Filtering and Education

From WikEd

Note: This wiki is for use by students in EPS 415 for the development of a collaborative site on the topic of Internet Filtering. If you are not a member of the project team, please do not edit this page. We will post it as a public wiki once the project team have finalized their version.

Authors: Jamie Clausen, Anna FitzSimmons, Beau Fretueg, Laura Gowler, Sarah Hendrix, Burton Huddleston, Susan Norris

Prepared for EPS 415, Summer 2007, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Instructors: Prof. Nicholas Burbules and Jane Couture

---

Contents 1 Introduction 1.1 Terminology 1.2 What are Filters and How Do They Work? 1.3 The Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) 1.4 Intended -- and Unintended -- Consequences of Filtering 2 Filtering in a Library Setting 2.1 Public Libraries 2.2 School Libraries 2.3 Filtering Software & the Library 3 Filtering in the School Setting 3.1 History 3.2 Filtering in Schools 4 Filtering in the Workplace 5 Filtering in the Home 6 Filtering in the International Arena 7 Conclusion 8 External Sites of Interest 9 References

Introduction

Internet filtering has become an important topic in schools, libraries, the workplace, the home, and the international arena. Shouldn’t our youth be able to be protected from these web sites? Shouldn’t new technology be able to protect us from other technology? Shouldn’t we expect 100 percent effectiveness when it comes to our children? Many of the sections that are embedded within this report will address these types of questions pertaining to the issue of filtering. Specifically, this wiki will look at the different institutions that may be affected by filtering with an eye toward the efficacy of the filtering in meeting the goals of blocking out objectionable material. First, we will provide a brief description of basic terminology used throughout the wiki.

Terminology

• Content-control software, also known as censorware or web filtering software; Parental control software: A special browser or filtering program designed to reject web sites not suited for children. Such programs may screen pages by word content, site rating or by URL, using an updated database of objectionable sites, or any combination of these techniques.[1]
• Censorware: Software that blocks certain types of Internet traffic from being retrieved.[2]
• Web filtering, also referred to as content filter or content control: Blocking access to unwanted Internet content. Businesses can block content based on traffic type. For example, Web access might be allowed, but file transfers may not. Content can also be blocked by site, using lists of URLs cataloged by content that are updated frequently. Parents can restrict their children's access with special browsers and filtering programs. For the anti-censoring, opposing view, visit The Censorware Project.
• Internet monitoring: Analyzing traffic on the Internet. Monitoring is performed to determine packet volume for network configuration as well as to find out how employees are spending their time on the Internet. This is the first step in determining whether or not filtering should be added to the network.[3]
• Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA): The Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) is a federal law enacted by Congress in December 2000 to address concerns about access to offensive content over the Internet on school and library computers.[4]
• “E-rate” program (under CIPA): A program that makes certain technology more affordable for eligible schools and libraries. In early 2001, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued rules implementing CIPA.[5]

What are Filters and How Do They Work?

Internet filters are designed so that “the 'good' is allowed in and the 'bad' is kept out.”[6] In theory, filters are supposed to block objectionable materials so that children are not exposed to obviously inappropriate material. The various filters utilize different methods to “block out” necessary, and in some cases unnecessary, information depending on the filter’s capability as well as the users’ preferences. A few common elements among filters are as follows:

• Blacklists

Filter developers create blacklists which are files categorically listing all web sites that should not be accessible to anyone using that particular filtering software. The software will look at each site and decide whether or not it is offensive in nature. It is then placed into one or more categories, such as "Profanity," "Full Nudity," "Drug Use," "Violence," etc. These categories will be different for each filtering product. Sometimes the pages are put on the blacklist if their domain name contains certain keywords like "sex" or "xxx." By using keywords to place sites on the blacklist, it eliminates time in looking at each page. An unintended consequence of implementing blacklists is that the filter may block a perfectly safe and educational page simply because of a keyword that results in the page being blocked.

With the exception of only two commercial filters, none of the filter vendors publish their blacklists. Users are therefore not able to see which pages are actually being blocked. However, most products do allow you to edit the list giving the customer limited control.

• Keyword Blocking

Software developers create a list of objectionable words to prevent a page from loading if the page contains any of the words within the keyword list. The problem with this method is that keywords give no context behind the words. This method blocks many pages that should not be blocked at all. For example, the word “breast” might be offensive on some web pages, but it can also block a student from visiting a site about breast cancer.

Keyword blocking leads to many sites about health, religion, and sex education being blocked from students, potentially impeding educational research.

• Whitelists

These are similar to blacklists except they comprise a list of pages that can be seen. Some products only have a whitelist giving the customer a very limited view of the Internet, but it is very close to 100% effective in blocking all pornography and other offensive material. Again, the whitelist may or may not be published for the customer to view, but usually the customer can edit this list to add or delete certain sites.

The Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA)

Since objectionable sites are of serious concern, it is hardly surprising that major federal legislation occurred in relation to school filtering with the introduction of the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA). CIPA was enacted by Congress in December 2000 to address concerns about access to offensive content over the Internet on school and library computers. CIPA imposes certain types of requirements on any school or library that receives funding support for Internet access or internal connections from the “E-rate” program – a program that makes certain technology more affordable for eligible schools and libraries. In early 2001, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued rules implementing CIPA.

CIPA requires that:

• Schools and libraries subject to CIPA may not receive the discounts offered by the E-Rate program unless they certify that they have an Internet safety policy and technology protection measures in place. An Internet safety policy must include technology protection measures to block or filter Internet access to pictures that: (a) are obscene, (b) are child pornography, or (c) are harmful to minors, for computers that are accessed by minors;
• Schools subject to CIPA are required to adopt and enforce a policy to monitor online activities of minors;
• Schools and libraries subject to CIPA are required to adopt and implement a policy addressing: (a) access by minors to inappropriate matter on the Internet, (b) the safety and security of minors when using electronic mail, chat rooms, and other forms of direct electronic communications, (c) unauthorized access, including so-called “hacking,” and other unlawful activities by minors online, (d) unauthorized disclosure, use, and dissemination of personal information regarding minors, and (e) restricting minors’ access to materials harmful to them.[7]

The Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) targets three types of visual depictions: obscenity, child pornography, or in the case of minors, content that is “harmful to minors.” Under CIPA, every school that receives certain federal funds or discounts must install a technology protection measure such as Internet blocking software to block student access to these types of images. The definitions of these categories are very specific and limited, guided by court precedent. Through the implementation of CIPA many school districts have installed filters within their school network systems that target these types of depictions as stated in the requirements of CIPA. CIPA has allowed schools to keep their students protected from objectionable material. It also has its limitations as well and has become a very controversial issue. With the introduction of these requirements, schools have found that the filters often "filter" out information that does not correspond with CIPA's original content requirements. It has been found that filters often do not work as they originally were proposed and therefore are not fulfilling their purpose. This issue in filtering will be discussed in more detail in a later section of this wiki.

