From Bess to Worse

Frequent Slashdot contributor Bennett Haselton writes " From about 1996 to 2003, there were regular reports listing examples of sites stupidly blocked by blocking software. The genre has tapered off recently, probably as a result of the Supreme Court ruling in 2003 that the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) was constitutional, requiring blocking software in schools and libraries that receive federal funds, despite all the evidence of over-blocking presented at the trial. The last high-profile story about a site blocked by blocking software was about the blocking of BoingBoing almost a year ago. But the lack of recent reports on blocking software errors doesn't mean that the software has gotten better." The rest of his essay follows.

One product that generated several reports over the years was "Bess, the Internet Retriever" from N2H2, which has since been bought out by Secure Computing, which also makes a blocking program called SmartFilter (the one that blocked BoingBoing) and now sells "SmartFilter, Bess Edition" which uses the same database as Bess. Different organizations and individuals published a series of investigative reports about Bess from 1997 until 2002, listing sites about gay rights, eating disorders, and other subjects that were blocked as "pornography". In Ben Edelman's supplemental report, submitted as testimony in the CIPA trial, he listed examples of erroneously blocked sites that he had reported to N2H2 in his first expert report, and which were still being blocked five months later.

Since Bess represents a set of data points showing how the accuracy of a blocking program can change, or not change, over the years, recently I began testing it again. I didn't know whether to expect it to be better or worse. On the one hand, advances in technology and greater revenue to censorware companies could have caused the software to improve. On the other hand, the number of Web pages, and the rate at which dynamic sites like blogs change content every day, has exploded. The result? I'm still tabulating data, but it looks as if the accuracy rate is roughly the same as it was in 2000, when about 30% of blocked sites were obvious errors. Then and now, I found most of the errors by starting with a large list of URLs culled from search engines and other sources, and simply running them through the software to see what was blocked.

Here is a partial list of some of the questionable categorizations made by Bess; as of this writing, all of the following sites are listed as "Pornography" when you look them up on Secure Computing's Bess lookup form. (This is not just a fluke of the lookup tool; I tested against a copy of the software that all of these sites really were blocked.) The "screen cap" link next to each site links to a snapshot of the results taken from the lookup form (you can check on http://database.n2h2.com/ to see if the page is still returning the same results, although the more obvious errors will probably be fixed after this article is published):

• The Electronic Frontier Foundation, Austin chapter (screen cap)
• Cretans of Houston (screen cap). That's Cretans, as in "people from the island of Crete". Not to be confused with the Cretins of Houston, located here.
• The Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence (screen cap)
• The website of the public art galleries of British Columbia, Canada (screen cap)
• Rail2000, now the Bay Rail Alliance, a consumer group lobbying for a San Francisco regional rail system (screen cap)
• Rainbow Service Organization, a gay rights advocacy group (screen cap)
• GardenMentors.com, a custom gardening services company in Seattle (screen cap)
• A web site for Catalina 380 series boats (screen cap)
• Open Source ERP, a site promoting open source software for enterprise resource planning and customer relationship management (screen cap)
• The Bryn Mawr Mainliners, a barbershop harmony group (screen cap)
• Timber Trails, an outdoor recreation site (screen cap)
• The MEFTA Institute: "Middle East Free Trade Areas for Business Peace" -- world peace through cheap oil! (screen cap)
• Topple Rummy, a (somewhat out-of-date) site calling for the ouster of Donald Rumsfeld (screen cap)
• The Alabama Network of Children's Advocacy Centers (screen cap)
• PSARA, a non-profit organization for training cruise travel agents (screen cap)
• Park Place Behavioral Health Care, a non-profit mental health care agency (screen cap)
• The Oklahoma chapter of the American Institute of Building Design (screen cap)
• The Boys & Girls Clubs of Metropolitan Phoenix (screen cap)
• CEMTACH -- Computational ElectroMagnetics Theory-Algorithm-Code-Hardware. "Our goal is to develop systems simulations capabilities based on time-domain computational electromagnetics methods." Thanks for clearing that up. (screen cap)
• Fund for Humanity, a San Francisco non-profit supporting environmental organizations and organizations that assist the poor. (screen cap)

