From: leamy@sunrae.uel.ac.uk (Ben Leamy) Newsgroups: alt.censorship,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.culture.www,alt.cyberspace Subject: CyperPatrol censors animal rights web sites Date: 31 May 1996 09:19:59 GMT Organization: Queen Mary & Westfield College, London, UK Lines: 89 Message-ID: <4omdjv$1tc@epsilon.qmw.ac.uk> Keywords: censorship kids children animal rights web Parents using web access limiting software such as CyberPatrol in an attempt to prevent their children from accessing pornographic material etc. may be surprised to hear that their children are being blocked from accessing much much more besides. Cyberpatrol blocks access to parts of the Environmental site www.enivolink.org which hosts a major resource site know as the Animal Rights Resource Site http://www.envirolink.org/arrs/ The ARRS hosts pages for about a hundred individual animal welfare, animal rights and vegetarian groups, all of which are currently blocked by the CyberPatrol software. If this disturbs you, please contact the company that sell the CyberPatrol software and politely let them know what you think about this situation. mailto:DEBRAG@microsys.com ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 21:05:01 +0000 From: Paul Davis Subject: (Fwd) Cybercensors I recently stumbled across the fact that the entire ARRS hierarchy is blocked by CyberPatrol on the grounds that some of the sites have "Gross Depictions" of animals (presumably pictures of the truth about animal abuse). I attatch a copy of part of the correspondence I had with them. In response to this, they promised that they would get their review board to review each site individually, but it is worth us monitoring whether "cybernanny" software is being used to block AR sites on the grounds of perceived extremisim etc. If it is we should protest vigorously. In extreme cases, issues of defamation etc could arise (e.g. if a software package defined an AR site as containing illegal or porn material or some such, it would be publicly branding the site, its webmaster and possibly the organization as criminals) We should definitely keep an eye on this as I suspect that very few of us actually use cybernanny software but a lot of people looking for info on AR (e.g. kids doing school projects may well do) and be denied access. What's the betting that the McDonalds site doesn't get blocked not matter how gross the depictions? Paul D, HSA ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- From: Self To: Debra Greaves Subject: Re: response to your question Reply-to: hsa@gn.apc.org Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 13:59:39 Dear Debra, Again thank you for your reply. >Your site specifically is not blocked. However the directory above >your is. > This site is on the list at the /arrs level due to gross dipictions >of animals. This seems a gross overkill as the ARRS hosts aprrox 100 separate and autonomous sites, linked only by the joint theme of being pro-animal. While I accept that some of these may have "gross depictions" of animals, many of the others do not and most have valuable educational/informational material of exactly the sort that responsible Internet users would wish their children to be able to access in order to aid in homework projects etc. We currently get many such requests from students and schoolchildren. It seems a little excessive to block many dozens of sites just becuse they happen to sit in a directory tree rather than existing at document root. If this policy is applied generally, then the many hundreds of people buying in Web space from third-party providers and ending up with sites of the: http://www.third-party.com/users/~buyer's-site/ sort could end up being blocked through no fault of their own simply because another user of the service carries unacceptable material. I would urge you to change the way in which you review sites as this policy seems to be arbitrary, unfair and also to be denying your users access to potentially thousands of sites which they may find useful and informative. I wait your reply with interest, Yours, Paul Davis, HSA From: eagle@nyx10.cs.du.edu (eagle) Newsgroups: alt.censorship,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.culture.www,alt.cyberspace Subject: Re: CyperPatrol censors animal rights web sites Date: 2 Jun 1996 01:59:30 -0600 Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci. Lines: 32 Message-ID: <4orhl2$7ao@nyx10.cs.du.edu> References: <4omdjv$1tc@epsilon.qmw.ac.uk> Keywords: censorship kids children animal rights web -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- leamy@sunrae.uel.ac.uk (Ben Leamy) wrote: >Parents using web access limiting software such as CyberPatrol in an >attempt to prevent their children from accessing pornographic >material etc. may be surprised to hear that their children are being >blocked from accessing much much more besides. Hi! I'm Jeff Davis, AT&T Worldnet agent. I'm not speaking for AT&T. We used Cyberpatrol in our training and it did a good job. Some of the Star Trek spoof .gifs and .jpegs showed some bare skin, but no hardcore sites were access during our trial period. Personally, a plug at the user end of the pipe, or more appropriately, a *filter* is not CENSORSHIP. That should be intuitively obvious. Parents who want their children aware of animal rights issues can show them that material themselves, and not worry what their children are accessing when said children are home alone. Care to rephrase your statement? Or do you want us to ignore you? