The statute defines "harmful to minors" in 3 or 4 different spots, but they all say the same thing.
"The term 'harmful to minors' means any picture, image, graphic image file, or other visual depiction that--
(A) taken as a whole and with respect to minors, appeals to a prurient interest in nudity, sex, or excertion;
(B) depicts, describes, or represents, in a patently offensive way with respect to minors, an actual or simulated sexual act or sexual contact, actual or simulated normal or perverted sexual acts, or a lewd exhibition of the genitals; and
(C) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value as to minors.
On thing to note about this definition is that it is similar to, but not exactly the same as, the definition found unconstitionally vague in the ACLU's challenge to the Children's Online Protection Act (COPA).
Liza
ps The URL for the doc is pretty ugly. If it doesn't work the main 3rd Cir URL is http://pacer.ca3.uscourts.gov/, and the COPA challenge docket number is No. 99-1324.
CIPA specifically authorizes local school and library policy-makers to decide which filtering software or service to use. However, the library or school must filter, when minors use the computer, material that is "obscene, child pornography, and harmful to minors." When adults use the computer, it must filter material that is "obscene or child pornography."
In addition, a library or school explictly may filter "access to other materials."
I'm not aware of any filters that block the required materials, although N2H2 has created a web site to inform schools and libraries on how N2H2 can help them comply with the law.
The FCC doesn't specifically ask about filtering products in the NPRM, but it is a "general implementation" issue, as raised by paragraph 5 of the NPRM.
That wouldn't meet the requirements Congress just passed. Adult Internet access must be filtered too, for obscenity and child pornography.
The filters may only be disabled for adults conducting "bona fide" research or using the Internet for other lawful purposes. It isn't clear how much you have to tell the librarian about what you want to do, but the language certainly suggests that the default setting for adults is supposed to be filtered access.
Oh, and your library has to filter because Congress doesn't trust them to follow their own rules, however sensible or well-enforced those rules might be. Plenty of schools and libraries use a "partial filtering" approach, meaning in lower grades or children's areas, but not everywhere. CIPA does not appear to allow that approach either.
I was a sophmore in high school. I was supposed to compete in the American Legion's persuasive oratory contest on a Sunday afternoon, but the contest was postponed because of miserable weather (-20 F). Dr. Stark called to tell me that the contest was delayed a week. She also informed me in no uncertain terms that I needed the time, because my speech was not ready.
Her exact words were, "Come over. Bring the speech. You're going to sit at my kitchen table and re-write the speech while I cook dinner for the rest of the week. You will learn how to do this."
I was not a happy camper. I bundled up and walked over to her house. When I got there, I was cold and cranky. I argued with everything she said in the first half hour I was there.
Dr. Stark refused to give up. In between chopping vegies and stirring sauces, she kept asking questions like, "Why? What do you mean by that?" and telling me, "Explain it! Develop the idea!" I had assumed that if I said something, all the implications I saw in the statement would be obvious to other readers or listeners. I thought it was insulting to explain things. But of course, in persuasive speaking and writing, the whole point is to draw others into understanding and supporting your opinion.
The next weekend, I gave the speech. I came in third out of four, which was my own fault. I really shouldn't have tried to convince the American Legion to oppose the death penalty on Constitutional grounds.
I was lucky enough to take another class with Dr. Stark my senior year. She still had to remind me, from time to time, not to write in the passive voice. But the turning point was at her kitchen table. Even the writing classes I took in college and law school only refined the fundamental lesson Dr. Stark taught me when I was 15, crabby, and cold.
IMO, the heart of what is wrong with a federal mandate that all computers in schools and libraries run filtering software is that it applies a one-size-fits-all bandaid to a range of circumstances. The claim that local control is maintained by the fact that localities can decide which product to use, and can add more categories of 'inappropriate for minors' materials, is simply disengenuous.
Local schools and libraries are already actively working to ensure that kids have safe, age-appropriate, useful online experiences.
For example, in the Chicago Public Library, they have chosen to hire teams of people (mostly college students) to help guide Internet users to interesting, fun, age-appropriate sites. They find this is an effective way to help both children, teenagers, and adults have good Internet experiences. They don't use filters, nor do the Chicago Public Schools, because they think that filters give the adults a false sense of security.
Another example of a local decision that will be overturned by this, should the library want to continue recieving any federal support, is the much touted voter referendum decision not to filter the library's Internet access in Holland, Michigan.
