Content Censorship. Friday, January 31, 1997 A Dirty Word Censorship of any kind is a dirty word. Most people agree on this point. It's the degrees of difference between the levels of definition that we disagree on: where to stop, where to start. Each persone has their threshold, no two are alike. Yet, as a Nation, we're entrenched in camps of differing opinion and action. With all the recent (1996) commotion about foul language, pornography and indecency on The InterNet, someone just had to invent the appropriate software to filter the evil content. And someone is making a lot of money from software that seems to have its own political and social agenda. What counts here is the perception that it just works; making Mommy and Daddy feel secure that Junior and Sister are viewing only Lassie and Partidge Family Websites. That isn't always the case. After noticing a Cybertimes story in The New York Times a few weeks ago about a Vanderbilt University student taking on the likes of Solid Oak Software, I invited the student, Bennett Haselton, to tell me what kind of anti-First Amendment attitude he believes this company really has. It's easy for kids to disable and change the parameters of this so-called filtering software, according to many people in the business. The programs contain hidden, secretly-compliled lists of thousands of words, topics, websites and domains that are electronically-banned from users of this software. The software is updated automatically over the Web, as Websites come and go. I know two families who have tried these programs, and their 8 and 9-year old kids have disabled it everytime they logged-on to the InterNet. They got rid of the software. What's the point of having something to filter those big, bad sites out if it can be fooled? Here's how to easily disable the software. There's no point at all to having that stuff, if kids can easily fool it, other than to assuage Mommy and Daddy's collective conscience. (It looks like Solid Oak may have addressed that problem at their version upgrade page.) To be fair, Solid Oak isn't the only company selling this type of software product nationwide; just under than ten companies populate the so-called filtering field that claims this technology works unfailingly. Except when you reverse engineer (their words) the software, which is also a federal offense. I don't even know what that concept means. Reverse engineer? Duh. Be sure to read the accompanying articles; that's all I've had time to assemble so far. As things progress, updates will be posted in coming Journals. Here's what Bennett Haselton has to say:
The most widely praised "First Amendment heroes" of 1996 were not
politicians. They were not lobbying groups like the ACLU. They were
software companies that witnessed the birth of a new industry: Internet
applications that will morally educate your children for you, or at least
babysit them for a little while.
Not long after the government started threatening to censor foul
language on the Internet with the infamous "Communications Decency Act"
(CDA), products like SurfWatch, CYBERsitter, Net Nanny and Cyber Patrol made
their splash, ironically billing themselves as supporters of free
speech. Such programs prevent minors from using the Internet to research
gay rights abuses or chat with friends overseas, depending on the levels of
restriction set by their parents or, in most cases, by the software makers
themselves. Now, this hardly opens up the companies to cries of
censorship--they know they can't be criticized for stepping on minors'
Constitutional rights, since in the age of curfew laws and random drug
testing there apparently aren't any--but on the other hand how did it make
them into First Amendment heroes?
The argument went roughly: "Government censorship is unnecessary,
because tools are already available to prevent children and teenagers from
exploring the Internet freely. Besides, these programs are voluntary,
except for minors, but minors aren't entitled to freedom of speech anyway.
If we didn't have these programs, we would have the Communications Decency
Act to deal with instead." Software companies are milking this for all it's
worth. Virtually all of them encourage you to "support free speech" with a
link to their web site, and the two companies that make SurfWatch and Cyber
Patrol are plaintiffs in the ACLU's lawsuit against the Communications
Decency Act.
The typical Nanny program
comes with a list of up to 10,000 sites that the manufacturer has deemed inappropriate for
minors. But because web sites are appearing and disappearing every day, each company patrols the
Internet daily to look for more bad sites, which are added to the master list on the company's central computer. Customers are encouraged to retrieve the latest copy of the company's blacklist over the Internet about
once a week--otherwise the censorship software you bought last Monday won't screen out the smut shack that appeared on the Web on Tuesday. To make things even more complicated, the "bad site list" is stored in an encrypted format on the user's computer so that customers can't read it. The only way
to find out that a given web site is blocked is to stumble on it while the program is activated. It can take hours to get a general idea of what a given program filters, and the fact that the list is changing all the time
doesn't help.
