Content-control software

Content-control software, also censorware and web filtering, is a term for content-filtering software, especially when it is used to filter content delivered over the Web. Content-control software determines what content will be available on a particular machine or network; the motive is often to protect children or to prevent employees from viewing non-work-related sites. Pornography, gambling, alternative lifestyles, sexuality, political content, and religious web sites may be filtered. Content-control software can also be used to block Internet access entirely.

Terminology

This article uses the term "content control," a term also used on occasion by CNN Playboy Magazine San Francisco Chronicle ^*" target="_blank" >and the New York Times [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9403E1D8143BF933A05752C1A961958260. However, two other terms, "censorware" and "web filtering," while more controversial, are often used.

In a fashion similar to the term "spyware," "censorware," a portmanteau of censor and software, is a valuative term. Companies who make products that selectively block web sites do not refer to these products as censorware, and prefer terms such as "'Internet filter"; in the specialized case of software explicitly designed for parents to monitor and restrict the access of their children, "parental control software" is also used.

Those critical of such software, however, use the term "censorware" freely: consider the Censorware Project, for example. The use of the term "censorware" in editorials criticizing makers of such software is widespread and covers many different varieties and applications: Xeni Jardin used the term in a 9 March 2006 editorial in the New York Times when discussing the use of American-made filtering software to suppress content in China; in the same month a high school student used the term to discuss the deployment of such software in his school district ^*.

Seth Finkelstein, an anti-censorware advocate, described what he saw as a terminology battle, in a hearing at the Library of Congress in 2003:

...I think the best public relations that the censorware companies ever did was to get the word "filter" attached to their products. When you think of a spam filter, for example, you think of something that you do not want to see. ... But, again, as I said earlier, censorware is not like a spam filter. What censorware is, is an authority wants to prevent a subject under their control from viewing material that the authority has forbidden to them. This description is general. ^*

In general, outside of editorial pages as described above, traditional newspapers do not use the term "censorware" in their reporting, preferring instead to use terms such as "content filter," "content control," or "web filtering"; the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal both appear to follow this practice. On the other hand, web-based newspapers such as CNET use the term in both editorial and journalistic contexts, e.g., ^*.

Issues

Filters can be implemented in many different ways: by a software program on a personal computer or by servers providing Internet access. Choosing an Internet service provider (ISP) that blocks objectionable material before it enters the home over software run on their own computer can help parents who worry about their children viewing objectionable content.

Those who believe content-control software is useful may still not agree with certain ways it is used, or with mandatory general regulation of information. For example, many would disapprove of filtering viewpoints on moral or political issues, agreeing that this could become support for propaganda. Many would also find it unacceptable that an ISP, whether by law or by the ISP's own choice, should deploy such software without allowing the users to disable the filtering for their own connections. In addition, some argue that using content-control software may violate sections 13 and 17 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

History

As the World Wide Web rose to prominence, parents, led by a series of stories in the mass media, began to worry that allowing their children to use the Web might expose them to indecent material. The US Congress responded by passing the Communications Decency Act, banning indecency on the Internet. Civil liberties groups challenged the law under the First Amendment and the Supreme Court ruled in their favor. Part of the civil liberties argument, especially from groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation, was that parents who wanted to block sites could use their own content-filtering software, making government involvement unnecessary.

Critics then argued that while content-filtering software might make government censorship less likely, it would do so only by allowing unaccountable private companies to censor as they pleased. They further argued that government encouragement of content filtering, or legal requirements for content-labeling software, would be equivalent to censorship. Groups such as the Censorware Project began reverse-engineering the content-control software and decrypting the blacklists to determine what kind of sites the software blocked. They discovered that such tools routinely blocked unobjectionable sites while also failing to block intended targets. An example of this tendency was the filtering of all sites containing the word "breast," on the assumption that this word could only be mentioned in a sexual context. This approach had the consequence of blocking sites that discuss breast cancer, women's clothing, and even chicken recipes. Similarly, over-zealous attempts to block the word "sex" would block words such as "Essex" and "Sussex." Content-control software has been cited ^* as one of the reasons Beaver College had to change the name to Arcadia, since content-control software had been blocking access to the college web site.

Some content-control software companies responded by claiming that their filtering criteria were backed by intensive manual checking. The companies' opponents argued, on the other hand, that performing the necessary checking would require resources greater than the companies possessed and that therefore their claims were not valid.

Many types of content-control software has been shown to block sites based on the religious and political leanings of the company owners. Examples includes blocking several religious sites ^*" target="_blank" >X-Stop was shown to block sites such as the Quaker web site, the National Journal of Sexual Orientation Law, the Heritage Foundation, and parts of The Ethical Spectacle. National Organization for Women. [http://www.spectacle.org/alert/peace.html" target="_blank" >^*

The site Peacefire.org posted information about some pages that were blocked and it was then added to the blocklist. Solid Oak Software has vowed that Peacefire's reports about CYBERsitter "will be blocked wherever they may be."

Use in public libraries

Content-control software such as SonicWALL is used in many public libraries in the United States to block content classed as objectionable because of pornography or advocacy of violence. Some libraries that employ content-control software allow the software to be deactivated on a case-by-case basis on application to a librarian.

Many legal scholars believe that a number of legal cases in particular Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union Children's Internet Protection Act ^*" target="_blank" >and the June 2003 case finding CIPA constitutional, [http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/02-361.pdf US v. ALA, changed that. Now filters are perfectly legal. However, the American Library Association maintains its stance opposing Internet filtering.

Bypassing filters

Some software may be bypassed successfully by using alternative protocols such as FTP, conducting searches in a different language, or using a proxy server.

Some of the more poorly-designed filters can be shut down by killing their processes; for example, in Microsoft Windows through the Windows Task Manager, or in Mac OS X using Activity Monitor.

Another option for bypassing blocking software locally can be achieved by using a Linux Live CD, such as, the Ubuntu Live CD which will run an entire operating system "on-the-fly" using the RAM memory as the only medium, having the advantage of not leaving any traces of the visited sites and leaving the hard disk unmodified once the Live CD is removed. For detailed instructions, see: Using Ubuntu Live CD to bypass blocking software.

Note that just as these bypass options are available, so are options to stop the bypasses. The Live CD only works if the CD/DVD-drive is available as a bootable device, bootable USB keys only work if USB booting is enabled, and using floppies to kickstart the boot process only works if the booting off floppies is enabled. A workstation can be secured against all these by selecting the hard drive as the first and only bootable device. Further security involves applying a random BIOS password unique to each computer, and finally padlocking the case shut to prevent access to the inside of the computer.

A nearly fail-safe method is to use windows XP Professional's Remote Desktop. Using Remote desktop will bypass the most restrictive filters, because the filters cannot censor any URL's or keywords. It works by connecting to your home computer via the internet. If the remote desktop icon is disabled in the start menu, you can setup remote desktop to be used inside of a browser window.