These pages made possible by our sponsors (click on their banner) [Click here for advertising here with Guaranteed Results!] For the main index of Glen L. Roberts' pages click here

You are Visitor # Here Since 12/16/96!

What's up? Well, apparently in response to my web page Nurse Your Net Nanny which has instructions for turning off net censorship programs like Net Nanny, CyberPatrol, CyberSitter, etc, Solid Oak Software decided to censor my pages.

However, rather than simply blocking what they found offensive, or bad, they blocked out all of pages.ripco.com (the isp that my web pages are on), and glr.com, a domain registered to my name.

This abuse goes far beyond a debate on the good or bad aspects of net censorship programs, but shows the tremendous potential for abuse! Now, a users of Cybersitter, will be unable to access for example, my No Junk Email page, or Oil City Pa, page, or any of the hundreds or thousands of other web pages on Ripco. For example:

Asian American Bar Association of the Greater Chicago Area

English 201 Classes

The Fisher Home Page

Places to Sail, Kayak, Canoe, Fish, or just relax in the Chicagoland Area

Krishna Yoga Foundation

Karen's Home Page

The Faerie Seamstress

sAxMaNiA's hOmE pAgE

Vivec's Home Page (great resources for learning HTML)

How far could this abuse go? What is a net censorship program company took money from one company to block its competitors pages? Can't say it has happened yet, but I think the door is open. One common key for these programs is an apparently need for secrecy over what is censored.

You must rely on their judgement -- and you can't gain any insight into it!

So, in the end, it will actually be better. The unenlightened will feel safe with a pure net, and the knowledgable will continue to excel... the gap between the ones that know and those who don't will expand. The balance of power will continue to be focused on the few technologically elite. The vast informational resources of the net will remain elusive for those wollowing in a safe and pure internet.

>
>I have just visited your site for the first time even though
>I have been a listener to your program for some time now. Normally I
>agree with everthing you put forth on your show but, I now have
>serious questions as to your moral sense of right and wrong!
>
>Imagine my surprise when I found your page describing how to 
>circumvent blocks of web pages such as those promoting explicit
>sexual content and abhorent behavior. While I am in support of
>maintaining our freedom to access information on the Internet, I
>can not condone your publishing work arounds for parental net 
>censorship programs.

If the programs 1) effectively blocked porn and 2) did not block
non-obnoxious sites, my interest in publishing that information
would be minimal.

Additionally, the programs are so simply, that any teenager who
has the intellect to make it in the real world in a few years
will be able to figure out how to turn off these programs without
my instructions (the original instructions on my page for turning
off Cybersitter came from a teenager). The answer to keeping our
kids from turning off the blocking programs is to keep our kids
stupid. The idea of computers and the internet is to expand our
intellect. I believe from my limited use of Cybersitter, that it
would pretty much interefere with downloading most shareware from
the internet.

>
>You obviously do not or would not restrict your own children from
>viewing all manner of objectionable material because of their
>'right' to access such information and your desire of not
>"depriving them of the knowledge contained therein".

My reference there is obviously to the thousands of web pages
blocked by the various blocking programs that are not immoral by
anyone's opinion... for example, my anti-junk email page, fishing
spots in chicago, the Girl Scouts home page, etc.

 I find
>this idea reprehensible and beneath any reasonable common sense
>when it comes to protecting ones own children.

I don't view that these programs actually protect anybody. They
may filter SOME immoral sites, however, with 50,000,000+ web
pages and more everyday how they can get them all?

>
>You may certainly have a case in stating that this is only the
>first step in preventing all manner of useful information that
>the tyrannical government, for instance, does not desire it's
>subject to view. However, this is not an excuse to interfere with
>my right as a parent to prevent unhealthy material from falling
>in the hands of potential innocent children!

What am I interfering with? If you buy a blocking program that is
ineffective because your kids can use notepad to turn it off,
your problem should be with the company that offers that program.

>You should realize that we do not live in a perfect society and
>some of us will have to sacrifice their right to be accessed 
>(if you have do not have immoral material) on the internet to 
>protect the innocense of our children.  It is precisely your
>opinion that everyone should have access to anything on the
>Internet that I find myself not even allowing my children to
>use this extremely useful medium at all.

You want a magic bullet to protect your children in cyberspace.
You won't find that anywhere. I have seen some schools ask about
software that will allow students to surf the internet
unsupervised. What other school activities exist wher kids do
something UNSUPERVISED? None. Your job as a parent is to
supervise your kids, set limits, encourage their intellectual
development and teach them to distringuish between right and
wrong.

You cannot go to the corner store and buy a $39.95 product that
will protect your kids from harms in the real world. You do not
keep your kids inside 24 hrs a day, because there are drugs, sex
and other evils in the real world. Why do you expect that in
cyberspace?

 I have tried to use
>some of the programs you so arrogantly bash and find that they
>do not and can not limit access to sexually explicit sites due
>to the concept they use to block them. There is no way for all
>offensive sites to discovered and placed in a database for
>distribution to users of these various programs. It is physically
>impossible to keep up with new site additions and only promotes
>the same mentality of our current 'throw away' free-market
>enterprise system. I refuse to participate in this 'sceme' to
>extract as much money as possible from the users of these services.

Exactly. The programs do not protect you. They block many
non-offensive sites. They give you a false sense of security. No
program can be an alternative to your being a good parent. No
corporate executive can make the moral decisions for you (if the
programs were effective).


>
>Again, I support your views, to an extent, on access to information.
>But, I can not sacrifice the mental health of my children by
>exposing them to many various profane materials present on the
>Internet today. I sincerely hope you do not hold the view that
>parents are not the best judge of what is proper for their own
>children.

They are. Which is why, even if the programs worked effective,
they would still be a bad idea.

 I must say that this appears to be your view based on
>your support and open defiance of such programs. Maybe you have
>a better way of protecting children from the dreggs of society
>that have apparently migrated to the internet that I am not 
>aware of. Please let me know if so!

Work with your kids on the net. Help them explore the wonderful
world out there... help them learn to be excited about life and
the opporunities. "Just say no" doesn't work for drugs or
cyberspace. Help them develop a keen zest for life and the
ability to distinguish between right and wrong. Something a
"purifying" filter cannot do.
>
>I hope you can understand my position in the matter and look forward 
>to a response from you. Thank you in advance for considering my 
>position. 
>
>Sincerely,
>Concerned Parent

Member of the Internet Link Exchange