A large number of school systems use filters in some locations, but not all. For example, they might use them in elementary schools, but not high schools, or in classrooms, but not the library.
Other libraries, like Loudoun County, in Virginia (the subject of earlier litigation, have a system (post-litigation) where parents decide whether or not their children should have filtered or unfiltered access to the Internet. (Adults decide for themselves.)
All of these locally developed, reasonable policies will have to be thrown out. CIPA isn't going to improve the safety or age-appropriateness of Internet user experiences in any of those places.
Actually, "harmful to minors" is defined in the statute, on page 9, and again on page 17. That definition didn't pass constitutional muster in the COPA litigation, but that's different from being meaningless. "Harmful to minors" has been upheld as a constitutional restriction with regards to offline sexual material that is legal for adults.
Yes. It wouldn't have worked. There are too many grey areas, especially in a global context. Do you put sex ed sites there? AIDS sites? A gay news site with personal ads & chat? Do you force people like Danni Ashe to give up danni.com, where she's already making quite a bit of money and has a recognized "brand"? In the US, that raises First Amendment concerns.
Many more details about the reasons why this isn't as good of an idea as it initially seems are included in the Children's Online Protection Act (COPA) Commission Report.
Liza
1) Denial of Service Attacks (and other forms of hackertainment). I think I've come around to viewing some form of on-site electronic vote-counting as a good idea, but nothing that gets connected to the Internet. If giant silicon valley corporations can't get this right, Podunk Township, Battleground State is going to be in trouble. Personally, I think I like the 'scan-tron' type paper ballots.
2) Trust & Comfort with Technology. I can't be the only/. reader whose grandparents still use a rotary phone, won't get an answering machine, and aren't particularly more excited about the dust-collection-device on their TV that others call a VCR.
While we may love technology, the fact is that Florida can't even get the hang of punch-card ballots. Sure, the design interface was lousy. But I've seen a lot of counterintuitive & unreadable web sites too.
Design problems don't go away because of the net. How many people will fail to scroll down and read the rest of the initiatives and referenda in thier state, just to pick the obvious example.
IMO, we aren't ready for full scale Internet voting. Let's do more on-site experimenting, work on teaching non-net-users in net-dense areas (I nominate northern California), and generally work to figure out if this is a good idea and what implementations might work/fail utterly BEFORE pushing for widespread adoption.
I support your right to raise your children as you see fit. That is your responsibility as a parent.
If you want to install a filter to block out whatever it is you don't want your children exposed to, be that sex, violence, hate, alcohol & tobacco, other drugs, or whatever it is that you worry about, I recommend looking for one that matches your values at GetNetWise.
But your values might be different from mine. Or from your next door neighbor's. Or from your local librarian's. Or from your child's school principal. You might have very young children, while your neighbor might have a teenager with an unhealthy interest in things that go *boom*. The same filter may not work any two of those families.
For example: It's easy to imagine that both a conservative Christian family and a lesbian feminist family want to keep their children from seeing "pornography on the Internet." But one will probably still want access to sites about gay and lesbian political issues, promoting the idea of gay marriage, etc. And the other will probably still want access to the American Family Association and conservative anti-gay organizations. There is available filtering software that blocks each of those latter categories. But a family wanting to block one of those categories MOST LIKELY does not want to block the other. Those 2 hypothetical families want different filtering software.
What happens if they live in the same school district? Use the same neighborhood library? Which family gets to pick the filtering software?
I'd say your best bet is to email Bennett or Jamie and ask them. I'm only sort-of kidding.
Seriously though, there are probably 100+ filters or filtered ISPs on the market. You can get a reasonable list from GetNetWise. But no one has a service that lets you test against multiple products. The COPA Commission recommended that a neutral independent testing authority be created to test these products; if such a thing is ever created,/.ers should let them know that URL testing is a feature we'd like to see.
It isn't too hard to check some of the big ones. SurfControl, which sells CyberPatrol and SurfWatch, and several corporate-oriented products, has links to two test-your-site pages from h ere .
NetNanny provides a list of filtered sites when you buy the program, that is human-readable, so you could buy it and look at it.
N2H2 has such a large share of the school, library & reseller market, and provides a free-download home product, that they are also worth a specific test, even though there isn't a URL test page available.
Let me see if I understand this correctly. People should vote for Nader because, "if he gets just 5% of the vote in this country, he qualifies for government funding in the 2004 election. That means that for the first time since well...as far back as my memory goes, we will have a SERIOUS 3rd-party candidate in the running."
