Comments of N2H2, Inc.
|
|
In the matter of
Request for Comment on the
Effectiveness of Internet Protection Measures and Safety Policies,
Docket No. 020514121-2121-01
Before the
National Telecommunications and
Information Administration
David Burt, N2H2
Public Relations Manager
900 4th Avenue
Suite 3600
Seattle, WA 98164
206 892-1130
Table
of Contents 2
Preliminary
Statement 3
Evaluation
of Available Technology Protection
Measures, Question 4: "Please explain how the
technology protection products block or filters
prohibited content."
N2H2 Comments 4
Evaluation
of Available Technology Protection
Measures, Question 5: "Are there obstacles to
or difficulties in obtaining lists of blocked or
filtered sites or the specific criteria used?"
N2H2 Comments 6
Evaluation
of Available Technology Protection
Measures, Question 6: "Do technology
companies readily add or delete specific web
sites from their blocked lists upon request?"
N2H2 Comments 9
Fostering
the Development of Technology
Measures, Question 1: "Are current blocking
and filtering methods effectively protecting
children or limiting their access to prohibited
Internet activity?"
N2H2 Comments 10
Fostering
the Development of Technology
Measures, Question 4: "Can currently available
filtering or blocking technology adjust to
accommodate all age groups?"
N2H2 Comments 22
List
of Attachments 23
Footnotes 25
Preliminary
Statement
These comments are made on behalf
of N2H2, inc. They respond to the
Request for Comment on the Effectiveness of Internet Protection Measures and
Safety Policies, by the NTIA, Docket No. 020514121-2121-01.
N2H2, Inc. is a global
Internet content filtering company whose software helps customers control,
manage and understand their Internet use by filtering content, monitoring
access and delivering concise user activity reports. N2H2's Bess and Sentian
product lines are used by millions in businesses, schools, and libraries around
the world. N2H2 is the leading provider
of Internet filtering in the K-12 market.
N2H2's Bess for Schools product provides filtering to over 25,000 U.S.
schools.
As N2H2 is the market leader
in educational filtering, we are uniquely qualified to address several of the
questions raised by the NTIA. We are
pleased to be able to provide responses to questions raised by the NTIA about
how our filtering products work, how well they work, our responsiveness to user
requests, and the customizability of our products. We will also provide more general information about filter
effectiveness.
The remaining questions
relating to the effectiveness of individual school policies and procedures are
best answered by the schools themselves.
Evaluation of Available Technology Protection Measures,
Question 4: "Please explain how the technology protection products block
or filter prohibited content."
N2H2 does not rely on
"word blocking" (the blocking of individual sites based on words in
the text), image recognition, on-the-fly artificial intelligence, or ratings
schemes such as RSACi or PICS. Instead,
N2H2's entire of line Sentian and Bess filtering products rely on the same
confidential and proprietary database of over 4,000,000 individual URLs that
has been carefully developed by N2H2.
This database is divided into 42 separate categories, any or all of
which may be implemented by the end user.
This database is continually updated, and a new version of the database
is created daily.
The N2H2 database is
populated using a four step process: 1) URLs on the Internet are flagged as
potentially fitting one or more N2H2 categories; 2) URLs which have been
flagged are matched against N2H2's existing database and prioritized for
review; 3) URLs are reviewed by N2H2's review team and placed into one or more
of 42 categories; 4) URLs in the existing database are continually reexamined.
1) URLs on the Internet are
flagged as potentially fitting one or more N2H2 categories.
N2H2 and other filtering
vendors have developed a number of techniques for identifying web sites to add
to our lists. The most common technique is the use of “robots”: automated
programs the search the web for web sites that contain certain words and
phrases included in domain names, meta tags, or page text. N2H2 searches the
web for candidate URLs. N2H2 also makes use of content already indexed in the
various search engines to identify candidate URLs using “search parasites.”
