Blocking & FilteringEssay title: Blocking & Filtering“Any content-based regulation of the Internet, no matter how benign the purpose, could burn the global village to roast the pig.”U.S. Supreme Court majority decision, Reno v. ACLU (June 26, 1997)Blocking and filtering software for the Internet is one of the most hotly debated topics regarding free speech and the Internet. Many have criticized blocking software for being both under and over inclusive, and others have argued that blocking software should not be used at all in public institutions such as libraries and schools. On the other side, supporters of blocking software claim that is a legitimate method to regulate access to “inappropriate” material on the Internet, especially access for minors. But, before we begin to look at these debates directly, we have to examine how the different types of blocking software available work.
The EFF is at once free from public scrutiny and a group of political scientists have been calling on the Federal Trade Commission to reject censorship on the Internet. In October, EFF is a member of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), where we call on the FCC to act by an independent and independent committee of a dozen members who hold a majority of the nation’s elected officials accountable for their advocacy of net neutrality. EFF believes in a strong public voice on the issues of net neutrality, and we will continue to lead, with vigor, public interest advocacy. We also continue to champion net neutrality, and are organizing for a public hearing, which will be held in the fall.
In December, the EFF reported a similar report on a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union against the telecommunications industry that claimed the FCC’s Net neutrality rules had caused harm to small businesses and had blocked Internet traffic.
The EFF is at once free from public scrutiny and a group of political scientists have been calling on the Federal Trade Commission to reject censorship on the Internet.
The FCC has been a critical partner in a wide range of efforts to advance net neutrality. Its rules have been the driving force for net neutrality, and they have been widely respected. To date, we have received nearly 3,000 letters and letters of advocacy, from both business, government, and community groups to the FCC urging it to reject the FCC’s actions.
As a business, we support the FCC’s work in support of net neutrality. With our membership in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, we are the largest business lobby group in the country, with 582,000 members and representing nearly 300,000 consumers in over 100 countries. We’ve also joined in lobbying on the FCC’s Title II Communications and Technology Policy Committee, as well as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). As a nonprofit, we contribute a significant portion of our earnings towards our nonprofit status. As the largest provider of broadband connectivity in the world with more than 1,600 Internet service providers (ISPs), we have a strong track record of providing the best service with no barriers to competition. While we continue to remain a major player in the telecommunications market, we are also growing rapidly, with a net gain of 821,000.
As CEO of Verizon, we have a strong track record of building our wireless and broadband infrastructure, with more than 65,000 employees; supporting the Verizon Wireless network; and providing innovative and affordable wireless services to customers. As an independent, we also believe the federal government should be able to regulate how the Internet is used, but ultimately with the complete exemption of the U.S. Congress to do so through the FCC. We applaud the FCC for taking the last step in regulating and protecting the Internet. When companies say they want to limit access to their apps and services, or stop selling user-generated content to ad networks, it isn’t just people who take that stance. It’s the public, not just individual companies, who make the decisions that will influence the way that our broadband experiences develop, including the way these services will work, the way we communicate, and ultimately the benefits our services will bring to our customers.
As a nonprofit member of the United Auto Workers, we are one of the nation’s largest trade unions with more than $40 billion in direct U.S. corporate work in our organization. Through our membership, our organization is working to promote the net neutrality principles our members stand for at the FCC, including strong consumer protections, and a robust consumer-protection system that meets all Americans, regardless of income, age, background or geographic region. During the Obama days, we’ve led efforts to help build better connections in our communities. When we talk about our campaign to restore net neutrality, we don’t talk about just one person, the net neutrality advocates. The battle over net neutrality is not always clear-cut, and what should be clear is that we work with members
Nearly all blocking software contains several features that enable the user to customize it for their particular preferences. Users can set the particular levels and/or categories they want the software to screen. So, for example, a user could instruct his browser to block all nudity and sex acts, but still allow sex education and intolerance, while another users could do the opposite. Another common feature is the ability to unblock particular web sites when they are blocked. So, if a user was attempting to access the CNN web site, and it was blocked because it contained, for example, the Starr report, the user could unblock it. A final common feature of most blocking software is that it can be turned on and off for particular users on a particular machine, so that parents can turn the software on when their children are using the computer, but allow themselves unlimited access.
Blocking software works in several major ways: blocking by word, blocking particular sites, blocking all sites except those on a “white list,” and blocking by preset ratings.
Most of the first blocking software worked by blocking words; the software would scan web sites for certain, unacceptable words such as “breast” or “sex.” This type of software was often ridiculed, because it is ridiculously over broad, for example blocking sites on breast cancer or news sites about the President. In addition, this type of blocking has the disadvantage of not being able to scan pictures for unacceptable material.
A second type of stand-alone software blocks all material except that on an approved list. Obviously, this type of software is very effective in blocking unwanted material, but it also blocks an enormous amount of acceptable material.
A third type of blocking software blocks only those sites on its “black list” of unacceptable locations. In order for this to work, a software company hires people to scan the web for unacceptable sites and place them on the blocked list. While this is currently the most popular type of stand-alone blocking software used, it does have some problems. First, the user must trust the software companys determination about which sites are acceptable and which are not. Typically, software companies consider their list of blocked sites to be proprietary information and will not release it. In addition, certain software may use different definitions for what is unacceptable than the user.
For example, some software companies will block sites containing pro-homosexual positions, while others will ban the sites of conservative Christian groups for “intolerance”. In addition, since the Internet expands and changes so rapidly that the lists cannot possibly keep up with all of the unacceptable material available. The lists cannot help but be under inclusive.
Platform for Internet Content Selection, or PICS, filtering on the web works substantially differently from the previously described types of software. This type of blocking relies on labeling of web sites by the sites publishers, a third-party labeling service, or the user.
The technical specifications for this type of blocking were established by PICS, which, while not mandated by law, has quickly become the de facto standard for Internet rating systems. Building on the PICS platform are three major rating services: Net Shepherd, RSACi (the Recreation Software Advisory Council standard for the Internet) and SafeSurf. Each of these services provides a list of standards by which a site can be rated. The specific categories and levels that each provides are slightly different, but the basic categories include sex, violence, language, and nudity. A person simply fills out a form describing what levels of these and other categories appear on the site, and the rating is complete.
In addition, the PICS standard allows