The Consumers' Association in the UK has given permission for European Research into
Consumer Affairs to reproduce in full the results of its testing of filter programs to block websites unsuitable for children.
This report was published in Which? magazine (May 2000). For more information go to www.which.net
Through the net
Theres no top shelf on the internet so its easy to come across pornography, and other undesirable
content when trawling for sites. But can you keep unpleasant material off your screen especially if you have children?
IN BRIEF
· Internet filters and other protection tested
· Do these programs ban the sites they should?
· Do you agree with the filter companies?
Stories in the tabloids frequently point out the sinister side of the internet linking it with pornography,
violence and paedophiles. So software designed to block unpleasant web sites might seem a good idea. But weve found these
products dont always work. Not only do they fail to block many offensive sites, some deny access to innocent ones.
IS THE NET BEING CENSORED?
Most software filters use bad lists of unsuitable web sites. These are compiled automatically by computers that search
for certain words, or manually by teams of people scouring the internet. The filter stops you downloading sites on the list.
But before you leap to install this type of software, ask yourself whether you are happy for a third party to decide what
you and your children can see on the internet.
In the US, the American Library Association objects to filters in public libraries because the rules are determined by
software manufacturers: Filters are known to block sites with legal information that library users may find helpful for school,
job, work, health and other needs. A study by US librarians found filters blocked sites needed to answer library users questions
35 per cent of the time.
Most of the products we looked at use bad lists compiled in the US, where the companies may be influenced by pressure groups
whose views might be considered extreme here. When we attempted to look at UK sites, we found the filters blocked some containing
useful or educational material.
Three filters we tried, for instance, blocked access to an advice and information site run by Lancashire Councils Youth
and Community Service because of a small, factual paragraph about safe sex. The filter companies were unapologetic about this.
Cyber Patrol, for instance, said the site fell into its sex-education category which includes discussion about the use of
the pill and other types of contraceptives.
Another concern is that software manufacturers block views they dislike Cybersitter, for instance, denied access to a Massachusetts
Institute of Technology site about internet filtering which criticises Cybersitter.
You cant be sure which sites are blocked, as the companies usually encrypt their lists (although they may publish their
criteria for banning sites). Even the Internet Watch Foundation, the industry body that polices UK internet sites, is worried:
Common pitfalls include the danger of censorship based on commercial or other interests, and a lack of transparency about
what is blocked.
WHY DO WE NEED FILTERS?
Despite these worries, research by the Independent Television Commission found 93 per cent of people in favour of some
form of parental control. More people were alarmed by violent or racist sites than pornographic ones.
Offensive sites are easy to find but they can pop up when you least expect them. Some sites purposefully mimic the names
of well-known companies one porn site called itself teen magazine, for instance, to the annoyance of www.teenmag.com, a respectable
online magazine for teenagers.
Unscrupulous web sites also use meta-tags words that summarise the sites content in order to help search engines to lure
in the unsuspecting. Using meta-tags with no relevance to the sites content causes people to come across the site unwittingly,
even when making innocent searches.
There are four main ways round this problem filters, browsers, safe search engines
and restricted internet service providers. To test them, we tried to access 23 web sites with sexually explicit content, Nazi
propa-ganda, bomb-making instructions and so on. We also looked at 17 innocent sites universities, online magazines and the
like to see whether they were blocked.
SOFTWARE FILTERS
All the seven filters on test allowed access to at least six of the 23 offensive sites we tried to download, even though
these sometimes fell foul of the products stated blocking criteria which didnt always match what we thought was appropriate.
Weve rated the filters on p39.
Most filters work by stopping you downloading sites on their bad list. Some put sites into categories, such as intolerance,
violence, or sex, and let you pick which categories to block (we selected them all for our tests).
Another method, used alone or in conjunction with a bad list, is keyword blocking. This checks each site you try to access,
and blocks any that include banned words (so it cant cope with picture-only sites). A few filters recognise self-rating systems
(see Browsers and self-rating), and the final method is to limit access to a good list of pre-approved web sites.
The best filters vet newsgroups, chatrooms and e-mail as well as websites. Also useful is the ability to stop children
sending personal information, such as their address. The table, below, shows which features the programs have.
They are all password-protected to prevent children turning them off, although we found that some had security loopholes
a determined child could turn them off and still surf the internet.
Do the filters block enough?
Although the filters were generally successful at blocking pornography, none blocked the site we tried that contains bomb-making
instructions. Only three banned a Nazi propaganda site, and six didnt block a site promoting the use of Ecstasy.
One reason for this is that even though you can download updates of the bad lists, the companies cant keep up with new
sites. When we told them about our findings, they agreed to add the sites that met their criteria to their bad lists.
They wouldnt, though, add all of them gun sites werent a priority for most, reflecting their American bias. Cyber Patrol,
for instance, told us that the gun sites we accessed didnt meet its criteria of advocating unlawful use of weapons or listing
"how tos" despite the fact that the sites include messages from gun owners about how to use guns.
The difficulty of keeping up to date is one reason why childrens charity NCH Action for Children doesnt recommend you rely
on filters. According to spokesman John Carr, the internet is growing at an exponential rate, and filters arent going to be
able to provide a guide to the whole net.
Do the filters block too much?
John Carr also criticises filters for being too undiscriminating: Some cant tell the difference between pictures by Picasso
and Playboy. We found that the filters contained relatively harmless sites on their bad lists.
Cyber Patrol, Cyber Sentinel and Cybersitter blocked straightforward safe-sex advice, and Cyber Patrol blocked the Aids
Education and Research Trust web site. Cybersitter banned technical magazine Wired saying it often has inappropriate
content for kids but all we could find were articles about computers.
