FC: Politech debate on filtering between EFF, NLC, X-Stop, N2H2

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

---
In response to:
http://www.politechbot.com/p-02091.html
Background:
http://www.politechbot.com/cgi-bin/politech.cgi?name=filtering
---

Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 09:22:28 -0700
To: declan () well com, politech () politechbot com
From: Will Doherty <wild () eff org>
Subject: Re: FC: Anti-porn activist Bruce Taylor on EEOC ruling,
  filtering
Cc: BruceTaylor () NationalLawCenter org, will Doherty <wild () eff org>
In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20010601093722.02092770 () mail well com>

Interesting that Bruce Taylor is still writing that Internet blocking
technology somehow doesn't make use of word-filter methods when he
admits himself in the same paragraph that the most products still do.

Interesting that he fails to mention that many of the products
come with the most restrictive blocking by both site and keyword
as the default setting.

Once all the blocking products remove the keyword-blocking mechanims,
I think Mr. Taylor may find that critics of the technology stop
mentioning the fact that the keyword-blocking facility exists
in those products.

So much for "5-6 year old uncorroborated rumors".

Sincerely,

Will Doherty
Online Activist / Media Relations
Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
Web http://www.eff.org

*********

From: "David Burt" <dburt () n2h2 com>
To: <BruceTaylor () NationalLawCenter org>, "Will Doherty" <wild () eff org>
Cc: "XStop George Shih" <gshih () 8e6technologies com>,
        "Declan McCullagh" <declan () well com>
Subject: RE: FC: Anti-porn activist Bruce Taylor on EEOC ruling,  filtering
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 16:05:04 -0700

I can add first hand experience to what Bruce is talking about.  Last month
I was on a panel with Mr. Doherty, and he presented screen shots of pages
blocked by N2H2.  These included pages that were blocked under our "news"
and "chat" categories, categories that an employer might select but that no
library would likely select.

When I pointed this out Will responded by saying, "What difference does it
make what category it's blocked under."

The proper way to criticize filter use in a library is to point out what is
being blocked in an actual library, not what someone might hypothetically be
blocked from in some imaginary library.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
David Burt, Market Research Manager
N2H2, Inc.
dburt () n2h2 com  http://www.n2h2.com/
900 4th Avenue, Suite 3600
Seattle, WA 98164
Phone 206 892-1130  Fax: 509 271-4226

*********

Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 17:04:57 -0700
To: "David Burt" <dburt () n2h2 com>, <BruceTaylor () NationalLawCenter org>,
        "Will Doherty" <wild () eff org>
From: Will Doherty <wild () eff org>
Subject: RE: FC: Anti-porn activist Bruce Taylor on EEOC ruling,
  filtering
Cc: "XStop George Shih" <gshih () 8e6technologies com>,
        "Declan McCullagh" <declan () well com>

Dear David Burt,

How are you doing? I trust you have been well since the
presentation at the San Francisco Public Library when
I last saw you.

At that time, you asked me about which categories caused
one particular site to be blocked by Bess, which was gay.com.
(I don't think you were concerned about which categories
failed to block those porn sites under that same configuration.)

I told you I did not know which categories
it was blocked under at the time I was presenting, and
that I would have to check to let you know. I also mentioned
in my presentation that the testing I was doing was on
an actual public school installation of Bess (not at a
library or corporate facility).

Since you apparently would like to know what the category
settings were, I checked my records and Bess was configured to block
the front page of gay.com while set to the categories listed
below, including CHAT but not including NEWS. If you examine
the front page of the gay.com site, you can see that it has
a link to a chat facility, but does not offer chat on that
page. Blocking the entire site simply because one may access
chat through a link on part of it is not appropriate.

Bess was not blocking that site in a library but in an
actual entire school district, which shall remain nameless,
with those categories set in that way. I suspect they are
not the only school district to leave the settings set
up to block inappropriately.

It is not at all difficult to come up with multiple examples
of underblocking, overblocking, and inappropriate blocking
using any of the Internet blocking products, except for the
most restrictive greenspace or whitelist products which are
limited by the small number of sites to which they permit
access. That is why so many of us oppose requiring their use
in schools and libraries who wish to receive federal grants
or discounts.

Sincerely,

Will Doherty
Online Activist / Media Relations
Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
Web http://www.eff.org

*********

From: "David Burt" <dburt () n2h2 com>
To: "Will Doherty" <wild () eff org>, <BruceTaylor () NationalLawCenter org>
Cc: "XStop George Shih" <gshih () 8e6technologies com>,
        "Declan McCullagh" <declan () well com>
Subject: RE: FC: Anti-porn activist Bruce Taylor on EEOC ruling,   filtering
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 20:38:51 -0700

We do block gay chat sites along with straight chat sites, bisexual chat
sites, transgender chat sites, and asexual chat sites, under the "Chat"
category.

Many (most) schools go far beyond pornography and sexual materials in their
blocking.  These additional categories have been added at the request of our
customers (mostly schools).  This is also consistent with the print
collections in schools, as school libraries exclude all sorts of material
that is legal, but unsuitable to educational purposes.

