From: IN%"rre@weber.ucsd.edu" 14-FEB-1997 05:21:41.54 To: IN%"rre@weber.ucsd.edu" CC: Subj: Cybersitter [Forwarded with permission.] =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help@weber.ucsd.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Date: Thu, 30 Jan 97 08:23:58 -0500 (EST) From: kkc@COMPETITOR.NET(K.K. Campbell) Subject: Cybersitter & Wallace ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ WHO'S WATCHING THE 'WATCHERS'? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ by K.K. CAMPBELL Net.column The Toronto Star Thursday, January 30, 1997 One of the most controversial aspects of cyberspace is censorship. A widely accepted solution to eliminating the "unwanted" is self-imposed censorship, through special software which blocks out types of content not desired. The appeal of these programs is that people needn't rely on distant authority to dictate acceptability. We police ourselves; or at least we have some control over how we will be policed. The news media have generally blessed "blocking software" with unexamined sprinklings of warm praise. After all, who dares suggest that stopping your 5-year-old from seeing graphic gore, violence or sex is bad? What could go wrong with that? But, now critics are starting to ask, who is "watching the watchers?" Could these watchers themselves develop more "creative applications" for their power to silence? Could they apply their own personal prejudices, or even their own hidden agendas? Or is that paranoid nonsense? Ask U.S. author Jonathan Wallace (jw@bway.net). Wallace says California's Solid Oak software, which produces Cybersitter blocking software, has added his site to its "block list" in retaliation for critical remarks he made about the company. Solid Oak claims 900,000 registered Cybersitter users. Wallace, a New York-based software business executive and attorney is co-author of the book _Sex, Laws and Cyberspace_ (Henry Holt, $34.95). Net.column will discuss the book with its author next installment. He's also editor of the monthly Webzine _The Ethical Spectacle_, which focuses on "the intersection of ethics, law and politics in our society." The Webzine recently asked readers to not purchase Cybersitter because of continuing reports of Solid Oak's "unethical behavior." "In the book," Wallace says in a press release explaining his current attitude to Cybersitter, "we took the position -- naively, I now think -- that use of blocking software by parents was a less restrictive alternative to government censorship. We never expected that publishers of blocking software would block sites for their political content alone, as Solid Oak has done." Solid Oak unequivocably denies there is a political agenda of any kind et work. "Absolutely, 100 per cent not," Marc Kanter told the Toronto Star in a phone interview. Kanter is Solid Oak's vice president of marketing. "There is no hidden political agenda." Kanter says someone criticizing Cybersitter would not be blocked. He says Wallace's site is blocked because it "links information on how to hack Cybersitter. We do not allow our customers to have hacking information for the program." Wallace told The Star that's not true. "There's no such information on my site, nor is there on Peacefire's. I link to some pages maintained by Glen Roberts, who -- along with some political commentary on Cybersitter, and analysis of its blocking policy -- offers a (legal) work-around. However, since his site is separately blocked by Cybersitter, there is no reason for them to block my site as well." Kanter dismisses Wallace's complaints. "The guy didn't do any homework," Kanter says. "There are a few people who are right-wing activists who are out there that are trying to defame the filtering program. This is what leads to stories like you are doing -- and hopefully you are not supportive of their actions." Wallace didn't know what to make of that. "I've been called a communist, a socialist, and a wild-eyed civil libertarian, but no one has ever called me right wing before," he says. "Kanter has obviously never read _The Ethical Spectacle_." While Cybersitter, with fanfare, claims its mission is to block Web sites containing pornography, obscenity, gratuitous violence, hate speech, criminal activity, etc., an increasing number of investigative Net.journalists also claim Cybersitter, without fanfare, blocks access to Web sites based on political criteria. FOR OUR OWN GOOD This brouhaha began last summer when CyberWire Dispatch revealed Cybersitter blocks sites based on political agenda, such as the feminist National Organization for Women (www.now.org). Dispatch journalist/editor Brock Meeks asked Solid Oak CEO Brian Milburn (bmilburn@solidoak.com) about that. "Milburn isn't shy about it," Meeks