--- 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: declanat_private, politechat_private From: Will Doherty <wildat_private> Subject: Re: FC: Anti-porn activist Bruce Taylor on EEOC ruling, filtering Cc: BruceTaylorat_private, will Doherty <wildat_private> In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20010601093722.02092770at_private> 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" <dburtat_private> To: <BruceTaylorat_private>, "Will Doherty" <wildat_private> Cc: "XStop George Shih" <gshihat_private>, "Declan McCullagh" <declanat_private> 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. dburtat_private 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" <dburtat_private>, <BruceTaylorat_private>, "Will Doherty" <wildat_private> From: Will Doherty <wildat_private> Subject: RE: FC: Anti-porn activist Bruce Taylor on EEOC ruling, filtering Cc: "XStop George Shih" <gshihat_private>, "Declan McCullagh" <declanat_private> 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" <dburtat_private> To: "Will Doherty" <wildat_private>, <BruceTaylorat_private> Cc: "XStop George Shih" <gshihat_private>, "Declan McCullagh" <declanat_private> 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. dburtat_private 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" <dburtat_private>, "Will Doherty" <wildat_private>, <BruceTaylorat_private> From: Will Doherty <wildat_private> Subject: RE: FC: Anti-porn activist Bruce Taylor on EEOC ruling, filtering Cc: "XStop George Shih" <gshihat_private>, "Declan McCullagh" <declanat_private> 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 <wildat_private>, "David Burt" <dburtat_private>, <BruceTaylorat_private> From: George Shih <gshihat_private> Subject: RE: FC: Anti-porn activist Bruce Taylor on EEOC ruling, filtering Cc: "Declan McCullagh" <declanat_private> 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 <gshihat_private>, Will Doherty <wildat_private>, "David Burt" <dburtat_private>, <BruceTaylorat_private> From: Will Doherty <wildat_private> Subject: RE: FC: Anti-porn activist Bruce Taylor on EEOC ruling, filtering Cc: "Declan McCullagh" <declanat_private> 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 <wildat_private>, Will Doherty <wildat_private>, "David Burt" <dburtat_private>, <BruceTaylorat_private> From: George Shih <gshihat_private> Subject: RE: FC: Anti-porn activist Bruce Taylor on EEOC ruling, filtering Cc: "Declan McCullagh" <declanat_private> 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" <BruceTaylorat_private> To: "Will Doherty" <wildat_private> Cc: "David Burt N2H2" <dburtat_private>, "XStop George Shih" <gshihat_private>, "Declan McCullagh" <declanat_private> 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/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jun 08 2001 - 06:41:09 PDT