Vaccination News Home Page

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/10/technology/10CND-FILTER.html?tntemail0

Internet Filters Block Health Information, Study Finds

By JOHN SCHWARTZ

eenagers who look to the Internet for health information as part of their "wired generation" birthright are blocked from many useful sites by antipornography filters that federal law requires in school and library computers, a new study has found.

The filtering programs tend to block references to sex and sex-related terms, like "safe sex," "condoms," "abortion," "jock itch," "gay" and "lesbian." Although the software can be adjusted to allow most health-related Web sites to get through, many schools and libraries ratchet up the software's barriers to the highest settings, the report said.

Advertisement

"A little bit of filtering is O.K., but more isn't necessarily better," said Vicky Rideout, vice president of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, which produced the report, to be published today in The Journal of the American Medical Association. "If they are set too high, they can be a serious obstacle to health information."

The researchers found that filters set at the least restrictive level blocked an average of 1.4 percent of all health sites; at the most restrictive level, filters blocked nearly a quarter of all health sites. The amount of pornography blocked, however, was fairly consistent, going from 87 percent at the least restrictive level to 91 percent at the most restrictive settings.

The programs blocked a much higher percentage of health sites devoted to safe sex topics, however: 9 percent at the least restrictive level, and 50 percent at the most restrictive level. The blocked sites at high levels included The Journal of the American Medical Association's site for women's health and online information from the Food and Drug Administration about clinical trials.

To the researchers, that meant that a school or library that chooses a less restrictive setting for Internet filters can lose very little of the protective effect of the filters, while minimizing the tendency of all filters to overblock harmless and even valuable sites.

The report is the first major study of the effectiveness of filters to appear in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and the first to look at the efficacy of filters at various settings. Most previous studies have been produced by organizations with a strong point of view either favoring or opposing filters.

David Burt, an antipornography activist who is a spokesman for the filtering company N2H2, said that he was pleased with the report, which he called "very thoughtful and well designed — they recognized it matters a lot how you configure a filter and set it up."

But opponents of filtering requirements said the study showed the clumsiness of the technology. "Filters are just fine for parents to use at home," said Judith F. Krug, director of the Office for Intellectual Freedom at the American Library Association. "They are not appropriate for institutions that might be the only place where kids can get this information.

"The importance of the First Amendment is that it provides us with the ability to govern ourselves, because it guarantees that you have the right to access information. The filters undercut that ability."

Nancy Willard, an Oregon educator who has written student guides that stress personal responsibility in Internet surfing, called filtering a kind of censorship that, if performed by the schools directly, would be unconstitutional. "These filtering companies are protecting all information about what they are blocking as confidential trade secrets," she said. "This is nothing more than stealth censorship."

The study was conducted for the foundation by researchers at the University of Michigan, who tested six leading Internet filtering programs. The researchers searched for information on 24 health topics, including breast cancer and birth control, and also for pornographic terms. They repeated the tests at the least restrictive settings, in which only pornography was explicitly blocked, an intermediate setting which proscribed such topics as nudity and discrimination, and the most restrictive settings possible for each product.

The researchers then called 20 school districts and library systems around the United States to ask how they set their filters. Of those school systems, which teach about a half-million students over all, only one had set its filters at the least restrictive level.

The issue of library filtering is making its way through the federal courts. Last month the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to the Children's Internet Protection Act, the federal law requiring schools and libraries to use filters on computers used by children or to lose technology money. A special panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit struck down the part of the law that applies to libraries. Chief Judge Edward R. Becker wrote that filters are a "blunt instrument" for protecting children.

Vaccination News Home Page

ALL INFORMATION, DATA, AND MATERIAL CONTAINED, PRESENTED, OR PROVIDED HERE IS FOR GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS REFLECTING THE KNOWLEDGE OR OPINIONS OF THE PUBLISHER, AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED OR INTENDED AS PROVIDING MEDICAL OR LEGAL ADVICE.  THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO VACCINATE IS AN IMPORTANT AND COMPLEX ISSUE AND SHOULD BE MADE BY YOU, AND YOU ALONE, IN CONSULTATION WITH YOUR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.