Filtering and Education (B) Su08
This page has been created for the use of students in EPS 415 during Summer 2008. Please do not edit this page unless you are a member of the appropriate group. Thank you.
Facilitator:
Nick Burbules (burbules[at]uiuc.edu)
Team Members:
Rita Grunloh (rgrunloh[at]lexington.k12.il.us), Ron Folkens (rfolkens[at]rasblm.org), Mary Davis Fournier (mfournier[at]ALA.ORG), Rebecca Pennington (rpennin2[at]uiuc.edu), Ann Riffel (riffel1[at]uiuc.edu), Steven Svendsen (ssvends2[at]uiuc.edu), and Rob Saum (rob[at]saum.tv).
Contents |
Introduction/Overview
Filtering (or any of its more- or less-used effective synonyms which all mean the removal of information) is, for better or worse, a fact of being when dealing with accessing or providing information. In this discussion, the attempt has been made to: 1) give a working definition of filtering and undertake a discussion of the contexts in which it occurs. Attention has been given to filtering or, as it is often been termed, censorship has been discussed and argued for many years and in many contexts; 2) provide a basis for discussion of filtering as it applies to multiple contexts (primarily education) in regard to whether filtering assists or hinders the education and development of children. Also included are greater examinations and discussions of filtering in the public (primarily U.S.) spaces, private filtering (including filtering access to one's own personal information), and more global, international aspects of the issue; 3) implications, outcomes, and possibilities given the current and emerging trends in filtering; and, 4) personal perspectives from educators concerning how they view filtering impacting their practice.
The founding authors have created this to be a living document. Filtering is now and will continue to change the ways in which life is lived. It is the sincere hope that this document can be used to continue the dialogs on filtering and freedoms.
What is filtering
- definitions and terminology / general background
Filtering
Filtering (often synonymously referred to as censoring, screening, blocking, prioritizing, or selecting) is the limitation/allowance of materials that are authorized to be released or delivered based on set criteria. In the case of content filters they attempt to "restrict access to Internet content, based on an internal database of the product, through a database maintained external to the product itself, to certain ratings assigned to those sites by a third party, by scanning text, based on a keyword or phrase or text string, by scanning pixels, based on color or tone, or based on the source of the information."[1] At the same time content filters are also supposed to allow materials that are safe or wanted materials. This is accomplished through technological means by hardware or software that is designed for this purpose alone or as a part of hardware or software products such as routers or anti-virus software. Most of these products also have an aspect of human intervention, through which an administrator can adjust the settings to be more or less restrictive, or take specific action to filter specific pages.
Filtering in educational context
Filtering that is done in schools and public places is often done for practical and legal reasons. As of 2002, 96% of schools used blocking or filtering software to prevent student access to inappropriate material. [2] Schools and libraries may want to filter so that they qualify for the E-rate [3] for technology purchases, which requires you to comply with the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA)[4]. Schools also do not want bad publicity and do not want students accessing material that their parents might object to. [5] Another reason schools may want to filter their web traffic is over bandwidth issues. [6]
There are a wide variety of products and methods used to filter the internet from users. Schools typically employ software or hardware to do a majority of the blocking of web content through criteria set up by a computer administrator or by the hardware of software company. When a site is blocked by this method, a category for the blocking is chosen such as adult or violence. “In those cases where a site can't be categorized, the default decision is to block it.” [7] Different schools take different approaches as to how to approve or block access to certain sites. Some schools form committees with administrators, teachers, and parents on the committees. Other schools have procedures for reviewing and the approval or blocking of a particular site. [8] Either of these methods takes time and the need to view a particular web site may have passed by the time it has been approved. Some filtering is done at a level higher than the school or district (such as the company providing the filtering service). While each school or district may have a password to override the filter, many times the teachers are unaware of this or do not have access. It is often "the technology coordinator who decides, often with administrative advice, whether or not to distribute the password." [9]
Those who argue for the filtering of the internet are concerned with the safety of the users as well as their networks. Some arguments for filtering in schools are that it, “reduces liability, helps cut down on phone calls or visits from distressed parents, and decrease the amount of malware that your patrons inadvertently install on your machines” [10] Another reason to employ content filters in schools is to "scan and block Java and ActiveX which attempts to perform malicious, or otherwise questionable, operations." [11] Some filtering software allow outgoing content to be blocked such as name, address, and telephone number, known as "outgoing filtering", as well as reporting the websites that have been visited.[12] Schools that employ filtering software "demonstrate that it is taking positive action towards protecting students from objectionable material." [13]
Those who are opposed to filtering have freedom of speech concerns as well as concerns that the filtering is imperfect. Arguments against filtering in school include that it doesn’t work, that filtering is anti-educational, that it damages the fabric of knowledge and there are better solutions. [14] In addition filters can “provide a false sense of security, may exclude valid sites with critical information, restricts freedom of speech, server-based filters are not easily, if at all, modifiable, and lack of clarity regarding criteria for filtered sites.” [15] Content-filter opponents also object to the technology because sites deemed objectionable are subjectively chosen by hardware and software manufacturers and not by a central, impartial organization. The internet is a source of information relating to health for adolescents and many of these sites could be potentially blocked by filtering software.[16] They can also be bypassed entirely by tech-savvy individuals.” [17] When schools use filtering software, students feel that they are not trusted to make responsible choices.[18] While students are not trusted to make responsible choices, they also are not allowed to learn how to make responsible choices since they must learn how to use the internet in a filtered environment.[19] Filtering software is not a substitute for active parental or adult supervision of students or children on the internet.[20] Filtering can prevent educators from doing legitimate research as well as downloading legitimate software for school. [21]Some are concerned that with filtering being an issue more for public schools, that some public school students are not being allowed to access the same material that a student in a private school might be able to access. Students with access to computers and the internet(only 54% of parents with teens employ filtering or blocking at home)[22] at home are also likely to have more access that those students who do not.[23] With filtering at school in this way we are creating a digital divide for those who have access and those who don't.