N2H2 also makes use of a
technique called “spidering”, where a “robot” program retrieves URLs linked to
pornography sites, particularly “pornography search engines” such as Persian
Kitty and Naughty.com. Another technique N2H2 uses is performing “whois”
searches of domain name registries for new domain name registrations that
contain words commonly association with pornography sites such as “xxx” or
“adult”. Additionally, N2H2 monitors Usenet newsgroups and e-mail lists devoted
to announcing new pornography sites.
2) URLs that have been
flagged are matched against N2H2's existing database and prioritized for
review.
This initial “catch” of
candidate URLs is then matched against our existing database, and subjected to
more complex proprietary AI algorithms.
These automated processes continuously feed a list of sites to N2H2’s review
department. A small percentage of
websites are automatically added to the pornography category.
3) URLs are reviewed by
N2H2's review team and placed into one or more of 42 categories.
N2H2 maintains a staff of
professional reviewers who categorize our URLs. Each day, an average of 15,000 URLs are added to the database in
one of 42 categories. Categorization is
based on the content contained in the site, such as pornography, gambling,
e-commerce, sports, or nudity. For a
complete list of categories and the criteria used, visit N2H2 on the Web:
http://www.n2h2.com/products/categories.php
Organizations can turn any of
the 42 N2H2 categories on and off as they see fit, customizing filtering to
match their unique Internet Use Policy.
Because each organization is different, the ability to customize
filtering is a powerful tool in managing Internet use.
4) URLs in the existing
database are continually reexamined.
Recognizing that web content
changes, N2H2 continually uses artificial intelligence technology to reexamine
URLs in the N2H2 database, removing URLs that have expired, and resubmitting
for review sites where the content may have changed significantly. Additionally, N2H2's users regularly submit
sites for reconsideration to our database.
Evaluation of Available Technology Protection Measures,
Question 5: "Are there obstacles to or difficulties in obtaining lists of
blocked or filtered sites or the specific criteria used?"
N2H2 does not believe there
are significant obstacles that impair the public or researchers from learning
about or evaluating the content, comprehensiveness, or quality of our filtering
database. To meet these needs, N2H2
provides extensive information to the public about our database, the criteria
used for classifying content, and the contents of our database. N2H2 publishes its categories, detailed
descriptions of the criteria used to populate categories, and an online tool
where users may see how every URL is categorized.
N2h2's Categories and Criteria
N2H2 publishes the details,
descriptions, and criteria of our 42 content categories on our website. This list is available at
http://www.n2h2.com/products/categories.php, and is also supplied as Attachment
#1.
Each category is accompanied
by a description of the criteria used.
As an example, here is the N2H2 "Drugs" category:
Drugs
Sites
that promote or advocate recreational drug use. This category is not limited to
controlled substances. Sites that promote or advocate recreational use of
prescription drugs are also included. The Drugs category includes sites that
contain information about topics such as growing, buying, or selling marijuana,
glass pipes, or bongs; mixing a legal substance with alcohol, running
methamphetamine labs, or inhaling various forms of fumes.
N2H2 has always prided itself
on keeping our content classification criteria open, objective, and
viewpoint-neutral. N2H2 openly solicits
suggestions from our users and the public at large on ways to improve and
refine our category definitions.
N2h2's URL Checker
On the N2H2 website, N2H2
provides a resource called the URL Checker.
The URL Checker is a web-based tool that allows anyone with Internet
access to view how any URL in our database has been categorized, providing a
high level of user transparency.
In
the example shown below, a user has entered the URL www.playboy.com, and the
URL Checker has informed the user that www.playboy.com has been categorized by
N2H2 as "Adults Only" and "Pornography." The user is given the opportunity to request
a recategorization of the URL.
Screenshots of the URL Checker are provided as attachments 2,3, and 4:
N2H2 believes there are no significant barriers to
filter research
While N2H2 makes available a
tool that allows researchers and the public at large to determine the
categorization of every site in N2H2's database, N2H2 does not publish its
complete confidential and proprietary list of over four million URLs in one
place in its entirety. N2H2's reasons
for this are three fold: the proprietary nature of our database and source
code; the value that such a carefully created database represents; and the
potential harm to children in publishing our database.