A long-standing point of contention while earlier reports about Bess were coming out, was whether every site on their blacklist had been reviewed by a human before being blocked. In 1998 the CEO testified before Congress that "All sites that are blocked are reviewed by N2H2 staff before being added to the block lists." However in their 2002 annual report the company finally admitted that not all sites were reviewed before being blocked: "Through automated categorization or human review, Web sites are identified as fitting into one or more of our categories". At one point an N2H2 employee also told me that when one site is blocked, they will often block all sites hosted on that machine or at that IP -- which of course means that those sites are also not reviewed before being blocked. In any case, it's possible to access some of these sites by IP address, such as the BC Art Galleries site via this link, or the or the Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence via this link -- so if they're not sharing their IP with other sites, that wouldn't explain how they got blocked either. Smartfilter spokesperson Tomo Foote-Lennox said that one other blocked URL that I found, http://www.arbiol.org/, was the result of an experiment N2H2 once did with fully automated website ratings.

Foote-Lennox added, "In general, we find that schools are VERY sensitive to under-blocking. The would rather block a whole lot of useful reference sites to avoid exposing one porn site." Probably true, although keep in mind we're talking about liability issues, not actual moral outrage. (If they were really morally outraged, they'd be trying to keep kids away from uncensored Internet access everywhere, not just in school! That is in fact the approach that schools take with things like drugs, which do inspire moral outrage because they really are harmful.) Perhaps what is needed is a law explicitly shielding schools from all liability for what students do or see on the Internet at school, if the faculty had no knowledge of it.

(Obligatory interstitial advertisement for common sense: I still don't see what the big deal is about porn anyway. Ask yourself: Why is it harmful to see a picture of a naked person, or even a picture of people having sex? And try to find an answer to that question that doesn't involve, "Lots of other people think so." That includes all variations like "Our society has determined...", "We as a people have decided...", which are just re-phrasings of "Lots of other people think so." I submit that if you disallow those variations of grownup-peer-pressure as an excuse, most people can't really come up with any reason at all.)

OK, flame-retardant suit off, lab coat back on. Previous reports have listed absurd examples of sites blocked by Bess, and looking at any one of those examples or the ones listed here, I'd say that in terms of public policy discussions -- specifically, whether a blocking software company should be trusted to decide what students can look at -- any one of these blocked sites would be more significant than, say, the blocking of BoingBoing which got so much attention. BoingBoing got blocked because of a non-sexual picture of a bare breast on the cover of one of the books they reviewed -- and in fact they were blocked only in the "nudity" category, which includes only "non-pornographic images of the bare human body". So the block on BoingBoing really only revealed that Secure Computing was a bit heavy-handed. (The real problem is that SmartFilter has the category for non-pornographic nudity blocked by default, even though the CIPA filtering law certainly doesn't require schools to block non-pornographic artistic images!) On the other hand, the fact that EFF Austin and the Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence are currently blocked as "Pornography", suggests that in many instances the blocking companies have nobody at the controls at all. To focus on stupid-but-not-completely-insane blocks like BoingBoing is letting them off easy.

So why did the laundry lists of blocked sites released over the years never become as widely known as BoingBoing, or the guffaw-inducing examples like "Beaver College", which had to change their name in part because of students reportedly being blocked from accessing their website? I think it's because the news favors a good "punch line" -- a fact that anybody can understand that makes us feel smarter than the computers making these dumb mistakes. "Oh, I get it, it was blocked because it was called Beaver College!" But the "punch line" anecdotes are precisely the ones that let the blocking companies off lightly, because it gives them a plausible-sounding excuse for making an error. On the other hand, when the Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence gets blocked as "Pornography", that could probably force the blocking company to answer some tough questions if it got more press, but there's no good punch line there, so the story just fizzles.

So, while I'm looking through the rest of the data, let me try and come up with some punch lines for reporters to make these blocked sites newsworthy. OK: Why was GardenMentor.com blocked? To keep kids away from all the dirty bitches and hoes! Get it? Ha ha! Why was the Catalina 380 yachting site blocked from kids? Because teens are too vulnerable to pier pressure! Hey, where are you going?

Maybe I'm stupid...