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.1 iQCVAwUBMbFJv14aVg6iEWoBAQFTvAP/Y3B3/6AhDC0c6ySZASdoogAcMb/LJTum eIw7DofRkuq4VFakVjnCPRbx5t4QUZU6DHuEWq9Jy0MFx1virKyy4xNYX2YuHyH8 /2v0FTAGZvDOr0kzRKrtUYEFane8q2/FsKGEzmOmcSaqjfo1KuE0Fso3PHDvgLtq KsUPEqNWuaU= =hd9I -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- According to John Perry Barlow: *What is EFF?* "Jeff Davis is a truly gifted trouble-maker." *email * *** O U T L A W S On The E L E C T R O N I C F R O N T I E R **** US Out Of Cyberspace!!! Join EFF Today! *email * From: sethf@athena.mit.edu (Seth Finkelstein) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.censorship,alt.culture.www,alt.cyberspace Subject: Re: CyperPatrol censors animal rights web sites Date: 2 Jun 1996 11:59:19 GMT Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lines: 124 Message-ID: <4orvmn$3da@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> References: <4omdjv$1tc@epsilon.qmw.ac.uk> <4orhl2$7ao@nyx10.cs.du.edu> Keywords: censorship kids children animal rights web In article <4orhl2$7ao@nyx10.cs.du.edu> eagle@nyx10.cs.du.edu (eagle) writes: >leamy@sunrae.uel.ac.uk (Ben Leamy) wrote: >>Parents using web access limiting software such as CyberPatrol in an >>attempt to prevent their children from accessing pornographic >>material etc. may be surprised to hear that their children are being >>blocked from accessing much much more besides. > >Hi! I'm Jeff Davis, AT&T Worldnet agent. I'm not speaking for AT&T. We >used Cyberpatrol in our training and it did a good job. Some of the Star This is not relevant to the statement above. The point is that these filtering prgrams are politically sold as being against "pornography", but what they actually *do* is far more, like ban animal-rights sites in the current example. This tactic is not new. My favorite provision of this sort is from the old Comics Code, which stated "3) Policemen, judges, government officials, and respected institutions shall never be presented in such a way as to create disrespect for established authority." See: Labeling: http://www.mit.edu/activities/safe/labeling/summary.html >Trek spoof .gifs and .jpegs showed some bare skin, but no hardcore sites >were access during our trial period. Personally, a plug at the user end >of the pipe, or more appropriately, a *filter* is not CENSORSHIP. That >should be intuitively obvious. It should be intuitively obvious that it is CENSORSHIP when these plugs are being implemented and distributed under government threat. I'm sure AT&T knows all about filtering as being claimed a defense under the Commucations Decency Act, so I have to wonder if you're being disingenuous here. I might as well simply repost the article I just wrote on this whole issue, it'll save me some typing. From: sethf@athena.mit.edu (Seth Finkelstein) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.censorship Subject: Re: Batman on the Internet??? CyberAngels info Date: 2 Jun 1996 11:43:39 GMT Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lines: 84 Message-ID: <4orupb$38l@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> References: <4ojea7$s9b@Networking.Stanford.EDU> <4oklu9$l9g@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> <4or6rn$14tk@news3.realtime.net> In article <4or6rn$14tk@news3.realtime.net> bladex@bga.com (David Smith) writes: >Seth Finkelstein (sethf@athena.mit.edu) wrote: >: IT'S ABOUT GOVERNMENT FORCE, GOVERNMENT THREAT, GOVERNMENT COERCION. >: The men with guns, the State, the criminal justice system, etc. > >Then I don't understand : Safesurf, Cyber Angels, and PICS are neither of >the above. Yes, they are all of the above via being argued as defenses, "safe harbors", to prosecution under the CDA, a GOVERNMENT LAW. This was quite clear in the trial hearing: [From the 5-10-96 transcripts, on http://www.cdt.org/ciec/] [Lawyer arguing against the CDA] JUDGE SLOVITER: Okay, you were going to your third, the warning. MR. ENNIS: The third is give warning. The Government suggested there are basically two ways of coming within this safe harbor defense and that is to tag your speech, to self label your speech in some way as inappropriate for minors or to register your speech with the Internet Yellow Pages or with one or ten or fifty of the 200 and so additional directories of Internet