Maybe I was hallucinating, but it seems to me that there was this multimillionaire from Texas, big ears, yappy voice, actually did well enough in the polls to get into the debates was a serious third party candidate in both of the last 2 elections, which to my way of thinking, constitutes recent memory.
I also think John Anderson ran in recent memory (was it 1980), but maybe I'm old. I'll be 31 soon.
Here on/., I am only offering my own opinions and am absolutely positively not representing anyone else.
However, my day job involves tracking this issue in detail.
The school monitoring provision I described is part of the staff-level draft of HR 4577, the Labor HHS appropriations bill.
A copy of that draft was provided by Rep. Istook's office to the Center for Democracy & Technology, whose staff transcribed the fax and posted it. HR 4577 is one of those "must pass" bills that pay for running the federal government, and the description I provided is the real deal. (What I wouldn't give to be wrong!) At this level of negotiations, every draft doesn't get posted to Thomas. If you call Rep. Istook's office, I would hope they'd be willing to fax you a copy (if they were willing to give it to CDT, I can't imagine they won't share it with you).
The current proposal actually goes much further in violation of the First Amendment. It requires the blocking of already illegal (meaning not constititutionally protected) material, namely child pornography & obscenity, AND "harmful to minors material," which as far as the Internet is concerned, is in a legal grey area since the COPA decision in the 3rd Circuit. This proposal ALSO explicitly allows local schools and libraries to filter and block anything ELSE they consider inappropriate for minors. Everything else, no matter how offensive you or I might find it, is protected by the US Constitution, so filtering anything else will run into legal problems for the libraries and schools in question.
The current proposal also opens schools up for privacy litigation as it requires "either technological or supervisory" monitoring of students using the Internet. Maybe that works for in class use, probably a teacher should be around. But I think a lot of schools are going to feel pressure to use monitoring software...and then what happens to the records of where a minor surfed for 12 years? Who gets to see those? What if that kid is nominated to the Supreme Court 40 years later? Or goes through a messy divorce in his or her 20s? If there's a personally identifiable record kept, litigators are going to track it down and try to use it.
A voluntary.kids would essentially be a "go-list" policed by a domain registrar. If I remember right, ICANN got 4 applications for.kid or.kids TLDs. When I looked, the criteria were not yet posted.
People here seem to have assumed only kids *could* go there. I think that the opposite would be true. Anyone could go there, but the content would have to be approved as "kid-friendly" by the registrar. And browsers & filtering software could easily be set up to filter EVERYTHING ELSE. Can you imagine a slashdot.kids? Or/. meeting the.kids criteria?
The other gTLD idea that got some applicants to ICANN was.xxx/.sex/.adult. Again, whose criteria are applied? And what happens to the.com or other gTLD already operating? I just don't see the Whitehouse.com guy giving that up voluntarily. But it would seem to me to be a violation of the First Amendment (not to mention the takings clause & interference in interstate commerce) to take it away.
I had great fun writing this satirical, but entirely factual and sadly much too long to post in full, Step By Step Guide for Schools & Libraries to their new responsibilities if the Istook-McCain-Santorum federal filtering mandate becomes law.
The most amazing aspect of this proposal, among many, is the fact that if your computer or Internet access is paid for by e-rate subsidies, the definition of a minor is under 17 but if the computer in the same school or library is paid for by either Title III or LSTA, the definition of a minor is under 18. So schools and libraries would have to apply different rules to 17 year olds, depending on what computer they were using!.
I also love the fact that in an era of increased demand for privacy protection, particularly for children, this law would also require schools to monitor everything kids do using school Internet access. Sounds common sense, but what if the school allows dial-up access from home? Then the only way to comply is to install monitoring software. Who gets access to those records? How long are they kept? Do you really want to create a complete record of every site a kid has looked at K-12?
Two things: First, the First Amendment protects the right NOT to speak as well as the right TO speak. The government can't force people to label their sites without running up against the First Amendment.
Movie and tv rating systems, however ubiquitous, are at least technically voluntary. Voluntary web rating works well at the far ends of the spectrum (kids content & p0rn sites that don't want kiddie traffic), but less well in the middle. (And of course, not at all on usenet....)
For example, what should/. rate itself? Or a news site with personal ads? News sites and large complex sites with user-generated content are the toughest cases, and yet a browser-filter that uses self-rating isn't going to *do* anything at this point if it doesn't filter out unrated sites. Maybe there will be a mass industry movement to voluntarily rate and label....
