Product Code Database
An Internet filter is a type of internet censorship that restricts or controls the content an Internet user is capable to access, especially when utilized to restrict material delivered over the Internet via the Web, Email, or other means. Such restrictions can be applied at various levels: a government can attempt to apply them nationwide (see Internet censorship), or they can, for example, be applied by an Internet service provider to its clients, by an employer to its personnel, by a school to its students, by a library to its visitors, by a parent to a child's computer, or by an self-censorship. The motive is often to prevent access to content which the computer's owner(s) or other authorities may consider objectionable. When imposed without the consent of the user, content control can be characterised as a form of internet censorship. Some filter software includes time control functions that empowers parents to set the amount of time that child may spend accessing the Internet or playing games or other computer activities.
Companies that make products that selectively block Web sites do not refer to these products as censorware, and prefer terms such as "Internet filter" or "URL Filter"; in the specialized case of software specifically designed to allow parents to monitor and restrict the access of their children, "parental control software" is also used. Some products log all sites that a user accesses and rates them based on content type for reporting to an "accountability partner" of the person's choosing, and the term accountability software is used. Internet filters, parental control software, and/or accountability software may also be combined into one product.
Those critical of such software, however, use the term "censorware" freely: consider the Censorware Project, for example. The use of the term "censorware" in editorials criticizing makers of such software is widespread and covers many different varieties and applications: Xeni Jardin used the term in a 9 March 2006 editorial in The New York Times, when discussing the use of American-made filtering software to suppress content in China; in the same month a high school student used the term to discuss the deployment of such software in his school district.
In general, outside of editorial pages as described above, traditional newspapers do not use the term "censorware" in their reporting, preferring instead to use less overtly controversial terms such as "content filter", "content control", or "web filtering"; The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal both appear to follow this practice. On the other hand, Web-based newspapers such as CNET use the term in both editorial and journalistic contexts, for example "Windows Live to Get Censorware."
Internet service providers (ISPs) that block material containing pornography, or controversial religious, political, or news-related content en route are often utilized by parents who do not permit their children to access content not conforming to indoctrination. Content filtering software can, however, also be used to block malware and other content that is or contains hostile, intrusive, or annoying material including adware, spamming, , computer worm, trojan horses, and spyware.
Most content control software is marketed to organizations or parents. It is, however, also marketed on occasion to facilitate self-censorship, for example by people struggling with addictions to online pornography, gambling, chat rooms, etc. Self-censorship software may also be utilised by some in order to avoid viewing content they consider immoral, inappropriate, or simply distracting. A number of accountability software products are marketed as self-censorship or accountability software. These are often promoted by religious media and at religious gatherings.
There are constraints to IP level packet-filtering, as it may result in rendering all web content associated with a particular IP address inaccessible. This may result in the unintentional blocking of legitimate sites that share the same IP address or domain. For instance, university websites commonly employ multiple domains under one IP address. Moreover, IP level packet-filtering can be surpassed by using a distinct IP address for certain content while still being linked to the same domain or server.
Gateway-based content control software may be more difficult to bypass than desktop software as the user does not have physical access to the filtering device. However, many of the techniques in the Bypassing filters section still work.
ICRA labels come in a variety of formats. These include the World Wide Web Consortium's Resource Description Framework (RDF) as well as Platform for Internet Content Selection (PICS) labels used by Microsoft's Internet Explorer Content Advisor.
ICRA labels are an example of self-labeling. Similarly, in 2006 the Association of Sites Advocating Child Protection (ASACP) initiated the Restricted to Adults self-labeling initiative. ASACP members were concerned that various forms of legislation being proposed in the United States were going to have the effect of forcing adult companies to label their content. The RTA label, unlike ICRA labels, does not require a webmaster to fill out a questionnaire or sign up to use. Like ICRA the RTA label is free. Both labels are recognized by a wide variety of content-control software.
The Voluntary Content Rating (VCR) system was devised by Solid Oak Software for their CYBERsitter filtering software, as an alternative to the PICS system, which some critics deemed too complex. It employs HTML meta element tags embedded within web page documents to specify the type of content contained in the document. Only two levels are specified, mature and adult, making the specification extremely simple.
NetAlert, the software made available free of charge by the Australian government, was allegedly cracked by a 16-year-old student, Tom Wood, less than a week after its release in August 2007. Wood supposedly bypassed the $84 million filter in about half an hour to highlight problems with the government's approach to Internet content filtering.