From about 1996 to 2003, there were regular reports listing examples of sites stupidly blocked by blocking software. The genre has tapered off recently, probably as a result of the Supreme Court ruling in 2003 that the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) was constitutional, requiring blocking software in schools and libraries that receive federal funds, despite all the evidence of over-blocking presented at the trial.
 
... but I'm not seeing the cause / effect here.

Re:Maybe I'm stupid...

CIPA = constitutional; CIPA mandates school internet filtering; therefore schools are required to have internet filters
Schools are required to have internet filters; Stories about false positives were to prevent schools/libraries/etc. getting internet filters; therefore the issue of false positives is moot and can't do much good
The issue of false positives is moot with regard to school filtering; there are few other reasons to give media exposure to such stories; therefore such media exposure is now rarer than before

Money, for people.

Fund for Humanity, a San Francisco non-profit supporting environmental organizations and organizations that assist the poor. (screen cap)

I know them! Someone donated in my name as a Christmas gift. [wikipedia.org]

Woohoo!

My photography site, which contains some minor nudity on some pages and properly labels these pages in the HTML headers marking them as "some nudity", isn't blocked! That either means they understand my artistic views as a photographer or my site just isn't visited by anybody.

It boils down to a choice...

Either you accept the blocking software with the understanding that some sites that should not be blocked get blocked anyway.

Or, you don't use the blocking software because of censorship of otherwise legitimate sites

Or, you niavely belive that the above situation will reconcile itself (i.e. blocking software that works precisely the way you want it to all the time).

Like anything, where you are with this depends on your particular needs and/or station in life.

I see no need to turn this into an assault on the 1st amendment, it really boils down to how some parents are trying to protect their children from potentially harmful content.

I say, live and let live on this one.

You want a better debate? Try applying the same philosophy to the death penalty. In order to be pro-death penalty, you must fall into either one of two camps:

1) You believe a system can be put in place such that an innocent man is never put to death.

2) You understand that 1) is a practical impossibility, but are willing to accept the consequences for the "greater good"

Or,

3) If you don't believe 1) and can't accept 2), you are anti death-penalty.

4) If your personal beliefs preclude ending life for any reason, you are anti-death penalty.

To me, these "contraversial issues" are not so complex once broken down. People will be different, rather than waste time trying to get us all on the same page, just let them be different. Neither of the above arguments are ultimately winnable, all we are left with are laws that the majority of us agree to.

What's the solution?

Would it better just to create a red-light district on the internet, like the .xxx domain, or is it better for the industry perhaps to use a meta tag like , etc? There has to be a way to preserve freedom of speech and implement blocking for those who don't want to see or want their children to see objectionable content.

Re:What's the solution?

Which country gets to decide what is required to go there?

I just got back from spain (3GSM tradeshow) - companies openly displayed images of topless women. The same goes for their bookstores - something that wouldn't fly in the United States. On the other hand, there are a number of countries that consider "adult" violence that in the United States can be displayed at any time on public airwaves.

Besides the jurisdictional issues, you have issues with entire countries (ones that censor already) having a very easy job of removing all adult content in compliance from their country. Whether or not that is a good thing is subject to debate.

It also sets a bad precident - if the government (any government) has the right to force content to belong in certain regulated areas of the internet, it opens up the door to all kinds of abuse. How about we require all content in arabic to be on .islam, so we can more easily catch terror subjects? How about we protect the children by requiring any site that allows user generated content to be on a .adult domain, and verify government issued ID? Think of the children!

Easy filtering goes both ways - the easier it is for you to censor things for the children, the easier it is for others (government, employer, library, ISP) to filter things for you. In the case of the employer, it may be justified, but random ISPs should not be filtering without you opting in for such.

WebSense

here at work we use websense, they blocked slashdot one day for proxy avoidance!
then there is this image: http://img.thedailywtf.com/images/200612/pup/msmj. jpg [thedailywtf.com]

My office quit using blockers

My employer used to have one of these blockers in place. It didn't block any of the web sites that distracted me during the day such as Slashdot, cnn, and (believe it or not) Amiga computer forums.It did block some videogame sites and other stuff like that. But a few people were constantly calling in for exceptions on web sites they were looking stuff up on for work-related stuff. And one time our admin wanted to go to the blocker's own web site to download an update, and found that even that was blocked, and hilarity ensued. Eventually someone important enough decided that it was more hassle than it was worth and quit using it.