Filtering is also known as or a part of content filtering, information filtering, web filtering, internet filtering, internet-filtering software, filtering software, parental control software, censorware, blocking, and content controls.
History of Filtering
Early Filtering / Pre-Computer
History of Filtering: Censorship vs. Selection
Perhaps the most valuable distinction between selection and censorship was drawn by Lester Asheim in 1953, long before the internet and merits reprinting: "The major characteristic which makes for the all-important difference seems to be this: that the selector's approach is positive, while that of the censor is negative," Asheim said. "The aim of the selector is to promote reading, not to inhibit it; to multiply the points of view which will find expression, not limit them; to be a channel for communication, not a bar against it. . . . Selection seeks to protect the right of the reader to read; censorship seeks to protect—not the right—but the reader himself from the fancied effects of his reading. The selector has faith in the intelligence of the reader; the censor has faith only in his own." Also: “Selection is democratic while censorship is authoritarian, and in our democracy we have traditionally tended to put our trust in the selector rather than in the censor." [24] Pre-computer filtering in educational settings has been and continues to be wide reaching. In schools everything from curriculum development (selection of textbooks, books taught and read, movies and videos shown, music taught), to choice of field trip destinations; in libraries (school and public) collection development (decisions about what materials to add to collection) and reader's advisory (service oriented materials recommendations by librarians to patrons/student) and can all be viewed as early, established and on-going forms of filtering.
Although the above described activities are usually carried out by education and library professionals, their actions are often influenced to varying degrees by the cultural, political and funding climates of their institution and community. Advocates for pre-computer and internet-age filtering continue to characterize these measures not as “censorship,” but as “selection” and “protective.”
It is in the real world context of the classroom, library, computer lab, media center, community room, etc., that issues of filtering become inextricably bound with issues of intellectual freedom -- the right of every individual to both seek and receive information from all points of view without restriction. Intellectual freedom provides for free access to all expressions of ideas through which any and all sides of a question, cause or movement may be explored.[25]
School libraries (or media centers) and public libraries have been the historical flashpoint for decisions, policy implementation and conflict relating to the restriction of access to information, be it a book, periodical, internet site, or work of art.
--Oscar Wilde
The implications of such real world situations have elicited different reactions from professional organizations for educators and librarians. The profession of librarianship adopted a code of ethics with intellectual freedom at its core, [26] and led the American Library Association to establish the Office of Intellectual Freedom (OIF) to fight censorship legislatively and in the courts, and on a grass roots level through their officers.
Although a similar code developed by the National Education Association states that the educator “Shall not unreasonably restrain the student from independent action in the pursuit of learning” [27], the debate over “reasonable restraint” and the passivity of its wording is in sharp contrast to the librarians pledge to “uphold the principles of intellectual freedom and resist all efforts to censor library resources” and its intrinsic activist wording. ALA OIF has developed a toolkit[28] valuable for teachers and librarians alike, when faced with information access issues.
Defining filtering in the context of intellectual freedom and is particularly important in the United States a country that constitutionally guarantees and safeguards freedom of expression and speech. Internationally, these issues resonate in countries with all manner of policies and governmental structures. Article 19 of the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted in 1948) states "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers".
In line with this declaration, International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) issued a joint statement with the International Publishers Association in 2006, “recognizing that unhindered access to information is essential to freedom, equality, global understanding and peace”…and urging ” All governments to support the unhindered flow of Internet accessible information and to oppose any attempts to censor or inhibit Freedom of Expression.” [29]
Can there be a world without filters? What would happen if a school system or a library abandoned filtering all together?
A recent article in T.H.E. Journal [30], carries an account from Julie Walker, executive director of the American Association of School Librarians, who recently traveled to Finland, where educators have taught students about responsible internet use for years. Walker says most Finnish schools don't even have filters…” Walker says "Over there, thanks to solid teaching, the filters are in the students' heads," she says. "Students come into school with a sense of responsibility for their learning and a sense of why they're there. Ultimately, that's where we need to be too."
This account should connect some dots for education policy makers on a national level who have been scratching their heads about Finland’s recent first place in the OECD's test, known as the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). In February the Wall Street Journal reported that while ”American teens finished among the world's C students even as U.S. educators piled on more homework, standards and rules, Finnish youth, like their U.S. counterparts, also waste hours online. They dye their hair, love sarcasm and listen to rap and heavy metal. But by ninth grade they're way ahead in math, science and reading -- on track to keeping Finns among the world's most productive workers.” [31]
The same article reports on the activities of the International Society for Technology in Education, a Washington, D.C. based technology education non-profit that is developing professional development courses to help teachers develop techniques for educating their students about responsible internet use. As part of the program, teachers will be encouraged to spend time in online communities to get a sense of how social networking sites work, and what kind of "buddies" students are liable to meet there. "Abstinence from technology is a losing battle," Knezek says. "To not teach technology use responsibly is neglecting the charge of universal education."