listings. [Lawyer for the CDA] JUDGE BUCKWALTER: The defenses are easy to comply with? MR. BARON: That the -- that the defenses, if the content providers who are putting a material that is sexually explicit within the definition of the CDA out into cyberspace in various forms, if they take just simple measures to ensure that the world knows that they're there, the Department of Justice is saying that that's substantial evidence of an affirmative defense. JUDGE BUCKWALTER: That's not what the act says though. My point is that's not what the act says, that's what the Department of Justice says. MR. BARON: Well, we have keyed our defense of this act to the broadly worded provisions of E(5)(A) as well as the conference report that talks about a content selection standards. And I asked Dr. Olsen whether his scheme was a content selection standard, it is. The self-labeling scheme that's embodied as part of the PICs methodology is a type of content selection scheme for content providers. Congress set it out, we're not departing or going further afield than what's in the conference report. >The CDA does not require the implementation of labeling schemes. In >fact, the CDA does not require anything until the Supreme Court rules >that it does. I really think that if the Department of Justice argues a point of view in court, that's good enough to call it "GOVERNMENT FORCE, GOVERNMENT THREAT, GOVERNMENT COERCION. The men with guns, the State, the criminal justice system, etc.". Saying this must wait until the Supreme Court issues a holding endorsing it is just ridiculous. That point of view would probably even disparage most of what's in Supreme Court decisions as mere _dicta_, of no weight. This however leave us with a concept so crippled as to be unworkable. And what about chilling effect? Coming back to the real world, I think almost any business-owner who's presented with a statement of the Department of Justice that if they follow a labeling scheme, they won't be risking years in prison, is going to immediately agree to use that system (rare is the one who is going to say "Well, the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on your view here ...). This connects to the politics of labeling, and how it got labeled itself as being "against government" when that's actually utter nonsense. The private proponents say "Use a labeling scheme, otherwise the government will pass laws to put you in jail" (this is how they are using the term "alternative" to government censorship). The government proponents say "We've already passed laws, so use a labeling scheme as a way to avoid going to jail" (i.e., a "safe harbor defense"). And I get on the net, and people seriously argue to me that labeling has nothing to do with government threat. In the sort of net.libertarian viewpoint, people are conditioned to fear and loath government, but love and cherish business. But the image of "government" is the proverbial "jack-booted thugs", marauding SWAT teams, etc. If it's a case where bureaucrats in suits are dealing with managers in suits over issues of markets and liability, that tends to fall into the "can't ever criticize business as taking action against freedom" mental slot, and since the fear/love usually works as an exclusive distinction, this leads to the conclusion the government isn't there. It's a little like the infant-psychology experiments where if an object is out of sight, it doesn't exist. Except here it's worse, it doesn't exist even if the angle is different from the familiar one. -- Seth Finkelstein sethf@mit.edu Disclaimer : I am not the Lorax. I speak only for myself. (and certainly not for Project Athena, MIT, or anyone else). From: chtrain train Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.censorship,alt.culture.www,alt.cyberspace Subject: Re: CyperPatrol censors animal rights web sites Date: 3 Jun 1996 23:47:45 GMT Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Lines: 45 Message-ID: <4ovtj1$dhf@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net> References: <4omdjv$1tc@epsilon.qmw.ac.uk> <4orhl2$7ao@nyx10.cs.du.edu> <4orvmn$3da@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit sethf@athena.mit.edu (Seth Finkelstein) wrote: >In article <4orhl2$7ao@nyx10.cs.du.edu> eagle@nyx10.cs.du.edu (eagle) writes: >>Hi! I'm Jeff Davis, AT&T Worldnet agent. I'm not speaking for AT&T. We >>used Cyberpatrol in our training and it did a good job. > > This is not relevant to the statement above. The point is that >these filtering prgrams are politically sold as being against "pornography", >but what they actually *do* is far more, like ban animal-rights sites in >the current example. It is relevant. What these programs do is circumvent the need for governments to censor content. In UNIX, we use pipes. Why restrict content when the pipe can be filtered at the user end? Who cares what other content is filtered out as well as sexually