As is implied in the process
of database creation described on pages 4 and 5, N2H2 has spent seven years and
millions of dollars developing its database.
Publishing this list in its entirety would seriously diminish the value
of our database.
Successful evaluations of
filters by professional testing facilities and researchers have been conducted
since 1995 without access to entire filter databases. Nowhere in the text of
the 26 independent laboratory tests of filters supplied in our attachments is
the non-publication of entire filter databases cited as an impediment to filter
research by the professional researchers.
On the contrary, the landmark
2002 National Research Council report on technology protection measures
includes an extensive discussion on the merits of the two main methodologies
for filter evaluation, and pointedly does not state that encrypted blacklists
are a barrier to research:
A
controversy over methodology was the subject of testimony to the committee. One
approach is that the number of appropriate pages should be estimated on the
basis of a random sampling of Web pages. A second approach is that the number
should be estimated on the basis of actual usage, which weights certain popular
Web pages more heavily than those not accessed as frequently.[1]
As the NRC report found,
there are two basic methods used by researchers to evaluate filters. The first and most common method is to
select a sample of web pages and test them against the filter. The second method is "based on actual
use", usually by examining the Internet "log files" of actual
Internet use. As discussed in the
section on pages 10-21 addressing question 1, these methods are fully adequate
to address the needs of researchers.
Evaluation of Available Technology Protection Measures,
Question 6: "Do technology companies readily add or delete specific web
sites from their blocked lists upon request?"
N2h2, through its URL Checker
discussed in the previous section, actively solicits user feedback to improve
the quality of our database. N2H2
considers user feedback a key source for the continued improvement and refinement
of our database.
N2H2 makes every effort to
promptly respond to requests of users to either add sites that should be
categorized, and to delete sites that are improperly categorized from our
database.
These requests are
significant. Between January 1, 2002
and August 15, 2002 N2H2 received over 60,000 requests to either add or delete
sites from our database. All of these requests were reviewed within 2 days of
submission. Approximately 20% of these requests resulted in an addition,
deletion, or change to our database.
Fostering the Development of Technology Measures, Question 1: "Are current
blocking and filtering methods effectively protecting children or limiting
their access to prohibited Internet activity?"
The topic of the
effectiveness of Internet filtering software is often a controversial one. Fortunately, a large body of independent
research conducted between 1995 and 2001 has addressed this topic.
Laboratory Tests of Filtering Software Effectiveness
Between 1995 and 2001, 26
independent laboratory test were conducted by ten professional software testing
laboratories: ZD Net Labs, Consumer Reports Labs, Camden Associates, IW Labs,
eWeek Labs, the PC World Test Center, the
Info World Test Center, MacWorld Labs, Network World Test Alliance, and Real-World
Labs. The 26 tests included 108
individual product tests, and the results were published in various technology
and consumer publications.
Most of the 26 articles
easily fit into one of three categories, "found filters effective",
"found filters of mixed effectiveness" and "found filters
ineffective." An overall finding
of the test results was usually readily determinable by statements in the
introductory or concluding paragraph.
In the few cases where an overall finding was not readily apparent, an
overall finding was determined by evaluating each comment about effectiveness,
and these "borderline" articles were mostly placed in the "found
filters of mixed effectiveness" category.
A total of 19 tests contained
statements like "all of these products provide solid blocking
capabilities," and "All the products lived up to filtering
expectations, staying out of the way except when necessary to block
access," and were placed into the "found filters effective"
category.
A total of four tests where
the overall verdict was clearly mixed, such as "While each of the products
is sold for the explicit purpose of blocking objectionable material, only three
are able to do that with reasonable certainty", or came to no conclusion
and offered mixed evidence of effectiveness were placed in the "found
filters of mixed effectiveness" category.
A total of three articles
found filters overall to be ineffective.
These articles contained summary comments such as "Most of the
products we tested failed to block one objectionable site in five."