Second, just FYI, RSAC is ICRA now. They wanted to develop a more international content labeling & rating scheme, which should be launching soon.
Allison Bechdel used this in a Dykes To Watch Out For calendar a few years back, and was approached with a request to sell t-shirts that asked, "Is there a hyphen in "anal-retentive"?"
Implementation at the local level could be done constitutionally OR unconstitutionally. In Loudoun County, Virginia, they did a local option that was found unconstitutional. After losing in court, they did essentially the parents-decide-for-their-own-kids option described a couple of comments up. Viola! No more constitutional challenge. Civil liberties oriented citizens need to pay attention.
Congress is still on the verge of mandating filters in schools and libraries. To help STOP them, please get involved.
Great idea, for schools and libraries that can afford it. But your average rural library with 2 computers probably can't afford a sophisticated highly configurable system, or the training to use it well.
We are writing to you today to express our concerns about the proposed Internet filtering amendment to H.R. 4577, and the chilling effect that it would have on the Internet. While we are all gravely concerned about the proliferation of pornography on the Internet and children's access to such material, we hope to see responsible legislation that will empower parents and that will actually prevent children from accessing harmful material online.
The Children's Internet Protection Act, added to H.R. 4577 by Senators McCain and Santorum, and Representatives Istook and Pickering, would require that all public libraries and schools that receive federal funds for Internet access to install blocking software to restrict access to "inappropriate" material.
Filtering is not exclusive to pornographic content; it can also be used to target First Amendment protected speech. This was highlighted in the past when CyberPatrol, the largest filtering software manufacturer, ruled that the American Family Association's web site would be subject to filtering by their software program because of their long-standing opposition to homosexual activism.
There is growing concern within the conservative community regarding the use of filtering systems by schools and libraries that deliberately filter out web sites and information that promote conservative values. There have been many reported incidents of schoolteachers and administrators targeting pro-environment groups that differ with the global warming hypothesis, as well as pro-life organizations with filtering software to prevent students from hearing alternative approaches to those issues.
These precedents send a frightening message to political and social organizations that promote causes contrary to the positions held by the "politically correct" American Library Association and National Education Association. For conservative organizations to be subject to filtering for the content of their speech violates the most fundamental understanding of the First Amendment. The Children's Internet Protection Act would not only justify, but would mandate the use of these inappropriately restrictive devices.
We are also opposed to the practice of Congress mandating regulations by tying them to the use of federal money for state projects. This practice of taking money from the states, generously redistributing portions of it to other states, and then returning what is left with provisional strings attached is immoral and an abuse of power. Regardless of the good intentions this bill was drafted to achieve, this approach to federal funding is destructive to the most basic notions of federalism and must not become a normal practice.
Nothing is more effective than efforts to educate parents and children about Internet safety and how to properly use online resources. Moreover, Internet filters are an imperfect solution to this important problem. With millions and millions of web sites already online, and more added every day, children will always be able to access content we might wish they couldn't.
Education programs can help them to deal with the very real danger certain kinds of content could pose; Internet filters offer a false sense of security on this issue.
Additionally, Congress' own Commission on Online Child Protection is due to submit its own report on Internet safety for children in mid-October. That report will embody several months' extended effort on the part of the commission's nineteen members, and will provide Congress with important recommendations for future decisions regarding children's online safety. Congress should not legislate on this topic before that report has been received, lest it undermine the importance of the COPA Commission's work or make avoidable legislative mistakes.
The amendment's provision for "monitoring the online activities of minors either through supervisory or technological means" is also problematic. This language is inappropriately vague, and could be even open the door to unprecedented law enforcement access to people's online habits. Issues of technological monitoring must be dealt with far more care than is evident in the proposed legislation.
For these reasons, we encourage you to oppose the Children's Internet Protection Act, and any other efforts to dilute the potential of this powerful medium. We hope that you agree that an educational approach that empowers parents, instead of blunt, ineffective mandates, is the best way to address the issue of protecting children during their online experiences. We appreciate your concern and attention to this matter.
I was psyched to see Applelust on top of the earlier version of the bill. But CNN covered language that goes much further than the McCain mandate. It was so bad the conservatives had to come out against it! That's what was news.
Another good example of young adults making a huge difference is in Madison, Wisconsin.
Two years ago, they elected Tammy Baldwin to Congress. She was (and is) the first out lesbian elected to Congress, and during they primary, smart money was on either of her two "more electable" opponents.
