Rating the Internet filtering programs

Also: National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and Boys and Girls Clubs Introduce Netsmartz

BY LARRY MAGID
Special to the Mercury News 
Sunday, February 25, 2001

An article in the March issue of Consumer Reports questions whether Internet filtering programs like Net Nanny, Internet Guard Dog, Cyber Patrol and others are effective ways to protect your children from inappropriate material.

Consumer Reports pitted several filters against ``a list of 86 easily located Web sites that contain sexually explicit content or violently graphic images, or that promote drugs, tobacco, crime, or bigotry.'' The results of the tests were rather startling. Cyber Patrol, according to the magazine, ``failed to block 23 percent of objectionable sites.'' Cybersitter 2000 failed 22 percent of the time. Cyber Snoop failed 90 percent of the time. Internet Guard Dog failed in 30 percent of the cases while Net Nanny failed to block 52 percent of the objectionable sites. Norton Internet Security 2001 had a 20 percent failure rating.

The most successful filtering option, according to the magazine, is the AOL ``young teen'' parental control which failed 14 percent of the time. AOL's ``mature teen'' filter was deemed to have a 30 percent failure rating.

I didn't conduct the same tests as Consumer Reports but, frankly, I find the results a bit surprising. A couple of years ago I checked out all the major Internet filtering programs in preparation for testimony in the American Civil Liberties Union's successful challenge to the Children's Online Protection Act of 1998. The ACLU contended, and the court agreed, that filtering programs, in conjunction with parental supervision, represent a reasonable level of parental control, thus making it unnecessary for the government to regulate content on the Internet. The judge's decision was based in part on my testimony, which stated that filtering, though far from perfect, blocked the vast majority of sites.

I tested a number of programs by looking for certain types of words, images and themes and, yes, I was able to get to some naughty and even downright nasty sites despite the presence of filtering software. Admittedly, my methodology was a bit less formal than what Consumer Reports says it did, but my findings were dramatically different. While all the programs I tested had a small failure rate, none failed more than 10 percent of the time.

Still, any filtering program is subject to both under blocking and over blocking. Under blocking occurs when a child is able to get to a site that has sexual, hateful or other inappropriate material. Over blocking is when the software filters out sites, which, while possibly controversial, aren't necessarily harmful to children.

One area where the magazine testers and I agree is that filtering programs are no substitute for parental involvement. The fact that the filters are less than 100 percent effective is only one reason. My main concern about filtering programs is that they aren't very instructive even when they are effective in keeping kids out of harm's way. Having inappropriate sites blocked may keep a child from seeing something disturbing but they don't teach children judgment or critical thinking skills. In the long run, kids are better off learning what sites to avoid and what sites to visit by applying good judgment and by following the lead of their parents.

This is especially true when it comes to sites that advocate bigotry. I don't condone such sites or the organizations or individuals behind them but I do think that it's instructive for young people -- especially teens and pre-teens -- to know that these groups are out there. The best weapon against bigotry isn't hiding from it, but confronting it and discussing it so that children learn to recognize the difference between lies, truth and legitimate differences of opinion. It's not easy even for adults.

When it comes to young children -- say 11 and under -- there's no question. They shouldn't be allowed to surf the Net without an adult present. As your kids get older, you can start giving them more freedom but it's still a good idea to check in on them now and then. My kids are 14 and 16 and we still don't allow them to access the Internet from their bedrooms. Their PCs are in a public area of the house. In general, we respect our children's privacy and don't stand over their shoulders when they're online, but we do walk in when they're on the Net and I occasionally check the history section of their browsers to see where they've been.

Animating Internet Safety

I've already written about Internet sites designed to help teach Internet safety. Most of them, including the industry funded GetNetWise.org and my own site, SafeKids.com, are really aimed at adults rather than children. There are some exceptions. Last August, I wrote about two Disney sites: CyberNetiquette Comix (http://disney.go.com/cybersafety) and `SurfSwell Island: Adventures in Internet Safety` (www.surfswellisland.com). Both of these sites use familiar Disney characters to educate children. But now there's a new set of cartoon characters created specifically to help teach kids to how to stay safe online.

The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), with funding from Compaq Computer Corp has created new Web site called Netsmartz (www.netsmartz.org) which uses characters aimed at three separate age groups: 5-7, 8-12 and 13-16. The site is an outgrowth of a project co-ponsored by the Boys and Girls Clubs of America which was funded by Congress to develop these characters for a DVD-ROM that will be used to train children in 50 Boys and Girls clubs throughout the country this year with plans to train children in all 2,800 clubs over the next five years.

What's nice about the Netsmartz program is that it speaks directly to children with games, skits and quizzes aimed at the three age groups. The site, which was unveiled Wednesday, is still in development but it's definitely worth a visit, especially if you have younger kids. (In the interest of full disclosure: I'm on NCMEC's board of directors and, several years ago, wrote the parental and teen Internet safety brochures that are distributed by the non-profit agency).

Encouraging children to visit Netsmartz and the Disney child safety sites is a good way to reinforce some basic lessons but even these educational sites are no substitute for parental involvement. Old fashioned, as it may seem, I still advocate talking with your children periodically about how they're using the Internet. Don't lecture them, but do sit down to talk about how they should respond to potentially dangerous situations. Even if you've talked about it before, remind them again to never give out personal information to anyone and never to get together with someone they meet online.