Complaints Mount About Internet Filter Blocking
The World Wide Web seemed an ideal, low-cost place to publish “The Ethical Spectacle,” Jonathan Wallace’s newsletter about politics, law and ethics. In fact, since the New York City lawyer began distributing the free publication online more than two years ago, circulation has grown to more than 30,000 readers.
But a few weeks ago, Wallace got troubling e-mail from an acquaintance. “It said, ‘Do you know your pages are being blocked by a software filter?’ What it meant was that anyone who had installed the filter couldn’t see my pages,” said Wallace. “It was censorship.”
The restriction against Wallace’s Web site was quickly lifted after he complained to Microsystems Software Inc., which owns the CyberPatrol filter. But the incident illustrates what critics say is a growing problem with software filters, which are installed on personal computers to block access to certain World Wide Web sites.
Intended as a way for parents to keep their children away from Web pages that are sexually explicit or racist or otherwise inappropriate, filters were being hailed only a year ago as a palatable alternative to the Communications Decency Act--the controversial federal law that would sharply curtail so-called indecent communications on the Internet.
But now, as the Supreme Court prepares to decide whether the act is constitutional, many “netizens” and civil libertarians are having second thoughts about filters, with some even labeling them “censorware.”
Much of the concern lies in the fact that filters have begun to move from private homes into the public arena. Libraries in Boston, Austin, Texas, Florida and Long Island, N.Y., have purchased filters for computer terminals that are used by adults and children alike--raising questions about appropriate use and the idiosyncratic criteria the programs use in deciding which sites to block.
As Wallace’s case illustrates, moreover, the filters are subject to clumsy mistakes: His site was blocked because it referred to a recent book he wrote, titled “Sex, Laws and Cyberspace,” and the CyberPatrol software concluded that he was displaying a “sexual text.”
“People have forgotten that filters are supposed to be a personal alternative that you install in your own home, and so the technology is now being installed in places where it shouldn’t,” said Judith Krug, director of the Office for Intellectual Freedom of the American Library Assn. “Unfortunately, libraries are under incredible pressure to do something to ‘protect the children.’ ”
Added Ann Beeson, staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union: “While we still think that private use of blocking technology by parents is a much better alternative to government censorship, mandatory use of these filters by government institutions does pose serious 1st Amendment problems.”
More Filter Use Is Seen
Internet watchers agree the use of filters--as well as an emerging system for rating the content of Web pages--is likely to expand rapidly, especially if the Supreme Court strikes down the decency act.
Internet access providers are increasingly coupling filters with their own products, with companies like BellSouth, Hong Kong’s HKNet and Microsoft now offering SurfWatch as an option.
“What we provide is a choice,” said Paul Balle, a product manager on Microsoft’s Internet Explorer team. “We give users a choice as to whether they want to screen some of the content they want to view.”
Manufacturers of the most popular filters--with names like CyberPatrol, SurfWatch, CyberSitter, X-Stop and NetNanny--say people simply expect too much from a new technology. In most cases fewer than 2 years old, the filter products, now used by several hundred thousand customers around the world, are evolving as rapidly as the Internet itself.
Little Choice in Early Versions
The earliest versions of filters, first marketed in 1995, gave customers little choice in customizing the products.
“It was totally subjective as to what we thought should be filtered,” said Sami Bray, a SurfWatch product marketer. “But recent versions are more interactive, allowing people to customize the filter, and people feel better about that.”
Susan Getgood, CyberPatrol’s director of marketing, said her company moved quickly to unblock Wallace’s “Ethical Spectacle” site because the company has a policy: “If people find something that they think shouldn’t be restricted, we review it. And if we agree, we take it off the list.”
Although each filter has its own quirks, in general the programs work by automatically scanning the text of a particular site and searching for groups of words that would be associated with inappropriate topics.
Automatic scanning is supplemented by suggestions from employee Websurfers and customers.
Each filter company creates its own criteria for “inappropriate.” For instance, while all the filters block sites that have explicitly sexual content, only CyberSitter blocks sites that deal with gay or lesbian issues.
“We get a lot of criticism for that, but one of the nice things about this country and the free-enterprise system is that there’s room for everybody,” said Brian Milburn, president of Solid Oak Software Inc., which owns CyberSitter. “If we were running around gay bashing, that would be different. There are a lot of people in this country who don’t think gay or lesbian topics are appropriate for pre-teenagers. We’re just saying that our customers want the choice.”
While the companies make public the criteria they use, the actual list of blocked sites is usually considered a trade secret. Sometimes, the imperfect software programs make the wrong choices--and computer users may never know it unless they stumble on the problem inadvertently.
“I have one colleague in Ohio who was told to put filtering technology on his computers,” recounts Krug of the American Library Assn. “One of the most vocal library board members there said he wanted sex eliminated, so my colleague said, ‘OK,’ and filtered out ‘s-e-x.’
“The only problem was that the software not only filtered out sites that discussed sex education and sexual diseases, but also sites that mention the Earl of Sussex and the town Middlesex, Connecticut. That library decided to try another filter.”
Civil libertarians are anything but united on the filter question, with some arguing that criticism of the technology itself is misplaced.
“This is not a problem with the software. It’s a problem with library policy, so don’t attack the software. That’s hysteria,” said Shabbir Safdar, co-founder of the Voters Telecommunications Watch, a nonprofit political action group formed to fight the Communications Decency Act. “I still think filters are very important tools that allow parents to make decisions. Calling them censorware is hyperbole.”
Even critics acknowledge that there are few other choices for people who are determined to block certain kinds of Web sites.
One alternative is a system developed by the Washington, D.C.-based Recreational Software Advisory Committee for rating content on Web sites, much like films are rated. As with the new television rating system, the RSAC rating system is voluntary: sites rate themselves, answering questions about the content on their Web sites, and then send the form to the committee.
Since the system debuted in April 1996, more than 18,700 sites have rated themselves, and the number increases at a speed of about 150 sites a day, said Stephen Ballcam, who heads the Recreational Software Advisory Committee.
The committee uses technology created at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to “grade” each site, based on the amount of violence, sexual content and profane language it contains, and then issues a numerical rating based on the type of content available. Computer users can then program their machines to block sites with high numerical rankings--and to block any sites that have not rated themselves.
Rating System Draws Criticism
The rating system also has received its share of criticism, primarily by those who say that the system unfairly penalizes Web sites that refuse to rate themselves. Most media sites are reluctant to rate themselves, arguing that such a move would be censorship and tantamount to a TV news show like “60 Minutes” trying to decide whether to assign itself a “PG-13” rating.
But Ballcam defended the system, saying, “We’re in a very steep learning curve here. I would still argue that the technology is definitely, in the long term, going to be better for the Internet and for people generally than to try to come up with heavy-handed legislation like the Communications Decency Act.”
Microsoft’s Internet Explorer 3.0 browser has built-in support for the ratings system.
“To use it, though, you actually have to make the decision to turn it on,” said Balle of Microsoft. “We include the feature to allow you to make the decision by yourself.”
* NEWSRACK CURBS OK’D
U.S. Supreme Court OKs newsrack curbs on sex-oriented publications in California. A3
