Web blocking software - FYI

Tue Feb 11 16:23:25 EST 1997

>Date: Thu, 30 Jan 97 08:23:58 -0500 (EST)
>From: kkc at COMPETITOR.NET(K.K. Campbell)
>Subject: File 4--Cybersitter & Wallace
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>                    WHO'S WATCHING THE 'WATCHERS'?
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>                                  by
>                             K.K. CAMPBELL
>
>                              Net.column
>                           The Toronto Star
>                      Thursday, January 30, 1997
>
>
>One of the most controversial aspects of cyberspace is censorship. A
>widely accepted solution to eliminating the "unwanted" is self-imposed
>censorship, through special software which blocks out types of content
>not desired.
>
>The appeal of these programs is that people needn't rely on distant
>authority to dictate acceptability. We police ourselves; or at least we
>have some control over how we will be policed.
>
>The news media have generally blessed "blocking software" with
>unexamined sprinklings of warm praise. After all, who dares suggest
>that stopping your 5-year-old from seeing graphic gore, violence or sex
>is bad? What could go wrong with that?
>
>But, now critics are starting to ask, who is "watching the watchers?"
>Could these watchers themselves develop more "creative applications"
>for their power to silence? Could they apply their own personal
>prejudices, or even their own hidden agendas?
>
>Or is that paranoid nonsense?
>
>Ask U.S. author Jonathan Wallace (jw at bway.net). Wallace says
>California's Solid Oak software, which produces Cybersitter blocking
>software, has added his site to its "block list" in retaliation for
>critical remarks he made about the company.
>
>Solid Oak claims 900,000 registered Cybersitter users.
>
>Wallace, a New York-based software business executive and attorney is
>co-author of the book _Sex, Laws and Cyberspace_ (Henry Holt, $34.95).
>Net.column will discuss the book with its author next installment.
>
>He's also editor of the monthly Webzine _The Ethical Spectacle_, which
>focuses on "the intersection of ethics, law and politics in our
>society."
>
>The Webzine recently asked readers to not purchase Cybersitter because
>of continuing reports of Solid Oak's "unethical behavior."
>
>"In the book," Wallace says in a press release explaining his current
>attitude to Cybersitter, "we took the position -- naively, I now think
>-- that use of blocking software by parents was a less restrictive
>alternative to government censorship. We never expected that publishers
>of blocking software would block sites for their political content
>alone, as Solid Oak has done."
>
>Solid Oak unequivocably denies there is a political agenda of any kind
>et work.
>
>"Absolutely, 100 per cent not," Marc Kanter told the Toronto Star in a
>phone interview. Kanter is Solid Oak's vice president of marketing.
>"There is no hidden political agenda."
>
>Kanter says someone criticizing Cybersitter would not be blocked. He
>says Wallace's site is blocked because it "links information on how to
>hack Cybersitter. We do not allow our customers to have hacking
>information for the program."
>
>Wallace told The Star that's not true. "There's no such information on
>my site, nor is there on Peacefire's. I link to some pages maintained
>by Glen Roberts, who -- along with some political commentary on
>Cybersitter, and analysis of its blocking policy -- offers a (legal)
>work-around. However, since his site is separately blocked by
>Cybersitter, there is no reason for them to block my site as well."
>
>Kanter dismisses Wallace's complaints. "The guy didn't do any
>homework," Kanter says. "There are a few people who are right-wing
>activists who are out there that are trying to defame the filtering
>program. This is what leads to stories like you are doing -- and
>hopefully you are not supportive of their actions."
>
>Wallace didn't know what to make of that. "I've been called a
>communist, a socialist, and a wild-eyed civil libertarian, but no one
>has ever called me right wing before," he says. "Kanter has obviously
>never read _The Ethical Spectacle_."
>
>While Cybersitter, with fanfare, claims its mission is to block Web
>sites containing pornography, obscenity, gratuitous violence, hate
>speech, criminal activity, etc., an increasing number of investigative
>Net.journalists also claim Cybersitter, without fanfare, blocks access
>to Web sites based on political criteria.
>
>                          FOR OUR OWN GOOD
>
>This brouhaha began last summer when CyberWire Dispatch revealed
>Cybersitter blocks sites based on political agenda, such as the
>feminist National Organization for Women (www.now.org).
>
>Dispatch journalist/editor Brock Meeks asked Solid Oak CEO Brian
>Milburn (bmilburn at solidoak.com) about that.
>
>"Milburn isn't shy about it," Meeks reported. "He was outright
>indignant when he originally told Dispatch: 'If NOW doesn't like it,
>tough'."
>
>Solid Oak threatened to sue Dispatch for its article, but things
>quieted down.