Other issues have also surfaced in connection to the requirements that CIPA places on schools and libraries. CIPA has had major effects on the use of filtering in schools but it also became the focus of many that believe that the law is non-constitutional in right. Some fought that CIPA violated the First Amendment because it blocked information that was not questionable in manner such as health information. Many looked upon it as censorship at its highest.

"The importance of the First Amendment," Judith F. Krug, director of the Office for Intellectual Freedom at the American Library Association, said, "is that it provides us with the ability to govern ourselves, because it guarantees that you have the right to access information. The filters (and CIPA) undercut that ability." [8]

Although there has been debate on whether or not the act is constitutional, in June 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld CIPA, overturning an earlier court ruling that had prevented the law from taking effect in libraries. In United States v. American Library Association, the court ruled that CIPA does not violate the First Amendment, even though it may block some legitimate sites, because libraries and schools may disable the filters for adult patrons upon request.

CIPA demonstrated just how controversial filters are to society and reflected the views that many have on the First Amendment. It has become a very social, political, and technological issue among our schools and libraries. The truth is that filters are not perfect and their ability to protect our students is not 100 percent effective. It is agreed by experts that filters are not fully capable of protecting our youth, which is one of the main components that CIPA stands for.

In the 2006 article “Do Web filters protect your Children?”, it was stated that "They're (filters) not perfect, and it's hard to see how they ever really would be," said Amanda Lenhardt, a researcher at the Pew Internet and American Life Project. "But they are relatively effective. They do a reasonably good job." The Consumers Union, which publishes Consumer Reports, agrees. The company re-evaluated 11 products, concluding that filtering software has improved since a previous report in 2001 but that the products are "still fallible."[9]

In conclusion, CIPA links funding with filtering with regard to public libraries and schools without concern for the efficacy of filters. While some libraries, including the American Library Association, are strongly against censorship of any form, including Internet filtering, the federal legislation, as well as state-specific legislation, can make it very difficult to forego filters.

Intended -- and Unintended -- Consequences of Filtering

Through the use of filtering, objectionable material is to be kept out. But, do filters work? Are they effective? Certainly, filters do "work" and achieve the goal of blocking objectionable material to some degree. Pornographic sites can be effectively blocked. However, one of the biggest unintended consequences is the ability of the filter to block out certain sites that have no damaging effects on the students using them. Through the use of “blacklists,” “keyword blocking,” and “whitelists,” the filtering system potentially has the ability to refuse information to not only students but all people. In essence the filter is “taking the good with the bad.” One report documents “how the widespread use of filters limits the free exchange of ideas necessary in a healthy democracy. Despite some manufacturers' claims of improved technology, filters still must operate by 'keywords,' and they block massive amounts of valuable information about politics, religion, public health, and myriad other subjects. The report analyzes almost 100 tests and studies of filtering products, and has hundreds of examples of egregious overblocking.”[10] This has led many schools, libraries, students and teachers to question the effectiveness of the filters because overblocking is extremely problematic and the standards for what should be blcoked are too subjective. Who draws the lines and where?

Callister and Burbules (2004) state that Internet filters “are indiscriminate and often arbitrary, and they bypass public deliberation about what should and should not be filtered. The decisions are placed in the hands of unknown and unaccountable programmers, who develop their own criteria and automated procedures. From the standpoint of public education, this system inevitably leads to abuses and anti-educational effects.”[11]

These censorware programs still do not keep students from visiting sites that are attempting to be blocked. Students can and do find ways to get around the software. One example is a censorware manufacturer, WebSENSE, that publishes a list of pornographic sites that are not blocked by their competitors in order to show the superiority of their product. Students whose school districts use the stated protection programs need only to view this list to gain access to these sites. In addition, web sites, such as Peacefire, give explicit directions on how to surpass almost any type of filtering software installed on a school's computer.

“They sweep too broadly, blocking only some sites with indecent materials while restricting access to thousands of legal and useful resources, and failing to block communications sent through e-mail, chat rooms, non-Web sources, peer-to-peer exchanges, and streaming video—now popular modes for distributing pornography. Filters are cumbersome to disable and to override. They do not reflect library selection criteria, nor do they block the images cited by CIPA as obscene, child pornography, or harmful to minors. They are costly to purchase and maintain.”[12]

One student doing online research for his senior class project stated, "About half the sites I try to access for research on any given topic are blocked, many of them the most useful," he said. "What's the use of technology if we can't use it?"[13]

It is clear that filtering is a controversial issue to many schools and libraries. Decisions on how to filter the Internet need to be discussed and brought to public discussion. The public needs to be able to be educated on such topics as filtering and be able to create their own opinions about how filtering technology can benefit the communities they live in. Stakeholders will have to be able to make these critical decision based on the demographics, culture, beliefs, and ideals of their communities. Education will be key in allowing stakeholders the information and awareness that they will need to be able to discuss this issue in great detail.

“It's time to bring the process of Internet filtering out in the open. Decisions about what types of content to block are based on vague descriptions of options. Some categories are ill-defined ('gross' or 'tasteless'), some well-intentioned but overly broad ('tobacco' or 'violence'), and still others look like catchalls for those with an ideological agenda ('lifestyle'). Filtering vendors cite proprietary rights and competitive reasons for protecting details about how and what they block. But this secretiveness needs to be abandoned; a public mandate necessitates a public right to know.”[14]

“Internet filters are coming to your town and mine. Those putting them into effect need accurate information about how filters work, and a community consensus about the implications of each decision.” [15]

With the barrage of Internet site blocking programs, or censorware, being installed in schools after the passing of Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA), questions arise about the censorship and the First Amendment rights of the students. The spirit of the legislation is that these programs will help protect students from viewing sites that contain “obscene” or “offensive” material. Sites that contain pornography and student cheating top the list. Yet, in practice, other sites are, indeed, blocked. There is no question that for schools there is not a one size filter that fits all. It is clear that the schools and communities involved should have a voice in determining the effects of the filters that they use. The decision should not be left up to a programmer or a federal mandate.

