Misplaced Pages

Internet filter: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:33, 14 February 2006 editJkelly (talk | contribs)19,608 editsm rvv← Previous edit Revision as of 21:34, 14 February 2006 edit undoCerealBoy (talk | contribs)5 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
{{db-nonsense}}
] censoring Whitehouse.com]] ] censoring Whitehouse.com]]


'''Censorware''' is a term for content-filtering ], especially when it is used to filter content delivered over the ]. Censorware determines what content will be available on a particular machine or network; the motive is often to protect children. ], ], ], ], and religious web sites may be filtered. Censorware can also be used to block Internet access entirely. \'\'\'Censorware\'\'\' is a term for content-filtering ], especially when it is used to filter content delivered over the ]. Censorware determines what content will be available on a particular machine or network; the motive is often to protect children. ], ], ], ], and religious web sites may be filtered. Censorware can also be used to block Internet access entirely.


==Issues== ==Issues==


The term "censorware" is valuative; companies usually do not refer to their software as "censorware," preferring terms such as '''internet filter''' or '''internet nanny'''. Filters can be implemented in many different ways: by a software program on a personal computer or by servers providing internet access. Choosing an ] (ISP) which blocks objectionable material before it enters the home over software run on their own computer can help parents who worry about their children viewing objectionable content. The term \"censorware\" is valuative; companies usually do not refer to their software as \"censorware,\" preferring terms such as \'\'\'internet filter\'\'\' or \'\'\'internet nanny\'\'\'. Filters can be implemented in many different ways: by a software program on a personal computer or by servers providing internet access. Choosing an ] (ISP) which blocks objectionable material before it enters the home over software run on their own computer can help parents who worry about their children viewing objectionable content.


Those who believe censorware is useful may still not agree with certain ways it is used, or with mandatory general regulation of information. For example, many would disapprove of filtering viewpoints on moral or political issues, agreeing that this could become support for ]. Many would also find it unacceptable that an ISP, whether by law or by the ISP's own choice, should deploy such software without allowing the users to disable the filtering for their own connections. In addition, some argue that using censorware may violate sections 13 and 17 of the ]. Those who believe censorware is useful may still not agree with certain ways it is used, or with mandatory general regulation of information. For example, many would disapprove of filtering viewpoints on moral or political issues, agreeing that this could become support for ]. Many would also find it unacceptable that an ISP, whether by law or by the ISP\'s own choice, should deploy such software without allowing the users to disable the filtering for their own connections. In addition, some argue that using censorware may violate sections 13 and 17 of the ].


== History == == History ==
Line 13: Line 14:
As the World Wide Web rose to prominence, parents, led by a series of sensational stories in the mass media, began to worry that allowing their children to use the Web might expose them to indecent material. The US Congress responded by passing the ], banning indeceny on the Internet. Civil liberties groups challenged the law under the ] and the ] ruled in their favor. Part of the civil liberties argument, especially from groups like the ], was that parents who wanted to block sites could use their own content-filtering software, making government involvement unnecessary. As the World Wide Web rose to prominence, parents, led by a series of sensational stories in the mass media, began to worry that allowing their children to use the Web might expose them to indecent material. The US Congress responded by passing the ], banning indeceny on the Internet. Civil liberties groups challenged the law under the ] and the ] ruled in their favor. Part of the civil liberties argument, especially from groups like the ], was that parents who wanted to block sites could use their own content-filtering software, making government involvement unnecessary.


