Erinevus lehekülje "The security industry" redaktsioonide vahel

Allikas: KakuWiki
Mine navigeerimisribaleMine otsikasti
37. rida: 37. rida:
 
* Most of the natural languages are far too rich to be adequately filtered by the current state of technology. Examples even include filtering out the word "breast", not to mention various slang words (perhaps the best example can be seen [http://www.afunworld.com/animal-pictures/picture-395.htm here]). One more real-life example follows.
 
* Most of the natural languages are far too rich to be adequately filtered by the current state of technology. Examples even include filtering out the word "breast", not to mention various slang words (perhaps the best example can be seen [http://www.afunworld.com/animal-pictures/picture-395.htm here]). One more real-life example follows.
 
In July 2001, the Beaver College in Philadelphia changed its name to Arcadia University. While the official explanation cited thorough changes which necessitated new name, many sources refer to the sexual meaning of the word in American slang and subsequent mass blocking of the college website by content filtering packages. [http://slashdot.org/articles/00/03/01/2230240.shtml]
 
In July 2001, the Beaver College in Philadelphia changed its name to Arcadia University. While the official explanation cited thorough changes which necessitated new name, many sources refer to the sexual meaning of the word in American slang and subsequent mass blocking of the college website by content filtering packages. [http://slashdot.org/articles/00/03/01/2230240.shtml]
 +
 +
As a final remark: in 2000, the [http://www.dfn.org Digital Freedom Network] hosted a contest on the most extreme blunders of content filtering. The results are [http://attrition.org/misc/ee/why_censorware_sucks.txt here] (the main site has taken it down since, but copies exist elsewhere): the winner case had a high school website blocked due to the 'high' in its name...
  
 
=== Some problems ===
 
=== Some problems ===

Redaktsioon: 25. juuli 2006, kell 20:42

As seen from the previous topic, computer security is increasingly a big business with a wide spectrum of different players. Today, let us look at the main areas of the industry.

Anti-malware applications

This is perhaps the most widespread and also the most venerable branch of computer security industry, even if computer viruses are a relatively new phenomenon (compared to the history of computing in general - first computers appeared at the end of 40s, viruses started to spread widely only in the Microsoft Age, starting from MS-DOS at the 2nd half of 80s). For quite many years, the stress was predominately on anti-virus software. Nowadays, the malware trends are leaning heavily towards spyware, as the 'old-school' file viruses are all but extinct (about 10 of them are still reported to be alive).

Security application bundles

This category consists mostly of complex software packages which feature a firewall as a central point. This is a relatively fresh branch, rising into prominence at the beginning of this century.

Content filtering

Interestingly enough, this is a huge industry almost uniquely in the United States, being next to unknown in other Western countries (see the biggest censors at [1], though as lately, Australia seems to be moving to the same direction [2]). Although computer and Internet censorship is present in many places, private censorship industry as such exist only in the US - in other censoring countries - e.g. China - it is mostly done as a centralised, governmental activity. Of known examples from developed countries, Norway and Denmark have small-scale filtering used by Internet service providers against proven distributors of child pornography. Italy has banned making bets abroad over the net. [3]

However in the US, this kind of activity is usually promoted in public as a measure against the unwanted content of the Internet, keeping things like pornography, violence and extremism away from the computers of ordinary people. Thus, the filtering has found wide use in the US, being applied in most public places (the CIPA or Children's Internet Protection Act [4] made content filtering mandatory for all public libraries who apply for government grants). Regardless of many scandalous cases,

Examples of "parental control" / filtering software:


The main problems with content filtering

The main issue which is extensively debated upon is: which one is more important, ensuring decency or free speech? Both sides have got their arguments. But the free speech restriction is not the only problem:

  • All the abovementioned software packages are proprietary software - it seems that content filtering is in a kind of inherent contradiction with the hacker-minded free and open-source software, so there is almost no projects in this field. In the case when central unit of the software the database - is closed and protected by intellectual property laws as a trade secret, the users have to trust the producer's decisions on filtering. Even if they find a way to modify the software behaviour, it will turn out to be illegal.

The problem is that testing has often revealed many cases of different agendas behind the filtering criteria. The Censorware.net product reports show many interesting results. As a good irony, the FilteringFacts.org, a prime pro-filtering website, was blocked (as Drugs/Alcohol) by SurfWatch, which was in fact their top recommendation as home filtering software.

  • Most of the natural languages are far too rich to be adequately filtered by the current state of technology. Examples even include filtering out the word "breast", not to mention various slang words (perhaps the best example can be seen here). One more real-life example follows.

In July 2001, the Beaver College in Philadelphia changed its name to Arcadia University. While the official explanation cited thorough changes which necessitated new name, many sources refer to the sexual meaning of the word in American slang and subsequent mass blocking of the college website by content filtering packages. [5]

As a final remark: in 2000, the Digital Freedom Network hosted a contest on the most extreme blunders of content filtering. The results are here (the main site has taken it down since, but copies exist elsewhere): the winner case had a high school website blocked due to the 'high' in its name...

Some problems

controversies like described before (Magic Lantern and Carnivore, economically motivated privacy violations etc)


For discussion

  • Bring some arguments for both sides: Parental control / content filtering vs freedom of speech and expression
  • When applying the content filtering, would it be preferrable to err towards the laxness (let through what should have been blocked) or tightness (block what should have gone through)?
  • Read the Australian comparison of Internet policies [2]. Which model would you prefer?


References


Links