explicit material. With parental supervision, this material can be accessed, and the parent doesn't have to worry about their children accessing adult material in their abscence. >>Trek spoof .gifs and .jpegs showed some bare skin, but no hardcore sites >>were access during our trial period. Personally, a plug at the user end >>of the pipe, or more appropriately, a *filter* is not CENSORSHIP. That >>should be intuitively obvious. > > It should be intuitively obvious that it is CENSORSHIP when >these plugs are being implemented and distributed under government >threat. I'm sure AT&T knows all about filtering as being claimed a >defense under the Commucations Decency Act, so I have to wonder if >you're being disingenuous here. I'm a named plaintiff in ACLU v Reno. I'm concerned with censorship by prior restraint. As long as the content exists and is accessable by anyone who choses that content, provided they are of the age of majority, then censorship does not exist. When a filter is installed on the user end, that user does not censor anyone else's right to access that material should they wish. Cyberpatrol doesn't censor *anyone* *ever*. It only filters content the user wishes filtered, and can be easily disabled should something like the animal rights site be filtered, and the user wants to access that material. Thus, Cyberpatrol does not CENSOR. Do you *now* wish to rephrase your statement? Or do you wish us to ignore you? Jeff Davis, pro netsurfer at work for AT&T Worldnet, but not speaking for AT&T Worldnet, only himself. From: sethf@athena.mit.edu (Seth Finkelstein) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.censorship,alt.culture.www,alt.cyberspace Subject: Re: CyperPatrol censors animal rights web sites Date: 4 Jun 1996 13:28:32 GMT Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lines: 146 Message-ID: <4p1dm0$nbj@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> References: <4orhl2$7ao@nyx10.cs.du.edu> <4orvmn$3da@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> <4ovtj1$dhf@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net> In article <4ovtj1$dhf@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net> chtrain train writes: >sethf@athena.mit.edu (Seth Finkelstein) wrote: >>In article <4orhl2$7ao@nyx10.cs.du.edu> eagle@nyx10.cs.du.edu (eagle) writes: > >>>Hi! I'm Jeff Davis, AT&T Worldnet agent. I'm not speaking for AT&T. We >>>used Cyberpatrol in our training and it did a good job. >> >> This is not relevant to the statement above. The point is that >>these filtering programs are politically sold as being against "pornography", >>but what they actually *do* is far more, like ban animal-rights sites in >>the current example. > >It is relevant. What these programs do is circumvent the need for ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >governments to censor content. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ In other words, the use of these programs is fueled by government threat. Glad to hear it from you. That makes it censorship. By the way, what "need"? I don't see any "need". >In UNIX, we use pipes. Why restrict >content when the pipe can be filtered at the user end? Again, this set of restrictions is justified by reference to threatened government restrictions. > Who cares what other content is filtered out as well as sexually > explicit material. WHAT??? All the people who traditionally are on the losing end of that "filtering" - like gay rights, antiestablishment politics, disfavored writers, and so on - should care. >With parental supervision, this material can be accessed, and the parent >doesn't have to worry about their children accessing adult material in >their abscence. BUT IT WASN'T ADULT MATERIAL BEING BLOCKED! It was anything having to do with animal rights resources on that site! This is that bait-and-switch trick again, talk about sex to get the system accepted, then load all sorts of other prejudices into it. >>>were access during our trial period. Personally, a plug at the user end >>>of the pipe, or more appropriately, a *filter* is not CENSORSHIP. That >>>should be intuitively obvious. >> >> It should be intuitively obvious that it is CENSORSHIP when >>these plugs are being implemented and distributed under government >>threat. I'm sure AT&T knows all about filtering as being claimed a >>defense under the Communications Decency Act, so I have to wonder if >>you're being disingenuous here. > >I'm a named plaintiff in ACLU v Reno. Umm, where are you named? I don't see you in: URL: http://www.aclu.org/court/cdacom.html >I'm concerned with censorship by prior restraint. But no other type? Censorship by prejudicial labeling, backed up by government threat, is just fine by you? This is a very good point to see, and I'm glad for this blunt declaration by someone so close to the case. The concern of many businesses in this case is that the government doesn't come after