Policy Post 8.27: Filtering software's limits and benefits



CDT POLICY POST Volume 8, Number 27, December 12, 2002

A BRIEFING ON PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES AFFECTING CIVIL LIBERTIES ONLINE
from
THE CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY

CONTENTS:

(1) New study shows Internet filtering blocks valuable sites, but can 
benefit parents
(2) Courts were correct that filters both over-block and under-block
(3) Filtering technologies remain an important tool when voluntarily used by
families.
________________________________________________

(1) NEW STUDY SHOWS INTERNET FILTERING BLOCKS VALUABLE SITES, BUT
CAN BENEFIT PARENTS

A new study confirms that filtering technologies can over-block
constitutionally- protected speech, but can be effective when used
voluntarily in the home by knowledgeable consumers.

The study, "See No Evil:  How Internet Filters Affect the Search for
Online Health Information," funded by the Kaiser Family Foundation, looked
at the ways in which Internet filters impact young people's access to
online health information.  The study was conducted in response to
concerns that Internet filters intended to block young people's access to
objectionable material online also prevents them from viewing
non-pornographic health information.  It provides empirical evidence about
over- blocking of material, particularly material about health issues.

The study finds that filtering software works remarkably well at the least
restrictive settings, blocking 87% of porn sites but only 1.4% of
health-related sites.  But at higher settings, filters also block many
important health sites on a range of important issues, from mental health
to sexually transmitted disease.  At the intermediate blocking level, 5%
of health-related sites are blocked; at the most restrictive level, 24%.  
The increase in blocked health content is especially pronounced, the study
finds, on searches related to sexual health.  For example, for a search on
"safe sex," on average about one in ten health sites (9%) is blocked at
the least restrictive level of blocking, one in five (21%) at the
intermediate level, and one in two (50%) at the most restrictive level.

The Kaiser study is available at http://www.kff.org/content/2002/20021210a/
______________________________________________

(2) COURTS WERE CORRECT THAT FILTERS BOTH OVER-BLOCK AND
UNDER-BLOCK

The Kaiser study affirms the findings of the lower federal court in the
case challenging the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) about the
limitations of filtering technologies - that filters both over-block and
under-block speech.  The case is now on appeal to the US Supreme Court.

Concerns about young people's exposure to online pornography and other
objectionable material led to the passage of CIPA in 2000.  The Act
requires schools and libraries receiving federal funds to block material
that is obscene, child pornography, or "harmful to minors."

The American Library Association, together with library patrons, Web site
publishers and a group of libraries challenged CIPA on First Amendment
grounds. A panel of federal judges found that thousands of Web pages
containing constitutionally protected speech are wrongly blocked by the
four leading filtering programs, and that those pages represent only a
fraction of Web pages wrongly blocked by the programs.  The court found
that it is currently impossible, given the Internet's size, rate of
growth, rate of change, and architecture, and given the state of the art
of automated classification systems, to develop a filter that neither
under- blocks nor over-blocks a substantial amount of speech.

The court further found that libraries can exercise less restrictive means
to control children's access to objectionable online material, including
instituting Internet use policies, enforcing restrictions against
accessing illegal speech, and keeping unfiltered terminals that are
accessible by children within view of library staff.

The district court decision in the CIPA litigation can be downloaded from
http:// www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/02D0414P.HTM
_________________________________________________

(3) FILTERING REMAINS AN IMPORTANT TOOL WHEN VOLUNTARILY USED BY
FAMILIES

In CDT's view, there is a world of difference between what parents can
choose to do and what the government can mandate.  The findings of the
Kaiser study, as well as the court in CIPA, affirm CDT's position that
filters are important tools when used voluntarily in the home by parents
who understand their capabilities and limitations, and who can tune them
to reflect their family's values and their developing children's evolving
needs.  However, the study's findings about over- blocking demonstrate
that those same filters, when mandated by government for use in libraries,
violate the First Amendment by blocking access to constitutionally
protected speech.

Moreover, the study finds that filtering products block a significant
amount of pornographic material - at least 87% even when filters are set
at their least restrictive level.  CDT believes that these figures
demonstrate that filters, when knowledgeably applied, are far more
effective than any government censorship scheme.

To assist parents and others in understanding the range of filtering
technology, CDT has supported GetNetWise, a user-friendly online resource
for child protection technology.

GetNetWise is available at http://www.getnetwise.org

For more information about CDT's involvement in challenges to government
attempts to censor the Internet, see http://www.cdt.org/speech/
_________________________________________________

Detailed information about online civil liberties issues may be found at
http://www.cdt.org/.

This document may be redistributed freely in full or linked to
http://www.cdt.org/publications/pp_8.27.shtml.

Excerpts may be re-posted with prior permission of ari@cdt.org

Policy Post 8.27 Copyright 2002 Center for Democracy and Technology

--
To subscribe to CDT's Activist Network, sign up at:
   http://www.cdt.org/join/

If you ever wish to remove yourself from the list, unsubscribe at:
   http://www.cdt.org/action/unsubscribe.shtml

If you just want to change your address, you should unsubscribe
yourself and then sign up again or contact: mclark@cdt.org
--
Michael Clark, Grassroots Webmaster
mclark@cdt.org
PGP Key available on keyservers

Center for Democracy and Technology
1634 Eye Street NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20006
http://www.cdt.org/
voice: 202-637-9800
fax: 202-637-0968



========== HURIDOCS-Tech listserv ==========
Send mail intended for the list to <huridocs-tech@hrea.org>.
Archives of the list can be found at:
http://www.hrea.org/lists/huridocs-tech/markup/maillist.php
To subscribe to the list, send a message to <majordomo@hrea.org>,
with the following text in the message: subscribe huridocs-tech
To unsubscribe from the list, send a message to <majordomo@hrea.org>,
with the following text in the message: unsubscribe huridocs-tech
If you have problems (un)subscribing, contact <owner-huridocs-tech@hrea.org>.


[Reply to this message] [Start a new topic] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index] [Subject Index] [List Home Page] [HREA Home Page]