Critics then argued that while content-filtering software might make government ] less likely, it would do so only by allowing unaccountable private companies to censor as they pleased. They further argued that government encouragement of content filtering, or legal requirements for content-labeling software, would be equivalent to censorship. Groups such as ] began reverse-engineering the censorware software and decrypting the blacklists to determine what kind of sites the software blocked. They discovered that such tools routinely blocked unobjectionable sites while also failing to block intended targets. An example of this tendency was the filtering of all sites containing the word "]", on the assumption that this word could only be mentioned in a sexual context. This approach had the consequence of blocking sites that discuss ], women's clothing, and even chicken recipes. Similarly, over-zealous attempts to block the word "sex" would block words such as "]" and "]". Critics then argued that while content-filtering software might make government ] less likely, it would do so only by allowing unaccountable private companies to censor as they pleased. They further argued that government encouragement of content filtering, or legal requirements for content-labeling software, would be equivalent to censorship. Groups such as ] began reverse-engineering the censorware software and decrypting the blacklists to determine what kind of sites the software blocked. They discovered that such tools routinely blocked unobjectionable sites while also failing to block intended targets. An example of this tendency was the filtering of all sites containing the word \"]\", on the assumption that this word could only be mentioned in a sexual context. This approach had the consequence of blocking sites that discuss ], women\'s clothing, and even chicken recipes. Similarly, over-zealous attempts to block the word \"sex\" would block words such as \"]\" and \"]\".


Some censorware companies responded by claiming that their filtering criteria were backed by intensive manual checking. The companies' opponents argued, on the other hand, that performing the necessary checking would require resources greater than the companies possessed and that therefore their claims were not valid. Some censorware companies responded by claiming that their filtering criteria were backed by intensive manual checking. The companies\' opponents argued, on the other hand, that performing the necessary checking would require resources greater than the companies possessed and that therefore their claims were not valid.


== Use in public libraries == == Use in public libraries ==
Line 21: Line 22:
Censorware such as ] is used in many public libraries in the United States to block content classed as objectionable because of pornography or advocacy of violence. Some libraries that employ censorware allow the software to be deactivated on a case-by-case basis on application to a librarian. Censorware such as ] is used in many public libraries in the United States to block content classed as objectionable because of pornography or advocacy of violence. Some libraries that employ censorware allow the software to be deactivated on a case-by-case basis on application to a librarian.


Many legal scholars believe that a number of legal cases , in particular ''Reno v. ACLU'' , establish that the use of censorware in libraries is a violation of the First Amendment. The ] has taken a stance opposing internet filtering. Many legal scholars believe that a number of legal cases , in particular \'\'Reno v. ACLU\'\' , establish that the use of censorware in libraries is a violation of the First Amendment. The ] has taken a stance opposing internet filtering.


== Bypassing filters == == Bypassing filters ==
Line 30: Line 31:


==Content-filtering software products== ==Content-filtering software products==
As described above, many censorware products as well as the concept of censorware in general, especially in government-funded services or those not age-restricted, can be controversial. Many ISPs offer parental control options, among them ], ], and ]; and more general software such as ] includes "parental controls". The upcoming ] operating system may also include "parental controls." See the ] for a number of articles on censorware products. As described above, many censorware products as well as the concept of censorware in general, especially in government-funded services or those not age-restricted, can be controversial. Many ISPs offer parental control options, among them ], ], and ]; and more general software such as ] includes \"parental controls\". The upcoming ] operating system may also include \"parental controls.\" See the ] for a number of articles on censorware products.


==See also== ==See also==
Line 44: Line 45:
* http://censorware.net Censorware Project: Exposing the secrets of censorware since 1997 * http://censorware.net Censorware Project: Exposing the secrets of censorware since 1997
* http://www.peacefire.org/ Open Access for the Net Generation * http://www.peacefire.org/ Open Access for the Net Generation
* *
* *
* *
Line 56: Line 57:
] ]


] ]
] ]
] ]

Revision as of 21:34, 14 February 2006

This article may meet Misplaced Pages's criteria for speedy deletion as a page that is patent nonsense, consisting purely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history. This does not include poor writing, coherent vandalism and hoaxes (G3), coherent material not written in English, badly translated material, etc. This criterion also does not apply to pages in the user namespace. See CSD G1.%5B%5BWP%3ACSD%23G1%7CG1%5D%5D%3A+%5B%5BWP%3APN%7CPatent+nonsense%5D%5D%2C+meaningless%2C+or+incomprehensibleG1

If this article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, you can click the button below and leave a message explaining why you believe it should not be deleted. You can also visit the talk page to check if you have received a response to your message.

Note that this article may be deleted at any time if it unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if an explanation posted to the talk page is found to be insufficient.

Nominator: Please consider placing the template:
{{subst:Db-nonsense-notice|Internet filter|header=1}} ~~~~
on the talk page of the author.