After the praise that software filters received as "the alternative
to government censorship" during the CDA trial, criticizing the programs has
become very politically incorrect. Our group, Peacefire
(http://www.peacefire.org) decided to do it anyway and published a web site
in November that listed some of the sites that CYBERsitter blocks: The
National Organization for Women, the International Gay and Lesbian Human
Rights Commission, the College of Humanities and Social Sciences at Carnegie
Mellon, the liberal Mother Jones magazine--all of them filtered out under
the pretext of blocking "adult issues". The program also removes phrases
like "gay rights" and "safe sex" from web pages before displaying them. Our
page was called "CYBERsitter: Where Do We Not Want You To Go Today?", and
it's still there at:
http://www.peacefire.org/censorware/CYBERsitter.html
Solid Oak Software was not pleased. On December 6 they put
Peacefire on their "not for children" list. Their 900,000 customers,
without being notified, would no longer have access to our web site while
CYBERsitter was running.
This set a few events in motion. A few Peacefire members wrote to
Solid Oak, complaining that the Peacefire web site didn't fit into any of
their "bad site" categories (rasicm, violence, pornography, etc.). In other
words, blocking our site made them guilty of false advertising. Solid Oak
thought about this and added a new "bad site" category in our honor:
"Information that may interfere with the legal rights and obligations of a
parent or our customers." Thanks, guys!
Meanwhile, Solid Oak Software told me that I would be hearing from
their lawyers and contacted our Internet Service Provider, Media3, with a
stern message: all 2,500 sites hosted by Media3 would be blocked by
CYBERsitter if Peacefire were not removed. We had to get the pro bono
assistance of a lawyer from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (roughly the
online equivalent of the ACLU) to avoid a lawsuit. The web site of
computer-geek-gospel Wired magazine
published a story about CYBERsitter's
threats, and the news found its way up to the web sites of the New York
Times and the Washington Post. Peacefire was immediately overwhelmed with
email, and Solid Oak received their share of messages as well. "Judging
from the amount of geek-mail we received," their CEO wrote to Wired, "you
have quite a loyal following of pinhead idiots."
So, now a few more people know that CYBERsitter has no style. But
the effect isn't limited to one company. Maybe now, "blocking software"
will be judged on its own merits instead of being worshipped as saviors from
government censorship. It's bizarre for companies to drape themeselves with
the Flag while perpetuating stories about the oceans of pornography in
cyberspace, when the biggest threat to free speech on the Internet is more
hysteria about the dangers to children. There are just as many stories
about repressed gay and lesbian youth who found the courage to come out
through making contacts on the Internet--none of which would have been
possible if CYBERsitter had been running.
And the criticism isn't limited to a bunch of kids whining about not
being able to access Playboy either. We know that some adults ("even"
parents!) agree that software companies shouldn't be telling families how to
raise their children. Declan McCullagh and Brock Meeks of the CyberWire
Dispatch wrote an article last summer criticizing some of the Nanny
programs. McCullagh later said, "Filtering software was developed by the
industry in a response to government threats, and often the end result is
even worse than a true government act like the CDA because you can't fight
it in court." He knows what he's talking about--CYBERsitter threatened to
turn him over to the FBI for "criminal copyright violations" because he
published eight lines of CYBERsitter's "bad word" list! Jon Katz of the
Netizen put it more bluntly, calling censorship software the
Internet's "first smarmy political deal with the outside world: Don't censor
us, take our children instead."
bennett@peacefire.org
Here's a list of articles published to date about the controversy; some interesting reading here.
Wired News--December 10:
http://www.wired.com/news/story/901.html
Netly News--December 20:
http://pathfinder.com/Netly/daily/961220.html
CyberWire Dispatch--December 20:
http://peacefire.org/archives/cwd.12.20.96.txt
MSNBC, December 26:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/48477.asp
LA Times--January 6
http://peacefire.org/archives/latimes.on.cybersitter.txt
this is a recent article in the NYTimes about Page Authors' Benefit Against
Censorship:
http://www.nytimes.com/library/cyber/week/011897library-teens.html
| ||
Back To John's Journal |
||
Let's Go Back To The Garden Center |
||
Got something on your mind? |
||
Send e-mail to: js@gdnctr.com |