kids?

[gefitz]

QUIT IT!

Any newbie knows that, if they don't know the exact address for the content they need, you use a search engine! You don't just type in any old address and close-your-eyes-and-cross-your-fingers still, do you?

Do people still randomly type in www.????.com? I thought people clued into this a long time ago. If not...now you know! :)

[Sure Thing]

Yes changes have to made

Its complete chaos on the web right now. You will hit porn sites whether you intended or not that is guaranteed. I wanted to go to dilbert.com and typed dilber.com by mistake and it took me to a porn site and that was at WORK!! Also one time in college I was looking for the legend of Zelda and typed zelda.com and it was a porn site (that site was later sued by Nintendo). Point is porn sites are competing for customers and they're trying to take advantage of any keywords even those usually used by kids (like game name) and also using typos which any one can make. If adults who are not looking for porn will stumble on it, imagine what happens with kids?

[gefitz]

QUIT IT!

Any newbie knows that, if they don't know the exact address for the content they need, you use a search engine! You don't just type in any old address and close-your-eyes-and-cross-your-fingers still, do you?

Do people still randomly type in www.????.com? I thought people clued into this a long time ago. If not...now you know! :)

[feedbackuser5]

The amount

How much cleavage has to be showen to be considered porn?

[feedbackuser5]

Re:

This message was supposed to been replyed under Brian Emenaker "There is a definition of porn already" Don't know why it posted here after I loged in.

[gefitz]

1.7 inches in the US...8.926 in Norway....

EOC

[feedbackuser5]

The amount

How much cleavage has to be showen to be considered porn?

[feedbackuser5]

Re:

This message was supposed to been replyed under Brian Emenaker "There is a definition of porn already" Don't know why it posted here after I loged in.

[gefitz]

1.7 inches in the US...8.926 in Norway....

EOC

[gefitz]

...Which makes the .xxx domain USELESS!

None of the international nations involved in the discussion have bought into the idea of forcing "porn" to register as a .xxx domain. Unless this happens, it makes no sense at all to bother legislation in the US that porn sites must do this or that or the other thing. The point is that doing this a) will simply force porn sites the "home" in a country other than the US.

At this point, I think a large percentage of what the US considers "web-porn" is probably hosted out of US jurisdiction. So, a monolithic move to force the .xxx domain would be pointless unless other countries agree to do it as well.

Which brings up...how are all those countries going to agree on what "porn" is?

ALL A POINTLESS ENDEAVOR!

[RavingEniac]

a political ploy perhaps

Trying to agitate the US public about porn might be an attempt to wedge government control of the global international internet into law---at least as far as US residents are concerned. There are a number of hyper-alert people who worry that, in the Bush administration, various measures of trying to encroach on people's constitutional rights are a systematic effort to make the US more like a dictatorship. One way to promote curtailment of rights is to create or allow situations and conditions for which the proposed solution is the curtailment of the rights you want to get rid of. This has been done before. One practitioner of this technique was Hitler.

[gefitz]

...Which makes the .xxx domain USELESS!

None of the international nations involved in the discussion have bought into the idea of forcing "porn" to register as a .xxx domain. Unless this happens, it makes no sense at all to bother legislation in the US that porn sites must do this or that or the other thing. The point is that doing this a) will simply force porn sites the "home" in a country other than the US.

At this point, I think a large percentage of what the US considers "web-porn" is probably hosted out of US jurisdiction. So, a monolithic move to force the .xxx domain would be pointless unless other countries agree to do it as well.

Which brings up...how are all those countries going to agree on what "porn" is?

ALL A POINTLESS ENDEAVOR!

[RavingEniac]

a political ploy perhaps

Trying to agitate the US public about porn might be an attempt to wedge government control of the global international internet into law---at least as far as US residents are concerned. There are a number of hyper-alert people who worry that, in the Bush administration, various measures of trying to encroach on people's constitutional rights are a systematic effort to make the US more like a dictatorship. One way to promote curtailment of rights is to create or allow situations and conditions for which the proposed solution is the curtailment of the rights you want to get rid of. This has been done before. One practitioner of this technique was Hitler.

[gefitz]

Should be under the .xxx domain discussion above...

Mine posted in the wrong place! Ugh...

[gefitz]

Should be under the .xxx domain discussion above...

Mine posted in the wrong place! Ugh...

[duke12aw]

as a teenager

as a teenager, i know that when i am a parent i woulod be worried if my son wasnt interested. come on, its only natural, we teens a curious and some of us, especially those that read cnet, dont have the skills with girls :P

[TheTechKid]

I hold a different opinion

I love tecnology and cnet is my source of news too, I do not however, believe that an intrest in this portrayal of human sexuality is a very good one at all. Thus, I believe that wanting and desiring to see it online is not a good indication of 'intrest in it'. I am however not in favor of personal webfilters, I believe that they only widen the chasm between the parents and their children. This is because normally children are presented a picture of trust until the trust is broken and a premptive action such as this does not agree with that. I think that the possible psychological side effects far outway the need for a personal webfilter. Finally webfilters are relatively easy to get past anyhow as stated in the article.

[duke12aw]

as a teenager

as a teenager, i know that when i am a parent i woulod be worried if my son wasnt interested. come on, its only natural, we teens a curious and some of us, especially those that read cnet, dont have the skills with girls :P

[TheTechKid]

I hold a different opinion

I love tecnology and cnet is my source of news too, I do not however, believe that an intrest in this portrayal of human sexuality is a very good one at all. Thus, I believe that wanting and desiring to see it online is not a good indication of 'intrest in it'. I am however not in favor of personal webfilters, I believe that they only widen the chasm between the parents and their children. This is because normally children are presented a picture of trust until the trust is broken and a premptive action such as this does not agree with that. I think that the possible psychological side effects far outway the need for a personal webfilter. Finally webfilters are relatively easy to get past anyhow as stated in the article.