Tammy and her supporters talked about issues that college students and 20-somethings in Madison cared about (education, health care), talked with them (not down to them), got them excited about the election, and had a really amazing voter turnout organizing system that got a lot of people to the polls who often don't bother to vote.
The key thing to remember is TO VOTE. None of this works otherwise. Find your your Representatives in Congress here, and call them to find out how to register to vote, if you aren't already registered.
Although I share OlympicSponsor's skeptical view of Carnivore (at least to some extent), I think attacks should focus on the merits and risks of the technology, not the reviewer's grammar.
OS took issue with this sentence in Perrit's answers: "Any electronic surveillance involves balancing needs for effective enforcement of the criminal laws and protection of national security against threats of invasion of privacy." OS did this by claiming, "The second clause (in bold) doesn't appear to be written in English. What would it mean to threaten to invade the privacy of national security?"
In fact, this is good grammar, although commas might have helped make it clearer. The "balancing" Perrit described require the review team to weigh two concerns against one concern: The first two concerns, criminal laws AND protection of national security, should (again, in Perrit's view) be considered against one other concern, "threats of invasion of privacy." I thought it was clear that Perrit meant invasion of individual Internet user privacy under the 4th Amendment.
Was it the Beastie Boys that said, "Opinions are like assholes, everybody's got one." That seems too political for them....
The reason Bush doesn't worry about offending young net-literate adults is because insignificant percentages of them vote in most places. The only way to change that is to vote.
Find out who your representative ishere.Scroll to the bottom of the page for a zip code lookup. I guarantee someone in that office will be able to tell you how to register to vote if you aren't currently registered.
Slashdot Mirror
"The term 'harmful to minors' means any picture, image, graphic image file, or other visual depiction that--
On thing to note about this definition is that it is similar to, but not exactly the same as, the definition found unconstitionally vague in the ACLU's challenge to the Children's Online Protection Act (COPA).Liza
ps The URL for the doc is pretty ugly. If it doesn't work the main 3rd Cir URL is http://pacer.ca3.uscourts.gov/, and the COPA challenge docket number is No. 99-1324.
In addition, a library or school explictly may filter "access to other materials."
I'm not aware of any filters that block the required materials, although N2H2 has created a web site to inform schools and libraries on how N2H2 can help them comply with the law.
The FCC doesn't specifically ask about filtering products in the NPRM, but it is a "general implementation" issue, as raised by paragraph 5 of the NPRM.
Liza
The filters may only be disabled for adults conducting "bona fide" research or using the Internet for other lawful purposes. It isn't clear how much you have to tell the librarian about what you want to do, but the language certainly suggests that the default setting for adults is supposed to be filtered access.
Oh, and your library has to filter because Congress doesn't trust them to follow their own rules, however sensible or well-enforced those rules might be. Plenty of schools and libraries use a "partial filtering" approach, meaning in lower grades or children's areas, but not everywhere. CIPA does not appear to allow that approach either.
Liza
"5. In this Notice, we seek comment generally on the implementation of the CHIP Act as it affects [E-Rate recipients]."
It goes on to ask for additional specific questions.
Liza
I was a sophmore in high school. I was supposed to compete in the American Legion's persuasive oratory contest on a Sunday afternoon, but the contest was postponed because of miserable weather (-20 F). Dr. Stark called to tell me that the contest was delayed a week. She also informed me in no uncertain terms that I needed the time, because my speech was not ready.
Her exact words were, "Come over. Bring the speech. You're going to sit at my kitchen table and re-write the speech while I cook dinner for the rest of the week. You will learn how to do this."
I was not a happy camper. I bundled up and walked over to her house. When I got there, I was cold and cranky. I argued with everything she said in the first half hour I was there.
Dr. Stark refused to give up. In between chopping vegies and stirring sauces, she kept asking questions like, "Why? What do you mean by that?" and telling me, "Explain it! Develop the idea!" I had assumed that if I said something, all the implications I saw in the statement would be obvious to other readers or listeners. I thought it was insulting to explain things. But of course, in persuasive speaking and writing, the whole point is to draw others into understanding and supporting your opinion.
The next weekend, I gave the speech. I came in third out of four, which was my own fault. I really shouldn't have tried to convince the American Legion to oppose the death penalty on Constitutional grounds.
I was lucky enough to take another class with Dr. Stark my senior year. She still had to remind me, from time to time, not to write in the passive voice. But the turning point was at her kitchen table. Even the writing classes I took in college and law school only refined the fundamental lesson Dr. Stark taught me when I was 15, crabby, and cold.
