January 24, 2006 4:00 AM PST
Do Web filters protect your child?
- Related Stories
-
FAQ: What does the Google subpoena mean?
January 20, 2006 -
Privacy experts condemn Google subpoena
January 20, 2006 -
Senators threaten new Net porn crackdown
January 19, 2006 -
Feds take porn fight to Google
January 19, 2006 -
Senators seek Web porn tax
August 1, 2005
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
See more CNET content tagged:
filter, porn, McAfee Inc., agency, U.S.
122 comments
Join the conversation! Add your comment (Log in or register)
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.
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.
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)
Also, surely children accessing images of violence is going to harm them a lot more.
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.
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.
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)
Also, surely children accessing images of violence is going to harm them a lot more.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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........
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.
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.
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........
Do people still randomly type in www.????.com? I thought people clued into this a long time ago. If not...now you know! :)
Do people still randomly type in www.????.com? I thought people clued into this a long time ago. If not...now you know! :)
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!
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!
Fingerprints are a clear way for people to identify themselves on a computer. It would seem they would be good for banking and other sensitive transactions as well. In porn sires, they would allow for identification without disclosing sensitive information, such as credit card numbers.
The people that wrote in to contradict me seemed to suggest that the idea would open up the door for intense governmental interference, and loss of privacy. But I believe that if the fingerprint identities were located on each person's individual computer(just as names are, when people log in) it would cause no problems. I.E.-You place
your fingerprint identity in with your name and your age when you first log onto your computer. It would be the responsibility of parents to ensure that their kids log in the first time with their correct age. The computer would identify by fingerprint after that, and set the rules accordingly.
Also, how long before the kids with enough knowledge pull a bit from national treasure where they get their parents' fingerprints and use them to surf where they want to go?
And, if the technology were simply used by me, the computers-owner, to control access to my own computer, ...that would be fine.
However, the overall plan is primarily designed around the eventual idea of a "Trusted Computer" being able to "attest", to both "local-software and services" and "external-devices", what software is being used (down to installed service patches and drivers), ...who is authorized (licensed) to use the computer, ...and to allow "remote-identification" of "acceptable uses".
...And yes, that would include being able to identify, and therefore externally-log the activities of each individual-person who uses a computer.
Many industry-analysts have stated that the primary uses of such technology would be, ..."locking" consumers into Microsoft-controlled technology, ...imposing "DRM" restrictions, ...extracting revenue from any technology-company that wished to produce anything which runs on a PC, ...and allowing the "tracking" of virtually all "online-activities".
Furthermore, based upon current and past actions, its hardly a stretch to expect that the government would consider this a "minor loss of freedom" in the name of "protecting the citizens of America" from any number of, "...threats to our way of life".
So, finally, why should I be forced to show ID to use my own computer? Why should I be forced to cough-up an extra one-hundred dollars (your figure) for a computer? Why should I be forced to pay Microsoft, if I want to create, or sell, any computer-product? And, why should I accept being BIO-Metrically "identified", and most certainly "tracked", whenever I use the Internet?
In short, based upon recent business, and government, events, ...why should I risk any of this..?
In summary, while fingerprints could make identification easier it would not be any more secure. Also, it would be implemented improperly by the government and therefore instead of securing our data it would rather invade our privacy.
Fingerprints are a clear way for people to identify themselves on a computer. It would seem they would be good for banking and other sensitive transactions as well. In porn sires, they would allow for identification without disclosing sensitive information, such as credit card numbers.
The people that wrote in to contradict me seemed to suggest that the idea would open up the door for intense governmental interference, and loss of privacy. But I believe that if the fingerprint identities were located on each person's individual computer(just as names are, when people log in) it would cause no problems. I.E.-You place
your fingerprint identity in with your name and your age when you first log onto your computer. It would be the responsibility of parents to ensure that their kids log in the first time with their correct age. The computer would identify by fingerprint after that, and set the rules accordingly.
Also, how long before the kids with enough knowledge pull a bit from national treasure where they get their parents' fingerprints and use them to surf where they want to go?
And, if the technology were simply used by me, the computers-owner, to control access to my own computer, ...that would be fine.
