"Who Watches the Watchers?"

Dateline: 08/08/97

Last week when we spoke about Compuserve's new "Adult Content" policy, I had mentioned that my initial thought had been to review the various software tools available on the Net to restrict the surfing ability of "children" by their parents. I was waylaid by Compuserve's determination that all information concerning gays and lesbians somehow belonged behind its adult curtain.

Currently there are two primary forms control, software for parents to limit their children's surfing and self-rating.

Let's start by self-rating this site.

The self-rating system I have seen most often on the Net is RSACi which has a content oriented rating system. I choose to register the entire site.

The first section is Nudity Rating and my choices are:

frontal nudity that qualifies as a provocative display of nudity
frontal nudity
partial nudity
revealing attire
none of the above

I can't recall any nudity on this site, and while "revealing attire" is certainly subjective, I don't believe that there is any of that either. So, I select "none of the above" and move on.

Next they want a Sex Rating and they want me to review their definitions before making my selection. Even though we speak of romance here (don't we?) I don't believe there are any pictures with even "innocent kissing." However, my text certainly speaks of romance so I'm going to play it safe and select "innocent kissing or romance."

Next up is the Language Rating with more definitions. I notice a few amusing items among the definitions. "Strong language for sexual functions or intercourse: jerk-off, balling, shtupping, screwing, boffing, cumming." I never thought I would see a time-honored yiddish word like "shtupping" included in the more coarse verbiage of this list. We also see a subjective judgment call with "to use the name of a deity with contempt or as a curse." Is a site profane for a singular use of "God Damn?" or "Jesus Christ!?" Is "taking the name of the Lord thy God in vain" today's actual standard for "profanity?" It also appears that if I call the gentleman [sic] who created godhatesfags.com an ass then I'm in violation of their language tenets. However, I don't believe I've ever (yet?) done so, but I have used the word "geeze" or similar, so I have to give myself the "Slang" rating.

Next up is the Violence Rating. Once again it is suggested that I review their definitions. After a quick review it appears that this site is free from violence (beyond that directed towards us) so I select "none of the above."

With those four selections I'm done, and I agree to their terms and conditions and am provided a tag for inclusion on this site:

META http-equiv="PICS-Label" content='(PICS-1.1 "http://www.rsac.org/ratingsv01.html" l gen true comment "RSACi North America Server" by "(out of date addresss)" for "http://gaylesissues.about.com" on "1997.08.05T10:05-0800" r (n 0 s 0 v 0 l 1))'

I find it interesting that I'm not considered rated until I link back to their site.

"Step 2. Please take the 'We Rated With RSACi' gif from our homepage at http://www.rsac.org and display it on your homepage and link it back to us."

It's also notable that the RSACi ratings have been incorporated into Microsoft's browser, Internet Explorer and CyberPatrol, one of the "Parental Screening" softwares available. It's also important to note that this form of self-rating may soon be a "required" element in order to have ones site viewed.

Let's take a look at CyberPatrol, and other popular software packages.

CyberPatrol says it's number 1. Their categories include nudity and sexual acts (both graphics and text). They also claim to block sites that advocate prejudice or discrimination, and include sexual orientation in their list of protected classes. So I meander over to their "NOT List" and check the status of "godhatesfags.com." This returns the result, "The site, http://godhatesfags.com IS NOT on the CyberNOT list." Oh my. I quickly click the button that submits this site for a review. Their response was almost immediate.

Next I check to make sure that this site isn't on the CyberNOT list. After all, I just received a very mild rating with RSACi. We must be okay. The results are returned, we're fine. ::whew::

Planet OUT is also not on the CyberNOT list, so it looks like other than missing a hate site here or there Cyber Patrol seems to be following its own dictates.

Next up on the hit parade is CYBERsitter. CYBERsitter pre blocks individual words and phrases but claims to look at each word in context. In order to evaluate how they handle this task, I need to register for a Demo version of the product. I do so, and download it.

