ITIS 1210 Introduction to Web-Based Information Systems Chapter 52 Parental Controls on the Internet

Introduction  Advantage of the Internet  Free flow of information  Uncontrolled by any central agency or government  Necessarily  Some of that information  Will be objectionable to someone  Hate sites, pornography, political sites

Introduction  Availability of information  Leads to attempts to control that information  Typical argument:  The children should not be exposed to…  Why children?  Lack of judgment  Unformed ideas that could be easily swayed

Introduction  Number of efforts over the years to ban or control certain content  Communications Decency Act of 1996  1: Attempted to regulate both indecency & obscenity  2: Operators of Internet services were not to be considered as publishers

CDA  Most controversy was around indecency on the Internet  FCC had controlled TV & radio for years  Offensive speech restricted to certain times of the day (minors less likely to be exposed)  10 PM and 6 AM  Violators could lose licenses & be fined  Lenny Bruce  George Carlin’s Seven Dirty Words

CDA  Internet had only become public in 1992  Not covered under previous laws  CDA was 1 st attempt to cover both  Internet  Cable TV  Congress passed Feb 1, 1996  President Clinton signed into law Feb 8

CDA knowingly (A) uses an interactive computer service to send to a specific person or persons under 18 years of age, or (B) uses any interactive computer service to display in a manner available to a person under 18 years of age, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs.

CDA  June 1996 federal panel in PA overturned part of CDA  Infringed on free speech rights of adults  July 1996 federal court in NY overturned part protecting children as too broad  June 1997 Supreme Court upheld PA decision  Reno vs. American Civil Liberties Union

CDA  Reno vs. ACLU: Indecency provisions of CDA were an unconstitutional abridgement of the First Amendment right to free speech because  They did not permit parents to decide for themselves what material was acceptable for their children  Extended to non-commercial speech, and  Did not define "patently offensive," a term with no prior legal meaning

CDA  2003 Congress removed those portions of CDA that had been struck down  Separate challenge by Nitke v. Gonzales in 2005 Nitke v. GonzalesNitke v. Gonzales  Internet does not permit publishers to restrict destinations based on geography  Act in effect restricted the entire Internet to the standards of the most restrictive community online

CDA  Unfairly restricted her freedom of speech  Struck down by NY federal court in 2005  Plaintiffs had not presented sufficient evidence  Decision affirmed by Supreme Court in 2006

Other efforts  Child Online Protection Act of 1998  Purpose was to protect minors from harmful sexual material on the Internet  Required commercial distributors of “material harmful to minors” to restrict minors access to their sites

Other efforts  Material harmful defined to mean  By contemporary community standards  Appealed to prurient interest  Showed sexual acts or nudity (included topless women)  In 1999 Third Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the law  Using “community standards” was too broad

Other efforts  Supreme Court found this reasoning insufficient & returned to lower court  2003, Third Circuit struck down again  Finding hindered protected speech among adults  2004 Supreme Court upheld this ruling  Noted that filtering software had improved  As not taken into account

Other efforts  March 2007 COPA struck down again  Government permanently enjoined from enforcing it saying “… perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection.”

Other efforts  Children’s Internet Protection Act of 2000  Introduced by John McCain in 1999  Passed both houses in December 2000  Signed by President Clinton on Dec 21, 2000  Challenged in 2001 by American Library Assoc

Other efforts  Previous challenges lost on 1 st Amendment grounds  CIPA represented a change of strategy  Federal government has no direct means of controlling local school/library boards  HOWEVER, normally, telecommunications users pay a universal service tax  Libraries receive an “e-rate” discount to purchase Internet access and computers

Other efforts  CIPA required libraries and schools using these discounts to  Purchase and use a “technology protection measure”  On every computer connected to the Internet

Other efforts “ … a technology protection measure with respect to any of its computers with Internet access that protects against access through such computers to visual depictions that are obscene, child pornography, or harmful to minors … “

Other efforts  Further, CIPA required that these measures be in effect during any use by minors  For adults the same provisions applied except the harmful to minors part was deleted  Measures could be disabled during use by an adult for research or other lawful purposes

Other efforts  ALA challenged on grounds that CIPA required libraries to block access to constitutionally protected speech  Enforcement involved removing federal funds intended to assist disadvantaged minorities  “Digital Divide”  No filtering software could accurately differentiate between illegal and protected speech on the Internet

Other efforts  PA Court of Appeals agreed  Supreme Court overturned  Legal for federal government to include conditions imposed on receipt of funding  Further, CIPA is constitutional if the library will unblock at an adult’s request  Some libraries did choose to forego federal funding

Parental Controls On the Internet  Is the answer in  Legislation?  Technology?  Textbook suggests technology  Software that permits parents to control access

Parental Controls On the Internet  SurfWatch SurfWatch  CyberPatrol  Net Nanny Net Nanny Net Nanny  Platform for Internet Content Selection  PICS PICS

Parental Controls On the Internet  AOL also filters content and blocks access  PICS is working with industry to  Develop standards to rate all Internet content  Software could be developed to block access for children based on these suitability ratings  Business also into the fray  Lost productivity  Liability for harassment, hostile workplace suits

How Parental Controls Work  SurfWatch consists of a module that scans input from the Internet  Intercepts it before it reaches the TCP/IP stack  Checks URLS most likely to contain offensive content  HTTP  NNTP (news)  FTP  Gopher (distributed document search and retrieval network protocol designed for the Internet )  IRC

How Parental Controls Work  Content from these URLS is isolated  1 st check: objectionable URLS  Checked against a database of URLS from objectionable sites  Content not permitted thru to TCP/IP stack  User notified that site has been blocked

How Parental Controls Work  2 nd check: Pattern matching  Words in URL indicative of offensive content  Content not permitted thru to TCP/IP stack  User notified that site has been blocked  3 rd check: PICS  Information about content embedded in Web documents  Content not permitted thru to TCP/IP stack  User notified that site has been blocked

How Parental Controls Work  If content passes all checks it is permitted through  Process is very fast so user sees no delay  Database updated monthly to keep up with new developments  Businesses use SurfWatch on a server to protect their business network

Problems with SurfWatch  Early efforts had some amusing moments  1996  White House page about Bill & Hillary, Al & Tipper  Page named “couples.html”  Renamed “principles.html”  Archie R. Dykes Medical Library  Library blocked from browsing their own site

Problems with SurfWatch  University of Kansas Medical Center  Library Library