Ray Gen
Censorware in the Educational Technology Environment
The Problem Defined
Are there web sites, which are inappropriate for the school environment? Should offensive web sites sponsored by purveyors of pornography, hate, terrorism, vandalism, and violence be forbidden to students within the school environment? Should students be protected from the predators and lurkers who prey upon children who use the web? The answer to the above questions must be answered in the affirmative. There are sites that are inappropriate for minors. Students should be kept away from pornography and hate groups. And students should be protected from predators. However, is censorware the messianic answer to these concerns?
While the school environment needs to protect students from the dangers and inappropriate sites found on the Internet, this protection should not keep students from legitimate access to the educational sites, which are also found on the Internet. Thus this paper will argue against the use of censorware and will proffer a better procedure to keep inappropriate sites away from students while still granting legitimate access to the web to do academic work.
Fear of unfettered access to the
Internet has spurred an unfolding of censorware. These myriad of services are
included in the following products: Net
Nanny, Cybersitter, Cyber Snoop, Guardian, GuardiaNet, Surf Watch, Cyber
Patrol, The Internet Filter, Net-Rated, Net Shepherd, X Stop, Ed View, Wiz
Guard and Smart Filter to name only a few. Currently, there are two types
of protective services. The first type of service is a web filter. A web filter
is essentially based on key word searches.
When one accesses web sites, one searches for
information by using search engines. Search engines such as AltaVista, Yahoo, Hot Bot, Excite, InfoSeek,
Lycos, etc. are very similar to the familiar card catalogue at a local
library. One searches for information and web sites by entering key words or
phrases. These words and phrases are the basis of a search conducted by the
search engine on the Internet. The
search engine will comb the Internet and look for sites that contain these key
words. This is similar to searching for a book by subject in the card catalogue
in an antiquated library. Web filters operate in a comparable manner. However,
unlike the regular searches, web filters will not allow the user to search for
certain topics. Some web filters, such as SafetyNet produced by lycos.com, are based on key words, but
these filters are used to prohibit the search of certain words and phrases
because these words had previously been precluded. For instance, if a web
filter were to have filtered out the word “sex” then every time a user were to
search for the term “sex” on the Internet, the web filter would not allow the
user access to the information.
The second type of censorware currently used is a
blocker. Blockers do not allow the
search to be performed because they had been pre-selected and pre-blocked by
the product, which offers this service. The blocked web sites were deemed by
the company that produced the service to be inappropriate. Thus the subscribers
to the blocking technology service are forbidden access to those pre-determined
sites.
There are many proponents who advocate the use of
censorware. Among these advocates is Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) who
introduced Senate Bill 1619, the Internet School Filtering Act, on February 22,
1998 (David, 1998). Senator McCain’s bill would require schools and
public libraries to use a web filter or web blocker prior to the reception of
federal funding subsidies for Internet access. The bill passed in July 1998.
McCain stated after the passage of his bill, “Children should not be allowed to
enter school or a public library and gain access to material that their parents
would never allow them to see and that most in society believe is inappropriate
for those who are not yet adults” ("Senate
Approves," 1998). Thus every school and library, which employs federal
subsidies to provide Internet access, must have at least one computer which
uses a web filter. Students who are minors must use these web-filtered
computers to access the Internet. The opponents of this bill interpret the
sponsorship of this bill as a response to the Communications Decency Act of
1996 (CDA) being ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1997. Many
people call McCain’s bill “CDA II” (Kriz,
1998).
The problem with censorware is that they are
non-discriminatory and non-intelligent. While denying access to electronic
pornography might be desirable at a school library, the denial of legitimate,
academic research is not desirable. Because web filters operate on the basis of
key words, if one were to filter the key word “breast” one would not only deny
access to pornography, which has the term embedded on its web site, but one also
limits access to legitimate research on “breast cancer” (Quittner, 1998). In another example, a user searching for the poetic
works of Anne Sexton was denied access when the web filter disallowed access to
the site because the letters “s-e-x” of her surname were deemed inappropriate.