As the Internet has evolved to include various communities, such as MySpace and Facebook, students use these sites to communicate with each other on a regular basis. The content on these sites are generated by the users and little restriction is used to block certain content. Students using these sites can be exposed to various levels of pornographic photography and hate speech because of the freedom used by their operators. Should these sites be blocked because of this potential?

New cellular technologies have given way for students to circumnavigate school filtering initiatives. Cellphones, like the iPhone, allow complete access to the Internet through their wireless provider. The iPhone comes with no filtering software installed and AT&T, the wireless service provider, offers limited filtering that can be set up via their web site. With the growth of ubiquitous technologies, how can parents and schools truly restrict student access to the Internet? As many know, students that want to get around the filtering restrictions are able to do so quite easily. There are major issues in the prevention of appropriate material being blocked because of the imperfect nature of filtering. How do we protect our children from encountering obscene material and at the same time allow access that will enhance their education? It has often been found that the public does not have a say in what should be filtered within our community and school’s Internet system.

Depending on the beliefs and attributes a community possesses, a decision has to be made by that community and the school how to best defend their students from the Internet. Awareness has to be a top priority for our students. The best filter of them all will be our ability to teach and educate students in the dangers and advantages the Internet has to offer. Education will be the path of least destruction when it comes to the effects of the Internet. Either way, the decision needs to involve those that it affects. Stakeholders as well as parents will also need to be educated in the effects of filtering and the Internet. The decision of filtering needs to be placed upon those that are familiar with "the way of life" of a particular community. A topic that may be offensive to one school and to one community may not be offensive to another.

It is for this reason that it will be a priority that the local community should be able to decide on what should be filtered in its local libraries and schools. A dialogue needs to be created in order for an understanding to be created among community members. Unfortunately, the filters are far from perfect. They may work in the sense that they block sites, but the filters do not work exactly as conceived. This, in turn, creates a challenge for those deciding on how to best use filters in their communities. Hence, it will be more imporant for communities to convene and discuss the implications of filtering in their schools, libraries, homes, and workplaces. It will be their responsibility to make their communities and community members safer from the dangers of the Internet.

Filtering in a Library Setting

Public Libraries

“Nearly 40% of all public libraries filter their public access Internet connectivity in some way, thus limiting access to a variety of Internet-based content and services” (Jaeger et al, 2006). In A Practical Guide to Internet Filters, Karen G. Schneider describes filters as “mechanical tools wrapped around subjective judgment.” In her book, Schneider describes in detail the different aspects of filters including types of blocking, types of software, and potential filter features.

To evaluate the topic of filtering in public libraries, three areas have been researched and discussed: social and cultural changes that are encouraging the use of filters, new digital technologies effecting filtering and being affected by filtering, and educational opportunities and challenges resulting from filtering.

A primary cultural change that is encouraging the use of filters is the way the Internet has become a convenient and effective platform for free speech and disseminating information. As a result, it is difficult for anyone (government, librarians, and educators) to keep track of or catalog what is available online.

An additional social aspect is the idea of distinguishing what is considered appropriate information for children and then what is considered appropriate for adults. For example, this idea is played out in movie ratings, video game ratings, television show ratings, and more recently, web rating systems.

Determining what is appropriate for children stems from the social expectation of adults being responsible for children. Public libraries are in a prime position to have this social expectation inflicted on them. What is the ethical duty of the public library? According to Wyatt, some “minimal monitoring” of patrons’ Internet usage must be performed to prevent illegal activities and the inadvertent exposure of children to pornography. The library is responsible for making information accessible to the community and being a guide and resource to all patrons; from a parent’s perspective, the library also has a responsibility to the community and its children to provide a safe place for children. Unfortunately, according to Gottschalk, librarians are no longer trusted as the “gatekeepers” of information.[16]

Finally, there is the idea of strict government control of government funds.

One digital technology to consider in this topic of Internet filtering is the increase of social networking, such as MySpace, Facebook, etc. The increasing use of these social networking tools, used by minors as well as adults, also increases the risk of online predators doing harm in these arenas.

A digital technology that is being affected by Internet filtering is online resources used for academic research and self-education. Numerous free, beneficial online resources are available and being created for use on the Internet. Because of enforcement of filtering, the creators of these new resources are aware of the possibilities of not reaching students and self-educators in public libraries. In this instance, filters are potentially detrimental to the success of these companies and their resources, which can be beneficial in an educational setting. According to a report by Ben Edelman, some examples of informational sites being blocked by various Internet filters include a few articles from Salon.com, Go Ask Alice!, and Urban Legends Reference Pages.[17] This issue is discussed in more detail in the section below called Filtering Software & the Library.

Of course, the new technology of filtering software is being affected positively by the demands for Internet filtering. The industry is being forced to improve the quality of filtering products, providing more control and flexibility to public libraries and decreasing the chances of underblocking and overblocking.

Regarding education in public libraries, it seems there are more challenges than opportunities involved when discussing the filtering of the Internet. One possible educational opportunity that can result from Internet filtering in public libraries is the idea that a librarian can spend more time educating and training patrons to use other types of information resources such as books, journals, and even paid subscriptions to online resources. For example, a librarian can spend more one-on-one time with reader's advisory, helping patrons find books and journals that meet their research and personal needs. Public libraries have online catalogs, online journals, and even online databases that help a patron find articles about specific subjects. Though these resources are sometimes easy to learn and maneuver, patrons need to be trained to construct effective searches.

One challenge involves the traditional ideas of the digital divide and intellectual freedom; that is, if a patron does not have a computer or Internet access at home, he or she is limited to using a computer and Internet at the local public library, which is in turn potentially limited by the use of Internet filters. Intellectual freedom and equity of access is at the core of library services; because of potential information blocks, the use of filters in a public library risks censorship of information.

As mentioned in the section on new digital technologies, online publishers are challenged in their efforts to disseminate information for educational purposes.

The use of filters in public libraries hampers the librarian’s ability to educate and train patrons in the area of evaluating web sites and resources found online. In order to effectively use the Internet to one’s advantage, one must be taught how to properly find useful information. Filters can erase the visible need for such education and/or drastically change the focus of patron training in regards to web sites and other online resources.

Due to the issues of efficiency of current Internet filtering software, a patron’s self-education is debilitated, limiting his or her ability to extract all the information needed.

