Slashdot Mirror

SurfWatch adds over 400 new sites to the database every day, while also removing sites that no longer exist on the Internet or that have changed content. Our site database is the most accurate and reliable filtering you can find.

Compare this to the tag line above Google's search box:

Search 1,247,340,000 web pages

For argument's sake, let's say that a scant 1% of the internet is home to "objectionable" material worth adding to a filtering database. Though the real figure is undoubtedly higher than this, it'll be a good starting point for the purposes of this excercise.

Now, assuming both groups are telling the truth in the above blurbs, in order for SurfWatch to have 100% of the objectionable web content checked and indexed, it would have taken them 31,183 days, or approximately 85 years, to cover 100% of objectionable web sites at their current rate of roughly 400 new sites per day.

This strikes me as a somewhat problematic figure, as at this early stage in the history of computing (circa 1915,) the Internet was pretty much restricted to an elite group of individuals and organizations who owned or had access to one of the zero computers in existence.

Now, I guess, the only question is whether Google or SurfWatch is lying...

On most of the softwares' web sites, you have some sort of "test" section where you can enter an URL and check if it's blocked or not. For example...

SurfWatch's "Test a site" page

CyberPatrol's "CyberNOT Search Engine"

CyberNanny's "Check a site" page

WebSense's "site look up" page

SmartFilter's SmartFilterWhere (this one's pretty nasty as it asks you for some personal info (name, phone, etc.) but I'm not sure if it's absolutely required to fill out those fields).

By the way, I only checked the blocking software mentionned on this peacefire page so if there are others, you're on your own. :-) Oh yeah, and I didn't find any test page for N2H2's Bess.

Greg

Actually, just looked it up...

"http://www.mozillazine.org is NOT BLOCKED in our most recent filters."

You can look up sites to see if they're blocked or not at the SurfWatch website. Sites can also be submitted for blocking or unblocking review.

Maybe you submitted a form that SurfWatch didn't like... sometimes it won't let you submit forms because one of the field names is "Sex" or something dumb like that.

It's hard to know where to start with this post since it is so wrong in so many ways. And the debate is nearting its end for the day, so I don't want to waste too much time saying things that are already available elsewhere.

Here are a few selected examples.

No, it is not infinite. That is not the same as possible. Think about the size of usenet for a moment, and its rate of growth. All the search engines there are cannot maintain a complete index. If AltaVista and Yahoo can't keep up with the size of the web and usenet, how can any individual or small organisation?

Also, you say all blocking strategies fail. Based on what criteria? Simple: they let through explicit pornongraphy and they ban innocuous sites.

I believe the common consensus is that although they do have their faults, they do in fact work rather well And your references are? I have found no evidence of this "consensus" and plenty in the other direction. Which many other people in this discussion have cited

"Some claim to have their black lists reviewed by humans. They lie. " And you would know this how... Because a) they don't have the company size required (considerably larger that Yahoo, remember) and b) they ban innocuous sites. Hence impossiblity. They do claim to do the impossible, hence the lie.

Here is SurfWatch claiming to do the impossible: http://www1.surfwatch.com/about/body-filter.html

Here are some sites they blocked (Source here):

• Filtering Facts -- a site recommending SurfWatch and other blocking programs for libraries
• World Power Systems, an electrical engineering company
• A Common Bond and Support Group for Ex-Jehovah's Witnesses -- two sites criticizing the Jehovah's Witnesses' position against homosexuality.
• Jay Earley's home page, a Web site maintained by a Ph.D. psychologist
• Automation 2000 -- another site about the Y2K problem
• Surrogate Mothers Online, a site whose "purpose is to provide information and support to individuals who are interested in pursuing a surrogacy arrangement"
• Belarus Internet Java Users Group
• WorldSocialism.org -- The "World Socialist Movement". While some more conservative school districts (and parents) may want this type of site blocked, it still does not fall under any of SurfWatch's criteria (sexual explicitness, drugs, gambling, violence and hate speech).

Yes, it's all one big conspiracy, isn't it. As even the author of the article admitted, as soon as the makers of SurfWatch become aware of sites that have been blocked that didn't need to be, they unblock those sites and release it in a free update to the program. I would hardly call this a secret.

So if they are reviewing them all, how did they get blocked in the first place? Hmmmm?

As a final little amusement, have a play with this site: http://www.prairie-dog.net/filtering.htm and best of all, check this link for collateral damage for sites that would get censored. Unfortunately the author doesn't say the source for the word list. I've seen it before; it is one of the popular censorware products, but I have no time to look it up now - I'm runnning late...

Put the site name here and fire the search to check your site is blocked or not

That's ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND. One with five zeros after it. No-one could examine this list in a reasonable time. It's not humanly possible. At one per minute, that's around 500 per workday. A whole work-year (200 days) to go through it once.

It's simple mathematics.
Even open lists, while a good idea, don't solve the problem of this massive, extensive, blacklisting.