Quick search on BESS and N2H2:
Not knowing much about the N2H2 product(s) I did a search and a quick read
of n2h2's site.. this is what I found:
(as I stated this was a quick search.. so if I'm wrong PLEASE correct me
asap so people aren't left missinformed)
overview of the technology:
there is an "AI" (a bot perhaps-?-) that scans the web for sites that are
potentialy bad.. these are reviewd by "100+ human web reviewers" sites are
also added by customer(not clear on thier site if they directly add or of
these sites go through the reviewers..
the sites are blocked by going through a bess filter (run as a proxy
server) or using something
like MS ISA server..
The admin guide shows 40 catagories (though I didn't count) of
filters.. thinks like Message/bulletin boards -> stocks -> jokes -> news
exception catagories like history -> for kids -> moderated
so it certaily seems to offer alot of choice and control.. though the
catagories seem overly vaugue.. so I decided to find out what peacefire
and the likes found that it blocks... and I was definatly not prepared for
what I found:
Keep in mind.. their site STATES that each site is reviewed:
http://www.peacefire.org/blind-ballots/
basicly it shows sites that were blocked by cyber Patrol and BESS(N2H2)
Most were blocked because they were listed under "Typical School
Filtering" which includes "free web hosts"...
though:
http://www.edmarkey.org/ was listed in minimal filtering (ie hate,illegal,
porn, and/or violence)
one of the canidates actualy had gone so far as to say:
The fact that it is being used to filter out a website for legitimate
candidates speaking about the issues and their candidacies is a disservice
to the American voters and the FEC and Secretary of the Senate should be
fully investigating the matter to find the responsible persons behind the
censorship...The guilty party should be brought to trial and prosecuted
under the FEC election laws for tampering.
here is some aclu stuff:
http://www.aclu.org/issues/cyber/kerncodemand.html
I think I'm going to stick with my.. third-party filters are a bad
idea.. Amy's "AUP" idea or other localy determined policy and policy
enforcement is a far better way to go..
/"\ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
\ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X - NO HTML/RTF in e-mail http://www.curious.org/
/ \ - NO Word docs in e-mail "This quote is false." -anon
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Jen Hamilton wrote:
>
> > solution. If I've made any incorrect statements about your company's
> > product, I'd certainly be interested in seeing your perspective.
> Yes, I believe you have made incorrect statements about N2H2 and are
> misunderstanding N2H2's philosophy altogether. The company's web page
> describes in detail how the product works and why. It is my opinion that
> the technology used by N2H2 and other leading filtering companies is
> misunderstood by the community in general, and I strongly urge everyone
> who is against internet filtering to research the facts about the
> technology, instead of making false assumptions.
>
> > I stand by my statements that filtering software is not a useful
> > solution.
> A useful solution to what problem? I believe the problem we are discussing
> is 'how much control should the government have on what information enters
> schools and libraries'. In relation to internet media, filtering companies
> get all blame, and these companies understand that. But if filtering is
> not the most useful solution, then what is?
>
> With the emergence of the internet, schools are now faced with a problem
> that was never there before. If a school wanted to sell Playboys in their
> snack bar, how many parents would have a problem with that? At some point,
> there has to be a way to control what information enters a school or
> library, and that choice must be made by the individual school or
> library. The filtering technology of which I am defending allows the
> control to stay at that level.
>
> Jen
>
>
> > Many comments that I have seen here, in newspapers, and in other
> > areas about filtering are made on assumptions about the technology
> > without researching the facts about what is available.
>
> Heh. It just occurred to me to glace at your email address. For the
> record, I stand by my statements that filtering software is not a useful
> solution. If I've made any incorrect statements about your company's
> product, I'd certainly be interested in seeing your perspective.
>
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Aaron Malone wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 12:42:29PM -0800, Jen Hamilton wrote:
> > > described earlier) will not work. However, a proxy-based solution updated
> > > daily with new URL's that are categorized into types of sites (yes,
> > > by the filtering company)...
> >
> > Then we're back to control at the level of the filtering company, not the
> > individual libraries as you'd stated. I think you might be surprised at
> > how many incorrectly-categorized pages there are in every filtering system
> > I've seen. N2H2 (the company you mentioned before) employs underpaid
> > workers to browse the net and categorize -- they don't seem to do a great
> > job. And despite their claims, strong evidence has been presented to show
> > that they do use bots to categorize pages, often with poor results.
> >
> > > Many comments that I have seen here, in newspapers, and in other
> > > areas about filtering are made on assumptions about the technology
> > > without researching the facts about what is available.
> >
> > That's a very good point. Personally, I have researched them. I was the
> > administrator of an N2H2 filtering proxy for over a year, and prior to
> > that tested every other major solution we could find. I've done my
> > homework, and everything I've seen tells me that filtering *just*
> > *doesn't* *work*.
> >
> > --
> > Aaron Malone ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> > System Administrator "Some companies think of training as a
> > Poplar Bluff Internet, Inc. cost rather than an investment."
> > http://www.semo.net -- Paul Collins
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > issues mailing list
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/issues
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> issues mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/issues
>
_______________________________________________
issues mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/issues