them. It is NOT about freedom of information - as was so honestly stated just a few lines ago: "Who cares what other content is filtered out as well as sexually explicit material." If there's a system of censorship which suppresses information, but leaves business in the clear from government prosecution, they're all for it. That's what I keep talking about as a privatized censorship system. It works by using government power to enforce the *use* of the rating system, with the collaboration of the private sector in the administration of it. > As long as the content exists and is accessable by >anyone who choses that content, provided they are of the age of majority, >then censorship does not exist. This is another one of the labeling myths - "As long as access is theoretically possible, no matter how burdensome or difficult it may be, no matter how much the distribution is affected, it's not censorship." Your statement here is just nonsense by any common definition. > When a filter is installed on the user end, that user does not censor > anyone else's right to access that material should they wish. But when government threat is used to back up the use of filters, people's right it access that material is impeded through the impositions of a prejudicial system on creators and distributors. > Cyberpatrol doesn't censor *anyone* *ever*. It only > filters content the user wishes filtered, and can be easily disabled CyberPatrol places URL's it doesn't like on a list, and this list is widely propagated in a GOVERNMENT THREAT SYSTEM. You want to say CyberPatrol is an agent of the government's censorship here, to be strictly Libertarian, fine. >should something like the animal rights site be filtered, and the user >wants to access that material. Thus, Cyberpatrol does not CENSOR. Do >you *now* wish to rephrase your statement? Or do you wish us to ignore >you? It gets so wearying dealing with people who can't intellectually handle anything but a *direct* exercise of government power. No matter how many times it's pointed out that the system is an *indirect* exercise of government power, they write the same stock reply, along the lines of "The private agent acting under the government threat is not the government itself, so IT'S NOT CENSORSHIP.". Do you *now* wish to participate in a discussion where you don't simply chant your definition and sneer at any other (I'm using roughly "suppression of information due to government force" - you can keep to "prior restraint" if you want, but then you're off the wall with regard to common usage). Or do you wish us to ignore you? Obligatory flaming aside, I'm fascinated by your reply and participation, because it substantiates much of what I've been saying about business, ratings systems, and so on. You started out with a declaration that it's based on governments "*need*" (my emphasis), so all the abstraction about "voluntary" is nonsense ("What these programs do is circumvent the need for governments to censor content."). Then you went on that you didn't care about what information is suppressed (I love it - "Who cares what other content is filtered out as well as sexually explicit material."), thus shooting down the rationale that it's about valueless "smut". Further your definition of censorship was even more cramped than the Libertarian one, to the point what I'd call it misleading so you could do the "it's not censorship" bit ("I'm concerned with censorship by prior restraint."). Good stuff. Goes straight into my anti-labeling page: Labeling: http://www.mit.edu/activities/safe/labeling/summary.html File: http://www.mit.edu/activities/safe/labeling/against-net-label I'm not going to agree to your ridiculously narrow usage (censorship == ONLY "prior restraint), because that's of course equivalent to "Agree that I'm right. Or do you wish us [who's us?] to ignore you?". No point to it. But I do hope you'll stick around. -- Seth Finkelstein sethf@mit.edu Disclaimer : I am not the Lorax. I speak only for myself. (and certainly not for Project Athena, MIT, or anyone else). From: reinitz@panix.com (John Reinitz) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.censorship,alt.culture.www,alt.cyberspace Subject: Re: CyperPatrol censors animal rights web sites Date: 4 Jun 1996 15:27:13 -0400 Organization: Panix Lines: 16 Message-ID: <4p22mh$kn3@panix2.panix.com> References: <4omdjv$1tc@epsilon.qmw.ac.uk> <4orhl2$7ao@nyx10.cs.du.edu> <4orvmn$3da@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> <4ovtj1$dhf@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net> In article <4ovtj1$dhf@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>, chtrain train wrote: >>>Hi! I'm Jeff Davis, AT&T Worldnet agent. I'm not speaking for AT&T. We ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Gee, and to think that you used to be "Jeff Davis, Outlaw on the Electronic Frontier" My, how the mighty have fallen. John