But my point is that your examples should stick with sites that have been
MIS-categorized.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
David Burt, Market Research Manager
N2H2, Inc.
dburt () n2h2 com  http://www.n2h2.com/
900 4th Avenue, Suite 3600
Seattle, WA 98164
Phone 206 892-1130  Fax: 509 271-4226

*********

Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 22:30:17 -0700
To: "David Burt" <dburt () n2h2 com>, "Will Doherty" <wild () eff org>,
        <BruceTaylor () NationalLawCenter org>
From: Will Doherty <wild () eff org>
Subject: RE: FC: Anti-porn activist Bruce Taylor on EEOC ruling,
  filtering
Cc: "XStop George Shih" <gshih () 8e6technologies com>,
        "Declan McCullagh" <declan () well com>

As I already explained in my last email on the topic,
the entire site should not be blocked simply because
part of the site provides access to chat rooms.
That IS inappropriate blocking.

Will Doherty
Online Activist / Media Relations
Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
Web http://www.eff.org

*********

Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 23:00:27 -0700
To: Will Doherty <wild () eff org>, "David Burt" <dburt () n2h2 com>,
        <BruceTaylor () NationalLawCenter org>
From: George Shih <gshih () 8e6technologies com>
Subject: RE: FC: Anti-porn activist Bruce Taylor on EEOC ruling,
  filtering
Cc: "Declan McCullagh" <declan () well com>
X-UIDL: e4d49265fbc0af64b6f3ee2e972ecce1

Mr. Doherty,

As you probably aware, most of the "institutional filtering solution" 
provide multiple categories for customers to select from. For example, part 
of gay.com is categorized in Chat category which can be blocked by 
administrator if he wishs to, we don't block the site entirely. By default 
setting, gay.com won't be part of the block categories. Most filter 
solutions provide tools and categories for customers to choose from and 
configure to meet their internal need. I hope this answers your doubt.

George Shih
8e6 Technologies/X-Stop

*********

Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 23:05:14 -0700
To: George Shih <gshih () 8e6technologies com>, Will Doherty <wild () eff org>,
        "David Burt" <dburt () n2h2 com>, <BruceTaylor () NationalLawCenter org>
From: Will Doherty <wild () eff org>
Subject: RE: FC: Anti-porn activist Bruce Taylor on EEOC ruling,
  filtering
Cc: "Declan McCullagh" <declan () well com>

Dear George Shih,

Welcome to the conversation... our circle seems to be
growing. :-)

However, Bess, as operated at a real school, was blocking
the front page of gay.com which offers only a link to
chat, not the actual chat facility.

I'm starting to feel like I am repeating myself here...
is anyone listening?

Interesting question though... what are the default settings
for your products when installed in an "institutional setting"?
Care to provide specifics on each of the products?

Sincerely,

Will Doherty
Online Activist / Media Relations
Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
Web http://www.eff.org

*********

Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 00:40:22 -0700
To: Will Doherty <wild () eff org>, Will Doherty <wild () eff org>,
        "David Burt" <dburt () n2h2 com>, <BruceTaylor () NationalLawCenter org>
From: George Shih <gshih () 8e6technologies com>
Subject: RE: FC: Anti-porn activist Bruce Taylor on EEOC ruling,
  filtering
Cc: "Declan McCullagh" <declan () well com>

Will,

The circle was there and I was listening. :-)
I know the default setting is an interesting question, however, the default
setting is to pass everything. The customer will need tell the product what
they want to block. Unfortunately, I can't speak for other product
manufacturers. This is the categorizaton issue, different mfgs have
different definition for the categories they provide and it's up to the
customer to choose what they feel is appropriete. And I do understand your
argument.

George Shih
8e6 Technologies/X-Stop

*********

From: "Bruce A. Taylor" <BruceTaylor () NationalLawCenter org>
To: "Will Doherty" <wild () eff org>
Cc: "David Burt N2H2" <dburt () n2h2 com>,
        "XStop George Shih" <gshih () 8e6technologies com>,
        "Declan McCullagh" <declan () well com>
Subject: RE: FC: Anti-porn activist Bruce Taylor on EEOC ruling,  filtering
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 04:43:40 -0400

Hi, Will. I think you misread my message or didn't read it carefully,
because I think you'd have noticed that I said that most filters can still
do word-filtering, if you want to use that feature, but none of the good
ones use it as their primary method.  Also, institutional filters don't run
by default; the user/customer has to set it at certain levels for certain
categories of the user/customer's choice.  CIPA doesn't ask a library or
school to pick the oldest filter and set it at the max-10 setting for all
available categories and hope for the best (like a parent of a
grade-schooler might choose to do at home).  CIPA only requires subsidized
libraries/schools to try to filter what they think is within the scope of
the child pornography and obscenity tests for adults and what they think is
obscene for minors on the children's terminals.  I don't appreciate
intentional exaggerations; neither the law nor responsible advocates benefit
from that.  At least that's what I think.  Bruce Taylor

*********




-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------