reported. "He was outright indignant when he originally told Dispatch: 'If NOW doesn't like it, tough'." Solid Oak threatened to sue Dispatch for its article, but things quieted down. In December, the issue erupted again when 18-yearold Bennett Haselton (bennett@peacefire.org) wrote an article about the company's selection of blocked sites: "Cybersitter: Where Do We Not Want You To Go Today?" (www.peacefire.org/censorware/CYBERsitter.html). Haselton takes computer science and math at Vanderbilt University. "Peacefire" is his own creation, a teen cyberrights group, average age 15. According to various Net.journalists, Solid Oak now threatened Bennett with a lawsuit and even tried to get the Peacefire site booted from its host system (media3.net) by telling Media3 that Haselton was making it "his mission in life to defame our product" by "routinely" publishing names of sites blocked by Cybersitter. (It should be noted it's easy to figure out which sites are blocked, the software provides an output list. Try "playboy.com" -- blocked. Try "whitehouse.com" -- okay. Try "peacefire.org" -- blocked. Try "now.org" -- blocked.) Unsuccessful in his pressure against Media3, Milburn instead included the peacefire.org domain in Cybersitter's block list. On Dec. 9, HotWired picked the story up (www.wired.com/news/story/901.html). NetAction Notes (www.netaction.org) quickly followed suit. Haselton told his story to the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the EFF assured him it would represent him, should Solid Oak deliver on its threat to sue. On Dec. 20, The Netly News (http://netlynews.com) continued the investigation of Cybersitter. Aside from the irony of Cybersitter censoring the newsgroup alt.censorship, it "blocks dozens of ISPs and university sites such as well .com, zoom.com, anon.penet.fi, best.com, webpower.com, ftp.std.com, cts.com, gwis2.seas.gwu.edu, hss.cmu.edu, c2.org, echonyc.com and accounting.com. Now, sadly, some libraries are using it." BLACK LIST TO BLOCK LIST Wallace read the reports of legal threats against the teenager and thought "Milburn was acting like the proverbial 800-pound gorilla." So Wallace added a link on _The Spectacle_'s homepage called "Don't Buy Cybersitter." "I wrote the company," he says, "informing them of my actions and telling them that they misrepresent their product when they claim it blocks only indecent material, hate speech and the like." Wallace says Solid Oak responded by adding his Webzine to its block list. Learning of this, Wallace wrote Milburn and Solid Oak tech support. "I pointed out that _The Spectacle_ does not fit any of their published criteria for blocking a site," he says. "I received mail in return demanding that I cease writing to them and calling my mail 'harassment' -- with a copy to the postmaster at my ISP." Kanter acknowledges this. "He spoke to us more than once or twice -- he continued to send mail -- mail like that is considered 'not wanted' and is automatically sent back." By the end of our phone conversation, Kanter had dropped the "right-wing activist" explanation of who was behind the Cybersitter complaints and offered a new one: "Some of this rhetoric was started by someone we believe to be a highly -- how do you put it? -- a highly homosexual individual, who did not believe we should have the right to block any sites or links to alternative lifestyles. That's how a lot of this got started." Why is the National Organization for Women site blocked? "Very simple. It contains links to gay and lesbian hardcore material. I was on their page this morning, and there is a lot of offensive material linked directly. Just go to their links page and start looking at 'gay' and 'feminism.' Our parents don't want that kind of stuff." I asked if he really meant "hardcore" -- suggestive of full-penetration images/stories. "Yes, by links through links," he clarifies. If someone followed the links starting at now.org, they'd eventually find hardcore sexual material. Kanter says parents are not permitted to know which sites Cybersitter blocks. "That list is not given to anybody under any circumstances -- including law enforcement agencies that have requested it." He says it's to prevent the list from "getting into the wrong hands." It would be a cybermap to naughtiness for some kids. And parents aren't allowed to remove blocked sites from Cybersitter, although they can add to the list. Cyber-rights activists claim the incident underscores warnings they've issued for years: While censorship software may first aim to protect children against "pornography," it can quickly be adopted for political agendas. _The Ethical Spectacle_ is at www.spectacle.org. Solid Oak's Web site can be found at www.solidoak.com. -30- Copyright 1997 K.K. Campbell