Liza
Local schools and libraries are already actively working to ensure that kids have safe, age-appropriate, useful online experiences.
For example, in the Chicago Public Library, they have chosen to hire teams of people (mostly college students) to help guide Internet users to interesting, fun, age-appropriate sites. They find this is an effective way to help both children, teenagers, and adults have good Internet experiences. They don't use filters, nor do the Chicago Public Schools, because they think that filters give the adults a false sense of security. Another example of a local decision that will be overturned by this, should the library want to continue recieving any federal support, is the much touted voter referendum decision not to filter the library's Internet access in Holland, Michigan.
A large number of school systems use filters in some locations, but not all. For example, they might use them in elementary schools, but not high schools, or in classrooms, but not the library.
Other libraries, like Loudoun County, in Virginia (the subject of earlier litigation, have a system (post-litigation) where parents decide whether or not their children should have filtered or unfiltered access to the Internet. (Adults decide for themselves.)
All of these locally developed, reasonable policies will have to be thrown out. CIPA isn't going to improve the safety or age-appropriateness of Internet user experiences in any of those places.
Liza
Liza
Many more details about the reasons why this isn't as good of an idea as it initially seems are included in the Children's Online Protection Act (COPA) Commission Report. Liza
2) Trust & Comfort with Technology. I can't be the only /. reader whose grandparents still use a rotary phone, won't get an answering machine, and aren't particularly more excited about the dust-collection-device on their TV that others call a VCR.
While we may love technology, the fact is that Florida can't even get the hang of punch-card ballots. Sure, the design interface was lousy. But I've seen a lot of counterintuitive & unreadable web sites too.
Design problems don't go away because of the net. How many people will fail to scroll down and read the rest of the initiatives and referenda in thier state, just to pick the obvious example.
IMO, we aren't ready for full scale Internet voting. Let's do more on-site experimenting, work on teaching non-net-users in net-dense areas (I nominate northern California), and generally work to figure out if this is a good idea and what implementations might work/fail utterly BEFORE pushing for widespread adoption.
Liza
If you want to install a filter to block out whatever it is you don't want your children exposed to, be that sex, violence, hate, alcohol & tobacco, other drugs, or whatever it is that you worry about, I recommend looking for one that matches your values at GetNetWise.
But your values might be different from mine. Or from your next door neighbor's. Or from your local librarian's. Or from your child's school principal. You might have very young children, while your neighbor might have a teenager with an unhealthy interest in things that go *boom*. The same filter may not work any two of those families.
For example: It's easy to imagine that both a conservative Christian family and a lesbian feminist family want to keep their children from seeing "pornography on the Internet." But one will probably still want access to sites about gay and lesbian political issues, promoting the idea of gay marriage, etc. And the other will probably still want access to the American Family Association and conservative anti-gay organizations. There is available filtering software that blocks each of those latter categories. But a family wanting to block one of those categories MOST LIKELY does not want to block the other. Those 2 hypothetical families want different filtering software.
What happens if they live in the same school district? Use the same neighborhood library? Which family gets to pick the filtering software?
Liza
Seriously though, there are probably 100+ filters or filtered ISPs on the market. You can get a reasonable list from GetNetWise. But no one has a service that lets you test against multiple products. The COPA Commission recommended that a neutral independent testing authority be created to test these products; if such a thing is ever created, /.ers should let them know that URL testing is a feature we'd like to see.
It isn't too hard to check some of the big ones. SurfControl, which sells CyberPatrol and SurfWatch, and several corporate-oriented products, has links to two test-your-site pages from h ere .
NetNanny provides a list of filtered sites when you buy the program, that is human-readable, so you could buy it and look at it.
N2H2 has such a large share of the school, library & reseller market, and provides a free-download home product, that they are also worth a specific test, even though there isn't a URL test page available.
Liza
Maybe I was hallucinating, but it seems to me that there was this multimillionaire from Texas, big ears, yappy voice, actually did well enough in the polls to get into the debates was a serious third party candidate in both of the last 2 elections, which to my way of thinking, constitutes recent memory.
I also think John Anderson ran in recent memory (was it 1980), but maybe I'm old. I'll be 31 soon.
Liza
However, my day job involves tracking this issue in detail.
The school monitoring provision I described is part of the staff-level draft of HR 4577, the Labor HHS appropriations bill.
