 |
Children's Protection & Advocacy Coalition (CPAC)
Copyright © 1999. All Rights Reserved.
Contact the CPAC.
|
|
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999
07:06:54 -0700
To: Senator John
McCain
From: Children's Protection & Advocacy Coalition
Subject: Internet Filtering & Children's Protection
Dear Senator McCain,
Respective of the Children's Internet Protection Act (S.97), I'm writing to convey support for protection of children from sexual predators who use the Internet to prey on children and, yet, to also convey reservations and disappointment about legislation mandating that schools and libraries install and activate stock-filtering products as a means of protection.
There are problems (or, as some see, serious drawbacks) with such a mandate and such software, which is what led me to addressing the Act proposed.
Since 1997, I have been quite pro-active (Online) in children's protection from pedophiles/predators abusing Internet services and seeking to exploit minor-age children. As a fact, the group I co-founded has several pages addressing the issues: awareness, protection, prevention, pedophilia, and reporting (incidents and suspicions to appropriate law enforcement agencies).
For my personal use of the Internet, I had even installed some of the filtering software in my computer, and activated the applications. It was as a result of having done these things, that I discovered some problem areas -- within the software. Some filters (at the time of installation) blocked the pages which I had helped design for educating parents about children's protection and enhancing the depth of information on how to better prevent pedophiles from gaining access to their children, and, of course, where adults and children could turn for help (resources) to report instances of abuse. Pages not blocked in their entirety have also been subject to (rather intrusive or annoying) unwarranted alerts or screen prompts displaying in web browsers. For example, Stop Child Porn & Exploitation is a page that has been earmarked by some filters as one that should cause (absolutely unfounded) alarm.
In reviewing filters for potential, personal use, I had also noted that, at least, one filtering software application blocks all the pages hosted by the Internet Service Provider (ISP) also hosting the domain belonging to: Children's Protection & Advocacy Coalition (CPAC). In making the discovery, I contacted the ISP to learn: "Why?" (And I had been considering terminating service with the hosting service if there were any child porn being hosted for a different account by the ISP). The ISP (CalWeb) didn't know why the accounts it hosts were blocked, and wrote the software company, seeking answers. No response, except continued blocking.***
I (and many others) fully understand the desire to protect children from pedophiles abusing service and wanting to abuse children, yet (as I've seen) filtering is but a panacea, not the solution.
Schools and libraries mandated to install filters may not be educated to the problems: Data entry is dependent on people and with the outcome often predicated on bias input -- by those determining the descriptors or key terms and phrases destined for screening-out sites. Some of the filter providers contract with parties outside the company to submit lists that adversely affect others: who are not sexual predators, who have never been accused of any act against a child, and yet who are then perceived by Net users (as a direct effect of the blocking and invasive browser warnings) as potential pedophiles, clearly suggesting that caution is necessary before proceeding or having contact with parties responsible for sites earmarked as "trouble-spots." The filtering sends false alarms, and enforces a form of censoring -- of sites that are even pro-children's safety and protection.
If school and library personnel are not doing the data entry directly -- and determined on how a word or phrase appears in context with the overall message presented on a site-by-site basis -- the filtering is too sweeping and makes erroneous assumptions. Many sites with legitimate educational and informational merit are blocked or pegged as "bad" for children. That's censorship.
I invite you to visit the pages throughout this domain: http://www.thecpac.com/main.html
Afterward, if there is anything discovered that seeks to lure or mislead children for purposes that pedophiles seek, I would like to know what it is that signals the alarms. There is nothing that will lead to that point, and yet the domain is censored by filtering.
I respectfully urge you to consider the full impact that filtering has had and will have (even) on non-offenders trying to exercise rights to First Amendment privileges and yet having rights eroded by bias within some companies and individuals.
Alternatives to filtering are clearly posted on the domain-hosted CPAC pages that you and anyone else may read -- as long as some filtering is deactivated so that blocking doesn't interfere and others' editorial comments won't obstruct the reading and impose faulty views about the material presented (which is actually for children's protection).
Most Sincerely,
Anne M. Cox, Founding Member
Children's Protection & Advocacy Coalition
c/o Fritz Clapp, Attorney at Law
3435 American River Drive, Suite A
Sacramento, CA 95864
*** The (complete)
blocking of the ISP servicing the account for thecpac.com
means: Internet users who wish to visit pages belonging to the
CPAC's hosting service cannot access the site pages (for the company,
or any of its additional customers listed in the business directory
provided by the ISP); there is not a single page maintained by
the ISP itself that has material
(text and/or images) that would as much as remotely constitute
child porn, child exploitation, et cetera. Blocking the
pages, though, misleads Internet account customers into thinking
there is probably something on the pages that is "harmful"
to children; and, the false impression relayed (by erroneous messages
via filters) is that such an ISP is not conscientious about children.
In fact, it is quite the opposite; the ISP hosts law-enforcement
related pages, social service(s) site-pages, numerous business
and personal accounts -- that have not an ounce of child exploitation
or anything potentially "harmful" to children and/or
teens.
It appears: Some individual(s),
responsible for providing data that has led to the blocking of
the ISP's pages (and all those it hosts as personal sites), also
had a role in the harassment/stalking that members of the CPAC
have encountered since 1997: Stalked
& Speaking Out. Perhaps the blocking is purely coincidental,
or possibly it's an effect of speaking out -- because there is
no reason for the ISP's domain to be totally inaccessible to those
who wish to visit; all the pages on the ISP's servers are not
problematic for children, as some filtering software has it appear
to Internet users. If there are pages that warrant caution, then
the filtering should have been site-specific.
There are problems with filtering
in a sweeping manner or enabling individuals who may have a bias
toward children's advocates, and toward others who are non-offending
adults, to fuel the data entry designated for filtering sites
from possible or continued view/access.
***
Robbie
Kirkland "Remember Me!"
Children's
Internet Protection Act (S.97)
Senator John McCain
PeaceFire
Electronic
Privacy and Information Center (EPIC)
Internet Free Expression
Alliance
|
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| [Skip Prev] [Prev] [Next] [Skip Next] [Random] [Next 5] [List Sites] |
