Date: Tue, 22 Apr 1997 09:09:17 -0700 From: Susan Getgood Subject: re: Cyberpatrol -- someone is lying, wasRe: CyberPatrol's magic list In answer to your question: Cyber Spyder visits the sites and creates a report including 25 characters before and 25 characters after each occurence of the keywords used in a particular search. The researchers start by reviewing this report. If necessary, the sites are visited and viewed by a human being before being added to the CyberNOT list. If not necessary, the sites are not viewed or added. For example, if the context of the word "breast" was the proper way to prepare chicken, that is a good indication that the site doesn't meet the CyberNOT criteria. A site that is added to the CyberNOT list is viewed by a person before being added. Regards Susan > From: Lizard , on 4/21/97 11:35 PM: > At 01:55 AM 4/22/97 -0400, Jered J Floyd wrote: > > > > Though anyone can create a list of objectionable sites, > >Microsystems' technique makes its list unique. Developers at > >Microsystems use a proprietary search engine called CyberSpyder to > >create the list. It scans as many as 200 sites per minute, using 8 > >different languages, to search for questionable word fragments. Site > >locations and all discovered fragments -- along with characters > >directly in front and in back of them -- are stored in a file. The > >files are then inspected, and if necessary sites are visited. When a > >site is deemed inappropriate, it is added to the blocked list. The > >sites are then divided into 13 categories, providing a list of sites > >inappropriate for a range of users, from children to corporate > >employees." > > > Here is, in full, a message I recieved from a Cyberpatrol employee. > Emphasis (**) has been added by me. > > --------------begin included-------------------- > From: SydRubin@aol.com > Date: Sat, 1 Mar 1997 21:33:38 -0500 (EST) > To: lizard@dnai.com > Subject: Re: Blocking of my site... > > I'll talk to Microsystems about your query and we'll see what can be done. > I'll try to do this early next week. Meanwhile, you should know that no > **site** > gets blocked by Cyber Patrol without *it* being *viewed* by a *human > being*. This > is done specifically to address your legitimate concerns about the > accidental, indiscriminate filtering based in individual words. > > Of course, the fact that human judgment is exercised is both good news and > bad. Sites do not often get blocked by mistake, as you describe. But the > judgment call made by the human may not be one that you agree with. > Problems > everywhere you turn.... > > Thanks for your long, thoughtful message. We'll be back to you. > --------------------end included-------------------- > > Now then. There is a BIG difference between "We inspect a computer > generated list of naughty words found on a site" and "We INSPECT THE SITE", > which is the VERY clear implication in SydRubins post. Site -- not 'data > list'. 'VIEWED' -- not "We look at the results of a spider". The message I > received can only be read to mean "A human being LOOKS AT THE SITE before > deciding to add it to the banned list, and under what categories" The PC > Magazine article, OTOH, clearly states your employees look merely at the > output from a spider. > > Look. I'm a programmer. Regardless of what some on this list might think of > my merits as a philosopher or a moralist, I am reasonably competant at > putting code together. I know full well that a computer program cannot > grasp context, meaning, irony, counterpoint, commentary, or many other > things which distinguish speech with 'redeeming social value' from 'porn' > (I do not in any way oppose the legality or distribution of speech with no > redeeming social value -- I daresay most would classify my rantings in that > category. But I digress.) Any output from a spider, especially one > programmed (as yours evidently is) to look for keywords, is going to be a > poor reflection at best of the actual, in-context, contents of the site. > There is no way you can claim that looking at such reports is even remotely > equivalent to actually going to the site and viewing it -- and there's also > no way you can claim your employees can actually visit and carefull > evaluate the number of sites you claim to rate. > > Someone is lying. I'm willing to bet it's Cyberpatrol. The question is -- > why? > > What is the point of being on this list, presenting the face of being > concerned, against censorship, etc, etc, etc, when you are also out selling > your product on the basis of how effective it is at blocking -- not how > good it is at letting people get to meaningful sites while filtering > 'porn'? Did you forget this is the Internet, where everyone is plugged into > everything and you can't control your 'spin'? > > Sigh. The government wants everything 'indecent' (or threatening to its > power) banned. Our would-be saviors from a government ban cast an even > broader net, and enter into an unholy alliance with the government while > proclaiming that's the last thing they want. "Crying all the way to the > bank" is the colloquialism, I believe. > > The sole consolation is that, in some future time, schoolchildren will read > of this era as "The Time of Madness" or "The Second Dark Age" or, in my > fondest dreams, "The Twilight Of The State". In my less fond dreams, there > will be no schoolchildren reading of this time at all, because reading > itself will have been forbidden. Lizard isn't laying any odds on which way > the coin will fall. > > ******* Susan Getgood, Microsystems Software, Inc. 508 879 9000, e-mail susang@microsys.com www.microsys.com / www.cyberpatrol.com