> solution. If I've made any incorrect statements about your company's
> product, I'd certainly be interested in seeing your perspective.
Yes, I believe you have made incorrect statements about N2H2 and are
misunderstanding N2H2's philosophy altogether. The company's web page
describes in detail how the product works and why. It is my opinion that
the technology used by N2H2 and other leading filtering companies is
misunderstood by the community in general, and I strongly urge everyone
who is against internet filtering to research the facts about the
technology, instead of making false assumptions.
> I stand by my statements that filtering software is not a useful
> solution.
A useful solution to what problem? I believe the problem we are discussing
is 'how much control should the government have on what information enters
schools and libraries'. In relation to internet media, filtering companies
get all blame, and these companies understand that. But if filtering is
not the most useful solution, then what is?
With the emergence of the internet, schools are now faced with a problem
that was never there before. If a school wanted to sell Playboys in their
snack bar, how many parents would have a problem with that? At some point,
there has to be a way to control what information enters a school or
library, and that choice must be made by the individual school or
library. The filtering technology of which I am defending allows the
control to stay at that level.
Jen
> Many comments that I have seen here, in newspapers, and in other
> areas about filtering are made on assumptions about the technology
> without researching the facts about what is available.
Heh. It just occurred to me to glace at your email address. For the
record, I stand by my statements that filtering software is not a useful
solution. If I've made any incorrect statements about your company's
product, I'd certainly be interested in seeing your perspective.
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Aaron Malone wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 12:42:29PM -0800, Jen Hamilton wrote:
> > described earlier) will not work. However, a proxy-based solution updated
> > daily with new URL's that are categorized into types of sites (yes,
> > by the filtering company)...
>
> Then we're back to control at the level of the filtering company, not the
> individual libraries as you'd stated. I think you might be surprised at
> how many incorrectly-categorized pages there are in every filtering system
> I've seen. N2H2 (the company you mentioned before) employs underpaid
> workers to browse the net and categorize -- they don't seem to do a great
> job. And despite their claims, strong evidence has been presented to show
> that they do use bots to categorize pages, often with poor results.
>
> > Many comments that I have seen here, in newspapers, and in other
> > areas about filtering are made on assumptions about the technology
> > without researching the facts about what is available.
>
> That's a very good point. Personally, I have researched them. I was the
> administrator of an N2H2 filtering proxy for over a year, and prior to
> that tested every other major solution we could find. I've done my
> homework, and everything I've seen tells me that filtering *just*
> *doesn't* *work*.
>
> --
> Aaron Malone ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> System Administrator "Some companies think of training as a
> Poplar Bluff Internet, Inc. cost rather than an investment."
> http://www.semo.net -- Paul Collins
>
> _______________________________________________
> issues mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/issues
>
_______________________________________________
issues mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/issues