Avoidance

At my previous place of employment, they used an annoying blocking mechanism (Websense I believe) which would block based on keywords on the site, or even the website name. It became so annoying that (almost) everyone within the IT department started using outside proxies to get around the blocker.

I wouldn't recommend doing that if you value your job as 7 people were terminated (myself included) shortly after doing so for circumventing their security measures.

It may be time for me to make this choice soon.

My son is eight years old. We have six or so web-enabled devices throughout the house (the Wii, a laptop, and four normal PCs). It's getting to the point where I need to decide if buying one of these "net nanny" pieces of software is worthwhile. Currently I'm leaning towards no, but he'll occasionally do things that make me wonder. For example, he's always entering in random addresses and seeing where it goes. The other day, he entered ".com" into the browser at school, and the helpful search engine displayed Girls Gone Wild as a top hit. Needless to say, the school's filter blocked it.

With porn, violent videos, and other mature content in easy reach around the web, I'm thinking he's going to find it sooner rather than later. Perhaps the best approach is to have lots of talks with him about what's out there, how to deal with it, and so on.

The thing that's a little sad is that at eight, I've got to prepare him for the adult world. Swearing, hardcore sex, and bizarre YouTube slapping videos isn't really something I'd like to expose him to just yet. Innocence is a rarity in this day and age and I'd rather have him just be a kid for a few years longer.

Ah, well. That's parenting for you.

Re:It may be time for me to make this choice soon.

The thing that's a little sad is that at eight, I've got to prepare him for the adult world. Swearing, hardcore sex, and bizarre YouTube slapping videos isn't really something I'd like to expose him to just yet. Innocence is a rarity in this day and age and I'd rather have him just be a kid for a few years longer.

No. What's tragic is that you've got an eight year old you you want to be an infant for as long as possible.

I can't understand people's views on this. Growing up isn't a tradgey of some kind. Children aren't going to lose some kind of "innosense" and "purity" at midnight of their 13th birthday. Every day you see your child learn something new, grow a little taller and generally take another step on the road to adulthood is a day you should be thankful for. Instead people lament the "loss" of their "little angels". How screwed up is that?

You know what I remember about being a kid? Wanting to grow up. Childhood is not the perfect, magical wonderland that people have convinced themselves it was. How many times did you say to yourself, "When I'm older, I'll eat all the junk food I want.", or words to that effect? Imagine the guilt trips children are put on today when their tearful parent practically mourns their passing in front of them.

Talk to your kid. Explain honestly to him that there's stuff out there that you think you influence him negatively. Be explicit. Accept that he will come across it. Accept that he will go out looking for it. Accept that this is in itself unlikely to serious negatively affect him. Tell him all this, but make it clear you'd rather he spent his time more productively.

Don't bother with censorware, because it's a solution looking for a problem. You haven't got a problem. You won't have a problem. You've got a kid. You're getting an adult. Don't try to keep a grip of the kid, because then you'll never get the adult.

common sense?

(Obligatory interstitial advertisement for common sense: I still don't see what the big deal is about porn anyway. Ask yourself: Why is it harmful to see a picture of a naked person, or even a picture of people having sex? And try to find an answer to that question that doesn't involve, "Lots of other people think so."

Ok, here's a reason: Much of it objectifies women and degrades them. I don't want my son thinking of women as sex objects, and I don't want my daughter thinking it's ok to be one.

Want another? Ever watch those dateline shows where they catch the would-be child molesters? If yes, did you notice that many of these men send the victim porn? Ever wonder why? Well, to desensitize them to sex and thus make them easier prey. Porn creates the mentality that casual sex is A-OK. Moral obligations aside, that's risky behaviour.

As a parent, it's my job to protect my children from things I deem harmful. Sex has a time and a place. But, much like other responsibilities my children will take on as they become adults, it's not something they need to be exposed to via porn. They need to be taught about sex, yes, but not exposed to the intimate details. I know that some of you will disagree with me. At the risk of sounding banal, if you aren't a parent then you really don't know anything about the subject. And if you are a parentand you allow your child to be exposed to porn, well, I am sorry for your children. I hope our children don't go to school together.