>
>In December, the issue erupted again when 18-yearold Bennett Haselton
>(bennett at peacefire.org) wrote an article about the company's selection
>of blocked sites: "Cybersitter: Where Do We Not Want You To Go Today?"
>(www.peacefire.org/censorware/CYBERsitter.html).
>
>Haselton takes computer science and math at Vanderbilt University.
>"Peacefire" is his own creation, a teen cyberrights group, average age
>15.
>
>According to various Net.journalists, Solid Oak now threatened Bennett
>with a lawsuit and even tried to get the Peacefire site booted from its
>host system (media3.net) by telling Media3 that Haselton was making it
>"his mission in life to defame our product" by "routinely" publishing
>names of sites blocked by Cybersitter.
>
>(It should be noted it's easy to figure out which sites are blocked,
>the software provides an output list. Try "playboy.com" -- blocked. Try
>"whitehouse.com" -- okay. Try "peacefire.org" -- blocked. Try "now.org"
>-- blocked.)
>
>Unsuccessful in his pressure against Media3, Milburn instead included
>the peacefire.org domain in Cybersitter's block list.
>
>On Dec. 9, HotWired picked the story up
>(www.wired.com/news/story/901.html). NetAction Notes
>(www.netaction.org) quickly followed suit. Haselton told his story to
>the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the EFF assured him it would
>represent him, should Solid Oak deliver on its threat to sue.
>
>On Dec. 20, The Netly News (http://netlynews.com) continued the
>investigation of Cybersitter. Aside from the irony of Cybersitter
>censoring the newsgroup alt.censorship, it "blocks dozens of ISPs and
>university sites such as well .com, zoom.com, anon.penet.fi, best.com,
>webpower.com, ftp.std.com, cts.com, gwis2.seas.gwu.edu, hss.cmu.edu,
>c2.org, echonyc.com and accounting.com. Now, sadly, some libraries are
>using it."
>
>                       BLACK LIST TO BLOCK LIST
>
>Wallace read the reports of legal threats against the teenager and
>thought "Milburn was acting like the proverbial 800-pound gorilla."
>
>So Wallace added a link on _The Spectacle_'s homepage called "Don't Buy
>Cybersitter."
>
>"I wrote the company," he says, "informing them of my actions and
>telling them that they misrepresent their product when they claim it
>blocks only indecent material, hate speech and the like."
>
>Wallace says Solid Oak responded by adding his Webzine to its block
>list. Learning of this, Wallace wrote Milburn and Solid Oak tech
>support.
>
>"I pointed out that _The Spectacle_ does not fit any of their published
>criteria for blocking a site," he says. "I received mail in return
>demanding that I cease writing to them and calling my mail 'harassment'
>-- with a copy to the postmaster at my ISP."
>
>Kanter acknowledges this. "He spoke to us more than once or twice -- he
>continued to send mail -- mail like that is considered 'not wanted' and
>is automatically sent back."
>
>By the end of our phone conversation, Kanter had dropped the
>"right-wing activist" explanation of who was behind the Cybersitter
>complaints and offered a new one:
>
>"Some of this rhetoric was started by someone we believe to be a highly
>-- how do you put it? -- a highly homosexual individual, who did not
>believe we should have the right to block any sites or links to
>alternative lifestyles. That's how a lot of this got started."
>
>Why is the National Organization for Women site blocked?
>
>"Very simple. It contains links to gay and lesbian hardcore material. I
>was on their page this morning, and there is a lot of offensive
>material linked directly. Just go to their links page and start looking
>at 'gay' and 'feminism.' Our parents don't want that kind of stuff."
>
>I asked if he really meant "hardcore" -- suggestive of full-penetration
>images/stories.
>
>"Yes, by links through links," he clarifies. If someone followed the
>links starting at now.org, they'd eventually find hardcore sexual
>material.
>
>Kanter says parents are not permitted to know which sites Cybersitter
>blocks.
>
>"That list is not given to anybody under any circumstances -- including
>law enforcement agencies that have requested it." He says it's to
>prevent the list from "getting into the wrong hands."
>
>It would be a cybermap to naughtiness for some kids. And parents aren't
>allowed to remove blocked sites from Cybersitter, although they can add
>to the list.
>
>Cyber-rights activists claim the incident underscores warnings they've
>issued for years: While censorship software may first aim to protect
>children against "pornography," it can quickly be adopted for political
>agendas.
>
>_The Ethical Spectacle_ is at www.spectacle.org. Solid Oak's Web site
>can be found at www.solidoak.com.
>
>-30-
>
>Copyright 1997 K.K. Campbell
>
>
>
Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington 
1200 5th Ave., Suite 1300
Seattle, WA 98101
206-625-1300   Fax  206-625-1220
http://www.mrsc.org