Interesting People mailing list archives
IP: NYT/CyberTimes on CWD article
From: Dave Farber <farber () central cis upenn edu>
Date: Sun, 07 Jul 1996 11:47:24 -0400
http://www.nytimes.com/library/cyber/week/0706patrol-reporters.html July 6, 1996 Reporters Claim to Have Lists of Blocked Sites By PAMELA MENDELS Reporters Brock N. Meeks and Declan B. McCullagh say they've got a little list. Several actually. The lists are of Internet sites that, in the eyes of several companies making parental control software, could be considered inappropriate to children. The lists are supposed to be secret. But Meeks and McCullagh say they have obtained lists compiled by Microsystems Software, Inc., the Framingham, Mass.-based manufacturer of Cyber Patrol; Los Altos, Calif.-based SurfWatch Software, a subsidiary of Spyglass, Inc., and Santa Barbara, Calif.-based Solid Oak Software, Inc., maker of CYBERsitter -- three of the leading producers of parental- control filtering software. McCullagh said that he and Meeks were able to view the complete Cyber Patrol and CYBERsitter lists and part of the SurfWatch list. In an article published this week in CyberWire Dispatch, a report on Internet-related issues distributed through e-mail, Meeks and McCullagh wrote that they had taken a peek at some of the sites contained on the lists and had then contacted groups that might be concerned about the listings. Representatives of organizations ranging in advocacy from feminism to gun lobbying to animal rights said they been disturbed to learn that some sites they endorse had made the lists. Kim A. Gandy, executive vice president of the National Organization for Women, said Friday that she was upset to learn that CYBERSitter blocks access to NOW's Web site. Further, she said she did not like the company's rationale: that the NOW site contains links to, among other things, sites about homosexuality. "It's ridiculous," Gandy said. "It's insulting. And I think most parents would not approve of that kind of censorship. Lots of parents don't want children surfing pornography, but would not think of denying them access to legitimate information." Marc E. Kanter, director of marketing for Solid Oak, confirmed Friday that NOW's site had been included on the CYBERsitter not-for-children list because of its links leading to "sexual preferentation" sites. "This is what our users want," he said. "If they don't want to restrict access to this material, they don't have to buy it or they can simply turn it off. We are not trying to play any political role. We are simply providing a tool for parents." Officials of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation were also upset that the Cyber Patrol list blocked several Internet discussion groups devoted to news of interest to the gay community. "We feel that this is the kind of thing important to gay and lesbian youth, to read about our community," said Lauren R. Javier, director of information systems for the Gay & Lesbian Alliance, adding that the newsgroups contained little if any sexually explicit material. Javier added that Cyber Patrol officials had been responsive in the past to complaints, so he wanted to give them "the benefit of the doubt" and intended to contact them about the matter. For his part, Nigel R. Spicer, president of Microsystems, said he had not examined the reasons that all the gay newsgroup sites named by the article were included on the Cyber Patrol list. The one site he did check after reading Meeks' report, however, was on the list because it contained links to personals ads, he said. McCullagh is keeping mum about how he and Meeks got the lists in the first place, although he denies that either of them personally decoded the software. "Brock and I are not cyptographic analysts," he said. "We don't spend our days de-encrypting files. We are writers, not crytographers." Spicer was less than happy about the prospect that Cyber Patrol's list may have fallen into outsiders' hands. He said that, so far, he had been unable to confirm whether the reporters had the true list for Cyber Patrol and, if so, how they had managed to obtain it. "It's always a concern if you believe people are getting access to material you've gone to the trouble to not make available," he said. "If we believe the encryption scheme has been compromised, we will make another one." Kanter, of CYBERsitter, said the list mentioned in the Cyberwire Dispatch article was, indeed, his company's. "I hope that list doesn't get out beyond where it was," he said. Jay S. Friedland, vice president of marketing for SurfWatch products, said Friday that he had not yet read the article. He said the blocking companies keep their lists secret for two reasons: to prevent their misuse and to keep their competitive edge. "Clearly, each company has a proprietary advantage," Friedland said. "One of our competitors could take and use the same information." ###
Current thread:
- IP: NYT/CyberTimes on CWD article Dave Farber (Jul 07)