banner



Home  ›  What Is A Web Filter

What Is A Web Filter

Written By Wednesday, April 13, 2022 Add Comment Edit

Software that restricts or controls the content an Internet user is capable to admission

An Internet filter is software that restricts or controls the content an Internet user is capable to access, especially when utilized to restrict material delivered over the Cyberspace via the Spider web, E-mail, or other ways. Content-control software determines what content will be available or be blocked.

Such restrictions can be practical at various levels: a authorities can attempt to apply them nationwide (see Internet censorship), or they tin, for example, be practical by an ISP to its clients, by an employer to its personnel, by a school to its students, by a library to its visitors, by a parent to a child's computer, or by an individual user to their own computer.

The motive is oft to prevent access to content which the reckoner's owner(s) or other authorities may consider objectionable. When imposed without the consent of the user, content control can exist characterised every bit a form of internet censorship. Some content-control software includes fourth dimension command functions that empowers parents to fix the amount of time that kid may spend accessing the Net or playing games or other computer activities.

In some countries, such software is ubiquitous. In Cuba, if a computer user at a government-controlled Internet cafe types certain words, the discussion processor or spider web browser is automatically closed, and a "state security" warning is given.[one]

Terminology [edit]

The term "content control" is used on occasion by CNN,[2] Playboy magazine,[3] the San Francisco Chronicle,[4] and The New York Times.[five] However, several other terms, including "content filtering software", "filtering proxy servers", "secure web gateways", "censorware", "content security and command", "web filtering software", "content-censoring software", and "content-blocking software", are often used. "Nannyware" has also been used in both product marketing and by the media. Industry enquiry company Gartner uses "secure web gateway" (SWG) to draw the market segment.[6]

Companies that make products that selectively block Spider web sites do non refer to these products every bit censorware, and adopt terms such equally "Cyberspace filter" or "URL Filter"; in the specialized example of software specifically designed to allow parents to monitor and restrict the admission of their children, "parental control software" is also used. Some products log all sites that a user accesses and rates them based on content type for reporting to an "accountability partner" of the person's choosing, and the term accountability software is used. Internet filters, parental control software, and/or accountability software may likewise be combined into one product.

Those critical of such software, however, use the term "censorware" freely: consider the Censorware Project, for example.[seven] The use of the term "censorware" in editorials criticizing makers of such software is widespread and covers many dissimilar varieties and applications: Xeni Jardin used the term in a 9 March 2006 editorial in The New York Times when discussing the employ of American-made filtering software to suppress content in Communist china; in the same month a high schoolhouse pupil used the term to discuss the deployment of such software in his school district.[eight] [9]

In general, exterior of editorial pages as described above, traditional newspapers exercise not utilize the term "censorware" in their reporting, preferring instead to utilize less overtly controversial terms such as "content filter", "content command", or "web filtering"; The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal both appear to follow this practice. On the other hand, Web-based newspapers such every bit CNET apply the term in both editorial and journalistic contexts, for example "Windows Live to Get Censorware."[x]

Types of filtering [edit]

Filters tin be implemented in many different ways: by software on a personal computer, via network infrastructure such as proxy servers, DNS servers, or firewalls that provide Cyberspace access. No solution provides consummate coverage, and then most companies deploy a mix of technologies to achieve the proper content control in line with their policies.

Browser based filters
Browser based content filtering solution is the most lightweight solution to do the content filtering, and is implemented via a third political party browser extension.
E-postal service filters
E-mail filters human action on information contained in the postal service body, in the mail headers such equally sender and subject area, and e-mail attachments to classify, accept, or decline messages. Bayesian filters, a type of statistical filter, are unremarkably used. Both client and server based filters are available.
Client-side filters
This type of filter is installed as software on each figurer where filtering is required.[11] [12] This filter can typically be managed, disabled or uninstalled by anyone who has administrator-level privileges on the system. A DNS-based client-side filter would be to set up a DNS Sinkhole, such as Pi-Hole.
Content-limited (or filtered) ISPs
Content-limited (or filtered) ISPs are Net service providers that offer access to only a set portion of Net content on an opt-in or a mandatory basis. Anyone who subscribes to this blazon of service is subject to restrictions. The blazon of filters can be used to implement government,[13] regulatory[14] or parental command over subscribers.
Network-based filtering
This type of filter is implemented at the transport layer as a transparent proxy, or at the application layer every bit a web proxy.[15] Filtering software may include data loss prevention functionality to filter outbound as well as inbound information. All users are subject to the admission policy defined by the institution. The filtering can be customized, and then a schoolhouse commune's loftier schoolhouse library can have a different filtering contour than the commune's junior high school library.
DNS-based filtering
This type of filtering is implemented at the DNS layer and attempts to prevent lookups for domains that do not fit within a set of policies (either parental control or company rules). Multiple free public DNS services offer filtering options as function of their services. DNS Sinkholes such as Pi-Hole can be likewise exist used for this purpose, though client-side only.
Search-engine filters
Many search engines, such equally Google and Bing offer users the choice of turning on a safety filter. When this safety filter is activated, it filters out the inappropriate links from all of the search results. If users know the actual URL of a website that features explicit or adult content, they have the power to access that content without using a search engine. Some providers offering child-oriented versions of their engines that permit but children friendly websites.[16]

Reasons for filtering [edit]

The Internet does not intrinsically provide content blocking, and therefore there is much content on the Internet that is considered unsuitable for children, given that much content is given certifications as suitable for adults only, e.k. eighteen-rated games and movies.

Internet service providers (ISPs) that block textile containing pornography, or controversial religious, political, or news-related content en road are often utilized by parents who do not permit their children to admission content not conforming to their personal behavior. Content filtering software tin, however, also be used to block malware and other content that is or contains hostile, intrusive, or annoying material including adware, spam, computer viruses, worms, trojan horses, and spyware.

