|
Point of View with Barb
Sumner Burstyn - July 21 2003
Internet censorship fails to tell the
good from the bad
It seemed like a great idea. Install filtering software on my computer
and, voila, no more spam, no unsolicited pornography, no more penis
enlargement advertisements or begging letters from Africa.
The censorware promotion heralded a cleaned-up computer and the
peace of mind to know that others using my system, especially children,
would not be offended.
Protecting children from the cascade of bad words and images that
arrive unbidden in my in-box each day, or are available at a keystroke,
was the main thrust of the promotion. I must admit I was tempted.
But then I forwarded an article on the intentional targeting and
killing of non-embedded journalists in Iraq to a few people.
It was a revealing piece. Not just for the scandal it exposed
but because it was returned to me by a colleague. She hadn't disagreed
with the article. In fact, she didn't get the chance to read it
because it contained a banned word and her filtering software had
made the decision for her.
Filtering software or censorware is software designed to prevent
someone from sending or receiving information on the web or through
email. It is becoming the must-have tool, particularly for busy
parents.
But the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties organisation
working to protect rights in the digital world, says that filtering
software overblocks and miscategorises websites and emails. In a
recent study, it found that for every web page blocked as advertised,
one or more was blocked incorrectly.
Not that that stopped the passing of the Children's Internet Protection
Act in the United States. The act requires all publicly funded institutions,
including schools and libraries, to install censorware.
This is scary news if you see the internet as a storehouse of
information, literally an extension of the library.
Even library catalogues are now on-line. So what happens when
you want to look up the history of, say, the slave trade?
The word "nigger" is pivotal to that discussion but with the censorware
now being installed any document containing that word is blocked.
Is this not akin to book banning? It is estimated that 45 per
cent of library-users go to public libraries for internet access.
What happens to those who do so specifically seeking personal
information, perhaps a teen seeking help for an abusive home situation?
Type in the words "sexual abuse" and all you'll get is the blank,
blocked screen.
In fact, filtering software is so unselective that, according
to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the act not only prevents
American students from obtaining a well-balanced, globally competitive
education but denies them access to valuable information on subjects
such as religion, sex and even political options.
But perhaps it's just a case of the US Government putting faith
in a technology that is not quite ready yet. Then again, perhaps
not.
While I was shocked that the recipient of my email, a well-known
New Zealand researcher, would cede her personal judgment to imprecise
software, the true controversy over censorware is not that some
sites or emails are accidentally blocked.
The real issue is that all the most commonly used filtering software
deliberately blocks sites.
Internet watchdogs are reporting that censorware packages come
pre-loaded with lists of blocked sites, regardless of the content
of the pages themselves.
Peacefire.org, a website monitoring internet freedoms, which is
itself on the banned list of a number of censorware products, says
that, for instance, a common filtering program blocked Time magazine's
site because of an article critical of the software.
Another censor product blocked links to environmental groups that
contained descriptions of animal testing.
The same software was also found to be blocking URLs to sites
covering religious tolerance. And yet another filtering system,
one that is used extensively in schools in the US, blocks anti-racists'
websites, Aids groups and even the Quakers.
So while my colleague felt her reasons for subscribing to the
censorware were valid - an email box full of unsolicited junk -
she entirely missed the bigger picture.
Every time people subscribe to a censorware program, they inadvertently
become part of the anti-free-speech movement.
Taken to its logical conclusion, censorware will irreparably damage
the internet. Instead of being the frontier of information, liberal
thought, dissent, discussion and free expression, it will become
the sort of mouthpiece dreamed about by neo-conservative political
parties.
At the least, censorware has the potential to be misused by governments.
At the worst, it already is.
And as far as the argument for protecting children goes, censorware
is a flimsy safety net, the lazy or absent parents' blanket answer
to the complexities of parenting in today's world.
Instead of blind reliance on censorware, parents and teachers
should be encouraging skills such as critical thinking and how to
use technology to find information quickly and efficiently.
A child learning how to exercise personal judgment is a well-parented
child, not one who is drip-fed a filtered version of real life.
The final word should go to the American Civil Liberties Union,
which says censorware, like poison gas, can be highly effective
when the wind is blowing the right way.
But the wind has a way of shifting and, sooner or later, it blows
back upon the user. Whether you install it yourself or subscribe
to a service, filtering software is toxic to a democratic society.
ENDS
© Barbara Sumner Burstyn, 2003
Send your comments to:
Barbara Sumner
Burstyn.
|