And as sections below point out, what may have seemed to be a practical and straightforward endeavor for schools and libraries has become increasingly more complicated and impractical. As modern society transitions into the digital revolution, more and more of the information, art, educational tools and resources essential to educational, professional and personal endeavors are being and will be stored on the Web. The context may be digital but the issues at the core of the filtering debate continues to be access to information and intellectual freedom.
Pre-Computer Filtering (Censorship vs. Selective/Sound Curriculum Choices)
School libraries have been a location for censorship and filtration for centuries. Libraries generally promote the ideals of public learning, opportunities for growth and building community values. Long before computer filtering systems were invented, schools were filtering their learning opportunities through challenging and banning certain books and curriculum from entering libraries. School libraries still face challenges regarding the books they offer, or do not offer, students. Among the most commonly banned books in school libraries (during the 20th century) were classics such as "The Great Gatsby," "The Grapes of Wrath," To Kill a Mockingbird," and "Catcher in the Rye," to name a few [32] According to the ALA, the most commonly banned books in school libraries in 2007 were written by the likes of Maya Angelou, Mark Twain, Robert Cormier, Philip Pullman, Alice Walker, Lauren Myracle, Robie Harris, and Stephen Chbosky. Interestingly, many novels disappear from this list each year after being popularly banned books for decades, to be replaced by other titles - showing the subjectivity and shifting values of the American public. Reasons for schools to ban specific titles or authors vary, but often include the objection to themes presented within the text -- themes often involve strong or offensive language, sexually explicit material, homosexuality, a religious viewpoint, racism, violence, and sexism. Less precise reasons involve books that are "unsuited to age group," "anti-family,” and "sex education." [33]
The fear of offending someone, exposing a child to content that will harm them, or allowing access to material parents consider unsuitable, seems to be directing the reasoning for the banned books. It is not something new as nations, religious groups, and thousands of other groups have banned specific texts for centuries. In fact there is great continuity in the arguments for book banning and arguments for filtering. Both contain a debate at their core - censorship or selection? Is the information and access being withheld in a private or public setting? If public, are the reasons precise and transparent and available in policy? For instance, if a school administration deems "anti-family" the concept or definition of family should be defined and contextualized for the community. Families, as an example, are very different in 2007 than in 1945, or even 1999. It is could be considered by some to be unreasonable to label a book as "anti-family" when less than 30% of Americans are married with children in a traditional family situation.
The question of, "why?" comes to the forefront of authors and critics alike as their books are pulled off the shelf and the only reasons are contained in vague jargon and use the words, "appropriate" and "protecting children." Parents have the right to select reading materials for their children at home. They may also influence the decisions made concerning books available in the schools. As much as some parents would like, no one can completely protect a child from harm, nor can they shelter them from any exposure to harmful content whether they see a book or not. The issues contained within banned books need to be discussed as teachers reflect upon their own personal experiences with texts, reading materials, moral integrity, and ability to know right from wrong. These issues are parallel to the issues encountered by teachers, librarians and educators when confronted with internet filtering. Who is allowed the power to filter in order to protect others? Who decides what is inappropriate? Does popularity really mean it is culturally inappropriate? As educators and librarians, these reflections often take place as books are chosen, selected, banned or challenged, as one chooses books for one's own classroom or media center, as one writes curriculum plans, takes students to the school library, interacts with other faculty, and makes choices for personal reading. If students do not have access to certain books (or Web sites) will they be better off?
It seems that developing critical thinking skills, and the ability to discern, choose, and assess are essential to make an active community member and free thinking adult. Discussing reading choices with students and making sure they experience varied political views and perspectives is what helps build personal ethic systems and morals. These skills seem imperative for students young and old, and banning a book has never been proven to successfully stifle a viewpoint. These are widely regarded as "best practices" among educators and librarians and present an opportunity for learning in the context of internet filtering. . These best practices should be adopted and applied to discussions of internet filtering as well.
Filtering Expanded/Expanding
Public Filtering
As internet usage expands to schools, libraries, internet cafes, workplaces, and homes so does the presence of internet filters. Filters are ever-present in our encounters with the internet; some filtering that we are thankful for and some filtering that adds frustration to our internet encounters. Web filtering has become a controversial topic. Although many would agree that there are massive amounts of good information available on the internet, there would also, likely, be agreement that there exists information, photos, and videos that are inappropriate and possibly harmful to many people, especially children. The controversy begins with what should be filtered and who should decide.
--Mike Masnick, Techdirt.com
Many studies are being conducted on the effects of web filtering. One such survey, the 2007 Speak Up survey (conducted by Project Tomorrow), showed that 45 percent of the parents, students, administrators, and teachers surveyed said that web filtering at school was “limiting their ability to take advantage of technology for learning.” Project Tomorrow also acknowledges that students are ahead of their parents and teachers when it comes to technology. They are better users and more open to learning with the new technologies.[36]As educators we need to take advantage of the knowledge that our students have and try to challenge them.