However, the overall plan is primarily designed around the eventual idea of a "Trusted Computer" being able to "attest", to both "local-software and services" and "external-devices", what software is being used (down to installed service patches and drivers), ...who is authorized (licensed) to use the computer, ...and to allow "remote-identification" of "acceptable uses".
...And yes, that would include being able to identify, and therefore externally-log the activities of each individual-person who uses a computer.
Many industry-analysts have stated that the primary uses of such technology would be, ..."locking" consumers into Microsoft-controlled technology, ...imposing "DRM" restrictions, ...extracting revenue from any technology-company that wished to produce anything which runs on a PC, ...and allowing the "tracking" of virtually all "online-activities".
Furthermore, based upon current and past actions, its hardly a stretch to expect that the government would consider this a "minor loss of freedom" in the name of "protecting the citizens of America" from any number of, "...threats to our way of life".
So, finally, why should I be forced to show ID to use my own computer? Why should I be forced to cough-up an extra one-hundred dollars (your figure) for a computer? Why should I be forced to pay Microsoft, if I want to create, or sell, any computer-product? And, why should I accept being BIO-Metrically "identified", and most certainly "tracked", whenever I use the Internet?
In short, based upon recent business, and government, events, ...why should I risk any of this..?
In summary, while fingerprints could make identification easier it would not be any more secure. Also, it would be implemented improperly by the government and therefore instead of securing our data it would rather invade our privacy.
In other words Porn is also bad for adults.Look how many marriages it has broken.(Besides the terrible sin of masturbation) Many people want to use the internet but without the temptations. I would rather have an option where I could get a service provider that filters the internet before it arrives to my house or business. There is a huge market where people are willing to pay extra premiums instead of worrying about what enters their house. Also in the contract it will be that nobody can change there contract and suddenly allow porn.
Search for family ISP in google and at least 3 church based ISP's are returned, do the work yourself, do not ask the gov't to do it for you.
In other words Porn is also bad for adults.Look how many marriages it has broken.(Besides the terrible sin of masturbation) Many people want to use the internet but without the temptations. I would rather have an option where I could get a service provider that filters the internet before it arrives to my house or business. There is a huge market where people are willing to pay extra premiums instead of worrying about what enters their house. Also in the contract it will be that nobody can change there contract and suddenly allow porn.
Search for family ISP in google and at least 3 church based ISP's are returned, do the work yourself, do not ask the gov't to do it for you.
But regardless, even if a .xxx or a .sex domain was created... it still won't 100% solve the porn issue.
As for spending money to prove that those content filtering software on the market today is a waste of money... EVERY SINGLE CONTENT FILTER MAKER... Cyberian inclusive has the same problem.
Images are stored in bits and bytes. And there is NO WAY to program a computer to display Bambi the deer but not Bambi the stripper because the file name is Bambi.jpg. And how is the computer supposed to determine what is and what is not porn when it can't even be defined in words... much less programming language looking at images.
The best description I've seen for pornography is: I know it when I see it. But that's not programmable into computers... even when fuzzy logic is used.
That said... proving current content filters don't filter out 100% is a waste of unnecessary money which could be better used elsewhere.
Anybody can create a home page (corporate or personal) and anybody can create a blog (corporate or personal). Once the site getsw a [Business] rating... all it takes is one hack o rone employee to spend a few minutes uploading porn or swapping out ligitimate pics with porn pics and wala... NONE of the content filters work.
And then you have the problem of cache servers where even if the pornography site is blocked... Google, Yahoo and or any other cache server site will still retain a copy of the pornographic image in it's cache. And as Google, Yahoo or any other business site is rated as [Internet] or [Search Engine], occasionally pornographic images can be retrieved from those cache servers.
Bottom Line: Domain names won't stop porn... nor will content filters guarantee 100% porn free sites.
So where does that leave us... in a world where parents should be allowed to set up their own safe-sites White List.
Anything outside of that is considered pulling the wool over the sheep's eyes.
Walt
should be formed in which only sites which fulfill its standards would be included and otherwised fined or taken out of the list. If it is a webshop or mall that sells lingerie that part of the shop should be clearly distinguishable from the rest of the website so it can be blocked from the clean internet.