THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT I THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK I ALBANY, NY 12234

CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER Tel. (518) 474‑2547 Fax (518) 473‑2827 E‑mail: rcate@mail.nysed.gov

August 22, 2002

Ms. Sallianne Fortunato Schagrin

Office of Policy Analysis and Development National Telecommunications and Information Administration Room 4716 HCHB 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20203

Dear Ms. Schagrin:

I am responding to the May 29, 2002 Federal Register notice requesting comments on the "Effectiveness of Internet Protection Measures and Safety Policies."

Evaluation of Available Technology Protection Measures

1. Are available technology protection measures adequately addressing the needs of educational institutions? No. Filters have been shown to prohibit access to legitimate sites, sometimes even those of the Federal government. Keyword filters do not allow access to any sites that contain those certain words. Filters that go by a preset list of sites that contain objectionable content run the risk of new sites getting past the filters or put the burden of continual updates on the library.

2. Is the use of particular technologies or procedures more prevalent than others? Acceptable‑use policies are more prevalent due to the inadequacy of the filtering process.

3. What technology, procedure, or combination has had the most success within this educational institution? Our written policies serve us well in addressing specific behaviors, rather than attempting to filter specific sites. When we call the attention of a misbehaving patron to the written policy, the patron invariably ceases the behavior or leaves the library. Since our policy deals with acceptable noise levels, tampering with the library's computers, and other behaviors instead of just objectionable Internet sites, patrons see the policy enforced consistently, and special attention is not called to particular Internet sites.

4. How does the technology protection product block or filter prohibited content? See above. ,

5. Are there obstacles to or difficulties in obtaining lists of blocked or filtered sites, etc.? See below. One difficulty is that each company that has chosen to develop blocking or filtering technology has its own agenda, which may not be appropriate in a library where both adults and children are using the same machines.

6. Do technology companies readily add or delete specific web sites from their blocked lists upon request? This depends on the company. Some filters allow the library to choose sites that are blocked, which creates a major burden on the library. Other companies have particular agendas they are seeking to promote that can make them reluctant to share lists of blocked sites.

7. Discuss any factors that were considered when deciding which technology tools to use. It was our decision to _not use a technological solution. The technology that we have seen does not present a uniform "safe" environment. First, it does not necessarily do an adequate job of keeping "objectionable" sites from appearing. And, while certain sites may be "objectionable" to a large section of the community, it would be impossible for us to determine which sites individual parents did not want their children to see. Filtering can create a false sense of security‑ for parents who feel that their children are protected, when. in fact, they may be finding sites that are not "objectionable" to the general public but may not be considered age appropriate by an individual parent for their particular child.

Second, because both adults and children use the same terminals in the State Library, it would be most helpful to have a solution that allowed unrestricted access to all information on the Internet that might be used in research. On any given day, we have no way to determine how many of our customers will be adults and how many children, so it is impossible to adequately set aside terminals by age group.

While an argument might be made that children could use databases to obtain any needed information about, as an example, breast cancer, an adult might have a need to go to a site that deals with breast cancer support groups and interact with other users of that site. The word "breast" often is an excluded term. Even with children, it can be difficult to determine which sites they might need to access when the filtering system is using keywords to determine access. Concern for a family pet could have them looking at sites about animal pregnancy. And that does not consider the filters that have other agendas and filters based on criteria about which they do not necessarily inform the purchaser.

Fostering the Development of Technology Measures

1. Are current blocking and filtering methods effectively protecting children or limiting their access to prohibited Internet activity? Not necessarily as noted above. On the other hand, our experience at the State Library has been that children generally are not interested in content that might be considered inappropriate for their age level.

2. If technologies are available but are not used by educational institutions for other reasons, such as cost or training, please discuss. As mentioned elsewhere in this letter, existing technology cannot do what is needed to ensure a workable screening system.

3. What technology features would better meet the needs of educational institutions trying to block prohibited content? Technology would need to be able to scan the content of the site, rather than relying on keywords in the metadata. Parents would need to be provided with

a list of sites by subject area that are blocked, so that they could determine if they still did not want their children to access the Internet.

4. Can currently available filtering or blocking technology adjust to accommodate all age groups from kindergarten through grade twelve? Are these tools easily disabled to accommodate bona fide and other lawful research? Are these tools easily dismantled? In our estimation, the answer to all of the above is "No"; therefore, we chose the alternate route of not relying on technology. While some of the available products can be easily disabled, the fact that they can be disabled means that they do not always provide protection. In addition, teens that must request permission to have the filters disabled to access information will not likely do so. They are more likely to use alternative sources of information.

Current Internet Safety Policies

1. Are Internet safety policies an effective method of filtering or blocking prohibited material consistent with the goals established by educational institutions and the community? A policy is the most effective tool we have.

2. Please discuss whether and how the current policies could better meet the needs of the institutions and the community. Staff knowledge of policy content, consistent application,

j and ongoing review seem to be the best methods for coping with the problem of age‑

appropriate access to Internet sites. Community involvement is essential. While libraries can

approach a standard of "acceptable use" that is appropriate for a public setting, this does not

guarantee that the content children will be viewing will be consistent with parental standards.

Only active parental involvement can achieve that goal.

3. Are educational institutions using a single technology protection method or a combination of blocking and filtering technologies? NA

4. Describe any best practices or policies that have been effective in ensuring that minors are protected from exposure to prohibited content. Clear, consistent policies and parental education are the best methods of protecting children.

Please share practices proven unsuccessful at protecting minors from exposure to prohibited content. NA

Sincerely,

Richard H. Cate

3