Finally, because of the filtering restrictions placed on federal funding, public libraries may be forced to make decisions sacrificing patrons’ educations and abilities to find information in order to maintain Internet connectivity. Though there is the possibility of using local and state funding for computers and maintaining Internet connectivity without the mandated use of filters, some state and local governments are requiring that filters be used in public libraries.

School Libraries

Currently, 21 states have laws on Internet filtering that apply to school and public libraries. The laws generally require public libraries and schools to adopt Internet usage policies to prevent children from accessing inappropriate material. Some state laws even require the use of censorware or filters in these libraries.[18]

In 2000, the United States Congress enacted federal legislation, the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA). CIPA imposes specific requirements on schools or libraries that receive funding for Internet access from the “E-rate” program.

In June 2003, in the United States v. American Library Association (ALA), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the federal CIPA law, saying it does not violate the First Amendment. The reasoning was that some legitimate sites may be blocked, but libraries could disable the filters as needed.[19]

Filtering Software & the Library

Paul Smith, ALA counsel in the 2003 United States v. American Library Association case, criticized the use of filtering technology, arguing that the filters are “blunt instruments that block not only porn, but family planning and sex education material as well.”[20]

One of the basic tenets of the Library Bill of Rights is that "Libraries should use technology to enhance, not deny, access to information."[21] Libraries are to focus on equity of access. Specifically, with regard to concerns of children accessing inappropriate materials electronically, the Library Bill of Rights believes it is the duties of the parents, not the institution of a library, to provide such guidance.

Filtering software may restrict access to relevant web sites that are flagged for having "objectionable" words such as sites related to breast cancer. Often, filtering software does not get rid of all "objectionable" materials and fails to block many controversial issues. In other words, as also discussed in the Public Librariessection above, the software can restrict access to educational sites and fail to block objectionable sites. Ultimately, filters – or the third parties who create the filters – make the decision of appropriate versus inappropriate without input from librarians or teachers and does not allow for the instruction on web site evaluation.[22] Burbules et al. discuss how there are multiple divides in the digital arena, sometimes referred to as digital inequalities. In addition to access to technology, there are questions on whether there are meaningful opportunities for students to interact with the technology effectively. It is difficult to teach children about proper use or selecting appropriate web sites when a filter is utilized, which dilutes the ability for the child to have meaningful opportunities (Burbules, Callister, Taaffee, 2006).

Filtering in the School Setting

History

In a study entitled “Internet Blocking in Public Schools,” it was stated that “The issue of the effectiveness and societal implications of Internet blocking or filtering software in schools deserves the attention of students, parents, teachers, administrators, school board members, and legislators to help ensure the best possible educational opportunities for students in U.S. schools. As the Internet grows, determining which web pages contain content for which the government may legitimately require schools to block becomes more complex and difficult. The immense size and variability of the Internet raises concerns as to whether it is possible to limit Internet blocking only to web pages containing legally “blockable” content.”[23]

With the introduction of the Internet, technology has explicitly been accessible to many people around the globe. These people range in ethnicities, cultures, races, genders, age, etc. The information placed on the Internet is accessible to each one of these groups regardless of their likes, comforts, and dislikes. The same information that is given to a 25-year-old graduate student can be found by a 9-year-old student at the local elementary school or library. It is for this reason that many felt as though the Internet needed to be “filtered” in order to protect those that have Internet access. This protection ran deep into the schools of our nations and other nations. A major focus on filtering entered the hallways of elementary schools and high schools in order to “protect” our students from material on the Internet that consisted of questionable material.

With the abundance of technology out on the Internet, it is safe to assume that more and more students are using the Internet in their school responsibilities, and therefore, more schools are offering more technology to their students. With this advance in technology, schools have become more aware of the need to monitor student access and movement throughout the Internet.

The National Center for Education Statistics study “Internet Access in U.S. Public Schools 1994-2001” showed that: In fall 2001, 99 percent of public schools in the United States had access to the Internet. When NCES first started estimating Internet access in schools in 1994, 35 percent of public schools had access.

Public schools have made consistent progress in expanding Internet access in instructional rooms, from 3 percent in 1994 to 77 percent in 2000 and 87 percent in 2001.

In 2001, almost all public schools with Internet access (96 percent) used various technologies or procedures to control student access to inappropriate material on the Internet. Across all types of schools, between 92 and 99 percent reported using these technologies or procedures. In addition, 98 percent of these schools used at least one of these technologies or procedures on all Internet-connected computers used by students.

Among schools using technologies or procedures to prevent student access to inappropriate material on the Internet, 91 percent reported that teachers or other staff members monitored student Internet access. Eighty-seven percent used blocking or filtering software, 80 percent had a written contract that parents have to sign, 75 percent had a contract that students have to sign, 46 percent used monitoring software, 44 percent had honor codes, and 26 percent used their intranet. As these numbers suggest, most of the schools (96 percent) used more than one procedure or technology as part of their Internet use policy.[24]

In the mid 1990’s software companies began releasing Internet filtering utilities. These utilities range from simple programs that block particular URLs to complex packages that limit all online activities (chat, e-mail, file downloading, browsing, newsgroups, etc.), time spent browsing, and even keep records of online activity.

Some of the first filtering utilities available were Cyber Patrol by Microsystems Software, CYBERsitter by Solid Oak Software, NetNanny shareware, and SurfWatch by SurfWatch Software.

With the introduction of these filtering softwares came a storm of debate on whether or not filters were constitutional. Censorship of web sites and information became the focus of many lawful debates and legislation. Lawful debates and legislation still concern the world of education today. Filtering software came under the premise that they would protect certain people from certain sites and information that was deemed questionable in nature.

Callister and Burbules state, “ONE OF THE MOST controversial and contentious issues surrounding the use of new information and communication technologies, especially in schools and libraries, is whether or not authorities should filter students' access to the Internet.”[25]

The filtering of the Internet has indeed become a controversial topic within today’s society and it has brought many people together in order to discuss and decide on how Internet filtering would work within our schools. In this respect it has also left a lot of people out of this powerful discussion. Many of these decisions that have had a major impact on filtering, through the years, have been made through the legislative process without the input from those that use the filtering systems.