In December 2000, Congress adopted the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA). This act requires that schools and libraries have an internet policy in force in order to obtain E-rate funding. CIPA is intented to eliminate the inappropriate content viewed by minors on school and library computers. In 2001, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) spelled out three rules for CIPA. These requirements are:
- 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; and
- 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. [37]
Although most schools now follow the CIPA guidelines, 75 percent of schools used some kind of filtering software prior to the 2000 CIPA law. The filtering devices commonly used by schools block sites far beyond the CIPA guidelines. The Eugene school district in Oregon, chose not to filter the internet access for their students. The school states that "filtering is imperfect both in terms of not filtering undesirable sites and filtering legitimate sites. Therefore it gives a false sense of security and limits some valid research. More importantly, the committee (of teachers at the school) believes it is best to teach responsible use and supervise." Interestingly, the loss in E-rate funds, that the school suffered due to their lack of filtering, was less than the filtering software would have cost to purchase.[38]
Now educators are caught in the middle between filtering to protect children, filtering for funding, and not filtering to provide the best educational opportunities available. Many school filters block social networking sites such as MySpace and Second Life, YouTube, all gaming sites and all blogs and wikis. These sites are blocked due to the entertainment value or possible distraction that they may become. These sites, when used appropriately, can also provide excellent teaching moments. Chris O’Neal captures the essence of this argument in his article, “Blocking and Filtering and Lockdowns, Oh, My! The Internet Security Overreaction” in Edutopia magazine:
- "I think educators are pretty smart people. We figure out ways to use new things in our classrooms in spite of their potential risks. We set up expectations, rules, and consequences. I know I'm oversimplifying this issue a little, but the point remains the same: It's 2007, and blogs, wikis, and the like are powerful tools that need to be a part of our classrooms. Students are using these outside the classroom, so why not find an educational, productive way to allow them inside? This would give us a chance to impart some media smarts while taking advantage of some pretty powerful tools." [39]
Blogs provide a venue for people to express their ideas and opinions in a non face to face arena. There are many people whose opinions would not be heard if they were forced to speak up in a face to face forum. They may keep quiet because they are too shy, lack confidence, are too polite to interrupt and take their turn or maybe they just need more time to compile their opinions and make sure that they say exactly what they mean to say. For the emotional responder that speaks before he thinks, blogs may be a place that will force him/her to present a better argument on the topic. The downside to blogs, as can be witnessed when reading blogs in the local newspaper’s online version, is that people often make unsupported comments, emotionally charged hostile comments, and many other comments that probably would not have been made in a face to face situation (and many of these comments would have been best left unspoken in public). In an educational setting, with teacher monitoring, blogs could be a powerful way for students to discuss many topics. It could be an ongoing discussion outside of the classroom walls that may encourage some usually silent students to be heard. These conversations may take on a global context if the blogs are open forums. Many teachers have not even had the opportunity to try out this new technology and it is already blocked by their school’s web filter. There are many blogs on the internet for teachers to share ideas with other teachers. These are powerful sites that would be great for teachers to use during planning time and professional development days but teachers do not have access to these sites from the school’s computers.
What gets filtered is not a decision made by educators. These decisions are being made through the legislative process and by the software companies. These forces, although well intentioned, are creating filters that block many educational sites. The Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Online Policy Group conducted a study in 2003 on internet blocking in public schools. This study showed that schools with internet blocking software at high settings block approximately seventy percent of search results that fall under state mandated curriculum topics. [40]
Educators are faced with a tough decision; to filter or not to filter. The CIPA legislation requires filtering of obscene and pornographic images. Most educators would agree that these items should be filtered, however available filtering software does not stop at these items. Most filtering software blocks far more what CIPA requires and is limited in the user’s flexibility in making filtering decisions. Most software allows the user the ability to make the filter more restrictive but not less restrictive. If educators find sites with sound educational value, they are faced with the possibility that will not be available at school. Although filtering has its benefits, do the benefits outweigh the problems that the filters create? Filtering software can not possibly keep up with the growing number of websites added to the internet each day. The software companies can not possibly review every site to determine its value and to classify it into a category which would ultimately determine if the site gets blocked or not. Do the employees of the software company have the credentials to determine if the site has an educational value or any value at all? What is the criteria that determines if the site is blocked or not? Who decides what that criteria is? Perhaps educators should educate students on stategies that they could use to determine if websites are accurate and reliable, rather than leaving that decision to an often unreliable content filter.
The filtering software available to schools filters material the same for all users. Does it make sense for the same filters to be in place for kindergarten students, high school students, and faculty? Students are curious by nature. Does the fact that sites are filtered make students more curious, more determined to get to the site? A youtube.com video discussion touches on many internet filtering topics. Click here to watch it: [41]
--Carlo Longino, Techdirt.com
Although filtering software is in place at most schools, students have figured out a way around the filters. An article at techdirt.com titled "Shocker: Kids Get Around Web Filters" states, "It's been proven time and time again that filters don't work -- so, again, why not use the time and resources spent on these filters and tracking kids' ways around them on teaching critical thinking and good judgment instead?" [42] A google search on “getting around my schools filter” returns thousands of sites that give instructions on how to accomplish this task. Some of the sites list step by step instructions on how to get around the different types of filters and some students have taken an even more creative stance on sharing this information by creating videos set to music. Here are just a few very creative instructional videos found on YouTube.com. [43],[44],[45]
Private Filtering
As with public filtering, private filtering blocks sites/information that a single user or collection of users decide are not worthy of access to, potentially along with other sites that may for some reason fall into the filtering system that would be acceptable otherwise. Regardless of what web browser that is used, some believe that it is always recommended to use the strictest filtering choice that is available in the preferences section. Otherwise, by default, the moderate filtering will be enabled. Choosing the strictest filtering option does not guarantee that offensive material will not come up on any given browser, however it will help reduce the chances of this occurring, provided that the site accessed is accurate in its self-description (or depending on the filtering method employed). This can be a very good option for families at home, however, it greatly limits what users can access, which can be a huge problem as with public filtering. Also, strict filtering regulates much more than moderate filtering. [46]
In homes with multiple computers, there are "networkable" filters that are available that will cover all computers in the home. Some of these are available as freeware/shareware that you can set up for your network, however, some of these can be very complicated to install. In addition, there are opportunities to set up different filtering settings for each individual user. If this option is chosen, the "administrator" can set a young child’s settings different than adolescent’s settings and parent’s settings. This is a potentially advantageous feature as it lets children access more things as they get older while allowing parents to set their own computer for each child individually without worrying about what is being viewed.
