 |
|
|
|
Calibrated Internet filtering: New study helpful to parents (December 13, '02 issue)
There have been many studies on Web filtering. What's different - and uniquely helpful - about the new one in this week's issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association is that it looks at degrees of filtering. Setting filters at their most restrictive level - as most schools do, the study found - can make the Internet a much less useful tool for students. Though that goes for the home front too, US law requires filters on Net-connected computers at schools receiving federal e-rate funding.
Commissioned by the Kaiser Family Foundation to determine whether Web filters can effectively block pornography without keeping kids away from useful health information - found that "setting the filters at their least restrictive level can block most porn sites and still provide access to the vast majority of health sites," reports SafeKids.com's Larry Magid in this week's syndicated column. Interestingly, for health information, the difference between most and least restrictive settings was huge: only 1.4% of health sites were blocked at filters' least restrictive settings, compared to 25% at the most restrictive. For pornography the difference was minimal: 87% was blocked when filters were least restrictive, compared to 91% at the most restrictive settings. That's a 23.6% difference for health information vs. 4% for sexually explicit material. The difference between least and most restrictive settings was even greater for safe-sex information - 9% blocked and 50% blocked, respectively.
"Restricting access to health sites is perhaps the most glaring example of what is called 'over-blocking,' Larry writes, "the tendency of filtering programs to keep kids away from sites that they ought to be able to access. In previous studies, an overwhelming majority of 15-to-17-year-olds said that they have used the Web to look up health information, including searches on such topics such as pregnancy, birth control, HIV/AIDS, sexually transmitted diseases, and issues regarding drug and alcohol use.... Another concern is under-blocking - failing to keep kids away from pornography and other objectionable sites. Filters that under-block can give parents and educators a false sense of security."
One conclusion of the report is that "how a specific filtering product is configured is more important in avoiding inadvertent blocking of health information than is the choice between different products," its authors write. But possibly the most memorable conclusion is Larry Magid's metaphor (which a staff member at the Kaiser Family Foundation told us is the best one she's seen): "Filters are a bit like neckties. When used properly, they can make you look respectable. If you make them too tight they'll strangle you."
Relevant links (the study received a large amount of coverage):
Send us your views (and family policies) on filtering! Do you use it? Does it work for your family? Or do you use monitoring, and why? We appreciate getting your perspective (via feedback@netfamilynews.org)!
- The Kaiser Family Foundation's page with all relevant links, including the report itself in pdf format (the Conclusion is on pp. 12 and 13)
- The Journal of the American Medical Association
- "Filters can block health Web sites" at the San Jose Mercury News
- "Internet Filters Block Many Useful Sites, Study Finds" at the New York Times
- "Study: Web Filters Block Health Information" at the Washington Post
- "Study: Net Filtering Blocks Useful Content" at Internet News
HOME
| newsletter | subscribe
| links | supporters |
about | feedback