A copy of that draft was provided by Rep. Istook's office to the Center for Democracy & Technology, whose staff transcribed the fax and posted it. HR 4577 is one of those "must pass" bills that pay for running the federal government, and the description I provided is the real deal. (What I wouldn't give to be wrong!) At this level of negotiations, every draft doesn't get posted to Thomas. If you call Rep. Istook's office, I would hope they'd be willing to fax you a copy (if they were willing to give it to CDT, I can't imagine they won't share it with you).
Liza
The current proposal actually goes much further in violation of the First Amendment. It requires the blocking of already illegal (meaning not constititutionally protected) material, namely child pornography & obscenity, AND "harmful to minors material," which as far as the Internet is concerned, is in a legal grey area since the COPA decision in the 3rd Circuit. This proposal ALSO explicitly allows local schools and libraries to filter and block anything ELSE they consider inappropriate for minors. Everything else, no matter how offensive you or I might find it, is protected by the US Constitution, so filtering anything else will run into legal problems for the libraries and schools in question.
The current proposal also opens schools up for privacy litigation as it requires "either technological or supervisory" monitoring of students using the Internet. Maybe that works for in class use, probably a teacher should be around. But I think a lot of schools are going to feel pressure to use monitoring software...and then what happens to the records of where a minor surfed for 12 years? Who gets to see those? What if that kid is nominated to the Supreme Court 40 years later? Or goes through a messy divorce in his or her 20s? If there's a personally identifiable record kept, litigators are going to track it down and try to use it.
Liza
People here seem to have assumed only kids *could* go there. I think that the opposite would be true. Anyone could go there, but the content would have to be approved as "kid-friendly" by the registrar. And browsers & filtering software could easily be set up to filter EVERYTHING ELSE. Can you imagine a slashdot.kids? Or /. meeting the .kids criteria?
The other gTLD idea that got some applicants to ICANN was .xxx/.sex/.adult. Again, whose criteria are applied? And what happens to the .com or other gTLD already operating? I just don't see the Whitehouse.com guy giving that up voluntarily. But it would seem to me to be a violation of the First Amendment (not to mention the takings clause & interference in interstate commerce) to take it away.
Liza
http://www.ala.org/washoff/fltrguide.htm l
The most amazing aspect of this proposal, among many, is the fact that if your computer or Internet access is paid for by e-rate subsidies, the definition of a minor is under 17 but if the computer in the same school or library is paid for by either Title III or LSTA, the definition of a minor is under 18. So schools and libraries would have to apply different rules to 17 year olds, depending on what computer they were using!.
I also love the fact that in an era of increased demand for privacy protection, particularly for children, this law would also require schools to monitor everything kids do using school Internet access. Sounds common sense, but what if the school allows dial-up access from home? Then the only way to comply is to install monitoring software. Who gets access to those records? How long are they kept? Do you really want to create a complete record of every site a kid has looked at K-12?
Liza
Movie and tv rating systems, however ubiquitous, are at least technically voluntary. Voluntary web rating works well at the far ends of the spectrum (kids content & p0rn sites that don't want kiddie traffic), but less well in the middle. (And of course, not at all on usenet....)
For example, what should /. rate itself? Or a news site with personal ads? News sites and large complex sites with user-generated content are the toughest cases, and yet a browser-filter that uses self-rating isn't going to *do* anything at this point if it doesn't filter out unrated sites. Maybe there will be a mass industry movement to voluntarily rate and label....
Second, just FYI, RSAC is ICRA now. They wanted to develop a more international content labeling & rating scheme, which should be launching soon.
Liza
Congress is still on the verge of mandating filters in schools and libraries. To help STOP them , please get involved.
The Children's Internet Protection Act, added to H.R. 4577 by Senators McCain and Santorum, and Representatives Istook and Pickering, would require that all public libraries and schools that receive federal funds for Internet access to install blocking software to restrict access to "inappropriate" material.
Filtering is not exclusive to pornographic content; it can also be used to target First Amendment protected speech. This was highlighted in the past when CyberPatrol, the largest filtering software manufacturer, ruled that the American Family Association's web site would be subject to filtering by their software program because of their long-standing opposition to homosexual activism.
There is growing concern within the conservative community regarding the use of filtering systems by schools and libraries that deliberately filter out web sites and information that promote conservative values. There have been many reported incidents of schoolteachers and administrators targeting pro-environment groups that differ with the global warming hypothesis, as well as pro-life organizations with filtering software to prevent students from hearing alternative approaches to those issues.