That is why I don't want my children seeing porn. Nudity (art, etc) is a bit different. The body is natural. A few years back, in my midwestern city, the most popular alternative newspaper in town had a cover with several nude female protesters on it. It was amazing how many people were offended and wrote letters expressing this. Not that we should bombard children with nudity, but if they see someone nude in a nonsexual way, I don't mind. People who do mind are sendng the wrong message to their children, that our bodies are shameful and dirty. That's going too far in the other direction and conveys wrong attitudes toward sex (hmm...just like porn).

Don't get me wrong, blocking software sucks. I hate the idea and I am not saying that it's not way too heavy handed. I wouldn't use it home even if I reasonably could. Instead I have to make sure my children know what is appropriate. But at the library, at school, etc, I don't want them to be able to get to it. Some parents don't share my view, and their children could show it to my children. Or, worse yet, an adult at the school or library could have his own reasons (see above) to show it to them. So it's with good reason they use it at institutions like this. If it means people can't get to boing boing at school, then so be it.

Has apple.com or ms web site been stupidly blocked

And the auto updater's on the computers fail.

Fine, it was full of jokes...

...but I learned a lot and made a lot of good friends as a student at Beaver College.

So to hell with the slang, and also? Howard Stern (who made it a series of jokes on his show) needs to go straight to Hell.

I imagine this will be unpopular as an opinion.

tagging and tubgirl

It all comes down to whether you want more false positives or more false negatives.

As a parent, it's tough. I don't like overzealous blocking software, but I'd rather my kid not see 'tubgirl' while researching plants for schools. It'd be nice to have more sites tagged, not just 'nudity' but more akin to the G, PG, R, soft X, XXX ratings, split seperately for 'violence', 'sex', 'mature concepts', 'political beliefs'. Then (as a parent) I can ignore the stuff that isn't a concern but still have minimal filtering of things that apply to me.

In short, it'd be nice to have software do what I already do as a parent, only in a pre-emptive way. That, in a nutshell, is what blocking software is selling.

Then again, I see no reason to filter text. If you run into a racy passage of text or a concept that is objectionable, you can easily stop reading. Words are powerful, but words can be ignored. A kid browsing ASSM via google groups may get twisted ideas, but they are consciously browsing it, by choice. That's different from instant exposure to horrific images. So just being able to filter images would work for me.

Images can be potent. One really bad image (like, again, tubgirl) can really ruin your day. As they say, there's some fucked up stuff out there. I find google 'safe search' pretty reliable in terms of filtering out 'objectionable' images. Anyone that doesn't agree that images are more potent than text, hasn't studied how the media has used single images to guide public opinion (especially regarding wars).

I think google has it right, with a light touch, but I fear the proponents of school and library filtering have to be more extreme because of the hyper-sensitive 'janet jackson' reactions to the slightest hint of wayward content that might potentially offend an easily offended person.

With ideas of the semantic web or Web2.0 tagging, it'd be nice to see an open blocking software project designed to compete with the commercial ones, that allows levels of tagging and filtering and an open process for getting removed from it.

Interestingly enough...

My school uses Smartfilter Bess Edition, and the screen caps are blocked...

Sweet delicious irony

The ad that got displayed when I viewed this article:

"Christ Centered Filtering
Internet Filtering at its Best 14 Day Free Trial. Take Control!
www.FamilyFellowship.com"

I can just picture the software saying "The power of Christ compels this website from your browser" or could I use it to filter out all the holy-roller references to Christ on websites?

High School experiences with Bess

I remember being assigned a project on the Kennedy Assassination freshman year in high school, you wouldn't believe what a pain in the ass it was trying to locate resources on the topic with Bess on our school's network. Eventually the librarian removed Bess for the rest of the class period as she was so frustrated with hearing complaints. Glad to see that to this day people still think protecting a minority from "harmful sites" is more important than the productivity of the majority.

Seeing a nude person in school harmful?

