Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
With all of the interest in software filtering, reports of difficulties
abound. Material that should be accessible, isn't; material that should
n't be, is; and alternatively, material can appear in a somewhat differ
ent form than anticipated. To clarify this third option, a filter can al
low a page to load, but replace questionable text so as to make the
result more appropriate. With this in mind, the following “Inspiration
Award” from the Digital Freedom Network may be illustrative:
Winner:
Attributed to EPIC's Marc Rotenberg, and though we
are not sure if it's a real case or not, it says it all and
we couldn't pass it up. Thanks, Marc.
“Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of
sXXXch, or the right of the people peaceably to
XXXemble, and to peXXXion the government for a re
dress of grievances.”
Turning from anecdotal statements to more systematic studies
of the overall effectiveness of software filters, various reviews and
analyses report different results. In its September 25, 2001, issue,
for example,
PC Magazine
reports:
For this roundup, we looked at six contentfiltering
products designed for home and another six for business.
In testing, most products blocked more than 85 percent of
objectionable content—good enough to make a serious
dent in inappropriate Internet usage.*
The March 2001 issue of
Consumer Reports
provides results on
both the filtering of objectionable materials and the blocking of “a list
of 53 web sites that featured serious content on controversial sub
jects.” In their tests of the ability of sites to block objectionable mate
rials,
Consumer Reports
stated, “Most of the products we tested failed
to block one objectionable site in five.” In considering the sites with
serious, but controversial, subjects, they noted, “Results varied widely.
While most blocked a few sites, . . . [two filtering programs] blocked
nearly one in five. . . .[A third program] blocked 63 percent of the
sites.” The editors of
Consumer Reports
concluded, “Our results cast
doubt on the appropriateness of some companies' judgments.”
*Karen J. Bannan. “Clean It Up”
PC Magazine
, September 25, 2001. 20(16): 103.