Tests Finding Filters Effective
PC Magazine Tests
PC magazine is probably the
best known, and among the most highly regarded sources of software
testing. Since 1982, PC Magazine has
published thousands of software tests. PC Magazine's test laboratory, ZDNet Labs, is described as
performing "Comprehensive performance and functionality testing. Our
objective, precise, and repeatable testing methods--utilizing benchmarks
accepted by the industry."[2]
PC Magazine has conducted
more formal testing of filters than any other publication. The testing
laboratories employed by PC Magazine conducted eight rounds of testing multiple
filters, for a total of 47 product tests from 1995 to 2001. The first test conducted in 1995 gave filters
a mixed review (see section "Tests finding filters of mixed
effectiveness"), but the next seven rounds of testing were largely
positive.
The second PC Magazine test
of filtering software effectiveness was conducted in April of 1997. Seven
filters for the home market -- Cyber Patrol, CyberSitter, CyberSnoop, Net
Nanny, Rated PG, SurfWatch, and X-Stop were examined. ZDNet Labs " tested how well each product filters words and
sites," and found that "all of the products performed well in their
areas," concluding that "these products can be a valuable tool in the
process of parental monitoring of a child's computer activity."[3].
One month later, in May 1997,
PC Magazine tested five filters designed for the workplace, and found that
"LittleBrother, SmartFilter, and SurfWatch all provide solid blocking
capabilities, and ON Guard's real strength is monitoring; WebSense is the only
product that provides full functionality in both areas " [4]
In March of 1998, PC Magazine
for a fourth time had ZDNet Labs test filtering software blocking
effectiveness. Ten products were
tested: Cyber Patrol, Cyber Sentinel, Cyber Snoop, Cyber Sitter 97, Net Nanny,
SurfWatch,Time's Up!, WatchDog, WebChaperone, and X-Stop. PC Magazine provided a summary:
Our tests involved trying to access extensive lists of URLs, words,
and phrases while using each of the products. We tried to access well-known
pornography sites as well as less obviously objectionable sites, some of which
made no reference to sex…Our testing confirms that these packages principally
block sites with pornography, obscenity, and sexually explicit content--and
they do a pretty good job.[5]
In May 1999, PC Magazine
tested filters for a fifth time, this time with an emphasis on business
products, testing Cyber Patrol, Little Brother Pro, SmartFilter, and Websense.
In this test, ZDNet Labs "created a list of 100 URLs in nine categories
and then tried to browse them through these products," and concluded:
The software packages in this roundup have matured as the demand
for them has increased--and in more ways than the addition of productivity
categories… All in all, these products delivered as advertised, though some do
so with more panache than others.[6]
A sixth test of filters, this
time for home software, was conducted in the April 2000 issue of PC Magazine.
BAIR, Cyber Sentinel, eyeguard, SOS KidProof, and X-Stop were tested. PC Magazine concluded:
Regardless of which you choose, once you install a parental
filtering utility, your kids can explore the world of the Web without wandering
into a virtual red-light district.[7]
The seventh PC Magazine test
occurred in the September 2001 issue.