Many parents have had problems in the past with filters for their families because it is filtering too much. It is imperative to check out the different filters available (most are free) and see what filter is right for your family.
There are also filters that accommodate children with disabilities. To most kids, there are so many new and interesting buttons that can be pushed, that the computer becomes overwhelming to understand and use. This can be especially true for a child with a disability. There are filters out that you can use to set the exact websites you want your child to access, that are extremely basic so they can learn to use the computer correctly and enjoy what it is for. An example of this is www.zacbrowser.com.[47] These types of filters offer children with disabilities a way to use computers to their benefit.
Overall, private filtering can be beneficial if used correctly. There are many opportunities online today, and it is important for everyone to be able to use the internet regardless of their age. A child should learn to use the internet as early as he/she can, as it is an important tool to access throughout life. It also can be a very fun and rewarding experience for a child to use. These filters are essential in keeping our kids safe from all the bad material out there.
Types of Filtering
A Forward: It should be argued that, with the possible exception of strong firewall protection to help preclude invasion of protected information and systems, there are major arguments made in other parts of this article that argue the merits of public uses of these technologies. In privately controlled situations (the personal computer, the home, the business), it is, constitutionally, the right of the individual to control what he or she listens to, discloses, or options based upon one's own beliefs. The issue becomes when it is imposed upon individuals without their consent. This is, of course, voiced from a U.S. political and cultural perspective.
Firewall: IP and domain blocking (whitelists and blacklists)
Firewalls are a security system for your computer that filters the traffic that flows into and out of your computer. They sift through the data flow and block harmful data from entering or leaving your computer. You decide how much you want your firewall to block. [[48]]
There is also a way to filter your computer by using a “whitelist,” where only approved websites can be accessed by the filter. This approach works, but often is overly limiting when it comes to using websites. [49]
“Blacklists” used to be used to block the bad websites from being viewed, but so many websites are now created daily that it is impossible to keep up with the list. In general, firewalls are worth installing. There are a large variety of systems to choose from that block various levels of risks. Some of the firewall products that you may want to check out are:
McAfee Internet Security Microsoft Windows Firewall Norton Personal Firewall Trend Micro PC-cillin ZoneAlarm Security Suit [50]
Every computer should have a firewall, as it not only filters out bad information, it also helps to block viruses and other harmful material from entering or leaving your computer. This is a great tool to use at home, church or in the workplace. Online security concerns should always be a top concern for each computer user, and using a firewall will help reduce the risk of this. If using a firewall along with a filter, you will get the most protection. This will protect you, your family and business from unwanted material.
Content Filtering: heuristics, spam and spyware filters
Heuristic filters - Heuristic filters attempts to find viruses and other forms of malicious software by searching through the code to find patterns or sequences that have certain attributes or characteristics. This method is designed to find new viruses, which have yet to be defined. Heuristic detection of viruses isn't perfect and can identify harmful or useful files as viruses. [51]
Spam filters - This method of filtering attempts to filter mail that is either unsolicited or unwanted. This is usually done as a part of an antivirus software or as a part of an email program. Spam can also be identified and filtered by your ISP and needs user intervention prior to being released to the user’s computer. One popular method of spam filtering is Bayesian filtering, in which the filter uses the words in the e-mail to determine whether or not the e-mail is spam. With this method the user teaches the filter by letting the filter know which e-mails are spam and then it adjusts its formula for determining what e-mails is spam.
Spyware fiters - Spyware filters or anti-spyware work in much the same way that antivirus software works as far as protection goes. It can give the user real-time protection, where it will warn the user of attempts to install spyware. The other alternative allows the user to scan their computer and remove any installed spyware.
Anti-Virus software
Antivirus software[52]attempts to protect the user from malicious or unwanted programs and applications. It accomplishes this through scanning files to determine if they match current virus definitions, which must be updated routinely. This software also attempts to identify suspicious behavior of the computer, which might be a sign of an infection. Antivirus software is related to filtering, because many antivirus programs, which are common in schools, come bundled with filtering software or parental control software. An example of a product such as this is PC-Cillin, Internet Security. [53] As related to filtering, many antivirus software applications come with the ability to filter content. This is typically done by blocking categories such as adult, sex, or drugs. Another feature of these programs is to allow or block specific sites. A criticism of these methods is that it often blocks sites that were not intended to be blocked or that tech-savvy individuals can bypass the filters and get to the blocked content anyways.
