Acceptable Filters? Maybe With Transparency
Staff -- Library Journal, 2/7/2000
University of Pennsylvania researcher Christopher Hunter (see above story) concludes that concern about online pornography will keep filters -- and their cousin, rating systems -- as a preferred policy solution. Given that filters with secret block lists and vague blocking criteria do not respect civil libertarian concerns, he suggests a push for "transparency." He argues that filter makers "publicly publish their blocked sites list" -- currently considered a trade secret by most -- as a tradeoff for being used in libraries and schools, where arbitrary and secretive decisions about limiting access to constitutionally protected speech should be forbidden. Hunter also calls for the companies to publicly post their filtering criteria, acknowledging that they make some blocking decisions without human review -- something most deny. He also recommends that filter makers e-mail the owners of all sites deemed off limits, and offer a clear written policy for appealing blocking decisions. He acknowledges the limits of such an approach; for example, not all web pages contain the e-mail address of creators, and site owners who are blocked may tie up the companies with appeals.