This was the most extensive test to date, involving twelve filters: AOL
Parental Control, CyberSitter, CyberSnoop, Internet Guard Dog, Net Nanny,
Norton Internet Security, IM Web Inspector, Super Scout, Surfin Gate, 8e6,
Iprism, and NetSpective. PC Magazine
concluded:
In testing, most products blocked more than 85 percent of
objectionable content—good enough to make a serious dent in inappropriate
Internet usage.[8]
The eighth and most recent
test was conducted by PC Magazine in November 2001, and involved a single
product, WebSense 4.3. PC Magazine
found that "We weren't able to fake out Websense filtering with a random sampling
of sites." [9]
Info World Tests
Info World is one of the
leading technology publications, and provides "in-depth technical analysis
on key products, solutions, and technologies for sound buying decisions and
business gain."[10] Like PC Magazine, Info World conducts regular
software testing through a professional testing laboratory, the InfoWorld Test
Center:
The InfoWorld Test Center differentiates itself by providing the
most real-world approach to testing. Our tests, which are conducted by the most
knowledgeable analysts in the industry, focus on products and solutions as they
are used and exist in IT environments.[11]
From 1997 to 2000 the
InfoWorld Test Center conducted four tests of filtering software blocking
effectiveness. In the August 1997
issue, InfoWorld tested WebSense, and found that, "Every time I tried to
access a blocked site, I was presented with my customized "access
denied" message."[12]
In February 1998, InfoWorld
tested Cyber Sentinel, and concluded, "Cyber Sentinel proved quite adept
at flagging all of my attempts at accessing offensive material."[13] In November 1998, InfoWorld tested SOS Pro,
and found that "offensive sites were blocked successfully."[14] In May 2000, InfoWorld tested WebWasher, and
found the product "prevents offensive materials from being brought into
the office via the company's Internet connections," and noted
"WebWasher's effectiveness."[15]
PC World Tests
PC World is the world's
largest computer magazine, with a readership of nearly 6.9 million. Like PC Magazine, PC World has conducted thousands
of software tests through its testing laboratory, the PC World Test
Center. PC World conducted two tests of
filtering effectiveness in 1997 and in 2001.
The 1997 test produced mixed results (see section "Tests finding
filters of mixed effectiveness"), but a January 2001 test of Net Nanny
found that "In testing, Net Nanny blocked unsuitable content fairly well
and appropriately." [16]
MacWorld Tests
MacWorld has been testing
software for 17 years in its MacWorld Labs facility. [17]
MacWorld conducted two tests, a 1997 test that found filters effective, and a
2001 test that found them ineffective (see section "Tests finding filters
ineffective").
MacWorld's November 1997
issue tested Cyber Patrol, SurfWatch, and X-Stop and found that "All the
products lived up to filtering expectations, staying out of the way except when
necessary to block access."[18]
Internet Magazine Tests
In December 1997, ZD Internet
Magazine used the ZD Net testing labs to measure the effectiveness of eight
filters: Bess, Cyber Patrol, CyberSitter,SafeSurf, SurfWatch, WebSense, X-Stop
and Cyber Snoop. ZD Net Labs found the majority of them effective. Internet Magazine reported that SafeServer
and CyberSnoop were less effective, but did find the majority of the products
effective:
During our tests, Bess performed well, blocking all the
pornographic and objectionable sites on our test list.
In our testing, Cyber Patrol performed fairly well, blocking access
to most of the sites on our list. All the pornographic sites were blocked effectively.
During our testing, CYBERsitter 97 blocked access to most of the
pornographic sites on our testing list.
SurfWatch was the best performer on our site-blocking test,
blocking access to all the pornographic sites we tested, as well as adequately blocking
attempts to search for obscene words with Yahoo! and other search engines.
In our tests, WebSENSE performed exceptionally well.
In our site blocking tests, X-Shadow performed quite well,
preventing access to almost all the pornographic sites, as well as preventing
searches on obscene words.[19]
Network World Tests
Another well-known technology
publication, Network World, conducted a round of filter tests through its
Network World Test Alliance network of testing labs. Network World frequently tests software, and is described as
"the premier source of objective, authoritative reviews in the network
market."[20] Network
World tested seven filters: LittleBrother Pro, WebSense, WizGuard, SOS, and
NNPro. Network World found that "All the products with predefined
databases allow you to customize their lists, but we found that locating
inappropriate sites the vendors didn't include was a challenge." [21]
Network Computing Tests
Network Computing is another
leading technology publication that regularly tests software. As described on
the company website, "Network Computing performs hands-on product reviews
in our Real-World Labs co-located on the sites of two large universities, a
Fortune 100 corporation, as well as bench-test facilities."
Real-World Labs tested
SurfControl Super Scout, Elron Internet Manager, Little Brother, SmartFilter,
Iprism, WebSense, and N2H2:
We
installed and configured each product to monitor and block Web traffic on our
production network. We then configured each product to block traffic to
unproductive or "improper" sites while letting productive uses of
Web, e-mail and FTP traffic go past…We visited a broad range of improper Web
sites to evaluate each product's content policies and, if applicable, dynamic
policy rules.