International Filtering/Government sponsored filtering
A censor is “an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds".[54] Censorship occurs in a variety of forms; whether it is the burning of books, filtering of internet content, or charging an excessive fee for a service so that only a select few can participate. It seems that "Freedom of Speech" on the internet ultimately depends on who owns the means of publication and distribution. There are varying degrees[55] to this freedom as "most nations censor Internet communication in some fashion"[56]. In countries such as the United States, United Kingdom, Finland and elsewhere the internet is an enabler of free speech and expression. Elsewhere, such as in North Korea, the People's Republic of China (PRC or China), and much of the Arabic-speaking world, access to this vast pool of knowledge is limited to that of a slow trickling stream, if the stream is allowed to flow at all. In the PRC the "government has imposed an extensive and burdensome licensing scheme over all media that bars those without money and political connections from establishing publishing enterprises."[57] As such, "under PRC law, 'freedom of expression' is not an individual liberty, but rather a tool to serve the interests of the socialist state; the PRC legal system discourages the free flow of information, not only by erecting barriers to non-government-controlled institutions, but also by encouraging individual self-censorship by not clearly defining what constitutes protected speech; and the PRC government has transformed the constitutional right of free speech into a political privilege of “freer” speech for the PRC ideological elite."[58] These nations and others have a variety of reasons for filtering or censoring the internet, such as protecting national security, maintaining common decency, and preventing political dissent. [59] In China, topics such as pornography, religion, Falun Gong, Democracy, Taiwan, Tiananmen Square uprising and Tibet are often blocked.[60][61]
--Heinrich Heine
The real dilemma involves both access and jurisdictional issues. Just because something is permissible in one country does not mean it is permissible in another. For example, if content that is deemed inappropriate by the Chinese government remains accessible to its citizens because it is hosted in the United States, who then is to blame for their access. Is it the governments fault for failing to censor it? Is it the United States fault for allowing the material to be exported? Is it the publishers fault for failing to abide by censorship laws or is it the individuals fault for accessing the content? “With printed media, jurisdiction issues are straightforward... when things are printed they are subject to whatever law is applicable in the place where they are printed, and you know where the material is being distributed".[62] However, it is not this straightforward online. There are “no international laws or treaties restrict Internet filtering to protect freedom of speech or freedom of association".[63] Print distribution has a long established history but internet distribution is fairly young and it will likely take further legislation and trade agreements to provide clarification as the level and degree of censorship varies by country. Nations such as Venezuela, Belarus, China and Saudi Arabia impose much stricter laws than that of the United Kingdom or United States of America. The methodology also varies considerably between countries.
--Hong Kong Lawyer
As mentioned previously, China imposes various censorship laws such as blocking information pertaining to the Tiananmen Square massacre or items that might shed an unfavorable light on the government. One such incident was that of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) outbreak in 2002 during which the People's Republic of China was criticized by some in its suppression and delay in responding to the epidemic. Information that could have prevented or limited the loss of life was withheld from the public and foreign assistance was blocked.[64] Whereas Vietnam, a country along the southern border of China, immediately acknowledged the crisis and requested help from the World Health Organization.[65] This is believed to have lessened the loss of life in Vietnam. This filtering of information led not only to a significant loss of life but also had negative economic implications. "According to the World Bank, the SARS outbreak and the war in Iraq are expected to reduce economic growth in East Asia by nearly one percentage point to 5 percent. SARS has hurt production and activity in the region, as factories are closed after workers come down with SARS and tourists stay away from the region."[66] A time sequence of the spread of SARS is available from Pub Med Central and from Université de Pau. But China is a resilient nation that learns quickly from prior actions. This is most evident from the recent earthquake in which China opened its borders for foreign aid and solicited relief from a variety of sources. Neither sheltering of citizens or total information promiscuity is healthy. There must be a happy balance between the two policies that promotes national growth, maintains the social order, and upholds the sanctity of life.
--Potter Stewart
Censorship does not only pertain to citizens but also businesses. These countries employ a variety of methods to censor content deemed inappropriate for their citizens. In China, for example, the government uses a variety of hardware appliances (e.g. Cisco Content Filters), software applications, and an army of personnel to block unwanted materials and sites even in real time.[67] "According to the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices – 2005, China employs up to 50,000 people to monitor citizens’ Internet use and to control its content".[68] "The effectiveness of Internet filtering is mixed; it depends on the tools used and the granularity of filtering. It is much easier to block particular URLs or entire domains than it is to block information on a particular topic."[69] Other countries, such as Egypt, rely on legislation and the threat of jail to limit content.[70] Governments have also frequently "required ISPs, including American companies Google and Yahoo operating outside the United States, to install software that enforces the country’s censorship laws...In some countries, including China and Singapore, ISPs also are required to “police” their clients."[71] By outsourcing filtering, governments could essentially remove themselves from criticism by deflecting blame to developers and implementers of the filterware.[72] Further, it gives potential governmental influence to private, out-sourced companies. Companies have structural beliefs and biases that would likely be played out in their end products.
The business impact of censorship is a major concern of Transnational and Multinational Corporations. For example, Google (NASDAQ:GOOG)is concerned that censorship will minimize its advertising revenues and is lobbying against such practices. The Internet giant is "asking U.S. trade officials to treat Internet restrictions as international trade barriers...Google envisions using trade agreements to fight back"[73] Others such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation are fighting censorship to uphold freedom. As Barlow said, "In China, Germany, France, Russia, Singapore, Italy and the United States, you are trying to ward off the virus of liberty by erecting guard posts at the frontiers of Cyberspace. These may keep out the contagion for a small time, but they will not work in a world that will soon be blanketed in bit-bearing media."[74]
The Open Net Initiative a collaborative educational partnership is a tremendous resource on global internet filtering practices. It is their aim "to investigate, expose and analyze Internet filtering and surveillance practices in a credible and non-partisan fashion. We intend to uncover the potential pitfalls and unintended consequences of these practices, and thus help to inform better public policy and advocacy work in this area."[75] The Open Net Initiative’s Global Internet filtering map provides an excellent visual overview of filtering in countries and regions world wide, allowing the viewer to select various filtering categories like political, social, conflict, or internet tools.
Question for Further Consideration
To be further considered:
- Are there educational opportunities (versus perceived "benefits") to be gained by filtering?