Access would also be denied to Sussex, England, sex education, and sextuplets.
In short, every web site, which contains this sequence of letters would be
filtered out, and the user would be denied access.
Censorware have denied access to sites, which have
nothing to do with sexuality. For instance, Cybersitter has in the past blocked
the sites having to do with the National Organization for Women, animal rights
groups, political causes groups, newspaper sites, gay rights sites, fascism,
drugs, and violence (Lasica, 1998). This selective blocking is based upon the subjective
viewpoints of the company offering the service. Thus legitimate sources of
information such as National Organization for Women (N.O.W.) were blocked
because the editors of Cybersitter did not agree with the political and social
sentiments of N.O.W. Users were denied
access to information about drug abuse because the subject was deemed unacceptable.
Thus, legitimate research was prevented because of the biases of the product’s
editors. David Sobel, who is the legal counsel for the Electronic Privacy
Information Center in Washington, D. C., stated, “…I don’t know why any parent
would want to buy these kinds of shrink-wrapped values, which amount to someone
else’s idea of what good for your kids” (Lasica,
1998, p. 84).
The blocking and filtering of legitimate resources
is not the only issue of concern. Censorware may, in fact, be offending the
First Amendment. Barry Steinhardt, who is the president of the Electronic
Frontier Foundation and a former associate director of the ACLU stated, “I’m
not saying individuals should be prohibited from using [web filters and
blockers] for personal use. But its use in public institutions like libraries
is inappropriate and, I think, unconstitutional” (Oakes, 1998, p. 2). Steinhardt’s fear was that these filters would be
used to censor information, which ought to be accessible in schools and
libraries (Oakes, 1998). Steinhardt’s sentiments were echoed by the U.S.
District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema who ruled that the use of web filters in
Loudoun County libraries in Virginia violated the free speech rights (“Virginia
Library,” 1998). With this ruling, the library board will probably alter their
policy regarding the use of web filters.
A pragmatic concern regarding the use of censorware
is simply that they do not work effectively. A clever or determined student
will be able to circumvent the blockers and filters. Admission onto
inappropriate sites may occur because a clever student would be able to access
the site via a peripheral search word, which was not blocked. For example,
while the terms “oral sex” may be blocked, slang and colloquial terms such as “blow”
are not filtered. A service cannot filter every term that may have a sexual
connotation. There are also available on the Internet several disabling tools,
which will deactivate the filter when activated by the user. Thus a student may
access a site, download the disabling tool, deactivate the filter and have full
access to the Internet (Oakes, 1998).
Web blockers likewise do not work with efficiency.
The Internet has proliferated access to information. This information deluge
includes a surge of undesirable web sites. Blocking services cannot possibly
keep up with all the proliferation of undesirable sites. These sites often
change URLs (web addresses) and IPs (Internet Providers). Thus web blockers
will always be behind the purveyors of inappropriate sites.
Given these reasons not to employ web filters and
blockers, what actions can be taken to prevent the access of inappropriate web
sites by students? Should schools and libraries surrender to the curiosity of the
children? What practical solutions are there?
First of all, the Internet should be viewed as a
repository of information. The Internet should be viewed as an electronic
library. Are there materials in a public library, which are inappropriate for
certain ages of students? Yes, there are. Young elementary students are not
ready to access certain books on violence, sex, or even entertainment. What
provisions are there to prevent access of these materials? Some libraries’
policies require that parents checkout books for their children should a child
desire a book from outside the appropriate age group. This policy relies upon
parental control and student self-regulation. The policy does not rely on a
commercial third party to police and monitor the reading material for students.
Thus school policies should be the first line of
defense. Schools should adopt a policy that states that only “school
appropriate” web sites can be visited at school or in the school’s library.
Students who download or visit inappropriate sites should lose access to the
Internet for a specified period of time depending on the nature of the offense.
