GetParentalControls.org

A broad industry coalition called PointSmart.ClickSafe has just issued a Task Force Recommendations for best practices for child online safety.  This is a solid report that repeats earlier calls for more education, and for the first time lays out some much needed Internet industry standards.  This is a  real step forward.  Adam Thierer at the Progress and Freedom Foundation has a nice take on the report and puts it into perspective with other major safety reports here: “Five Online Safety Task Forces Agree: Education, Empowerment & Self-Regulation Are the Answer.”

 Here’s what the Task Force has to say on parental controls:

Filters:
A filter is both loved and hated. When it prevents a child from coming across inappropriate content, it is great. When it is incompatible with a business transaction it is not only counterproductive but also costly. Parents, while praising a filter’s effectiveness to stop a child’s inadvertent access to pornography, can also be confused and frustrated by instructions and settings that differ from product to product. Educators admit that young people can often get around filters and fear that public reaction to just one negative incident could be enough to end use of technology at school. And if that negative incident did occur, the legal ramifications are unclear because case law for school situations related to the Internet is not well established. Content that should be filtered out must first be indexed into a corresponding database. If it is not indexed in, it cannot be filtered out. In the end a filter can only be as good as its design and data. By definition, it will never eliminate 100% of the inappropriate content

 The following is a sample of the limitations connected with the purchase, installation, and use of filters:

• No standardization or benchmark exists to differentiate an excellent from a merely good or mediocre product.
• Youth often install computer and Internet tools for untrained or uninformed parents and when doing so bypass the protective settings.
• When set incorrectly the default can result in a total G-rated experience, limiting adult access to more mature and perhaps enriching content.
• Overly restrictive settings chosen by some school systems often lock out harmless and valid educational materials.

 I agree with a lot of this.  It’s true that parents are on their own in evaluating filters.  I’ve rounded up all the reviews of parental control filters written in the last three years here.  Reviews are helpful, but some certification would be better.    I also agree that filters need to be easier to set up – some of the programs, especially when filters are part of a security suite, are too complex. 

I take issue with the assertion that “young people can often get around filters.”  What is this belief based on?  The report cites no evidence to support this. (the evidence on this point is weak, as I’ve blogged about before.)  The report also inaccurately states that “Content that should be filtered out must first be indexed into a corresponding database.  If it is not indexed in, it cannot be filtered out.”   Many filters employ real-time blocking using artificial intelligence, which is prone to over-blocking for sure, but still doesn’t need to be indexed.  Another thing is in the section on “Monitoring software” it states “its weaknesses are the ease by which it can be hacked.”  This is the first I’d ever heard that “monitoring software can eaily be hacked.  I really like to know more about why they believe this. Looking at the panelists, it doesn’t appear that anyone from the filtering industry was part of this report.  That’s unfortunate, because aside from those minor issues, this is actually quite a good report.