Two anti-censorship sites were blocked. Cyber Patrol and Cyber Sentinel blocked Peacefire. Cyber Patrol says it tells children
how to hack the filters, but it blocks the whole site, not just those pages. We-Blocker stops you downloading the Electronic
Frontier Foundations site.
Some products that look for keywords inappropriately block sites because they cant understand the context of the words,
even though they claim to do so. PureSight didnt have this problem it blocked all the pornographic sites we tried to access,
but none of the innocent ones.
Cyber Sentinels advanced recognition engine, on the other hand, was less effective. Even on its least restrictive settings,
it blocked Lancashire Councils site, because the words sex and live appeared next to each other the site actually talks about
peoples sex lives, rather than offering live sex.
BROWSERS AND SELF-RATING
Self-rating systems use pre-set codes that indicate the contents category (such as violence) and level (injury to a human
being, for example) Internet Explorer and Netscape Navigator, along with some filters, recognise these codes and let you pick
the category and level of content to block.
Sites rate themselves to ensure that they attract the internet users they are aimed at, so there are no concerns about
third-party censorship. At the moment, though, few sites rate them-selves. Of the 40 we looked at, only two did so restricting
yourself only to rated sites would considerably limit what you see. And blocking everything rated above a certain level would
still allow access to all the unrated sites. Another problem is that the system currently works only on web pages not newsgroups.
INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS
Specialist childrens internet service providers (ISPs) limit kids to preapproved, child-friendly sites. We tried Kidz.Net
and Planet Kids, which didnt allow access to any of our unpleasant sites. But none of the innocent sites we tried were on
their approved lists, so the available content might prove limited. These products are likely to be suitable for young children
where access to lots of sites isnt so essential. Of the two, Planet Kids had more content.
FILTERED SEARCHES
Many peoples first point of contact with the net is a search engine. AltaVista, UK Plus and Yahoo! all offer filtered searches
for children. You search as normal, but blocked sites dont appear in the results.
UK Plus Safe-Surf and Yahooligans! use a good list of sites that they check manually. AltaVista Family Filter blocks sites
based on key words and phrases. These search engines werent 100 per cent effective. On one search, AltaVista came up with
45 sites that we felt were inappropriate for children because of their sexually-explicit nature.
Yahooligans! didnt return any offensive sites because it is so restrictive a search for Scooby Doo, for instance, returned
ten matches, compared with 7,679 with a standard Yahoo! search. UK Plus Safe-Surf isnt protected by a password, so isnt suitable
for unsupervised use.
NOTES
We obtained all these programs over the internet. Some have minimum requirements often Windows 95 or 98, and a certain
processor (or better), memory (Ram) and hard-disc (HD) size. There may be a Mac version.
A time limit option allows you to restrict how long a user can stay online. You may want to log sites that
your children have attempted to visit.
Methods
They may use bad lists of banned sites, block sites including certain key words or phrases, recognise self-rating
codes, or let you restrict access to a good list of vetted sites.
Blocking
Programs you can customise let you modify good and bad lists and pick categories to block. Personal detail blocking
stops names, addresses and credit card numbers being sent over the internet.
You will probably also want the filter to handle chat rooms, newsgroups, and e-mail.
The Internet and the World Wide Web are wonderful information resources for both
parents and children. Children can learn a lot by doing research for school reports, by sending and receiving email, and by
playing educational games.
But in an environment where a child old enough to punch in a few letters on her keyboard can literally access the world,
parents need to be vigilant about monitoring what their children see and hear, who they meet, and what they share about themselves
on the Web. That free, uncensored connection to the world can potentially be dangerous.
A Vast Network of Information The World Wide Web, one portion of the Internet, is a vast
network of virtual libraries. Not everything in those libraries, however, is something you'd like to see - or have your child
see. For example, your 8-year-old might go to a search engine and type in the word "Lego." But with just one missed keystroke,
she might enter the word "Legs" instead and be directed to thousands of websites with a focus on legs - some of which may
contain pornographic material.
The debate between those who defend the unrestricted right to free speech in the United States and those who want to ensure
that children do not have access to pornographic materials or offensive speech is ongoing. The 1996 Communications Decency
Act, designed largely for this purpose, was declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court the following year. The Child
Online Protection Act (COPA), passed in October 1998, made it a federal crime to use the Internet to communicate material
considered harmful to minors, and charged commercial providers of sexually explicit materials for adults (such as pornographic
websites) with restricting the access of minors. But it, too, has been challenged on the grounds that it restricts freedom
of speech, and an injunction (a court order prohibiting the law from being enforced) has been ordered. And although privacy
laws addressing the online collection and distribution of children's personal information and the need for parental consent
have been enacted, the Internet is largely unregulated. For example, at this time, in most states, it is not against the law
for pornographic websites to send out explicit email advertisements (though it may be illegal in some states if the sender
knows the email address belongs to a minor).
This means your child's best online protection is you. By talking to your child often about potential online dangers and
monitoring her computer use, you'll be giving her the tools she needs to learn to surf safely.
Stories in the tabloids frequently point out the sinister side of the internet linking it with pornography,
violence and paedophiles. So software designed to block unpleasant web sites might seem a good idea. But weve found these
products dont always work. Not only do they fail to block many offensive sites, some deny access to innocent ones.
The Internet and the World Wide Web are wonderful information resources for both
parents and children. Children can learn a lot by doing research for school reports, by sending and receiving email, and by
playing educational games. 