The Australian Government has introduced legislation that requires ISPs to "restrict access to age restricted content (commercial MA15+ content and R18+ content) either hosted in Australia or provided from Australia" that was due to commence from 20 January 2008, known as Cleanfeed.
Cleanfeed is a proposed mandatory ISP level content filtration system. It was proposed by the Kim Beazley led Australian Labor Party opposition in a 2006 press release, with the intention of protecting children who were vulnerable due to claimed parental computer illiteracy. It was announced on 31 December 2007 as a policy to be implemented by the Kevin Rudd ALP government, and initial tests in Tasmania have produced a 2008 report. Cleanfeed is funded in the current budget, and is moving towards an Expression of Interest for live testing with ISPs in 2008. Public opposition and criticism have emerged, led by the EFA and gaining irregular mainstream media attention, with a majority of Australians reportedly "strongly against" its implementation. Criticisms include its expense, inaccuracy (it will be impossible to ensure only illegal sites are blocked) and the fact that it will be compulsory, which can be seen as an intrusion on free speech rights. Another major criticism point has been that although the filter is claimed to stop certain materials, the underground rings dealing in such materials will not be affected. The filter might also provide a false sense of security for parents, who might supervise children less while using the Internet, achieving the exact opposite effect. Cleanfeed is a responsibility of Stephen Conroy portfolio.
Many legal scholars believe that a number of legal cases, in particular Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, established that the use of content-control software in libraries is a violation of the First Amendment. The Children's Internet Protection Act CIPA and the June 2003 case United States v. American Library Association found CIPA constitutional as a condition placed on the receipt of federal funding, stating that First Amendment concerns were dispelled by the law's provision that allowed adult library users to have the filtering software disabled, without having to explain the reasons for their request. The plurality decision left open a future "as-applied" Constitutional challenge, however.
In November 2006, a lawsuit was filed against the North Central Regional Library District (NCRL) in Washington State for its policy of refusing to disable restrictions upon requests of adult patrons, but CIPA was not challenged in that matter. In May 2010, the Washington State Supreme Court provided an opinion after it was asked to certify a question referred by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington: "Whether a public library, consistent with Article I, § 5 of the Washington Constitution, may filter Internet access for all patrons without disabling Web sites containing constitutionally-protected speech upon the request of an adult library patron." The Washington State Supreme Court ruled that NCRL's internet filtering policy did not violate Article I, Section 5 of the Washington State Constitution. The Court said: "It appears to us that NCRL's filtering policy is reasonable and accords with its mission and these policies and is viewpoint neutral. It appears that no article I, section 5 content-based violation exists in this case. NCRL's essential mission is to promote reading and lifelong learning. As NCRL maintains, it is reasonable to impose restrictions on Internet access in order to maintain an environment that is conducive to study and contemplative thought." The case returned to federal court.
In March 2007, Virginia passed a law similar to CIPA that requires public libraries receiving state funds to use content-control software. Like CIPA, the law requires libraries to disable filters for an adult library user when requested to do so by the user.
In 1996 the US Congress passed the Communications Decency Act, banning indecency on the Internet. Civil liberties groups challenged the law under the First Amendment, and in 1997 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.
In the late 1990s, groups such as the Censorware Project began reverse-engineering the content-control software and decrypting the blacklists to determine what kind of sites the software blocked. This led to legal action alleging violation of the "Cyber Patrol" EULA. They discovered that such tools routinely blocked unobjectionable sites while also failing to block intended targets.
Some content-control software 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.
The Motion Picture Association successfully obtained a UK ruling enforcing ISPs to use content-control software to prevent copyright infringement by their subscribers.
Some software may be bypassed successfully by using alternative protocols such as FTP or telnet or HTTPS, conducting searches in a different language, using a proxy server or a circumventor such as Psiphon. Also cached web pages returned by Google or other searches could bypass some controls as well. Web syndication services may provide alternate paths for content. Some of the more poorly designed programs can be shut down by killing their processes: for example, in Microsoft Windows through the Windows Task Manager, or in Mac OS X using Force Quit or Activity Monitor. Numerous workarounds and counters to workarounds from content-control software creators exist. Google services are often blocked by filters, but these may most often be bypassed by using https:// in place of http:// since content filtering software is not able to interpret content under secure connections (in this case SSL).
An encrypted VPN can be used as means of bypassing content control software, especially if the content control software is installed on an Internet gateway or firewall. Other ways to bypass a content control filter include translation sites and IP tunnel with an uncensored device.
|
|