- What are the greater educational implications of filtering?
- How does filtering in one aspect of life/culture affect other areas? (e.g. formal educational institutions, informal contexts, activities of learning, religion, etc.)
- How does the context of globalization influence filtering and vice versa?
Personal Perspectives
These perspectives were graciously given by teachers of students with special needs as given during the class in which this page was originally constructed. The authors would like to express their heartfelt thanks to the openness of the teachers below to give their personal, educated viewpoints. This is just one portion of the entire class. Quotes came from responses to bi-weekly Case Studies. These particular case studies involved filtering in schools.
The purpose of including these perspectives is to share opinions on the topic of filtering through the lense of a Special Education teacher. Filtering is such a broad topic covering many areas of life and technology. This is not to assume that these opinions are shared by all Special Education teachers, nor other sections from this course. It is important to hear real opinions and experiences dealing with filtering and to reflect upon one's own experiences with filtering in order to grow through understanding the topic in a new light. Many of the contributors were happy to share their thoughts, but wish to remain anonymous for various reasons.
General feelings on filtering
"blocking or filtering websites...is necessary for a school setting. I believe that many students would view inappropriate websites if the blocks were not put into place." -Anonymous
"Sometimes I think the difference between the Library and the Internet is that a library or a personal library shelf can be put together and the participants who put the materials there know exactly what is available and what is on the shelf-but on the Internet the information and materials are available from so many sources and the searcher or the person trying to control the space for the searcher really never knows what is on the "shelves." A school or a parent can try to arrange the Internet material available, but it isn't really tangible like a library of books or movies." -Besset Sabourin
"The administration does not want the students to be able to access many different websites such as myspace, ITunes, etc. Because they are trying to prevent students from getting on inappropriate websites, they are keeping the computers from being what they were bought and intended for: educational use. I believe, and argue with many teachers and adminsitrators about this, that if the teachers are active and participating in the classroom, i.e.: walking around, helping the students, making sure they are only doing what they are supposed to be doing on the computers, only allowing a certain amount of time on the computers as to hopefully decrease any "dawdling" that might happen, then the teachers and administrators don't have to worry about students getting on inappropriate websites! (I often have my students turn their desks around so their backs are facing me and I can see all their computer screens at the same time if I'm helping someone else.)" -Anonymous
"...blocks and filters are used to prevent students from getting on uneducational things in the school setting... technology in school should not be used for this purpose. I have many students that have numerous ways of getting past the blocks and filters. Actually, to prevent this, each student in our school is given a log-in and password and their history is checked periodically (although I'm sure they know how to delete this...even though I don't). We have caught some students getting on porn sites and things of that nature and banned them from the internet for the remainder of the year...it would be nice if teachers had access to more than the students...I mean we are grown-ups right?"-Anonymous
"I think the filters are necessary. We have one major server for our district network and the filters keep out most viruses, spam and other potentially harmful material that finds its way through the web. Although we do have a computer lab (three in fact, plus computers in the library) and someone in the lab monitors activity on the computers, kids are smart. They know how and will get around the system. I am responsible for the students in my classroom and I feel a bit safer knowing they cannot access some sites, because I know classroom teachers cannot see everything that occurs in their classroom and teach as well. A few years ago, we didn't have as many filters and some of you will remember the controversy raised when people were researching the White House, and got directed to a porn site." -Laura Cohen
"Students have access to the internet at school for educational purposes. Yes, some websites that might be educationally beneficial might be blocked, but I've noticed that the majority of blocked websites are facebook, myspace, youtube. Students do not need to access these during the school day. Students still have access to the internet. I believe it's the school's responsibility to give students access to technology, in terms of the actual hardware and the skills they need to use it, it is not the school's job to allow students to participate in social networking sites during the school day." -Kathryn Tappert
"School filtering systems are present to protect hardware from viruses, hackers, etc, but most importantly protect students from vile online content and predators. My school district has blocked access to MySpace and other social networking websites, and I completely support the notion. And while I understand some would argue that such social networking websites allow students to collaborate and gain new perspectives, the same goal could also be accomplished through school email, wikis, and school blogs." -Anonymous
"Unfiltered online access is like playing with fire. School use of computers should be meaningful, educational, and effective. I’m all for freedom of speech and giving students freedom to express themselves through different mediums, but schools are responsible for keeping students safe and exposing them to meaningful and educationally relevant content." –Evangelia Nickolaou
"kids can't just "use" the internet. They have to have the "literacy" skills to be able to navigate this huge network themselves. There is no guarantee that every kid will have these skills to safely navigate the internet. Thus, filters are on school computers to prevent unwanted/unseen consequences from happening (in addition to the inappropriate stuff)." -Brian Dubina
"schools have things like filtering to protect from lawsuits . . . people are willing to sue over quite a lot. Instead of solving disagreements (like teaching safe sex vs. abstinence), some people will sue." -Anonymous
Posed Negative Consequences of Filtering in Schools
"Do we give "critical thinkers" access to unfiltered internet and "non-critical thinkers" filtered internet? The problem with these access issues is that we are making a set of rules to cover everyone" -Brian Dubina
"I think that blocks on many websites is necessary, but sometimes ...we encourage our students to conduct research on the Internet and see what it offers, yet we don't allow them to go in many websites that can be helpful. Overall, I feel that this does somewhat contradict teachers' goals for their students when working with the Internet." -Amy Pellettieri
"I have made innocent searches before and inadvertently found myself in a very embarrassing situation. I also checked the history of my computer after a student of mine had been on and he had been a porn site called "women peeing", and this was an MI student! Just goes to show, if there is a will, there is a way..." -Anonymous