Filtering in Schools

The Internet is a relatively new phenomenon that continues to be a controversial topic. Filtering is one of the divisive issues when it comes to information provided on the web. The effects of filtering are still being analyzed; at this point there are many apparent outcomes and various unintended consequences. High school students use the Internet for many educational purposes and filtering reduces the amount of information that can be provided to them. For many educators, filtering closes doors that were opened when the web was created. The most detrimental effect of filtering in high schools is the deliberate disregard of Americans' constitutional and legal rights. Free speech is censored and not all information is presented to the viewer due to filters. Topics on history, art and health are among the educational subject matters that are not available to students for fear that negative images and writing will arise. This type of filtering damages the students’ educational opportunities, the student is unaware of what there is to see and learn. For many schools, the decision to not filter ends in a loss or reduction in funding. The unintended consequence of filtering in high schools is that when software aims to filter “bad” information, “good” information is also filtered.

The pros and cons of filtering can be debated, but what is more important is what filtering does in the educational context. Is filtering a democratic ideal? Filtering is censorship in a public place and defies the democratic system. If software created by some company decides for our students and teachers what they can and cannot view, are we as educators creating an environment that is intellectually meaningful for young people? If we choose to filter the Internet, then aren't we expecting our students and teachers to learn through conformity and duty rather than their own self discoveries? Students that research topics on their own and are provided with all information possible on the web can believe in their work and adequately evaluate it.

Filtering reveals a lot about our schools and our society. Filtering is a people problem, not an Internet problem. Those that prefer filters in schools feel a false sense of security that their student is being sheltered from the hate, pornography, and violence that is available on the web. The idea is that if a student cannot access it, they can’t discover it. The greater issue here is how we can teach our students to understand and deal with the banned sites rather than hiding the sites from them. Adolescents are prone to risk-taking behavior; an unspoken taboo might make them more curious, when in reality most students would have little interest in them to begin with. High schools should spend the money on sex education and media literacy classes instead of filters that students can maneuver around. Through education, students can be their own filters and be able to open a new world of research opportunities.

There are many student activist groups forming around the nation to protest filtering on the Internet. The argument is why have the technology if you cannot use it properly? One student in particular, Stefan Georg, is a high school student who won a scholarship from the American Civil Liberties Union for being a youth activist in defense of civil liberties. Georg created a web site that allowed his fellow students to get around the filtering programs. His web site went beyond his school to students nationwide, allowing them to find information on sex education, health issues, and drugs. The reality is that our students are being rewarded for their efforts to get around filters. There are many web sites dedicated to disabling blocking software, such as Peacefire. Not only does this web site give multiple solutions to web blocking, but it has a page dedicated to why it was created.

The global impacts of filtering are vast. Students discovering the world through the Internet are educating themselves far beyond previous generations. Students and teachers learning about globalization has led them to think critically about the world, to question their role in the "global village". The Internet has the potential to help the "haves" learn about the world beyond their own and to connect with the "have nots" to broaden their culture and society. This has led students to grow as members of a community that can think for themselves, to view the world through a different lens. According to Zembylas and Vrasidas, the Internet has eliminated geographic borders, hate, religious and ethnic differences, and united people together.

Many teachers are creating projects and taking advantage of web sites that promote students interacting with one another as pen pals, in blogs, or becoming members of activist groups. Filtering can only hinder this growth. As a community, we need to ask ourselves what is the best course of action for our students. What do we want our students to learn from their time spent on the Internet? How to shop or look up sports scores? A better proposal is to teach them to be active members in a global community. Encourage the star basketball player to interact with the boy his same age sewing his shoes. Persuade the young girls in our schools who are students, athletes, and involved in school groups to interact with other young girls around the world who are married, have children, and work all day and night. How would this impact our society? We might live in a world where our students concentrate more on philanthropy than PlayStation. Instead of fighting the negative on the Internet, focusing on the educational values can only create a constructive world for our future students.

Filtering in the Workplace

As technology infiltrates every aspect of daily life, it comes as no surprise that the use of technology within the workplace is of great interest to both employers and employees. In fact, it is fairly common for a place of employment to filter/monitor the employees. This type of filtering differs from filtering/monitoring in schools and libraries, because the employer filters web sites for adults in order to ensure work time is being used appropriately and that technology is not being used inappropriately. Nonetheless, it merits a discussion.

There are several issues of concern for employers such as technology use for work vs. for personal reason, efficiency of employee time in relation to technology use, appropriateness of technology use, and data security to name a few. To address these issues, employers have turned to various means of filtering and censorship as applied to technology.

Technology’s impact is more complex than simply changing the way the workplace works. The changes are impacting the social and cultural aspects of the workplace in many ways which can be divided into two main categories: changing the interpersonal process by which work occurs and changing how personal time versus work time is defined.

The use of filtering or censoring technology, and therefore changing the interpersonal processes by which work occurs, is not uncommon in business. As technology becomes more accessible within the workplace, employers want to make sure that their employees are using technology appropriately. Numerous software companies offer filtering software to limit employee technology use such as reading emails, reading inter-office messages, recording phone calls, keeping track of Internet access, etc. Some employers have gone to extreme measures to censor technology-based communication such as blocking outside (non-company) emails, messages, or phone calls and even preventing Internet access except to company sites. Some employers are more lenient, using minimal filtering software to limit Internet access such as videos or music and requesting employees to use discretion in regards to outside emails, messages, or phone calls.

In an article posted on NetworkWorld.com, according to the firm Robert Half Technology, “more than three-quarters (78%) of some 1,400 CIOs polled by said they have either installed content-filtering or blocking software, instituted policies that detail acceptable Web browsing or have done a combination of both. About 40% of CIOs polled reported combining corporate policy with software that blocks certain content from employees.”[26]

Twenty-seven percent of the companies have a written corporate policy regarding acceptable Internet use for employees. Nearly 15 percent of the companies polled have filtering software in use to limit specific Internet sites and/or content. A minority of 17 percent of companies have no Internet limitations for employees while 4 percent of the companies have no Internet access at all for their employees. When explaining the purpose for filtering Internet access of employees, the companies included statements such as “preventing access to inappropriate content for 75% and preventing virus attacks and malware downloads for another 71%.”[27]

As stated by Katherine Spencer Lee, executive director of Robert Half Technology, in a press release, "All companies should have a corporate policy in place that outlines acceptable Web use by employees…Communicating and explaining Web access policies, along with the risks associated with Web browsing helps employees understand why these guidelines are in place."[28]

Not only are employers filtering and limiting technology use of their employees, many businesses are actually using technology to their advantage to monitor their employees’, down to their every move. Many employers enact the “Big Brother” concept, an idea in which there is always some form of monitoring of time, behavior, resources, etc. According to an article posted by the American Management Association, citing excerpts taken from Frederick Lane's THE NAKED EMPLOYEE: How Technology is Compromising Workplace Privacy, the following are examples of employers checking up on and monitoring their employees’ behaviors, technological or not, through various monitoring or filtering technologies.

