Editing Internet filter (section)

==Criticism==
===Filtering errors===
====Overblocking====
Utilizing a filter that is overly zealous at filtering content, or mislabels content not intended to be censored can result in over-[[block (internet)|blocking]], or over-censoring. Overblocking can filter out material that should be acceptable under the filtering policy in effect, for example health related information may unintentionally be filtered along with [[pornography|porn]]-related material because of the [[Scunthorpe problem]]. Filter administrators may prefer to err on the side of caution by accepting over blocking to prevent any risk of access to sites that they determine to be undesirable. Content-control software was mentioned as blocking access to Beaver College before its name change to [[Arcadia University]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/03/01/2230240&tid=146|title=Web Censors Prompt College To Consider Name Change|website=[[slashdot]].org|date=2 March 2000|access-date=22 November 2010}}</ref> Another example was the filtering of [[Horniman Museum]].<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/08/horniman_museum_filtered|title=Porn filters have a field day on Horniman Museum|author=Lester Haines|date=8 October 2004|newspaper=The Register}}</ref> As well, over-blocking may encourage users to bypass the filter entirely.

====Underblocking====
Whenever new information is uploaded to the Internet, filters can under block, or under-censor, content if the parties responsible for maintaining the filters do not update them quickly and accurately, and a blacklisting rather than a whitelisting filtering policy is in place.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~stark/Preprints/filter07.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100715074555/http://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~stark/Preprints/filter07.pdf |archive-date=2010-07-15 |url-status=live|title=The Effectiveness of Internet Content Filters|first=Philip B.|last=Stark|website=[[University of California, Berkeley]]|date=10 November 2007|access-date=22 November 2010}}</ref>

===Morality and opinion===
Many<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/340550/microsoft_google_yahoo_speak_isp_filter_consultation/?fp=16&fpid=1|title=Microsoft, Google and Yahoo! speak out in ISP filter consultation|first=Spandas|last=Lui|date=23 March 2010|website=[[AARNet]].com|access-date=22 November 2010}}</ref> would not be satisfied with government filtering viewpoints on moral or political issues, agreeing that this could become support for [[propaganda]]. Many<ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8517829.stm|website=[[BBC News]]|title=Google and Yahoo raise doubts over planned net filters|date=16 February 2010|access-date=30 April 2010}}</ref> would also find it unacceptable that an ISP, whether by law or by the ISP's own choice, should deploy such software without allowing the users to disable the filtering for their own connections. In the United States, the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution]] has been cited in calls to criminalise forced internet censorship. (See [[Content-control software#Legal actions|section below]])

===Legal actions===
In 1998, a United States federal district court in Virginia ruled ([[Loudoun v. Board of Trustees of the Loudoun County Library]]) that the imposition of mandatory filtering in a public library violates the First Amendment.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.tomwbell.com/NetLaw/Ch04/Loudoun.html|title=Mainstream Loudon v. Board of Trustees of the Loudon County Library, 24 F. Supp. 2d 552 (E.D. Va. 1998)|website=Tomwbell.com|access-date=25 October 2009}}</ref>

In 1996 the US Congress passed the [[Communications Decency Act]], banning indecency on the Internet. Civil liberties groups challenged the law under the First Amendment, and in 1997 the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] ruled in their favor.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/521/844/case.html|title=Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union - 521 U.S. 844 (1997)|date=26 June 1997|website=[[Justia]].com}}</ref> Part of the civil liberties argument, especially from groups like the [[Electronic Frontier Foundation]],<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.eff.org/legal-victories|title=Legal Victories|website=Electronic Frontier Foundation|language=en|access-date=2019-02-01}}</ref> was that parents who wanted to block sites could use their own content-filtering software, making government involvement unnecessary.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/children-internet-safety|title=Children Internet Safety|date=2015-05-26|website=www.justice.gov|language=en|access-date=2019-02-01|archive-date=2019-02-02|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190202042245/https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/children-internet-safety|url-status=dead}}</ref>

In the late 1990s, groups such as the Censorware Project began reverse-engineering the content-control software and decrypting the blacklists to determine what kind of sites the software blocked. This led to legal action alleging violation of the "Cyber Patrol" [[EULA|license agreement]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/Microsystems_v_Scandinavia_Online/?f=20000316_verif_complaint.html|title=Microsystems v Scandinavia Online, Verified Complaint|location=United States District Court, District of Massachusetts|website=[[Electronic Frontier Foundation]]|date=15 March 2000|access-date=25 October 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090212065108/http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/Microsystems_v_Scandinavia_Online/?f=20000316_verif_complaint.html|archive-date=12 February 2009|url-status=dead}}</ref> They discovered that such tools routinely blocked unobjectionable sites while also failing to block intended targets.