Note to administrators: this article has content on its talk page which should be checked before deletion.

Administrators: check links, talk, history (last), and logs before deletion. Consider checking Google.
This page was last edited by CerealBoy (contribs | logs) at 21:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC) (18 years ago)
DansGuardian censoring Whitehouse.com

\'\'\'Censorware\'\'\' is a term for content-filtering software, especially when it is used to filter content delivered over the Web. Censorware determines what content will be available on a particular machine or network; the motive is often to protect children. Pornography, gambling, alternative lifestyles, sexuality, and religious web sites may be filtered. Censorware can also be used to block Internet access entirely.

Issues

The term \"censorware\" is valuative; companies usually do not refer to their software as \"censorware,\" preferring terms such as \'\'\'internet filter\'\'\' or \'\'\'internet nanny\'\'\'. Filters can be implemented in many different ways: by a software program on a personal computer or by servers providing internet access. Choosing an internet service provider (ISP) which blocks objectionable material before it enters the home over software run on their own computer can help parents who worry about their children viewing objectionable content.

Those who believe censorware is useful may still not agree with certain ways it is used, or with mandatory general regulation of information. For example, many would disapprove of filtering viewpoints on moral or political issues, agreeing that this could become support for propaganda. Many would also find it unacceptable that an ISP, whether by law or by the ISP\'s own choice, should deploy such software without allowing the users to disable the filtering for their own connections. In addition, some argue that using censorware may violate sections 13 and 17 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

History

As the World Wide Web rose to prominence, parents, led by a series of sensational stories in the mass media, began to worry that allowing their children to use the Web might expose them to indecent material. The US Congress responded by passing the Communications Decency Act, banning indeceny on the Internet. Civil liberties groups challenged the law under the First Amendment and the Supreme Court ruled in their favor. Part of the civil liberties argument, especially from groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation, was that parents who wanted to block sites could use their own content-filtering software, making government involvement unnecessary.

Critics then argued that while content-filtering software might make government censorship less likely, it would do so only by allowing unaccountable private companies to censor as they pleased. They further argued that government encouragement of content filtering, or legal requirements for content-labeling software, would be equivalent to censorship. Groups such as The Censorware Project began reverse-engineering the censorware software and decrypting the blacklists to determine what kind of sites the software blocked. They discovered that such tools routinely blocked unobjectionable sites while also failing to block intended targets. An example of this tendency was the filtering of all sites containing the word \"breast\", on the assumption that this word could only be mentioned in a sexual context. This approach had the consequence of blocking sites that discuss breast cancer, women\'s clothing, and even chicken recipes. Similarly, over-zealous attempts to block the word \"sex\" would block words such as \"Essex\" and \"Sussex\".

Some censorware companies responded by claiming that their filtering criteria were backed by intensive manual checking. The companies\' opponents argued, on the other hand, that performing the necessary checking would require resources greater than the companies possessed and that therefore their claims were not valid.

Use in public libraries

Censorware such as SonicWALL is used in many public libraries in the United States to block content classed as objectionable because of pornography or advocacy of violence. Some libraries that employ censorware allow the software to be deactivated on a case-by-case basis on application to a librarian.

Many legal scholars believe that a number of legal cases , in particular \'\'Reno v. ACLU\'\' , establish that the use of censorware in libraries is a violation of the First Amendment. The American Library Association has taken a stance opposing internet filtering.

Bypassing filters

Some software may be bypassed successfully by using alternative protocols such as ftp, conducting searches in a different language, or using a proxy server.

Some of the more poorly-designed filters can be shut down by killing their processes; for example, in Microsoft Windows through the Windows Task Manager, or in Mac OS X using Activity Monitor.

Content-filtering software products

As described above, many censorware products as well as the concept of censorware in general, especially in government-funded services or those not age-restricted, can be controversial. Many ISPs offer parental control options, among them Earthlink, Yahoo!, and AOL; and more general software such as Norton Internet Security includes \"parental controls\". The upcoming Windows Vista operating system may also include \"parental controls.\" See the Censorware category for a number of articles on censorware products.

See also

External links

Opinions for and against censorware

Categories: