CIPA Study of Technology Protection Measures

Department of Commerce

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

Nancy J. Victory, Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information

Office of Policy Analysis and Development

Kelly Levy, Associate Administrator
Sallianne Schagrin, Telecommunications Policy Analyst
Sandra Ryan, Telecommunications Policy Analyst

Office of the Chief Counsel

Kathy Smith, Chief Counsel
Josephine Scarlett, Attorney Advisor
Stacy Cheney, Attorney Advisor

Office of the Assistant Secretary

Christina Pauze, Telecommunications Policy Analyst

Elizabeth McCleneghan, Student Intern
Igor Fuks, Student Intern
Gina Beck, Student Intern

Table of Contents

Executive Summary..................................................................................................

I. Introduction....................................................................................................

A. Children and the Internet........................................................................................
B. Congressional Efforts to Protect Children from Inappropriate Online Content..........
C. NTIA’s Requirement Under CIPA to Evaluate Technology Protection
Measures and Internet Safety Policies..............................................................

II. Evaluation of Existing Technology Protection Measures’ Ability
to Meet the Needs of Educational Institutions........................

A. Balancing the Need to Allow Children to Use the Internet
with the Need to Protect Children from Inappropriate Material...............................
B.    Accessing Online Educational Materials with a Minimum
Level of Relevant Content Being Blocked...............................................................
C.    Deciding on the Local Level How Best to Protect Children
from Internet Dangers............................................................................................
D.    Understanding How to Fully Utilize Internet Protection
Technology Measures............................................................................................
E.     Considering a Variety of Technical, Educational, and Economic
Factors When Selecting Technology Protection Measures......................................
F.     Adopting an Internet Safety Strategy that Includes Technology,
Human Monitoring, and Education.........................................................................

III. Fostering the Development of Measures that Meet the Needs of Educational Institutions...................................................................

A. NTIA Recommendations.......................................................................................
1. Training............................................................................................................
2. Legislative Language.........................................................................................

IV. The Development and Effectiveness of Internet Safety Policies

A. Best Practices........................................................................................................
B. Lessons Learned from Internet Safety Policies........................................................

V. Conclusion.........................................................................................................

Appendix I:      Federal Register Notice
Appendix II:     List of Commenters
Appendix III:    Filtering Effectiveness Tests Cited in N2H2 Comments to the NTIA
Appendix IV:    Sample Acceptable Use Policies

Executive Summary

In homes, schools, and libraries across the nation, the Internet has become a valuable and even critical tool for our children’s success. Access to the Internet furnishes children with new resources with which to learn, new avenues for expression, and new skills to obtain quality jobs.

Our children’s access to the Internet, however, can put them in contact with inappropriate and potentially harmful material. Some children inadvertently confront pornography, indecent material, hate sites, and sites promoting violence, while other children actively seek out inappropriate content. Additionally, through participation in chat rooms and other interactive dialogues over the Internet, children can be vulnerable to online predators.

Parents and educators have access to a variety of tools that can help protect children from these dangers. In October 2000, Congress passed the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA), which requires schools and libraries that receive federal funds for discounted telecommunications, Internet access, or internal connections services to adopt an Internet safety policy and employ technological protections that block or filter certain visual depictions deemed obscene, pornographic, or harmful to minors.[1] Congress also requested the Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to (1) evaluate whether the technology measures currently available adequately address the needs of educational institutions, and (2) evaluate the development and effectiveness of local Internet safety policies. Congress also invited any recommendations from NTIA as to how to foster the development of measures that meet these needs. This report sets forth NTIA’s public outreach, including comments received through a Request for Comment, its evaluation, and recommendations.

With respect to whether the technology measures currently available address the needs of educational institutions, the commenters identified the following needs of educational institutions:

balancing the importance of allowing children to use the Internet with the importance of protecting children from inappropriate material;
accessing online educational materials with a minimum level of relevant content being blocked;
deciding on the local level how best to protect children from Internet dangers;
understanding how to fully utilize Internet protection technology measures;
considering a variety of technical, educational, and economic factors when selecting technology protection measures; and
adopting an Internet safety strategy that includes technology, human monitoring, and education.

Based on a review of the comments, currently available technology measures have the capacity to meet most, if not all, of these needs and concerns.

Accordingly, NTIA makes the following two recommendations to Congress on how to foster the use of technology protection measures to better meet the needs of educational institutions:

Technology vendors should offer training services to educational institutions on the specific features of their products.

CIPA’s definition of “technology protection measure” should be expanded to include more than just blocking and filtering technology in order to encompass a vast array of current technological measures that protect children from inappropriate content.

Finally, commenters expressed a great deal of satisfaction regarding the development and effectiveness of Internet safety policies. Specifically, they praise the ability to customize these policies to address the concerns of individual communities. Based on the comments, NTIA has identified best practices for use in developing Internet safety policies.

I. Introduction

In October 2000, Congress passed the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2001.[2] CIPA requires schools and libraries receiving discounted telecommunications, Internet access, or internal connections services through federal funding mechanisms to certify and adopt an Internet safety policy and employ technological protections that block or filter certain visual depictions deemed obscene, pornographic, or harmful to minors. Section 1703 of CIPA requests that the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) within the U.S. Department of Commerce evaluate the effectiveness of Internet technology protection measures and safety policies to fulfill the needs of educational institutions, make recommendations on fostering the development of measures that meet these needs, and evaluate the development and effectiveness of local Internet safety policies. In accordance with the statute, NTIA initiated a notice and comment proceeding to obtain public comment on these issues.

A. Children and the Internet

The explosive growth of Internet use in the United States has been fueled in part by children’s and teenagers’ online activities. Children and teenagers use computers and the Internet more than any other age group.[3] By the fall of 2001, 99 percent of public schools in the United States had access to the Internet, and public schools had expanded Internet access into 87 percent of instructional rooms. [4] Approximately 65 percent of American children ages 2-17 use the Internet from home, school, or other locations.[5] Access to the resources of the Internet has given children new research tools, information sources, avenues of expression, collaborative learning opportunities, and connections to other communities, among other benefits.[6] But it also has potentially exposed them to the unseemly side of the Internet – indecent material, pornography, hate sites, violent sites, and online predators.[7]

In August 2002, the National Academies released Youth, Pornography, and the Internet, a report that studied tools and strategies for protecting children from online pornography. The report concluded that there are no “foreseeable technological ‘silver bullets’ or single permanent solutions” to keeping children safe from such material.[8] Rather, the report supported solutions that balance the potential benefits of the Internet to children with the competing goals and values of the community.[9]

As the dangers to children in an online environment have emerged, so have a variety of technology tools. Some common technologies used to protect children include:[10]

o Filtering with Yes or No lists:

o Server-side filtering: Internet service providers and online server software offer filtering techniques to clients that deny access to particular content sources that have been pre-selected for blocking via automated processes, human review, and/or user options. The list of blocked URLs may or may not be disclosed and is regularly updated at the server level.[11]

o Client-side filtering: This technology prohibits the browser from downloading content based on specified content sources identified by the user. Blocked sites may originate from both the software supplier and/or from the user’s decision. Users maintain control over these lists with a password and may periodically download updated lists from the software’s website. Some software filters out email or instant messaging.[12]

o Filtering using text-based content analysis: This technology combines PC-based software and server software to conduct real time analysis of a website’s content to filter out illicit content. Some software analyzes email and attachments. The user may or may not gain access to how such content is excluded.[13]

o Monitoring and time-limiting technologies: This technology tracks a child’s online activities and sets limits on the amount of time a child may spend online. Monitoring software often covers the Internet, email, and instant messaging activities.[14]

o Age Verification System: This technology uses an independently-issued ID and controls the flow of online content by conditioning access to a web page with use of a password issued (by a third party) to an adult.[15]

Even the most sophisticated and current technology tools are not one hundred percent effective.[16] Public awareness campaigns and workshops have sought to supplement technology tools.[17] In addition, Congress introduced several bills to legislate a solution.

B. Congressional Efforts to Protect Children from Inappropriate Online Content

In 1996, Congress first attempted to curb inappropriate online content by passing the Communications Decency Act (CDA).[18] The CDA prohibited the sending or posting of obscene or indecent material via the Internet to persons under the age of 18. The Supreme Court declared the law unconstitutional, however, stating that the law violated free speech under the First Amendment.[19] Specifically, the Court ruled that CDA's vague provisions chilled free speech unknown to the speaker generating the content, and that the CDA's provisions criminalized legitimate, protected speech, including sexually explicit indecent speech, in addition to unprotected obscene speech.

Congress responded by passing the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) of 1998, a law written more narrowly to protect children from inappropriate online content.[20] COPA prohibited commercial web sites from displaying “harmful to minors” material and imposed criminal penalties on violators. A three-judge panel for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled that COPA’s reference to “contemporary community standards” violated the First Amendment when applied to the World Wide Web, and imposed an injunction on the enforcement of COPA.[21] The Third Circuit affirmed this decision stating that the reference to community standards in the definition of “material that is harmful to minors” resulted in an overbroad statute.[22] In May 2002, the Supreme Court vacated the Third Circuit decision and remanded the case for further review.[23] The Court found that “contemporary community standards” by itself does not render the statute overbroad for purposes of the First Amendment.[24] On remand, the Third Circuit found that COPA is not sufficiently narrowly tailored to satisfy the First Amendment requirements.[25]

In October 2000, Congress passed the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) of 2000.[26] The law conditions the receipt of certain federal funding on educational institutions’ adoption of technological protections and Internet safety policies. Sections 1712 and 1721 of CIPA, involving the use of filtered Internet access on public computers in libraries, were challenged in court as unconstitutional.[27] In May 2002, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania struck down these provisions of CIPA as unconstitutional, stating that a technology’s tendency to overblock material prohibits the flow of protected speech to library patrons.[28] Under a provision within CIPA, providing for a fast-track appeals process requiring any appeals to be heard by the Supreme Court, the Justice Department appealed the court’s decision to the Supreme Court. The Court agreed to review CIPA and heard oral arguments in March 2003.[29]

In a plurality decision, the Supreme Court reversed the District Court's decision in June 2003, finding that the filtering provisions did not violate the First Amendment.[30] Four justices held that (1) the Internet access provided by libraries is not a public forum, and therefore, decisions to block pornography are not subject to heightened scrutiny; (2) the disabling provision eases fears of "overblocking;" and (3) requiring filtering and blocking technology is an appropriate condition on the receipt of federal funding because libraries already exclude pornographic material from their other collections. The Supreme Court underscored “the ease with which patrons may have the filtering software disabled.”[31] The Federal Communications Commission subsequently issued an order to ensure that its implementation of CIPA complies with the Supreme Court’s decision.[32]

C. NTIA’s Evaluation of Technology Protection Measures and Internet Safety Policies

Section 1703(a) of CIPA requests NTIA to initiate a notice and comment proceeding to determine whether currently available blocking and filtering technologies adequately address the needs of educational institutions, to make recommendations on how to foster the development of technologies that meet the needs of schools and libraries, and to evaluate current Internet safety policies. Section 1703(a) of CIPA specifically provides the following:

Sec. 1703. Study of Technology Protection Measures

(a) IN GENERAL. - Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration shall initiate a notice and comment proceeding for purposes of ---

1) evaluating whether or not currently available technology protection measures, including commercial Internet blocking and filtering software, adequately address the needs of educational institutions;

(2) making recommendations on how to foster the development of measures that meet such needs; and

(3) evaluating the development and effectiveness of local Internet safety policies that are currently in operation after community input.

On May 24, 2002, NTIA published a “Request for Comment” in the Federal Register,[33] eliciting information about technology protection measures and Internet safety policies. NTIA requested interested parties to submit written comments on any issue of fact, law, or policy germane to the evaluation. NTIA also encouraged commenters to submit copies of relevant studies, surveys, research, or other empirical data. NTIA did not seek comment on the constitutionality of the statute or its provisions. In order to generate a wide range of responses, NTIA conducted extensive outreach to the education community, technology developers, consumer groups, and academia. The “Request for Comment” elicited 42 comments from associations, technology vendors, governmental agencies, academics/university professors, schools, and libraries.[34]

II. Evaluation of Existing Technology Protection Measures’ Ability to Meet the Needs of Educational Institutions

Section 1703 of CIPA requests that NTIA evaluate whether currently available technology protection measures, including commercial Internet blocking and filtering software, adequately address the needs of educational institutions. In answering this inquiry, the commenters identified six needs of educational institutions:

1) balancing the importance of allowing children to use the Internet with the importance of protecting children from inappropriate material;

2) accessing online educational materials with a minimum level of relevant content being blocked;

3) deciding on the local level how best to protect children from Internet dangers;

4) understanding how to fully utilize Internet protection technology measures;

5) considering a variety of technical, educational, and economic factors when selecting technology protection measures; and

6) adopting an Internet safety strategy that includes technology, human monitoring, and education.

Below we examine these needs and set forth the commenters’ evaluation of whether existing technology protection measures are meeting each of these needs.

A. Balancing the Importance of Allowing Children to Use the Internet with the Importance of Protecting Children From Inappropriate Material.

Congress passed CIPA to protect children from inappropriate and harmful content while accessing the Internet at educational institutions that use federal funds.[35] Commenters expressed little doubt that technology plays a role in reducing a child's exposure to inappropriate content.[36] Many commenters wrote of their use of technology protection measures. Several comments from schools and libraries reported using Internet-content filters in order to assist in a safer Internet experience. Some institutions install filters specifically on Internet stations for children under eighteen.[37] Some schools reported the effective use of filtering software. For example, St. Pius X School in Urbandale, Iowa reported using firewall filtering as well as customizable blocking to meet its protection needs. The school’s administrators select sites and domains to block with the option to “unlock” those sites at a later time.[38] One public library described filters as "easy to use," giving students "access to most sites they need in school."[39] The library also reported few, if any, problems associated with filtered Internet use.[40]

NTIA also received comments that referenced the results of 26 independent laboratory tests on filters conducted between 1995 and 2001 by ten professional testing laboratories.[41] (See Appendix III) The labs conducted 108 individual product tests examining filtering software. The test results grouped products into three categories: "found filters effective," "found filters of mixed effectiveness," and "found filters ineffective." Nineteen of the twenty-six product tests found filters effective, four product tests found filters of mixed effectiveness, and three product tests found filters ineffective. Based on these results, the commenters that drew NTIA’s attention to this study concluded that filtering is an effective method of protecting children from inappropriate material.[42]

Where filtering fell short of being effective, the situation usually involved either overblocking or underblocking of material. Numerous commenters discussed the effect of overblocking and underblocking of online content as it relates to the needs of educational institutions. [43] The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania defined overblocking as, “the blocking of content that does not meet the category definitions established by CIPA or by the filtering software companies,” and underblocking as “leaving off of a control list a URL that contains content that would meet the category definitions defined by CIPA or the filtering software companies.”[44]

One concern resulting from overblocking is the restricted ability of users to view appropriate content and legitimate online research.[45] Comments from the education community acknowledged that despite training and education, technology still fails to meet the needs of educators by missing inappropriate sites, or by depriving students and teachers of access to legitimate information. Two commenters expressed particular concern with the latter situation.[46] A study by the Pew Internet and American Life Project recently found that: “[w]hile many students recognize the need to shelter teenagers from inappropriate material and adult-oriented commercial ads, they complain that blocking and filtering software often raises barriers to students' legitimate educational use of the Internet. Most of our students feel that filtering software blocks important information, and many feel discouraged from using the Internet by the difficulties they face in accessing educational material.” [47]

Other comments referred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania’s May 24, 2002 decision declaring CIPA Sections 1712 and Section 1721 facially invalid under the First Amendment.[48] A three-judge panel convened an eight-day trial to decide the issues related to the effectiveness of currently available technology protection measures.[49] The commenters directed NTIA’s attention to the court’s discussion of the difficulties with the Internet’s structural composition that impinge upon the filtering software’s ability to block content effectively.[50]

The court described the Internet as a decentralized, interconnected network with millions of web pages linked to thousands of additional web pages to create the “publicly indexable web.” [51] These links enable search engines to sort and index material by following links from one web page to another.[52] Accordingly, search engines often fail to categorize isolated web pages not connected by these links.[53] Witness testimony estimated that fifty percent of the Internet currently remains incapable of being indexed, thereby further invalidating the effectiveness of filtering technologies.[54]

The court heard testimony from three leading filtering companies who explained the methods used to filter content.[55] Typically, filtering software products separate appropriate and inappropriate content by compiling category lists such as: adult/sexually explicit, arts, alcohol, business, chat, dating, education, entertainment, hate speech, health, illegal, news, religion, and violence.[56] Users determine which content to block by selecting from pre-determined category lists.[57]

Additional testimony was to the effect that the filtering technologies are incapable of effectively blocking the majority of content defined by CIPA without also blocking a substantial amount of protected speech.[58] As indicated by government witnesses, every filtering software product demonstrated excluded between 6 percent and 15 percent of protected speech.[59] The court evaluated why filtering software overblocked or underblocked material and concluded that: filtering companies focus on reviewing fresh content or newly posted web addresses and spend little time on reviewing the accuracy of websites previously categorized; inconsistencies exist between filtering definitions for pornography and CIPA’s legal definitions of obscenity, child pornography, or content harmful to minors; community standards vary with regard to categorizing content; and the available technology is generally unable to meet CIPA’s requirement that filters block visual depictions, but not text.[60]

Based on the comments, existing technology protection measures are helping to meet the concerns of educational institutions to protect children from inappropriate materials they may encounter while using the Internet. The occurrence of overblocking and underblocking, however, has resulted in some dissatisfaction and frustration by users with the existing technology protection measures.

B. Accessing Online Educational Materials with a Minimum Level of Relevant Content Being Blocked.

While existing technology protection measures, such as filtering software, are able to block much of which is deemed inappropriate material for children, the technology measures also sometimes block online educational content sought by teachers. Commenters from both individual schools and associations representing schools discussed the difficulties that educators experience when planning lessons based on online content. The Consortium for School Networking (COSN) polled their members and found that filtering and blocking technologies often block lessons planned by teachers from home, including educational websites.[61] For example, this experience caused frustration for a program in Missouri that furnishes teachers with laptops for the specific purpose of preparing lessons at home. The technology in these schools often blocks access to web sites pre-selected by teachers. Teachers in these schools usually discover the blocked web sites during a lesson, forcing them to react quickly and find new, suitable content.

One response to this situation is the COSN’s June 2001 report, “Safeguarding the Wired Schoolhouse,” which provides guidance to educators using the Internet to supplement their lessons with educational content and resources that evaluate web sites, search strategies, search engines, and web lessons.[62] Two examples provided in the report include the Montgomery County Public Schools’ and the Washington Library Media Association’s development of websites about information literacy and the creation of web lessons.[63]

Congress included several “disabling provisions” within CIPA allowing administrators to disable technology for certain bona fide research or other lawful purposes.[64] Although some claim that Congress intended these provisions to cure the overblocking tendencies of technology protection measures,[65] some commenters expressed concern that the provisions affect differently those recipients receiving E-rate funds and those receiving Department of Education funds.[66] For example, the recipients of Department of Education funds may “disable for certain use”[67] and recipients of E-rate funds may “disable during adult use.”[68] The comments further explained that “disabling for certain use” permits administrators to supersede technology for both adults and students, whereas “disabling during adult use,” limits a school’s flexibility to supersede technology.[69] Some schools noted that by creating different standards based on the source of federal funds, these provisions generate confusion and reluctance within educational communities about using disabling technology to accommodate override requests for fear of breaching CIPA.[70] Some commenters perceived the override provision as failing to cure the overblocking concerns when educators or students desire immediate access to educationally-related material.[71]

Based on the comments, some educators are having difficulties with existing technology protection measures in meeting their need to be able to access online educational materials with a minimum level of relevant content being blocked. The disabling provisions of CIPA do not appear to be a satisfactory answer for some educators.

C. Deciding on the Local Level How Best to Protect Children from Internet Dangers.

Several commenters stated that CIPA’s provisions requiring educational institutions to install technology protection measures on computers removes local decision making from educators.[72] Comments from associations representing schools explained that schools often adopt locally-based Internet solutions reflecting the unique circumstances of the community, such as: faculty and staff familiarity with technology; level of patron and parental involvement; values of the community; funding resources; size of the community and educational institution; degree of supervision; education philosophy; and political will of library and school board members.[73] Further, schools prefer making decisions locally to reflect local resources (financial and human), values, and community concerns.[74]

Commenters also tended to disagree regarding the access to selection criteria developed by software companies for filtering products. For example, educators argue that, without an understanding of how technology companies select blocking criteria, educators possibly subject themselves to non-educational standards and the ideas and policies of outside parties.[75] Yet, according to the comments submitted by a technology developer of blocking and filtering software, the company provides extensive information to users and publishes details about the categories of sites it blocks.[76] Several vendors’ comments discussed their products’ ability to allow users to type in a web address to learn more about a particular site’s blocking category.[77] Additionally, one vendor discussed its efforts to seek user feedback and to respond promptly to consumer requests to add, delete, or change a blocked web site.[78] To that end, the company received over 60,000 requests between January 1, 2002 and August 15, 2002, and reviewed each request within two days.[79] Of these requests, twenty percent resulted in an addition, deletion or change.[80]

On the other hand, two commenters noted that many technology companies choose not to release their blocked lists for a variety of reasons including: the list’s proprietary nature and source code; the risk of abuse by competitors; the expense associated with a carefully created database; the harmful effect to children; the diminished value of a published list; and the general privacy policy of the company.[81] In addition, the National Education Association’s comments stated that, generally, category descriptions vary in scope, detail, and helpfulness.[82] One advocacy group claimed that the employees of filtering companies may apply their own subjective judgments or reflect the manufacturers' social and political views when reviewing content web sites.[83]

In addition to preferring that technology companies release their lists of blocked sites, educational institutions questioned the process filtering companies use to develop and define blocking criteria. The American Library Association expressed uneasiness with selecting technology tools to accommodate the wide-ranging values of their patrons when most libraries feel uncertainty about the blocking decisions made by companies.[84] The Center for Democracy and Technology agreed that technology users enjoy little input into blocking decisions, noting that, “in designing filtering tools, companies seek to meet the needs of diverse consumer groups and thus intentionally choose to block sites that may be undesirable or offensive to a particular audience or targeted consumer group but deemed appropriate by another.”[85]

Many commenters cited to the U.S. District Court decision to highlight the desire of educational institutions to make decisions locally, and the need to understand categories pre-selected by filtering companies. Additionally, commenters discussed that the blocking categories defined by filtering companies rarely correspond with CIPA’s definition and these categories cannot be customized to comply with CIPA.[86]

The comments underscored in a number of ways the belief by some educational institutions that existing technology measures fell short of meeting their need to decide locally how to protect the children in their community from Internet dangers.

D. Understanding How to Fully Utilize Internet Protection Technology Measures.

The comments indicated that educators need training to fully understand how to use the technology protection measures in order to accommodate bona fide and other lawful research, as well as to meet other needs of their specific environment. Several comments noted the difficulty of adjusting a technology tool to override a blocked web site.[87] Many commenters acknowledged that overblocking of helpful educational material occurs with many filtering products and, consequently, teachers need training on how to disable filtering software for minors conducting educational searches or other legitimate research.[88]

The commenters also noted instances where educators experienced delays with an override.[89] The Consortium of School Networking (COSN) asked their members to report their experience with override requests. They found that the time it took to request an override and receive a response ranged from less than five minutes to as long as one week.[90] Some institutions lacked an override policy altogether.[91] One association’s comments summarized the end result of these issues as extremely frustrating for teachers who lack training on how to disable filtering technology.[92]

NTIA also received a variety of responses discussing educators’ experience with adjusting technology protection measures to accommodate all age groups and grades. The comments indicate the need for training educators on how to adjust technology protection measures to accommodate different age groups. One commenter stated that its filtering technology does not adjust blocking content based on the age of the child.[93] Yet, many technology products offer users the ability to customize.[94] One technology vendor provided NTIA with an example of its product’s web site customization feature.[95] Specifically, the product gives the user the ability to add sites to a block list.[96] Another commenter described a software program that accommodates six age groups: unfiltered access-adults; teen access-15 to 17; pre-teen-12 to 14; kid-8 to 11; child-7 & under.[97] While many products exist that adjust to different ages, some commenters disagreed with the effectiveness or ease of adjusting the technology to accommodate various ages or grades.[98] One commenter noted that relying on age specific categories works well for younger children, but varying maturity levels makes it more difficult to cluster older children by age and rely upon the categories pre-selected by technology vendors.[99]

Based on the comments, existing technology protection measures are capable of meeting a number of the needs of educational institutions. However, some educators are unaware of the capabilities of these measures or lack the knowledge about how to use many features of the technology protection tools.

E. Considering a Variety of Technical, Educational, and Economic Factors When Selecting Technology Protection Measures.

Commenters listed several factors that educational institutions take into account prior to selecting technology. Most commenters cited cost as the primary factor. One commenter mentioned that when institutions consider cost, they often choose cheaper and less sophisticated products.[100] Schools and libraries also noted that they obtain very little extra funding to pay for Internet protection measures.[101] The E-Rate program, which gives schools and libraries discounts on telephone service, Internet access, and internal connections, does not cover technology protection measures, such as filtering and blocking software.[102] In addition to cost, comments from educational associations listed maintenance, effectiveness, ability to customize, network impact, and upgrades as important factors considered when selecting technology protection measures.[103] In sum, the commenters noted that educational institutions consider a variety of economic, technical, and educational factors when selecting technology protection measures.

F. Adopting an Internet Safety Strategy that Includes Technology, Human Monitoring, and Education.

Commenters responding to NTIA’s Request for Comment described their experience with the use of technology protection measures within educational institutions. Many educational institutions discussed their use of filtering and blocking technology to protect children from inappropriate content. Others explained their use of a combination of technology and non-technical protection strategies, such as human monitoring or Internet safety policies, to achieve this goal.

Interestingly, the comments revealed that the measures adopted by educational institutions depend in part on their interpretation of CIPA. One commenter noted that educational institutions trying to comply with CIPA interpret the language “technology protection measures” as a requirement to install only filtering software, and often do not explore other technical remedies.[104] This commenter also stated that many educational institutions interpret CIPA’s “technology protection measure" language as limited to “commercial, proprietary-protected filtering software.”[105] A trade association noted that this narrow interpretation of CIPA’s technology protection measure requirement may inhibit schools and libraries from adopting more comprehensive solutions that encompass both technology and education.[106] Some commenters did discuss other technology measures, such as monitoring software,[107] but there were no comments from educational institutions regarding their experience as users of monitoring software.

The Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) rules interpret CIPA as encouraging educational institutions to adopt both technological and non-technological measures to protect children online.[108] FCC regulations require schools and libraries to certify that they have adopted:

· An Internet safety policy that blocks and filters certain visual depictions for both minors and adults;

· An Internet safety policy that includes monitoring;

· An Internet safety policy that addresses: access to inappropriate material; email, chat, and other forms of electronic communications; hacking; disclosure of a minor’s personal information; and measures restricting material that is harmful to minors. [109]

A report released in September 2002 by the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Educational Statistics supports the conclusion that educational institutions rely on a combination approach to shield children from inappropriate online content. The report documents that, in 2001, 96 percent of public schools used a variety of technologies or policies to protect children from inappropriate content. Of these schools, 91 percent relied on teacher or staff monitoring; 87 percent installed blocking or filtering software; 80 percent required parents to sign a written contract; 75 percent required students to sign a written contract; 44 percent adopted an honor code; and 26 percent confined school access to an intranet.[110]

Notwithstanding some commenters’ interpretation of CIPA, the majority of comments indicated that most educational institutions prefer a combination of technology and education to ensure a safe online environment. [111] Members of the International Society of Technology in Education (ISTE) adopted numerous methods to ensure that students had a safe, educational, and age appropriate experience online, including acceptable use policies, software technologies, teacher monitoring and supervision, and student education programs.[112] A trade association representing schools stated that most educational institutions adopt diverse Internet protection solutions that correspond with the culture and resources of their community.[113]

Several commenters indicated a preference for non-technological solutions or a need to supplement technology with non-technical measures to create a safe online environment. For example, the State Education Department of the University of the State of New York relies on broadly written acceptable use policies as their protection method of choice. It views technology-based solutions as geared toward content issues only, leaving the other challenges associated with public Internet access unaddressed. Thus, it adopted written policies to manage a wide-range of additional specific behaviors, such as patron access, noise levels, and computer tampering.[114]

A school in Albuquerque, New Mexico, took a different approach. As an individual serving as a volunteer school technology coordinator explained, the school adopted student monitoring and pre-selected sites over filtering technology, not only because of the unreliability of technology and the cost, but also because of an inadequate budget to train staff.[115] This commenter concludes that the creation of “yes” lists, or pre-selected child-appropriate content, serves to keep children protected from harmful content.[116]

Some libraries are also emphasizing a non-technical approach to safeguarding children from harmful content. The Board of the Evanston Public Library in Illinois implemented a library use policy instead of filtering software for its computers. The policy encourages parents to accompany their children and supervise their Internet access. Additionally, librarians configure children’s computers for “focused Internet access,” directing kids to pre-select age-appropriate websites.[117] The Charles M. Bailey Public Library in Winthrop, Maine utilizes a combination of bookmarks, web design, parental involvement, and technology education classes for children to create a safe online environment.[118] The Las Vegas Clark County Library District (LVCCLD) uses an approach giving patrons numerous options to protect themselves online. The library prefers an “empowerment” approach offering patrons the choice to control their Internet access level with various educational and informational methods.[119]

Based on the comments, existing technology protection measures are capable of meeting the technology component of an approach that includes both technology and non-technical protection strategies.

In sum, NTIA gleaned six distinct needs within educational institutions: (1) balancing the importance of allowing children to use the Internet with the importance of protecting children from inappropriate material; (2) accessing online educational materials with a minimum level of relevant content being blocked; (3) deciding locally how best to protect children from Internet dangers; (4) understanding how to fully utilize Internet protection technology measures; (5) considering a variety of technical, educational, and economic factors when selecting technology protection measures; and (6) adopting an Internet safety strategy that includes technology, human monitoring, and education. As articulated in the comments, existing technology protection measures, by themselves, are meeting most, but not all, of these needs. Below we discuss ways to foster the development of measures that would more fully meet these needs of educational institutions.

III. Fostering the Development of Measures that Meet the Needs of Educational Institutions

In the comments, NTIA found that educational institutions experienced frustration with the marketplace for not developing new and advanced technology protection measures. NTIA asked commenters to discuss the development of new technology features that would better meet the needs of educational institutions. NTIA received a variety of responses indicating that the following technology features would best assist educational institutions today.

Technology that scans a website's content, rather than relying on key words;[120]
Customer access to lists of blocked sites by subject area;[121]
Individual logins to allow flexibility in grades kindergarten through 12 or child/adult settings;[122]
Ability of a system administrator or local technician to edit or override blocked sites in real time;[123] and
Image recognition technology.[124]

Comments from four technology vendors explained how their technology blocks categorized content, and described features associated with their product. [125] The vendors offer many of the features desired by the education community. For example:

DoBox described its technology as able to manage all facets of Internet access, including Web, email, chat/instant messaging, applications/games, and peer to peer systems. Its product allows local customization by user and by group, and allows authorized individuals to add immediately sites to be blocked or permit sites for permanent or temporary access.[126]

Kidsnet described its product, EducationNet, as providing educators with three levels of protection: (1) relying on 100 percent human review of all web site content; (2) basing content review on transparent and adaptable criteria; and (3) adapting categories to fit various ages or levels and different needs of institutions.[127]

N2H2 relies on a confidential and proprietary database of 42 categories, giving users the choice of any or all of these categories. N2H2 updates the database and creates a new version daily. N2H2 follows four steps to categorize sites: (1) flag URLs for categorization; (2) match and flag URL for review; (3) examine and categorize; and (4) reexamine URLs in database. N2H2 also publicly releases details, descriptions, and criteria of the 42 content categories on their website.[128]

The Vericept Corporation, formally known as E-sniff, combines URL filtering with "comprehensive content monitoring" for all forms of Internet access. Vericept described "comprehensive content monitoring" as tools that track all inappropriate content flowing through the network. Users determine "inappropriate" content based upon reports generated from network traffic.[129]

Based on the four descriptions, these existing products offer features similar to those requested by educational institutions.

Through independent research, NTIA also found that more companies are increasingly entering the market for Internet content protection technology. Some analysts predict that the growth of the networking and protection market can be attributed to increased Internet access, the exponential growth of web pages, and the increasing desire of families, schools, and libraries to protect children from inappropriate content and interactions on the Internet.[130] Some analysts predict that the market for these products will rise to over $600 million by 2004 at a rate of nearly 50 percent per year.[131]

The more-established Internet content filtering companies appear to be increasing the amount of money that they put into their research and development divisions.[132] Numerous venture capital firms invest in these Internet-safety technology companies as well, both within the United States and abroad.[133] In addition to U.S.-made Internet content filters, international companies are developing filtering software. Currently, over fifty companies exist that provide this technology.[134] NTIA found that while a substantial number of technology companies exist that invest in the research and development of technology protection measures, educational institutions are either unaware of the diverse array of products available to meet their needs or lack the training to fully utilize the products.

Some commenters claim that CIPA locked in filtering and blocking technology as the "technology protection measure" of choice, thereby stifling potential innovation of technology protection measures.[135] According to several commenters, little incentive exists for the markets to develop more flexible technology products to meet the needs of educational institutions if investors or venture capitalists perceive the education community as demanding only one type of technology.[136] The Consortium for School Networking writes that CIPA “forced all of the companies competing in the market to define their product in terms of which best complies with CIPA, rather than how they may serve the needs of different kinds of school districts.” [137]

While some commenters encouraged technology vendors to develop new protection products to meet educators’ needs, others believed that the focus of attention should not be on new technologies.[138] Rather, they believe that the focus of attention should be on the development and implementation of a comprehensive education and supervision approach to protect children by preparing them to make safe and responsible choices.[139]

A. NTIA Recommendations

Section 1703(a)(2) of CIPA invited NTIA to make any recommendations to Congress on how to foster the development of measures that meet the needs of educational institutions.[140] Based on the comments, NTIA has identified two recommendations: (1) vendors should offer training services to educational institutions so the institutions can understand and use fully the capabilities of technology protection measures; and (2) Congress should amend CIPA’s language to clarify the term “technology protection measures.”

1. Recommendation #1: Training

The majority of comments from educational institutions noted that some educators often lack the training necessary to use fully the available technology tools. For example, although CIPA includes several provisions giving adults the authority to override technology for certain bona fide or other legitimate research,[141] some educators often do not know how to disable the technology. Commenters also indicated their desire that software perform specific tasks, such as scanning content rather than relying on key words; listing blocked sites by subject area; allowing individual log-ins to accommodate varying ages; and allowing editing and overriding of blocked sites in real time.[142] NTIA identified a disconnect between the specific needs listed by educational entities and the current capabilities of available technology. NTIA found that, while commenters discussed the desire for certain technological capabilities, the vendors’ comments explained that their technology already performs many of these tasks.

NTIA recognizes that, as educational institutions become familiar with using technology protection measures, the need for training may decrease. Until that time, however, NTIA agrees with commenters who expressed the importance of training as part of the solution to protect children from illicit online content. NTIA suggests that as part of promotional efforts to advertise products or as part of the initial orientation to their products, technology vendors should train and educate teachers, administrative personnel, librarians, and other educational personnel on the specific features of their product.

2. Recommendation #2: Legislative Language

Commenters discussed the difficulty that some educational institutions have interpreting CIPA’s “technology protection measure” language. Some commenters claim that many educational institutions default to “filtering” technology only, without researching other types of technology protection options. As a result, many believe that this reliance on mostly filtering products stifles the marketplace and serves as a disincentive for technology companies to invest in the research and development of newer and more sophisticated products. Moreover, as set forth above, filtering and blocking software has not been able to overcome problems of overblocking, inability to generate an updated index for the Internet, and lack of correspondence to statutory definitions and categories. Yet, other technology tools can or have the potential to address better the needs of educational institutions. Thus, NTIA recommends that Congress change the current legislation to clarify that the term “technology protection measure” encompasses not only filtering and blocking software, but also other current and future technology tools. Specifically, Section 1703(3) of CIPA currently reads as follows:

Technology Protection Measure – The term “technology protection measure” means a specific technology that blocks or filters Internet access to visual depictions that are -- (a) obscene, as that term is defined in section 1460 of title 18, United States Code; (b) child pornography, as that term is defined in section 2256 of title 18, United States Code; or (c) harmful to minors.

NTIA recommends replacing the above language with the following:

Technology Protection Measures – The term “technology protection measure” means a specific technology that prevents Internet access to visual depictions that are -- (a) obscene, as that term is defined in section 1460 of title 18, United States Code; (b) child pornography, as that term is defined in section 2256 of title 18, United States Code; or (c) harmful to minors.

NTIA believes this expanded definition using the word “prevents” will encourage educational institutions to utilize technology, in addition to blocking and filtering software, that may better meet their needs as outlined above. A wider selection of products should give local decision makers more options to find the products that best meet their community’s needs.

Alternatively to amending CIPA, NTIA recommends that the FCC and the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) provide further guidance to recipients of E-rate or DOE funds on the meaning of technology protection measures.

IV. The Development and Effectiveness of Internet Safety Policies

NTIA found that educational institutions have engaged in discussions with their respective communities to create acceptable Internet safety policies.[143] (See Appendix IV for examples.) Educational institutions tend to incorporate the values and needs of their community into their policy and, as a result, experience positive feedback about their policy’s success as part of the solution to protect children online.[144] Most of the commenters expressed a great deal of satisfaction with the evolution and use of safety policies and praised CIPA for giving educational institutions the autonomy to develop their own policies.[145] The Consortium for School Networking (COSN) expressed appreciation that CIPA allowed schools to draft policies reflecting the needs of the community and school environment.[146] The State Education Department of the University of the State of New York credits its safety policies as the most effective strategy employed to keep patrons in conformance with library rules.[147] The policy's success begins with staff-wide understanding of the policy’s content, followed by consistent application, on-going review, and community involvement.[148]

Several public libraries post Internet safety policies that appear whenever a patron logs onto a public computer.[149] In these instances, Internet access requires patrons to click an acceptance explaining his or her agreement and asks the individual to abide by the terms of the policy. The policy states that patrons may access constitutionally- protected online material, and that patrons may not use the Internet in an inappropriate manner for a public area. The policy also lists specific, prohibited behaviors, such as accessing obscene material, accessing materials harmful to minors, or engaging in offensive, intimidating, or hostile behavior. In the two years since implementing the policy, these librarians indicate that they have witnessed only a few instances of inappropriate patron behavior, and attribute their Internet safety policy with contributing to a trouble-free environment and creating a safe-online experience.[150]

Educational institutions also consider Internet safety policies as an avenue to teach children about online safety skills.[151] Some suggested important safety skills may include teaching children about taking appropriate actions when harmful content appears online; teaching children to report threatening/disturbing correspondence online; or arming children with strategies if approached by a stranger.[152] Additionally, one commenter underscored that Internet safety policies must be reviewed regularly to guarantee that they adequately reflect the views of the community and cover the appropriate technology.[153]

NTIA found that Internet safety policies are generally effective when educational institutions customize Internet safety policies to the needs of the community. Many communities opt to keep their policies flexible to adapt to evolving technologies and the changing needs of the community.[154]

The National Research Council report studied Acceptable Use Policies, similar to the Internet safety policy. The report defined acceptable use policies as “a set of guidelines and expectations about how individuals will conduct themselves online.”[155] Accordingly, these policies make young people responsible for their online behavior and encourage personal accountability for responsible Internet use.[156] The report endorses effective policies as including sanctions for violations; soliciting input from parents, community members, schools, libraries, and students; and using accidental violations as opportunities to educate users about how to avoid similar situations.[157]

NTIA asked participants to discuss their experience with successful Internet safety approaches or “best practices.” NTIA grouped the responses into the following categories: acceptable use policies, child media literacy, parental education and awareness, staff education and development, identification of appropriate content, and child-safe areas. A summary of successful best practices provided by the comments is detailed below:

A. Best Practices

Acceptable Use Policies

Post guidelines and consequences for Internet use: Ensure appropriate behavior through awareness of the policy guidelines and consequences, followed by consistent enforcement of the policy. Authorize staff to terminate Internet sessions for users who fail to comply with the policy.[158]
On-screen Appropriate Use Policy: Require Internet users to agree to abide by these policies before gaining access to the Internet.
Age/Education criteria: Establish flexible policies that accommodate different ages and implement education settings with varying degrees of supervision.[159]

· Child Media Literacy

Internet safety courses: Teach students about how to use the Internet safely, report bad activity, ignore and report harassment or threats, protect their privacy and personal information, and detect information that is not appropriate.[160]
Online safety videos: Provide students, parents, and teachers with a video teaching Internet safety and successful use skills.
Internet search skills: Teach students skills to conduct successful, safe Internet searches using keywords and search engines.[161]
Learning to evaluate online material: Teach children to evaluate the veracity, appropriateness, and educational value of websites.[162]
Internet Drivers’ Licenses: Require students to take an Internet safety and use course, followed by a test that students must pass in order to receive the privilege of using the Internet at school.

Parental Education and Awareness

Educate families about technology and the Internet: Encourage parental involvement, as this often leads to safer online experiences for children.[163]
Parental supervision: Rely not only on filters, but also on parental supervision as means of protecting children from harmful content.[164] Encourage parents to pay attention to how and when students use the Internet, and to be responsive with intervention and discipline.[165]

Staff Education and Development

Curriculum tailored sites: Educate teachers about how to find, bookmark, and provide for their students those web sites that complement safe teaching materials.
Teacher Training: Train teachers to effectively use technology.

Identification of Appropriate Content

Pre-approved hotlinks: Administrators and educators pre-select safe and appropriate sites for child access.[166]
Teacher lessons: Teachers create lesson plans with laptops at home tailored to specific subject areas/curriculum. [167]
Creation of pre-approved “yes” lists: Allow access only to those sites that have been pre-approved as safe and appropriate.[168]

Child-Safe Areas

Filtered: Designate a specific children’s computer room with filters installed on the computers. Combine filtered access with Internet education and safety.[169]
Children’s monitors in public view: Discourage use policy violations by allowing others to see the monitors.[170]
Enclosed Internet stations for adults: Screen adult workstations from child-safe areas.

B. Lessons Learned From Internet Safety Policies

NTIA asked commenters for lessons learned from their experience with Internet safety policies. One Internet safety expert told NTIA that in order to ensure successful policies governing children's Internet use, drafters of such policies should discuss the following: guidelines/purpose, sharing networks/resources, passwords, email, privacy, copyright and plagiarism, Internet access, and safety.[171] Another group encouraged teachers and librarians to establish policies that: give educators autonomy for classroom curriculum materials; address the different ages of students and different educational settings (classroom use, library use, after school enrichment); and implement effective human and technical monitoring strategies.[172] An education trade group wrote that Internet safety policies should not be regarded as “just another form for parental signature,” but rather these policies must be given special status, and the policy’s principles must be fully integrated into the school curriculum.[173]

Other comments discussed the importance of incorporating clear violations and sanctions into safety policies.[174] For example, a program in Missouri encourages strong consequences of computer misuse.[175] If a student intentionally misuses the computer, the student forfeits all computer privileges and the school informs the student’s parent of the violation.[176] If a student unintentionally misuses the computer, the student must immediately turn off the computer and raise his or her hand for the teacher to handle the situation.[177] The program praised this policy as keeping violations to a minimum largely due to the policy’s clarity and consistent enforcement.[178]

Commenters also noted several difficulties with employing technology without acceptable use policies to protect children. First, commenters noted that technology protection measures are not the entire answer. [179] These commenters emphasized that technology protection measures are most effective when teachers and educational institutions can customize technology and use it in connection with other strategies and tools.[180] As one commenter stated, children need to be trained to think critically and use the Internet safely. Technology cannot replace education and judgment.[181] Second, one commenter noted that technology protection measures can give a false sense of protection.[182] This commenter stated that children should be educated to avoid improper content in the same unfiltered environments children experience in their homes, libraries, and offices. He argued that filtering provides an inauthentic atmosphere that thwarts teachers’ preparing their students to deal with reality.[183] Alternatively, another commenter argued that acceptable use policies may give a false sense of protection.[184] The commenter noted that appropriate use policies are a good protection measure, but there is an assumption that children can avoid offensive material simply by education.[185] He also contended that time limits imposed by acceptable use policies have not been found to stop the ability of children to access inappropriate material online.[186]

Another difficulty that commenters highlighted is the constraints of the school environment. They noted that the classroom setting is not always amenable to monitoring.[187] They also stated that teachers express uncertainty about their role as monitor watching children online. They noted that some teachers lack the requisite knowledge and sophistication about technology.[188] The National Research Council report also discussed several issues relating to acceptable use policies. The Council recommended that these policies should: distinguish between adult and child use; distinguish between younger and older children; determine how to measure compliance; avoid overly broad wording and strive to list specific inappropriate behavior and material; protect against liability; and define a user’s rights.[189]

The best practices and lessons learned that are set forth above provide valuable information for communities to consider as they develop and implement Internet safety policies.

V. Conclusion

In summary, existing technology protection measures have met many of the needs of educational institutions. While the education community has had success with technology measures, however, the education community also recognizes that comprehensive child protection solutions do not rest solely with technology. Commenters emphasized that technology protection measures are most effective when teachers and educational institutions can customize technology and use it in connection with other strategies and tools. Educational institutions prefer local decision making that gives leaders the flexibility to select the appropriate technology that fits best with their unique circumstances and to consider non-economic factors that may influence technology selection decisions. Commenters also recognized the need for more training within educational institutions. Based on our evaluation of how existing technology protection measures have met the needs of educational institutions, NTIA made two recommendations: (1) additional training on the full use of technology protection measures, and (2) new legislative language that would clarify CIPA’s existing “technology protection measure” language to ensure that technology protection measures include more than just blocking and filtering technology. NTIA believes this expanded definition will encourage educational institutions to utilize a wider range of technology that will better meet their needs. With respect to Internet safety policies, commenters reported an overwhelming satisfaction with the development and effectiveness of these policies.

NTIA also notes that the comments reveal the commitment of all interested parties – educators, academics, technology vendors, and associations – to protect children as they explore the online world. NTIA commends all the parties involved in this issue for their dedication and hard work. Our nation’s children will be well served by the ongoing efforts toward effective solutions that best protect children while allowing them to reap the many benefits of the Internet.

Appendix I. Federal Register Notice

37396 Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 103/Wednesday, May 29, 2002/Notices

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

[Docket No. 020514121‑2121‑01]

IN 0660‑XXI4

Request for Comment on the Effectiveness of Internet Protection Measures and Safety Policies

AGENCY: National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice; request for comments.

__________________________________

SUMMARY: The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) invites interested parties to provide comments in response to section 1703 of the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA), Pub. L. No. 106‑554, 114 at 2763, 2763A‑336 (2000). Section 1703 directs NTIA to initiate a notice and comment proceeding to evaluate whether currently available Internet blocking or filtering technology protection measures and Internet safety policies adequately address the needs of educational institutions. The Act also directs NTIA to make recommendations to Congress on how to foster the development of technology protection measures that meet these needs.

DATES: Written comments are requested to be submitted on or before August 27, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Salience Fortunate Chagrin, Office of Policy Analysis and Development, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Room 4716 HCHB, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Paper submissions should include a diskette in HTML, ASCII, Word, or WordPerfect format (please specify version). Diskettes should be labeled with the name and organizational affiliation of the filer, and the name of the word processing program used to create the document. In the alternative, comments may be submitted electronically to the following electronic mail address: cipa‑study@ntia.doc.gov.Comments submitted via electronic mail also should be submitted in one or more of the formats specified above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sallianne Fortunato Schagrin, Office of Policy Analysis and Development, NTIA, telephone: (202) 482‑1880; or electronic mail: sschagrin@ntia.doc.gov. Media inquiries should be directed to the Office of Public Affairs, National Telecommunications and Information Administration: telephone (202) 482-7002.

Of the schools with acceptable use policies, 94 percent reported having student access to the Internet monitored by teachers or other staff; 74 percent used blocking or filtering software; 64 percent had honor codes; and 28 percent used their intranet. Id. Most schools (91 percent) used more than one procedure or technology as part of their policy: 15 percent used all of the procedures and technologies listed; 29 percent used blocking/ filtering software, teacher/staff monitoring, and honor codes; and 19 percent used blocking/ filtering software and teacher/staff monitoring. Id. at 7, 8. In addition, 95 percent of schools with an acceptable use policy used at least one of these technologies or procedures on all Internet‑connected computers used by students. Id.

This trend appears to be reflected in the library community as well. A recent article in the Library Journal reports that of the 355 libraries responding to its Budget Report 2002, 43 percent reported filtering Internet use, up from 31 percent in 2001, and 25 percent in 2000. Norman Oder, The New Wariness, The Library Journal (Jan. 15, 2002) (LJ Budget Report 2002), available at http://1ibraryjoumal.reviewsnews.com/ index. asp?layout=articlePrint &articIeID‑‑CA188739. Of those libraries filtering Internet use, 96 percent reported using filters on all children's terminals. Id.

The E‑Rate and CIPA

Section 254(h) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, provides a universal support mechanism program (commonly known as the "E‑Rate program") through which eligible schools and libraries may apply for discounted telecommunications, Internet access, and internal connections services. See 47 U.S.C. 254(h). The program is administered by the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) pursuant to regulations promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission. See Federal Communications Commission, Universal Service for Schools and Libraries, available at http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/universal_service/ schoolsandlibs.html.

According to USAC, approximately 82 percent of public schools and 10 percent of private schools received E‑rate funding in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2000 funding cycle (July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2001) (using 1997 data base as denominator). See Universal Service Administrative Company, available at http://www.sl.universolservice.org. Public libraries also rely heavily on Erate funding; 57 percent of main public libraries received E‑rate funding in FY 2000. Id.; see also LJ Budget Report 2002 supra.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Growing Concern About Children's Exposure to Inappropriate Online Content

A U.S. Department of Commerce report, released earlier this year, indicates that as of September 2001 more than half of the nation's population (143 million Americans) were using the Internet. A Nation Online: How Americans Are Expanding Their Use of the Internet, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce (Feb. 2002), available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/dn/ index.html. Children and teenagers use computers and the Internet more than any other age group. Id. at 1, 13. Almost go percent of children between the ages of 5 and 17 (or 48 million) now use computers. Id. at 1, 44. Significant numbers of children use the Internet at school or at school and home: 55 percent for 14‑17 year olds; 45 percent for 10‑13 year olds; and 22 percent for 5‑9 year olds. Id. at 47. Approximately 12 percent of 10 to 17 year olds use the Internet at a library. Id. at 52. Noting the heightened interest regarding the possible exposure of children to unsafe or inappropriate content online, the Department of Commerce report notes that for the first time households were surveyed to determine the level of concern about their children's exposure to material over the Internet versus their concern over exposure to material on television. The results indicated that 68.3 percent of households were more concerned about the propriety of Internet content than material on television. Id. at 54.

Similarly, in its 2000 survey of public schools to measure Internet connectivity, the Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics asked questions about "acceptable use policies" in schools in recognition of the concern among parents and teachers about student access to inappropriate online material. See Internet Access in U.S. Public Schools and Classrooms: 1994-2000, NCES 2001‑071, Office of Education Research and Improvement, Department of Education (May 2001), available at http://www.nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/internetaccess.

According to the NCES survey, 98 percent of all public schools had access to the Internet by the fall of 2000. Id. at 1. The survey also indicated that almost all such schools had "acceptable use policies" and used various technologies or procedures (blocking or filtering software), an intranet system, student honor codes, or teacher/staff monitoring to control student access to inappropriate online material. Id. at 7.

Report to Congress