 |
|
|
|
Australian study on 14 filters' effectiveness (March 29, '02 issue)
The Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA) this week released the results of a study that tested 14 filtering software products. Parents working through whether filtering software would work at their house or which product to use might find this report useful, because the study was done with home users in mind. "Almost 900 Web sites in 28 categories were used to conduct the tests," says the ABA's press release, which links to the full, 90-page report, available to anyone on the Web in pdf format. Two-thirds of the report is made up of thorough, multi-page reviews of individual products, done by researchers at Australia's Commonwealth Scientific & Industrial Research Organization.
The report doesn't seem to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of filtering overall, but the ABA's press release does offer a few general observations:
- White lists work best (especially for little kids): Products that use "inclusion filtering" (which blocks sites not included on "white lists," or databases of Web sites deemed appropriate by the filtering company) "are the most efficient at blocking offensive content," the press release says. The problem is, the ABA continues, they also block "a significant amount of content that may not necessarily be offensive." As for age-appropriateness, "products and services that employ this technique are likely to be most suitable for families with younger (primary school age) children, for whom access to the wider Internet may be less important than ensuring they are protected from harmful content," the release reported.
- Keyword and Web-address filtering (less effective, better for older kids): "Products based on URL and keyword 'black lists' are effective in blocking particular types of unwanted content in most cases. The research indicates that products that employ human verification of black lists [when software company employees look at sites the technology blocks and verify they should be blocked] tend to be the more accurate in blocking offensive content, and are less likely to block access to suitable content. Filters of this type are likely to be more suitable for families with older children, with requirements to access a broader range of content."
- Family rules needed too: The study's authors "also emphasized that filter software was most effective when used in conjunction with household rules for Internet access, and parental supervision."
The 14 filtering products or services tested by the study's authors were AOL Parental Controls (AOL version 6.0), Arlington Custom Browser, Cyber Patrol 5.0, Cyber Sentinel 2.0, Cyber Sitter 2001, Eyeguard, I-Gear 3.5, Internet Sheriff, N2H2, Net Nanny 4.0, Norton Internet Security 3.0, Smart Filter 3.0, Too C.O.O.L., and X-Stop 3.04.The BBC's coverage of this report this week, "Net filters fail the children," drew its own conclusions, reporting that the study "casts doubt on the effectiveness of filtering software." Here are filtering flaws the BBC cites from the study:
- Some of the products tested allowed access to more than 50% of the sexually explicit sites they were designed to block.
- Many filtering products are English language-based, so they do not block objectionable content in other languages.
- Filtering products, many of which use keyword technology, miss pages that are primarily images or graphics (e.g., pages that describe and link to objectionable content with/from an image rather than text).
Readers' comments on this resource would be most welcome! Do email us via feedback@netfamilynews.org.
HOME
| newsletter | subscribe
| links | supporters |
about | feedback