• According to the U.S. Department of Labor, about one-third of the nation’s nearly 40,000 private investigators work for corporate employers. In addition to using Web search engines like Google to do background checks, some corporate PIs excel at “social engineering.” By worming information out of customer service departments and other trusted contacts, PIs obtain confidential data—including credit card, phone, and medical records—on unsuspecting employees.

• A recent privacy poll found that 81 percent of the public believe employers have no right to monitor phone calls at work. However, employers do have a right to monitor phone calls as long as it is within “the ordinary course of business.” A 2001 survey by American Management Association estimated that 12 percent of major U.S. corporations periodically record and review telephone calls, 8 percent store and review voice mail messages and 43 percent monitor the amount of time employees spend on the phone and check the numbers that have been dialed.

• Employees like to think of the bathroom as a scrutiny-free zone. But Net/Tech International, Inc., a New Jersey-based company, has invaded this last bastion of privacy, at least for food service and health care workers, with its Hygiene Guard system. Installed in employee restrooms, it uses sensors on soap dispensers and faucets to make sure workers adhere to proper hygiene. If an employee fails to wash up, his badge may start flashing—as a black mark goes directly into his file on the main computer.

• A software program called Investigator, which has sold more than 200,000 copies, allows employers to monitor every single keystroke an employee makes. It also maintains a record of dialogue boxes and takes periodic screen shots of what’s being displayed on the computer. If the PC is equipped with a Web cam, the program can also be configured to take secret photos of the computer user (Lane, 2003).

This type of monitoring and filtering by employers obviously changes the atmosphere within a workplace—employees often feel their personal rights and privacy have been violated, plus there is a constant fear of making a mistake while being monitored, possibly resulting in termination of the employee’s job.

As part of the article previously noted on NetworkWorld.com over 60 percent of the companies polled stated that preventing employees from “wasting time at work” was also a motivation for use of filtering. It is a generally accepted idea that technology allows more work to be completed in a shorter amount of time. Therefore, since technology advancements allow employers to monitor, filter, and censor the use of technology by their employees, many businesses are actually increasing the amount of technology used within the workplace.

According to GHK's Mitchell Cohen, a “variety of workplace technologies have, in the last decade, had a significant impact on how offices are configured and designed and how people work. Let’s take, for example, laptops, PDAs and cell phones. These devices have supported the 24/7/365 mantra of the technology worker, which has spilled over into other industries and has set new standards for accessibility and flexibility.”[29] Technology has shifted the social and cultural standards by which the workplace functions. Instead of working a standard business day between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., technology now makes employees accessible to work literally around the clock every day of the year.

Technology has also allowed the traditional business to expand beyond the building. Cohen argues that “The increased access derived from these [technological] devices has expanded the mobility of the workforce. No longer is one required to be physically present at an assigned office, desk or workstation to answer calls, send and receive data or complete work.”[30] Employees now work from their homes, from their cars, from hotels half-way across the globe, etc. all because technology makes them more accessible.

Cohen does heed warning to employers that such accessibility must find balance between “the desire for flexibility and reliance on electronic communication with the need to retain and promote the company’s culture through face-to-face interaction with one’s peers. The mobility derived from technology facilitates speed and accessibility to clients, but is not a substitute for the camaraderie, loyalty and continuous implementation of best practices that come with accessibility to one’s colleagues.”[31] No longer do employees chat around the water cooler, rather they send email, text-messages, and use video conferencing.

Many companies provide their employees with the technological devices which make their out-of-office work possible, such as laptop computers, PDA’s, cell phones or smart phones, WiFi Internet connections, video conferencing, etc. Therefore, the previously discussed issues regarding filtering and censorship as well as monitoring apply. However, such an accessible approach to technology in the workplace brings new issues of concern such as loss or theft of technology hardware and employee technology addictions.

According to the web site Suits in the WorkPlace, a site discussing legal issues within the workplace, written by Lou Michels and Rod Satterwhite, who are partners in the Labor & Employment group at McGuireWoods LLP, “the latest intersection of workplace technology and employment law has resulted in the termination of an employee whose laptop was stolen when he left it unattended.” In this case, the employee was working out of the office and though it is unclear whether or not the computer hardware was owned by the company, the information within, most certainly belonged to the company. The information on the hard drive “contained the names, Social Security numbers, home addresses, phone numbers and birth dates, and (for some) salary information of 382,000 other employees.” Michels and Satterwhite argue that the termination is inconsistent as “a brief walk down the halls in many corporate offices still reveals that laptops, desktops, PDA’s and even visible passwords on sticky notes are left unattended day in and day out.” Situations like these, either in or out of the office, where company information is left vulnerable due to the inappropriate precautions by employees is one legitimate reason for employers to monitor closely how their employees use technology.

A more recent and shockingly increasing issue brought up through the increased accessibility of technology within the workplace is employee addiction to technology. According to Jay Akasie's article, "Addiction to BlackBerries May Bring on Lawsuits (New York Sun, 9/7/06)," regarding a study conducted by professor Gayle Porter at the Rutgers School of Business, employees are becoming addicted to their BlackBerries. The study argues that employees will file suits against their employers because “people get caught up in the fast-paced world of technology and are therefore unable to truly relax.”[32] Porter states "If companies develop a culture in which people are expected to be available 24 hours a day, then they should be prepared for the physical and psychological consequences…Addicts exhibit extreme behavior and have no control over themselves. So a corporation handing someone a BlackBerry on his first day of work could be seen as enabling, even accelerating, a serious addiction to technology."[33] Such legal suits are not likely to be successful as according to the American Disability Act, 42 U.S.C.§12101(2), a disability has to be a condition that "substantially limits one or more of [an employee's] major life activities.” In turn, "major life activities" are defined as basic functions such as “caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning and working.” Workaholic tendencies existed long before the BlackBerry, long before “technology” as it is known today. While employers do expect more work from their employees through the facilitation of technology, technology cannot be blamed for problems which lie within the user.

