There are numerous ways to censor the internet, one promonent method is the use of filtering software, also known as ‘censorware’. As Thornburch and Lin (2002) outline, 'filtering technologies allow Internet material or activities deemed inappropriate to be blocked, so that the individual using a filtered computer cannot gain access to that material. Typically, material is determined to be inappropriate on the basis of its source, its content, or the labels that have been associated with it.' The US government has now made it a legal requirement for all schools and government agencies to utilize such technology.
“In 2001, an emailed jpg entitled ‘Dirty Bushes’ was intercepted in several US companies and found to be pornographic (by the company’s censorware). Given the possible innuendo behind the name this probably doesn’t sound too surprising, until you realize that the image was in fact a portrait of George and Laura Bush.� (White, 2001)
Even though many programs can be set to different levels of filteration depending on the audience, as this example illustrates there are many flaws to using such software. Many programs simply scan web pages for certain key words, such as; sex, xxx and nudity (which may ironically blacklist this page). As a result the software may accidentally block non-pornographic pages such as those entitled ‘Chicken Breast Recepies’ or ‘Anne Sexton’. However this is not the only problem with such technology.
There is a major issue regarding programs that block sites deliberately regardless their content. For instance, CyberSitter has been a repeat offender according to http://www.peacefire.org/info/blocking-software-faq.html#blocked_sites blocking sites such as the ‘National Organization for Women’ and newsgroups committed to gay politics. It once actually blocked a Time Magazine article criticizing its blocking policies. There are numerous other offenders such as BESS (a program used by US Universities) which blocked anti-racist websites like ‘HateWatch’ and the ‘Marijuana Policy Project’ a site advocating medical marijuana. ‘CyberPatrol’ was once found to be blocking the ‘Ontario Center for Religious Tolerance’.
Recent research in filtering technology has now led to the development of a new form of censorware based on image content. Research by Arentez and Olstad (2002) reveals that “The image content is classified by investigating probable skin-regions, and extracting their feature vectors. These feature vectors are based on color, texture, contour, placement, and relative size-information for a given region. The importance of the different elements in the feature vector is determined by a genetic algorithm. For each picture, the algorithm gives the probability that a certain picture has erotic content.� Once this has been determined, by running an image-based classifier the software can set up a histogram of images on the site and then determine the likelihood of erotic content.
Arentez and Olstad state that the image-based classifier has an 89% success rate in the evaluation of images, with an average processing speed of 11 images per second. Flaws to the system are a lack of supplemental textual analysis and inaccuracy in classifying sites with few images, however the technology is still sufficient to be used in a web search engine. There also may be problems in determining between say; holiday photos at the beach and nude erotic photos as current technology operates on an ‘all-or-nothing’ basis. According to White (2001) ‘First 4 Internet’ has developed a successful image-filtering service for company e-mail accounts which operates using 'artificial intelligence' and is able to differentiate between indoors and outdoors, posed shots and natural or even landscapes and sea views. Filtering company emails is important for organisations as there is an average of 4.5 daily pornographic emails per internet user.
As White (2001) goes on to argue; a major flaw in porn-filtering technology is that 'it can never be all things to all people. What one person feels is deeply offensive, may be enjoyed by another. Thus porn-filtering is only as impartial as its creators who can only make assumptions and generalizations on how society at large visually perceives art, pornography and glamour.' Nonetheless this software should still be made avilable as people should have right to be able to censor themselves and their children from certain types of content they deem to be unacceptable.
--Chris McCosker 14:25, 26 Oct 2004 (EST)
--Chris McCosker 19:50, 28 Oct 2004 (EST)
Internet Pornography Censorship: Access
Internet Pornography Censorship: Censorship in China
Internet Pornography Censorship: Arguments For and Against
Internet Pornography Censorship: Regulation and Responsibility
Pornography and Internet Technologies
Moral Panics and the Internet