These precedents send a frightening message to political and social organizations that promote causes contrary to the positions held by the "politically correct" American Library Association and National Education Association. For conservative organizations to be subject to filtering for the content of their speech violates the most fundamental understanding of the First Amendment. The Children's Internet Protection Act would not only justify, but would mandate the use of these inappropriately restrictive devices.
We are also opposed to the practice of Congress mandating regulations by tying them to the use of federal money for state projects. This practice of taking money from the states, generously redistributing portions of it to other states, and then returning what is left with provisional strings attached is immoral and an abuse of power. Regardless of the good intentions this bill was drafted to achieve, this approach to federal funding is destructive to the most basic notions of federalism and must not become a normal practice.
Nothing is more effective than efforts to educate parents and children about Internet safety and how to properly use online resources. Moreover, Internet filters are an imperfect solution to this important problem. With millions and millions of web sites already online, and more added every day, children will always be able to access content we might wish they couldn't.
Education programs can help them to deal with the very real danger certain kinds of content could pose; Internet filters offer a false sense of security on this issue.
Additionally, Congress' own Commission on Online Child Protection is due to submit its own report on Internet safety for children in mid-October. That report will embody several months' extended effort on the part of the commission's nineteen members, and will provide Congress with important recommendations for future decisions regarding children's online safety. Congress should not legislate on this topic before that report has been received, lest it undermine the importance of the COPA Commission's work or make avoidable legislative mistakes.
The amendment's provision for "monitoring the online activities of minors either through supervisory or technological means" is also problematic. This language is inappropriately vague, and could be even open the door to unprecedented law enforcement access to people's online habits. Issues of technological monitoring must be dealt with far more care than is evident in the proposed legislation.
For these reasons, we encourage you to oppose the Children's Internet Protection Act, and any other efforts to dilute the potential of this powerful medium. We hope that you agree that an educational approach that empowers parents, instead of blunt, ineffective mandates, is the best way to address the issue of protecting children during their online experiences. We appreciate your concern and attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Paul M. Weyrich
National Chairman
Coalitions for America
Lisa S. Dean
Vice President for Technology Policy
Free Congress Foundation
Grover Norquist
President
Americans for Tax Reform
Helen Blackwell
President
Virginia Eagle Forum
Karen Kerrigan
Chairman
Small Business Survival Committee
Paul Clark
Director
Coalition for Local Sovereignty
Tom DeWeese
President
American Policy Center
Rick Humphreys
State Director
Tennessee Christian Coalition
Jim Hill
American Family Association of Oregon
William Bracken
Republican Executive Committee
Lee County Florida
Cathie Adams
President
Texas Eagle Forum
Dwight Baker
Chairman
Libertarian Party of Mississippi
Dottie Feder
Vice President
Wisconsin Eagle Forum
Janine Hansen
Nevada Eagle Forum
Bettina Dobbs
President
Guardians of Education for Maine
CDT has this posted at their site as well: http://www.cdt.org/speech/filt eri ng/001011fcf.shtml
Two years ago, they elected Tammy Baldwin to Congress. She was (and is) the first out lesbian elected to Congress, and during they primary, smart money was on either of her two "more electable" opponents.
Tammy and her supporters talked about issues that college students and 20-somethings in Madison cared about (education, health care), talked with them (not down to them), got them excited about the election, and had a really amazing voter turnout organizing system that got a lot of people to the polls who often don't bother to vote.
The key thing to remember is TO VOTE. None of this works otherwise. Find your your Representatives in Congress here, and call them to find out how to register to vote, if you aren't already registered.
OS took issue with this sentence in Perrit's answers: "Any electronic surveillance involves balancing needs for effective enforcement of the criminal laws and protection of national security against threats of invasion of privacy." OS did this by claiming, "The second clause (in bold) doesn't appear to be written in English. What would it mean to threaten to invade the privacy of national security?"
In fact, this is good grammar, although commas might have helped make it clearer. The "balancing" Perrit described require the review team to weigh two concerns against one concern: The first two concerns, criminal laws AND protection of national security, should (again, in Perrit's view) be considered against one other concern, "threats of invasion of privacy." I thought it was clear that Perrit meant invasion of individual Internet user privacy under the 4th Amendment.
The reason Bush doesn't worry about offending young net-literate adults is because insignificant percentages of them vote in most places. The only way to change that is to vote.
Find out who your representative is here. Scroll to the bottom of the page for a zip code lookup. I guarantee someone in that office will be able to tell you how to register to vote if you aren't currently registered.