INTERNET FILTERING
Ls521wmc
Iva Martin
Elective
After reading the Peacefire site, I learned that some software filters block pre-included URLs. I also discovered that Cybersitter and CyberPatrol have personal axes to grind due to personal disputes. Certain filters have Keyword Blocking which cannot be turned off. Another censorware company was not reviewing its pages before blocking them. The argument against filtering centers around accidental blocking of topics, which impedes the Internet user from finding information. First Amendment issues are raised with filtering.
The basis of pro-filtering stems from the desire to prohibit children from viewing pornography, graphic violence and illegal information. Ironically, as I performed part of this assignment at school, I was blocked from a site by the Bess Internet Filtering Service. I was prompted to use the N2H2 URL Checker to find out how this site is categorized. I was told that I could turn off filtering. I discovered that the term KidSites is not allowed.
The
filtering software that I previewed are as follows. N2H2, http://www.n2h2.com/, offered a very user
friendly site with free demos and updates, patches, and literature in .pdf format. It had a
news page with pornographic-related incidents and news articles on the latest
debates about filtering. The second one,
Kansmen “Little Brother,” http://www.kansmen.com/,
had a choice for business or education.
It is part of Surf Control. It
offered Cyber Patrol Web Filter and SuperScout Email
Filter. Cyber Patrol touts that it can
customize down to the student, class, or school level. It states that it allows the customer to
define what is appropriate. It assures
the customer that he will receive an instant e-mail notification of an
infraction to the Internet Acceptable Use Policy. It can generate reports. SuperScout may be
used to prevent viruses at the Gateway.
It offers the extra feature of scheduling all non-essential e-mail to be
transmitted after school hours. The third
one, Pearl Software, http://www.pearlsw.com/ , provides filters
for home, school and work. It also had a
block list. The customer may choose
Pearl Echo to centrally manage on multiple PCs or CyberSnoop
to manage one or several PCs. It can
block unwanted sites and focus on the desirable sites.
If I were choosing a filter for myself, I would select Pearl Software because of its range of products. It appears to offer the most flexibility of censorship. I like the TakeMeHome feature, and I am curious as to the timeframe that is allowed before the user would be directed to the designated website. Offering the news page indicates that the company is open to various viewpoints.
In my travels for this elective, I found two very informative sites for parents and teachers: filter review, http://www.filterreview.com/ , and get netwise, http://www.getnetwise.org/. Student contracts for Internet use were available as well as many samples of filters. The most interesting reading for me was the Internet Filter Assessment Project found at the safetyed website, http://www.bluehighways.com/tifap/learn.htm, which was conducted by 40 librarians. The consensus of the survey is that filtering hinders locating good information. The recommendation was not to filter. A suggestion was made by the librarians that there be a patron override option. Keyword blocking was a major drawback. Throughout all my reading on the topic of Internet Filtering, the main theme that was reiterated was caution. Parents need to monitor what their children access and discuss with them the need for safety. The same policy applies to education. Teachers must enforce responsible websearching, for themselves and for the students. An interesting point that surfaced in the Assessment Project was that librarians rarely encountered pornography due to their searching techniques and strategies.