I'm particularly interested because of the following question and answer in CYBERsitter's FAQ:

Q. I heard that CYBERsitter has a hidden political agenda. If it does, what is it?

A. There have been a few articles that criticize CYBERsitter for some of the sites it filters. Naturally, when someone disagrees with your policies, they immediately assume that you have some political agenda. CYBERsitter blocks sites that meet a pre-defined criteria. Every site we block meets this criteria without exception. CYBERsitter has no agenda of any kind, unless you consider protection of children a hidden agenda.

I decide to try it anyway, and the program does install. I think it's because I downloaded it before I found the Peacefire site. I can't find any method to obtain a list of blocked sites, so I check a couple that were on the list of banned sites at Peacefire. I'm told that now.org does not exist. Neither does planetout.com Funny, they existed a few minutes ago. Apparently honesty is not a screened for trait by CYBERsitter.

A quick look at the "violations log" confirms what they've done to me. By the way, when I try to load my site, it comes up as a blank page. I must have too many of the no-no words, even though the site itself does not seem to be in their database.

Not blocked is godhatesfags.com even though I have my "hate/intolerance" filter on - but I can't get to the above-noted Peacefire mirror site, as previously noted (although I am able to load the original Peacefire site).

Another popular program is Cyber Snoop. Cyber Snoop doesn't pre block, and only provides its list of "Not Recommended" sites upon request. Cyber Snoop says, "Cyber SnoopTM is the single solution that places the responsibility of chaperoning our children where it belongs: on parents, teachers and administrators." Cyber Snoop tracks where a computer user has been, so that a parent or teacher can monitor and later block sites that they deem to be inappropriate for their child or classroom.

Net Nanny "screens" material going in both directions, both from the Net and from the computer to the Net. A built-in spy tool. I'm going to download their evaluation copy. It's interesting to note that unlike CYBERsitter I need provide no personal information in order to do so.

The first thing I do is take a look at Net Nanny's blocked "words and phrases" list and discover the following:

Blocked:

• aids-stat-request@wubios.wustl.edu
  Looks like Net Nanny thinks AIDS stats are objectionable.
• gaymormons@piglet.sri.com
  Nor does it think that children should be subjected to discussions about gay Mormons
• la-motss-request@flash.usc.edu
  The non-sexual discussions between members of the same sex are also out

Granted, Net Nanny allows parents to modify the lists, but a parent relying on a such a self-proclaimed knowledgeable source is unlikely to question its wisdom.

There's no ability to do a direct URL check to see what sites Net Nanny pre blocks, but I was able to find a Rock Band site that was banned for reasons unknown. Also blocked was an outreach site for the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches. As there's no sexual content on this site, I can only surmise that the it's the mere fact that there may be happy Gay/Lesbian Christians that bothers Net Nanny so. Also blocked are NOW and the Queer Resources Directory. By the way, I turned on Net Nanny and had no problem retrieving godhatesfags.com.

I think my favorite piece of software is Surfwatch. Surfwatch's blocked categories includes sites that are sexually explicit. Their software is configurable by parents and they note specifically that they do not block on the basis of sexual preference, only on sexually explicit material. Considering that they stand virtually alone in making this distinction, I won't even be angry that they use the word "preference" instead of the more accurate "orientation."

I performed my test with SurfWatch's "check a site" ability, and much to my delight, godhatesfags.com was blocked. Neither PlanetOut, nor my own little piece of the queer universe were. It appears that SurfWatch, more than any of the products above, practices what it preaches. A web filled with information, the ability to protect a child from vulgar hatred and explicit sexual content, but not deny them access to important information.

I've found a winner, and don't have the heart to look further today.

Please remember, this article wasn't intended to be a full review of the features of the products discussed - or even a look at all available products. My only goal was to ascertain whether these more popular products would or would not make a distinction between actual sexual content and information.

Most did not.

In pride,
Deborah

 Best Dating Site
Free Trial!

Adult Personals - looking for the perfect adult dating site? sexsearch.com is the perfect stop for online adult personals. search thousands of cities for adults looking to meet you.