"...when I was searching for how zoo animals sleep (a topic my students were very curious about), I kept getting blocked by the school district "blocking filter." After talking to the office secretary, she simply replied, "Oh, just bypass the block, it doesn't really matter. Some of the blocks are mistakes." Which made me question how some of the students who do use the internet for research and other educational purposes get along, do they get "mistake blocks" as well? So I guess it is a paradox of access when we are encouraged to use internet websites to teach our students but then are blocked from sites that will teach the students about how zoo animals sleep."-Anonymous
"Our laptops and even teacher computers are blocked by "Dans Guardian" and we are blocked from practically everything. Anything that is related to or has the words "game", "myspace", any curse or inappropriate word, or anything else the "computer guy" has deemed inappropriate we (the students and the teachers) are not allowed to get on. (I couldn't even get on Moodle because of the chat like forums.) If my students are supposed to research the "60's", for example, for a book that we are going to read, they are unable to find any information because everything is blocked (sex, marijuana, drugs, etc.). Same with math games. Something as elementary as Gamequarium.com is blocked because it has "games" in it. It has become such a frustration that teachers don't even bother using the computers. If I want my students to research something, I have to find information myself, go to the library and get books for them because everything on the computers is blocked. The only thing they are good for is typing something on a word document (and sometimes that gets lost)." - Allison Grant
"The students are always supervised in technology class, but they also are very sneaky. The filtering systems just keep these students from having easy access to inappropriate websites for a school setting...Students who are really persistent will find a way around the blocks (and they always do). For example, students at our junior high always find the way around the block for many popular social networking sites." -Anonymous
Suggestions for Improvement
"Maybe instead of talking about whether filtering is a good thing or a bad thing, we should look at changing the attitude of why we filter." -Carrie Riggins
"I think that filters somehow should be set up to actually look at the content of a site, rather than a single word out of the title (pertaining to articles). A student doing a paper/presentation/project on slavery for instance may completely miss out in a major category of slaver (sex slavery) because of one word. It’s not porn, its not inappropriate, but because of one word their work will be hindered (at least in a completed sense)." -Anonymous
"Filters seem to be based on what someone, somewhere feels is "appropriate" for students to view. If we were writing a goal or an objective in an IEP, we would not be able to use the word inappropriate because it is not a "measureable" word. This is not specific enough and I think it should be defined differently for each grade level." -Anonymous
"This has been and will continue to be a "sore subject" in our school until either the laptops are removed or more access is granted to allow students and teachers to do the things they need to do on the computers." -Allison Grant
"Instead of focusing on rules, and telling students what they can't and shouldn't do, I think it is important to help them understand why these guidelines are in place not only for internet use but for everything. Why is it respectful to refrain from using your phone in class? etc etc" -Brian Dubina
For Further Information
This is a set of further references that can be accessed (in many locations) to find further information and perspective on these issues.
- Youtube film on filtering; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_mpf1Q9u1I - it's a powerpoint that explains CIPA and filtering in the context of school and public libraries. It has people demonstrating/explaining ways to circumvent filters, anecdotes about filter failure...
- YouTube posting covering web blocking in China - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZG_A5DS6so
- Digital Journal TV - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKOIIT9D-YE&NR=1 about whether bloggers can collapse the China firewalls.
- Censorship and filtering in Iran: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEwZ8vZW4zo - unfortunately it's in Arabic...
- http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/ifissues/filtersfiltering.cfm The ala Web site gives a very detailed overview of issues around filtering. It also provides content regarding question two - informal ed. contexts (public libraries, public access venues) It's a pretty exhaustive site, with public and educational institution libraries and legislative actions as its main context.
- http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/cipa.html FCC website site, describes the law regarding content filtering and schools and libraries participating in the E-Rate program to get discounts on technology.
- http://www.techsoup.org/learningcenter/ctc/page7091.cfm This site has some pros and cons to content filtering and covers many of the issues related to filtering.
- http://www.oakwood.k12.il.us/pages/uploaded_files/netpolicy.pdf This is the copy of the network use form parents have to sign to allow their children to access the Internet at school and use their specific network in the Oakwood, IL School District. It describes the use of a filtering program and the implications it brings to a school district. This is just one example of a school network using a filtering device. This is the district I (Rebecca) student taught in and shows a tangible example of filtering in a public place, with minors and the implications and legal issues presented because of using such a network in a school setting.
- http://opennet.net/ - This is an in-depth resource for info on global filtering that allows a look at the global perspective into the extent of filtering throughout the world.
- http://map.opennet.net/filtering-pol.html is a regularly updated graphical image of what is being regularly filtered in different countries around the world.
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwQh-43b1Vs video description: The Berkman Center - Rob Faris, the OpenNet Initiative's Research Director and John Palfrey, one of the project's Principal Investigators, lead a discussion of Internet filtering and provided a glimpse of the results" - this is a trend meeting of a project being conducted by a number of international universities on the extent that different world states are attempting to control the internet. I think this might be a great resource for our international analysis and also something to list as what is happening on a global policy level. '
- http://internet-filter-review.toptenreviews.com/internet-filter-review-definitions.html Internet filter software terms and definitions.
- http://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~stark/Preprints/filter07.pdf The Effectiveness of Internet Content Filters The Effectiveness of Internet Content Filters,Philip B. Stark,Department of Statistics, University of California, Berkeley, November 10, 2007
- http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/filtering/saudiarabia/ anecdotal examples