Some content-control software companies responded by claiming that their filtering criteria were backed by intensive manual checking. The companies' opponents argued, on the other hand, that performing the necessary checking would require resources greater than the companies possessed and that therefore their claims were not valid.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www7.nationalacademies.org/itas/whitepaper_1.html|title=Electronic Frontier Foundation White Paper 1 for NRC project on Tools and Strategies for Protecting Kids from Pornography and Their Applicability to Other Inappropriate Internet Content|author1=Seth Finkelstein|author2=Lee Tien|name-list-style=amp|website=[[National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine]]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060419190143/http://www7.nationalacademies.org/itas/whitepaper_1.html|archive-date=19 April 2006}}</ref>

The [[Motion Picture Association]] successfully obtained a UK ruling enforcing ISPs to use content-control software to prevent [[copyright infringement]] by their subscribers.<ref>{{cite news|title=Sky, Virgin Media Asked to Block Piracy Site Newzbin2|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15653434|website=[[BBC News]]|date=9 November 2011|access-date=26 March 2012}}</ref>

===Religious, anti-religious, and political censorship===
Many types of content-control software have been shown to block sites based on the religious and political leanings of the company owners. Examples include blocking several religious sites<ref>{{cite web|author=Kelly Wilson|url=http://hometown.aol.com/Mjolnir13/test.htm|title=Hometown Has Been Shutdown - People Connection Blog: AIM Community Network|website=[[AOL Hometown]]|date=2008-11-06|access-date=2009-10-25|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080509055959/http://hometown.aol.com/Mjolnir13/test.htm|archive-date=2008-05-09|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://members.tripod.com/~Trifold/NOTICE.html|title=Notice!!|website=Members.[[tripod.com]]|access-date=2009-10-25}}</ref> (including the Web site of the Vatican), many political sites, and homosexuality-related sites.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.glaad.org/media/archive_detail.php?id=103&|title=www.glaad.org/media/archive_detail.php?id=103&|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080607224912/http://www.glaad.org/media/archive_detail.php?id=103&|archive-date=June 7, 2008}}</ref> ''X-Stop'' was shown to block sites such as the [[Quaker Oats Company|Quaker]] web site, the [[National Journal of Sexual Orientation Law]], [[The Heritage Foundation]], and parts of [[The Ethical Spectacle]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.spectacle.org/cs/burt.html|title=The Mind of a Censor|website=Spectacle.org|access-date=2009-10-25}}</ref> CYBERsitter blocks out sites like [[National Organization for Women]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.spectacle.org/alert/peace.html|title=CYBERsitter: Where do we not want you to go today?|website=Spectacle.org|access-date=2009-10-25}}</ref> Nancy Willard, an academic researcher and attorney, pointed out that many U.S. public schools and libraries use the same filtering software that many Christian organizations use.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.csriu.org/onlinedocs/documents/religious2.html|title=See: Filtering Software: The Religious Connection|website=Csriu.org|access-date=2009-10-25|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080705102418/http://csriu.org/onlinedocs/documents/religious2.html|archive-date=2008-07-05|url-status=dead}}</ref> Cyber Patrol, a product developed by The Anti-Defamation League and Mattel's The Learning Company,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.adl.org/presrele/mise_00/3081-00.asp|title=See: ADL and The Learning Company Develop Educational Software|website=[[Anti-Defamation League]]|access-date=2011-08-26|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110209112430/http://www.adl.org/PresRele/Mise_00/3081-00.asp|archive-date=2011-02-09|url-status=dead}}</ref> has been found to block not only political sites it deems to be engaging in 'hate speech' but also human rights web sites, such as Amnesty International's web page about Israel and gay-rights web sites, such as glaad.org.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.peacefire.org/censorware/Cyber_Patrol|title=See: Cyber Patrol Examined|website=[[peacefire]].org|access-date=2011-08-26}}</ref>