While it is not uncommon to observe employees regularly checking email or text messages, ear glued to their cell phones, surfing the Web, the ultimate issue regarding employee use of technology relates to the fine line between using technology for personal versus work during work hours or using work hardware/software.

Filtering in the Home

Home filtering is the use of software or filtering services to block unwanted or inappropriate materials on the Internet from younger viewers within the home. Choosing whether or not to use filters in the home is different than the decision to filter in a public institution (e.g., library or school) or workplace; it is a personal decision and one that each parent can make for their family based on their own beliefs. "Filters are just fine for parents to use at home," said Judith F. Krug, director of the Office for Intellectual Freedom at the American Library Association. "They are not appropriate for institutions that might be the only place where kids can get this information."[34] There are many factors when considering whether or not filtering is desirable in the home. Factors like online predators and access to pornography will help shape a parent's decision. In fact, one in four U.S. teen girls reported that they met strangers on the Internet; one in seven boys admitted they did as well. While most of these “Internet friends” turn out to be another teen or preteen, that’s not always the case. Unfortunately, children are now dying at the hands of their Internet child molesters and not all of the sexual exploitation of children is occurring offline.[35] Online predators loiter in chat rooms, dispatch pornographic spam and might try to lure youngsters to in-person meetings. On the surface, it may seem filtering is vital to protecting our children. In practice, it is important to realize that no filter is ever 100 percent effective, and most are far less reliable. Filters may block access to some unwanted sites but fail to block others and also inadvertantly block many educational sites.

Communication, namely a discussion on how to use the Internet safely and effectively, is the key to protect your family when using the Internet. Software can be an important tool in protecting kids from online predators. (For starters, check out your Internet provider; AOL and MSN, especially with their latest software releases, deserve kudos for enhanced parental controls.) But child safety mostly takes common sense and plenty of parent-child communication.

Parents need to take an active role even when filtering software is being used. It is a good idea to periodically revisit the following tips, culled from conversations over the years with online child-safety experts: Know what your kids are doing. Screen the sites your children visit. Often the kids know more about computing than you do, so have them show you around. Place the computer in the family room, kitchen or other highly visible place, rather than letting kids go off by themselves in a bedroom. You may want to forbid use of a Web cam. Get to know their buddy lists and, if necessary, restrict correspondence to those pals. Tell kids to keep personal information private. This goes beyond such obvious stuff as name, password, phone number and address. Never have them give out where you work, where siblings go to school, what they want to buy, etc. Make sure the children's screen names aren't too risqué and don't reveal personal details. Pedophiles can track down kids with even a few innocuous snippets of information. Warn kids that people aren't always what they seem. If someone starts asking personal questions or makes children feel unsafe or funny, have them log off immediately and notify you, a librarian or a teacher, depending on where they are. Report any unsettling activity to your Internet provider, law enforcement or the NCMEC CyberTipline. Don't let the kids agree to meet someone in person without your approval.[36] Using these safety tips are much more effective than any filtering software can be.

Introducing a new computer system at home with the addition of the Internet may require one further step to consider, whether or not filtering software is necessary. The software can be installed on a personal home computer, or some Internet service providers offer filtering as an option. Unfortunately, blocking these unwanted sites and areas of the Internet also block educational areas as well. Also, if one chooses to use a type of filtering software, there is a challenge in selecting the one that is right for that individual. Children's Software Revue editor Warren Buckleitner advises parents to investigate "who is behind the curtain" of these products.

Parental control software is designed to restrict Internet access in various ways. One way is the software company deems what is inappropriate for children to see. Keywords will act as alarms and restrict the user access to certain sites. General categories for blocking web sites often include text and/or photos of an adult sexual nature, drugs and drug culture, violence and hate, racism and intolerance, gambling, tobacco, alcohol, and cruelty to animals. Adult users can select some or all of the categories to activate blocking of sites on those topics.[37]

Many of the filtering software packages allow users to customize the Internet access to fit the particular needs of their families. For example, allowing certain users a set number of hours of Internet access per day or only allowing access at certain times of the day. Also a list of the Internet sites can be reported to the parents that their children have been visiting. There is also an option of out-going filtering that will not allow certain users to send addresses, credit card numbers, phone numbers, etc. In most cases the restrictions are password protected and can be overrun with the correct password.

It is important to remember when purchasing software that inappropriate web sites are added to the web everyday and this should be taken into consideration when purchasing filtering software. The cost of filtering software can range from a one time fee of 40-50 dollars that includes additional blocking of web sites. There are also services that charge a yearly fee of 50 dollars with a renewal fee of around 30 dollars. These services are updating their programs ranging from monthly to daily. Most of the filtering programs have free trials to allow users to use the filtering software for a limited time to see if the service meets their individual needs. This is a risk free way to test the filtering software.

Filtering software is a good preventative way to keep inappropriate material and web sites from children, but there are limits to the software. It is critical to recognize that filtering software cannot guarantee that children or other family members will never see inappropriate material on the Internet. Also, while blocking unwanted web sites, some educational sites will also be blocked such as personal health issues. No filtering software will be 100 percent effective all the time. New sites are added to the Internet on a daily basis. It is unreasonable to expect kids to steer clear of the Internet. Though no protective measure is foolproof, parents who trust and engage their children at the PC can help them safely exploit the riches of the information age.[38]

Most of all, it is essential to realize that parental control software is not a substitute for active parent interactions with your children and supervision of their Internet use.[39]

While software tools can be used to help protect children from accessing some unwanted sites, many educational sacrifices will be made. The most effective method of protecting children is through educating children in the correct use of the Internet. Parent involvement is key to educating children in safe use of the Internet. The Internet is a very powerful tool that offers more information at the click of a button faster than any other educational tool. It is important that children are able to use this tool. As part of using the Internet, children need to be able to filter where they visit. There is no filtering software that is going to block every innappropriate site. If children understand why they should avoid certain areas and parents are visible and alert to the online activity of their children, then filtering software is an unnecessary expense.

Filtering in the International Arena

While we consider filtering a topic that we can debate among school or library administrators, the fact is that there is a choice. Libraries or schools or places of employment may choose to purchase and utilize a filter. In some foreign countries, the government has imposed filters at the highest levels in order to control what the public is able to access.