I think filtering systems are bullshit because they don't work, with plenty of false positives and false negatives. Thus, I take issue with a different part of the article. There are plenty of reasons why seeing a nude person or a person having sex could be harmful in a school environment:

- It distracts from schoolwork, the legitimate purpose of those computers.
- Generally, the majority of people who stumble upon porn didn't want to see it.
- Pornography is harmful. More specifically, addiction to pornography is definitely considered harmful. Although one look doesn't form an addiction, we still want the availability of pornography to children to be limited as much as possible to protect them from developing or feeding such an addiction, as it is well known that children are more impressionable in basically every way than adults.

Also, "a bunch of other people think so" can in fact be a good reason:
- Schools are acting "in loco parentis" to prevent students from seeing, right or wrong, what their parents don't want them to see. As a blocking solution customized to each child would be unfeasible, they block what the majority of parents (a bunch of other people...) wouldn't want their children to see.
- Porn viewing in schools is so radically against the norm that nothing more than its bizarreness, noticed by the other students, would undermine the seriousness of the academic setting and the teacher's ability to teach.

ANALysis.html

A few years ago I was presenting a group assignment - I had made a website to present the information. One page was blocked, howerver. analysis.html. Now that's what I call quality filtering...

the funny part about CIPA

THe funny part is that CIPA would be blocked content for Polish chldren, as it is an obscene terms for female genitals

Re:Doing my part

I believe this [wikipedia.org] is the list you were looking for.

Re:Doing my part

Ironically, people say the same thing every day over at Oprah.com and no one blocks HER.

-Eric

Oddly enough...not blocked.

I'm behind BESS here, and this page isn't blocked, even with all that.

Re:I call BS

Yes, but that's hardly the porn's fault. You wouldn't say the same thing about alcohol, would you?

Re:I call BS

Complete and utter Bull Shit(tm). Pornogrophy is addictive. To everybody? Of course not. But I know personally of lives and marriages ruined by porn addiction.

Addiction is not a valid concept. See Rat Park [wikipedia.org]. What you know of is people who have made their own choices. Choices they made of their own free will.

Re:What's wrong with sex/nudity

One is the correlation between the exposure to nudity/sex and increased promiscuity. That of course can lead to issues such as increased spread of STD's (which can of course be somewhat mitigated through education) and increased unintended teen pregnancies (ditto about education).

I actually recently ran across some information on this. Here's a summary quote:

In comparing the United States to similar societies, we find that American and western European adolescents become sexually active at similar ages on average; however, pregnancy, birth, and abortion rates are significantly lower among European teens, as are STI rates. (Virginity Lost, Laura M. Carpenter, NYU Press, 2005.)

The idea is that when people are more open about matters sexual (e.g. the more casual attitude taken towards nudity in Western Europe), they are also more open about the health concerns associated with them. It works the opposite way, too - young people educated in abstinence-only curricula are less likely to use/correctly use condoms when they do have sex.

Re:I call BS

Well, at least you're honest. You've thrown out the "but it's just for the poor, innocent, little children" tripe and gone straight to "it should be banned for everybody."

You've shown why the article is very poor advocacy

I have to say the article writer pissed me off quite a bit by opening the door to this topic. When you're looking for support on a moderately controversial cause, it's counterproductive to burden it with much more controversial views. It cuts down the number of people the article can be shown to and suggests that the two views have to go hand in hand.

Writers, keep in mind that persuading people who might disagree with you is very, very different from whipping up support among people who already agree with you. We need much more of the former and rather less of the latter, and the latter should not be exposed to people who disagree with you, because it is apt to insult and alienate them.

Re:What's wrong with sex/nudity

One is the correlation between the exposure to nudity/sex and increased promiscuity. That of course can lead to issues such as increased spread of STD's (which can of course be somewhat mitigated through education) and increased unintended teen pregnancies (ditto about education). So part of the question isn't necessarily "what's so harmful about watching people have sex", it's, "to mitigate the issues raised above, what age is appropriate for viewing of such material".

AFAIK there is no reason to believe that increased access to porn and/or sex in the media makes people want to have sex more. Teenagers of every society ever in existence have been having sex, whether society was open about it or not. That's what people do. There is, however, extremely strong evidence that providing sex education lowers both the rate of STD's and teen pregnancies. I would even posit that it is possible for a teenager watching porn to have less of a chance of having sex, because he/she is satisfying their curiosity and sexual desire by watching sex as opposed to actually engaging in it.