Our
test results showed that network administrators can choose from many effective
content-monitoring solutions capable of stifling the most adamant of browsers.[22]
Internet Week Tests
The now-defunct technology
publication Internet Week tested a variety of security software applications in
the April 2000 issue. The Camden
Associates labs conducted the tests. Among the products tested was Cyber Patrol
Proxy. Internet Week's test found that "Cyber
Patrol Proxy for Microsoft's Proxy Server does an excellent job of blocking
undesired sites."[23]
eWeek Tests
Another popular technology
publication is eWeek, which regularly tests software through the eWeek
Labs. In the February 2001 issue, eWeek
Labs tested the effectiveness of SmartFilter, and concluded that, "We were
impressed with the quick response from SmartFilter when we tried to access Web
sites that were in the "Deny" ACL.[24]
Computer Shopper Tests
Computer Shopper is a widely
distributed technology trade publication that has conducted thousands of
software tests. In the November 1997
issue, CyberSitter was tested through ZD Net Labs:
Although installing Cybersitter is a smart way to keep your
children safe on the Internet, keep in mind that nothing is foolproof. Although
it took several hours, we were able to bring up three sites with inappropriate
content ourselves…However, for those times when you need a quick way to tame
the World "Wild" Web for young cyber surfers, Cybersitter 97 is a
good start.[25]
Tests Finding Filters of Mixed Effectiveness
Internet World Tests
Since 1995, Internet World
has been one of the leading Internet technology publications, and regularly
tests Internet software in IW Labs. In
September 1996, Internet World examined Intergo, Cyber Patrol, Net Nanny, Net
Shepherd, Specs for Kids, CyberSitter, and Surfwatch:
To evaluate how well the current programs work, IW Labs rounded up
every available commercial product and tested them under controlled laboratory
conditions…While each of the products is sold for the explicit purpose of
blocking objectionable material, only three (Cyber Patrol, InterGo, and Specs
for Kids) are able to do that with reasonable certainty.
|
|
Inter go |
Cyber Patrol |
Net Nanny |
Net Shep |
Specs for Kids |
Cyber sitter |
Surf watch |
|
Drugs |
Excellent |
Excellent |
Poor |
Fair |
Excellent |
Fair |
Good |
|
Sex |
Excellent |
Excellent |
Fair |
Fair |
Excellent |
Good |
Poor |
|
Violence |
Excellent |
Excellent |
Poor |
Fair |
Excellent |
Excellent |
Poor |
Ratings reflect the success
of each product in blocking three main categories of objectionable material
based on 100 test sites using the package's most stringent level of controls.[26]
PC Magazine Tests
As mentioned earlier, PC
Magazine's testing is among the extensive and widely read in the technology
industry (see earlier section, "Tests finding filters effective: PC
Magazine tests"). The first of
eight rounds of filter testing were conducted in November 1995, and this is
believed to be the first laboratory test of filtering software, when filtering
was in its infancy.
The November 1995 issue
tested CyberSitter, Net Nanny, and SurfWatch, and found Net Nanny
"ineffective", but noted that CyberSitter "comes with a thorough
database of objectionable Internet resources," and concluded that "In
the end, none of the cybersmut censors are totally reliable at preventing
access to questionable resources."[27]
PC Week Tests
PC Week is another widely
circulated technology publication.
Using the eWeek Labs testing facility, PC Week tested Websense in April
1997:
WebSense is a good choice for companies that want a simple,
effective method for monitoring or controlling employee use of the
Internet...But while the filters blocked obvious sites, such as Playboy, we
could easily get to other pornographic sites by going to the picture indexes at
the Yahoo site.[28]
PC World Tests
As mentioned earlier, PC
World's laboratory testing is extensive and widely read in the technology
industry (see earlier section, "Tests finding filters effective: PC
Magazine tests"). In October 1997, PC World tested five home filters
--SurfWatch, Cyber Patrol, CyberSitter, Net Nanny and Net Shepherd:
Internet-blocking software is neither as easy to use nor as
foolproof as parents and developers would like…Among the five programs we
tested, two (Cybersitter and SurfWatch 1.6) effectively filtered out all 10 of
our bellwether adult-oriented pages." [29]
Tests Finding Filters Ineffective
Consumer Reports Tests
Consumer Reports conducts
software tests in professional laboratories, though software testing appears to
be only a tiny portion of total testing.