The People's Republic of China (PRC) is one of a handful of communist states still in existence. The Communist Party of China is unchallenged and its power absolute. In a recent study of filtering in China, claims were confirmed that "major Chinese search engines filter content by keyword and remove certain search results from their lists. Similarly, major Chinese Web log ('blog') service providers either prevent posts with certain keywords or edit the posts to remove them. We found also that some keyword searches were blocked by China's gateway filtering and not the search engines themselves. Cybercafés, which provide an important source of access to the Internet for many Chinese, are required by law to track Internet usage by customers and to keep correlated information on file for 60 days. As a further indication of the complexity of China's filtering regime, we found several instances where particular URLs were blocked but the domain was accessible, despite the fact that the source of content appeared consistent across the domain - suggesting that filtering may be conducted at a finer level in China than in the other countries that we have studied closely."[40]

Another study found that sites in the following categories were blocked:

• Dissident/democracy sites.
• Health. Blocked sites included sites about health generally and about health in China specifically.
• Education. Blocked sites included a number of well-known institutions of higher education, including the primary web servers operated by Caltech, Columbia, MIT, and the University of Virginia.
• News. The BBC News was consistently unreachable, while CNN, Time Magazine, PBS, the Miami Herald, and the Philadelphia Inquirer were also often unavailable.
• Government sites. Blocked sites included a variety of sites operated by governments in Asia and beyond.
• Taiwanese and Tibetan sites generally.
• Entertainment. Blocked sites included the movie Deep Impact, the Canadian Music Centre, the Taiwanese site of MTV (mtv.com.tw) and multiple sites providing off-color jokes.
• Religion.[41]

China is not alone. The OpenNet Initiative (ONI) concluded that "25 out of 41 countries surveyed showed evidence of Internet filtering. Unsurprisingly, countries such as China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia filter a wide variety of topics, as well as content related to those topics. Burma, China, Iran, Syria, Tunisia, and Vietnam were found to engage in politically motivated filtering. Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Tunisia were found to practice 'substantial social content filtering.' Burma, China, Iran, Pakistan and South Korea were found to filter Web sites associated with extremism and separatism for national security reasons."[42]

Conclusion

Internet filtering affects schools, libraries, the workplace, the home, and the international arena. The efficacy of filters is questionable. Instead of simply blocking out objectionable material as intended, it also blocks educational sites and fails to block some inappropriate sites. In addition, it may further the digital divides that currently exist and does not allow for educating students on how best to use the Internet appropriately and efficiently. The best filter of them all will be our ability to teach and educate students in the dangers and advantages the Internet has to offer.

External Sites of Interest

FamilyGuide Book...Because It's a Jungle Out There Parry Aftab, parent, lawyer, author, and Executive Director of Cyber Angels, has one of the largest online safety sites on the Internet. It includes a "Summary of Features of Filtering Software" chart with software costs. The chart compares Cyber-Patrol, Cyber-sitter, Net nanny, and Surfwatch.

Free Expression Policy Project "Internet Filters: A Public Policy Report" from the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law. This report dicusses how “Internet filters are crude and error-prone because they categorize expression without regard to its context, meaning, and value… This fully revised and updated report surveys tests and studies of Internet filtering products from the mid-1990s through 2006. It provides an essential resource for the ongoing debate.”

GetNetWise A resource "to help kids have safe, educational, and entertaining online experiences," the site has a lengthy list of tools for filtering explicit content, to monitor a minor's access, or limit time online. Enter the type of content you are concerned with (i.e. sex, hate, violence, etc.), the type of technology (i.e., www, email, FTP), and the type of operating system of your computer, and a possible list of matching parental control software products will be listed with links.

National Conference of State Legislatures Information on schools and libraries with regard to state filtering laws.

Texas Internet Service Providers Association Texas law requires Internet service providers to make a link available to customers with information on automatic blocking of screening software. In addition to reviews of such software, there is an extensive list of net resources related to child safety and filtering. Some links are in need of updating.[43]

References

http://www.electronic-school.com/0198f1.html

http://www.fcps.k12.va.us/DIT/InternetFiltering/publicfaq.htm#Legal?

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/lis/cip/filterlaws.htm

http://www.onlinepolicy.org/media/schoolsfailcipa020918.shtml

http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/199805/msg00036.html

http://www.aclu.org/privacy/speech/15606prs19980128.html

http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=9282

http://www.spectacle.org/

http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/06/14/net_filtering/index1.html

http://www.peacefire.org/

http://www.electronic-school.com/0198f1.html

http://www.fcps.k12.va.us/DIT/InternetFiltering/publicfaq.htm

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/lis/cip/filterlaws.htm

http://www.onlinepolicy.org/media/schoolsfailcipa020918.shtml

http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/199805/msg00036.html

http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Censorware/net_block_report/net_block_report.pdf

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/internet/index.asp

http://cse.stanford.edu/class/cs201/Projects/online-pornography/History/history.html

http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k0405cal.htm

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/cipa.html

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=technology&res=9D07E1DE143AF932A25751C1A9649C8B63

http://news.com.com/Do+Web+filters+protect+your+child/2100-1032_3-6030200.html

http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/ifissues/issuesrelatedlinks/whyfilterswontprotect.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-14-internet-filters_x.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-08-05-rideout_x.htm

http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k0405cal.htm

Burbules, Callister, Taaffee. “Beyond the Digital Divide.” Technology and Education : Issues in Administration, Policy and Applications in K12 Schools, 2006.

Gottschalk, Lana. "Internet Filters in Public Libraries: Do they Belong?" Library Student Journal, (September 2006). Available online at: http://informatics.buffalo.edu/org/lsj/articles/gottschalk_2006_9_internet.php

Jaeger, Paul T., et al. "The Policy Implications of Internet Connectivity in Public Libraries." Government Information Quarterly, vol.23, no.1 (2006) p.123-141.

Lane, Frederick S. Naked Employee, The: How Technology Is Compromising Workplace Privacy, AMACOM/American Management Association; 1st edition (May 2003).

Ratzan, Jill S. "CIPA and the Roles of Public Librarians: A Textual Analysis." Public Libraries, v. 43, no. 5 (September/October 2004) p. 285-290.

Schneider, Karen G. A Practical Guide to Internet Filters. New York : Neal-Schuman Publishers, ©1997.

Sobel, David L. "Internet Filters and Public Libraries." First Reports. v. 4, no. 2 (Oct 2003). Available online at: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/PDF/Internetfilters.pdf

Wyatt, A. M. "Do Librarians Have an Ethical Duty to Monitor Patrons' Internet Usage in the Public Library?" Journal of Information Ethics, v. 15, no. 1 (Spring 2006) p. 70-9.