With this policy, students would not wish to enter “breast” into a search
engine in order to find pornographic material for fear of losing Internet
access. However, the student doing legitimate investigation would be able to
enter “breast cancer” and find appropriate research materials. Thus the policy requires the student to be
self-regulating. Self-regulation places the responsibility of decision making
in the hands of the student and not in the hands of a commercial third party, a
librarian or a school official.
Along with this policy, certain technologies may be
used to enforce this policy. Every computer has a “history” file, which is
based on the “cookies” or information the computer has received from a web
site. The history file records the movements of the computer in cyberspace.
Thus an adult may ascertain where a student has been on the Internet by
checking either the history file or the “cookies” file itself in the computer’s
web browser. If the computer has a hard
drive protection device such as Fortress
or At Ease, then no changes can be
made to the history or cookies files. Thus, adults may effectively monitor the
use of the Internet.
Schools should adopt a check-in policy that records
which computer a student uses and at what time. When this information is
coupled with the scrutiny of the history and cookies files, an effective,
self-regulatory deterrent is created. Occasional, sporadic supervision is the
best enforcement of this policy.[1]
Hence, the policy is not enforced by a technological tool, which can be
extremely ineffective but by responsible adults who can discern the
appropriateness of web sites.
The use of censorware is inappropriate in the educational environment. Web filters and blockers are inefficient and insufficient. The reliance on technology to monitor student access to the Internet is misplaced trust. Current technology cannot and should not make decisions as to which sites are appropriate or not. These decisions properly belong in the hands of students, parents and educators. The reliance of technology to monitor students encourages the students to “see what they can get away with.” Students may place blame on the technology for not stopping their access rather than taking personal responsibility for accessing the inappropriate sites.
Students need the power to make appropriate,
research decisions. With the superfluity of information available in the world,
decision-making must become part of the curriculum of the third millennium.
Students need to learn how to discern information and to do research.
Legitimate research has been denied with the use of censorware, which employ
key word filters or site blockers or both.
Students are less likely to visit inappropriate
sites if they know that they will lose access privileges. Schools should adopt
definitive policies, which prohibit the access of inappropriate sites. If a
student chooses to access a site that is inappropriate, the student should lose
access privileges.
Censorware is not the answer. Many experts and
organizations have discouraged the use of censorware. The American Library
Association, the ACLU, the California Library Association, the American
Journalism Review, and the National Education Association are among those who
discourage the use of censorware. Censorware, like its cousin censorship, is a
bad idea.
Reference List
David, H. (1998). Filtering out net indecency: Porn
foes look for a technological solution. The Freedom Forum Online
[On-line]. Available:
http://www.freedomforum.org/speech/series/cda.series.4.asp
Kriz, H. (1998, November 12). CDA II passes senate. Wired
News [On-line]. Available: http://www.wired.com/news/print_ve...politics/
story/13993.html?wnpg=all
Lasica, J. D. (1998). Censorship devices on the
internet, American Journalism Review [On-line]. Available:
http://ajr.newslink.org/ajrdsep97.html
Oakes, C. (1998, November 12). Filtering out the
filters. Wired New. [On-line].
Available: http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/
story/14505.html
.
Quittner, J. (1998, July 13). Web censorware. Time, 84.
Senate approves controls on internet pornography.
(1998, July 22). The Arizona Republic [On-line]. Available:
http://www.northernlight.com/c…
EUJHBRPcw%253D%253D&cbx=0%253B1004
Virginia library may amend web filter. (1998,
November 25). Washington Post
[On-line] Available: http://search.washingtonpost.com/w…
O/19981125/V000441-112598-idx.html
[1] Occasional, sporadic supervision is the method of supervision and enforcement used by the Highway Patrol to monitor traffic. The Highway Patrol need not be omnipresent, just the concept of occasional, sporadic enforcement is enough to require compliance of the traffic policies.