An index of reviews on the Consumer Reports website shows only eight
software reviews in the four years of 1998-2001.[30]
In May 1997, Consumer Reports
tested four home filters, CyberSitter, Net Nanny, SurfWatch, and Cyber
Patrol. Consumer Reports recommended
none of the filters, and concluded:
We set each to maximum protection, then noted its ease of use and
effectiveness in keeping us from viewing 22 easy-to-find web sites we had
judged inappropriate for children…None is totally effective.[31]
In March 2001, Consumer
Reports issued a second evaluation of filtering software. Consumer Reports evaluated AOL Parental
Controls, Cyber Patrol, Cyber Sitter, Cyber Snoop, Internet Guard Dog, Net
Nanny, and Norton Internet Security 2001.
Consumer Reports concluded:
Filtering software is not a substitute for parental
supervision. Most of the products we
tested failed to block one objectionable site in five. [32]
The 2001 Consumer Reports
test is the only laboratory test to generate a public controversy. The giant Information Technology Association
of America (ITAA), which represents 26,000 corporate members in 41 countries,
issued a press release criticizing the testing methodology:
The Information Technology Association of America (ITAA) today said
that an article in Consumer Reports magazine analyzing filtering software falls
short in fairly characterizing the utility of these consumer tools, and raised
questions about the methodology of the analysis.[33]
MacWorld Tests
MacWorld has been laboratory
testing software for 17 years. MacWorld
conducted two tests, a 1997 test that found filters effective, and a 2001 test
that found them ineffective (see section "Tests finding filters
effective").
For the May 2001 issue,
MacWorld tested filters again:
We installed three of the more user-friendly filtering
applications: Content-Barrier, from Intego; KidSafe, from Apple; and AOL 5.0's
parental controls. We used each program's most restrictive settings--turning on
all 26 of ContentBarrier's filtering categories; selecting the Children 12 And
Under filter in AOL's Web-surfing controls; and using KidSafe's default
setting, which lets you visit only sites OK'd by a panel of educators. Then we
visited sites that we thought were squeaky-clean. The results? Either the Web
is a lot more risqué than we imagined, or Internet-filtering software needs a
healthy dose of parental common sense to be truly helpful. [34]
Results of independent laboratory tests
The aggregate research of the
independent laboratory tests of filter effectiveness strongly suggests that
Internet filtering software is largely effective. Of the 26 lab tests, 19 found filters effective, over 70% of the
total tests.
Filter effectiveness tests submitted
in the CIPA trial
The
litigation over the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) resulted in some
interesting research in filtering effectiveness. Certus Consulting, eTesting Labs, and the Tacoma Public Library
each submitted original research.
The U.S. Department of
Justice commissioned eTesting Labs to compare the four leading institutional-grade
Web content filtering
applications for
effectiveness at blocking pornographic material. In October 2001, eTesting Labs compared the accuracy of N2H2,
SmartFilter, SurfControl, and WebSense 4.3 in blocking 200 randomly selected
URLs containing pornography. N2H2 placed first at 98%, SmartFilter placed
second at 94%, WebSense third at 92%, and SurfControl was the least effective
at 83%.[35] The 31-page report is attachment 30.
Certus Consulting Group was
also commissioned by the Department of Justice to study filter
effectiveness. Certus collected actual
filtered Internet log file data from the Tacoma, Washington, Westerville, Ohio,
and Greenville, South Carolina library systems. Certus found filtering error
rates of between 6.34% and 8.14%.[36] The entire Certus report is attachment 31.
As part of his government
testimony, Tacoma Public Library Central Library Manager David Biek submitted
an analysis of Cyber Patrol log files. Based upon his review of a sample of the
January 2000 intercept logs, Mr. Biek concluded that the CyberPatrol filter
flagged sites at a rate of approximately 98% conformity with the category
definitions used by the filtering software.[37] Mr. Biek's report is attachment 32.
Fostering the Development of Technology Measures, Question
4: "Can currently available filtering or blocking technology adjust to
accommodate all age groups?"
The
functionality to assign different levels of filtering to different users,
groups of users, workstations, or groups of workstations is built into the
functionality of N2H2's Bess filtering product.
For
example, a school district administrator could assign only the filtering of
"Pornography" and "Gambling" to district staff,
"Pornography", "Sex", "Nudity",
"Gambling", "Drugs", "Adults Only" to the high
school, and could enable all 42 categories for the elementary school.
The process for doing this is
described in chapter four of the Filtering by N2H2 Administrator's Guide,
"Applying filters to your network." [38]
The Bess Administrator's Guide is attachment 33.
List of Attachments
1. N2H2,
"Filtering Category Definitions," 2002.
2. N2H2,
"URL Checker Screen Shot #1, August 22, 2002.
3. N2H2,
"URL Checker Screen Shot #2, August 22, 2002.
4. N2H2,
"URL Checker Screen Shot #3, August 22, 2002.
5. PC
Magazine, "Filtering utilities; seven parental-control software
tools," April 8, 1997
6. PC
Magazine, "Surveying the Wave," May 6, 1997
7. PC
Magazine, "Monitor a Child's Access," March 24, 1998
8. PC
Magazine, "Corporate Monitoring/Filtering: Make Net Work, Not Play,"
May 4, 1999
9. PC
Magazine, "Parental Filtering," April 18, 2000.
10.
PC Magazine, "Clean it Up," September 25,
2001
11.
PC Magazine, "Content Filtering Par
Excellence," November 14, 2001
12.
InfoWorld, "WebSense sets up a flexible line of
defense for screening Web sites," August 18, 1997
13.
InfoWorld, "Cyber Sentinel 1.4 adds intelligence
capabilities," February 16, 1998
14.
InfoWorld, "SOS Pro effectively combines data
protection, Internet filtering," November 16, 1998
15.
InfoWorld, "WebWasher offers strong, flexible
filtering," May 22, 2000
16.
PC World, "Net Nanny 4 maintains round-the-clock
watch as your kids surf the Web," January 04, 2001
17.
Macworld, "Internet content filters,"
November 1997
18.
Internet Magazine, "Policing the Net,"
December, 1997
19.
Network World, "Where do you think you're going?,"
October 5, 1998
20.
Network Computing, "Regulating Web Surfing,"
February 7, 2000
Internet Week, "Content Security," April 17, 2000
21.
EWeek, "SmartFilter 3.0 plug-in corrals Net
use," February 19, 2001
22.
Computer Shopper, "Cybersitter 97 Makes the World
(Wide Web) a Safer Place for Children," November, 1997
23.
Internet World, "Safe computing," September
1996
24.
PC Magazine, "Three cybersmut censors try to clean
up the Internet," November 7, 1995
25.
PC Week, "Packages keep close eye on Internet
use," April 7, 1997
26.
PC World, "The Smut Stops Here or Does it?"
October, 1997
27.
Consumer Reports, "Is your kid caught up in the
Web?," May 1997
28.
Consumer Reports, "Digital chaperones for
kids," March, 2001
29.
MacWorld, "Where don't you want to go
today?," July 2001
30.
E-Testing Labs, " U.S. Department of Justice: Filtering Software Comparison," Oct.
2001
31.
CERTUS Consulting Group, "Internet Filtering
Accuracy Review," October 15, 2001
32.
Biek, David.
" Demographic Characteristics of Internet Users at the Tacoma
Public Library ",February, 2001.
33.
N2h2, " Filtering by N2H2 Administrator's
Guide", 2002.
Footnotes