Near content command software is marketed to organizations or parents. Information technology is, even so, also marketed on occasion to facilitate cocky-censorship, for instance by people struggling with addictions to online pornography, gambling, chat rooms, etc. Cocky-censorship software may also be utilised by some in guild to avoid viewing content they consider immoral, inappropriate, or but distracting. A number of accountability software products are marketed as self-censorship or accountability software. These are oftentimes promoted past religious media and at religious gatherings.[17]

Criticism [edit]

Filtering errors [edit]

Overblocking [edit]

Utilizing a filter that is overly zealous at filtering content, or mislabels content not intended to be censored tin can issue in over blocking, or over-censoring. Over blocking tin filter out material that should be acceptable nether the filtering policy in outcome, for example health related information may unintentionally exist filtered along with porn-related material considering of the Scunthorpe trouble. Filter administrators may prefer to err on the side of circumspection past accepting over blocking to foreclose whatever gamble of access to sites that they determine to exist undesirable. Content-control software was mentioned equally blocking access to Beaver Higher before its name alter to Arcadia University.[18] Another case was the filtering of Horniman Museum.[19] As well, over-blocking may encourage users to bypass the filter entirely.

Underblocking [edit]

Whenever new data is uploaded to the Net, filters can under block, or under-censor, content if the parties responsible for maintaining the filters do not update them rapidly and accurately, and a blacklisting rather than a whitelisting filtering policy is in place.[20]

Morality and opinion [edit]

Many[21] would not be satisfied with authorities filtering viewpoints on moral or political issues, agreeing that this could become support for propaganda. Many[22] would likewise notice it unacceptable that an ISP, whether by police force or past the Isp's ain choice, should deploy such software without allowing the users to disable the filtering for their ain connections. In the United States, the Beginning Amendment to the United states of america Constitution has been cited in calls to criminalise forced net censorship. (See section below)

Legal actions [edit]

In 1998, a United states federal commune 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.[23]

In 1996 the US Congress passed the Communications Decency Human action, banning indecency on the Internet. Civil liberties groups challenged the police nether the Commencement Amendment, and in 1997 the Supreme Courtroom ruled in their favor.[24] Function of the civil liberties argument, especially from groups similar the Electronic Frontier Foundation,[25] was that parents who wanted to block sites could utilize their own content-filtering software, making government involvement unnecessary.[26]

In the late 1990s, groups such equally the Censorware Projection began reverse-engineering the content-control software and decrypting the blacklists to make up one's mind what kind of sites the software blocked. This led to legal activity alleging violation of the "Cyber Patrol" license agreement.[27] 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 transmission 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 non valid.[28]

The Movement Picture show Clan successfully obtained a United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland ruling enforcing ISPs to use content-control software to forbid copyright infringement by their subscribers.[29]

Religious, anti-religious, and political censorship [edit]

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[thirty] [31] (including the Web site of the Vatican), many political sites, and homosexuality-related sites.[32] X-Stop was shown to block sites such equally the Quaker web site, the National Journal of Sexual Orientation Law, The Heritage Foundation, and parts of The Upstanding Spectacle.[33] CYBERsitter blocks out sites similar National Organization for Women.[34] Nancy Willard, an academic researcher and attorney, pointed out that many U.Southward. public schools and libraries apply the aforementioned filtering software that many Christian organizations use.[35] Cyber Patrol, a product developed by The Anti-Defamation League and Mattel's The Learning Visitor,[36] has been found to cake not merely political sites it deems to be engaging in 'detest speech' but also homo rights web sites, such every bit Immunity International's web folio most Israel and gay-rights web sites, such as glaad.org.[37]

Content labeling [edit]

Content labeling may be considered another form of content-control software. In 1994, the Internet Content Rating Clan (ICRA) — at present part of the Family Online Rubber Establish — developed a content rating system for online content providers. Using an online questionnaire a webmaster describes the nature of their web content. A small file is generated that contains a condensed, calculator readable digest of this description that tin can then be used by content filtering software to block or allow that site.

ICRA labels come in a variety of formats.[38] These include the World wide web Consortium's Resource Clarification Framework (RDF) every bit well as Platform for Internet Content Selection (PICS) labels used by Microsoft's Internet Explorer Content Counselor.[39]

ICRA labels are an example of self-labeling. Similarly, in 2006 the Association of Sites Advocating Child Protection (ASACP) initiated the Restricted to Adults self-labeling initiative. ASACP members were concerned that various forms of legislation being proposed in the United states were going to have the upshot of forcing adult companies to label their content.[40] The RTA label, unlike ICRA labels, does not require a webmaster to fill out a questionnaire or sign upwards to use. Like ICRA the RTA label is free. Both labels are recognized by a wide variety of content-control software.

The Voluntary Content Rating (VCR) system was devised by Solid Oak Software for their CYBERsitter filtering software, equally an culling to the PICS system, which some critics accounted too circuitous. It employs HTML metadata tags embedded inside spider web folio documents to specify the type of content independent in the document. Only two levels are specified, mature and adult, making the specification extremely uncomplicated.

Use in public libraries [edit]

United states [edit]

The utilize of Internet filters or content-command software varies widely in public libraries in the United States, since Internet use policies are established past the local library board. Many libraries adopted Cyberspace filters after Congress conditioned the receipt of universal service discounts on the utilise of Internet filters through the Children'due south Internet Protection Act (CIPA). Other libraries do non install content control software, believing that adequate use policies and educational efforts accost the issue of children accessing historic period-inappropriate content while preserving adult users' right to freely access information. Some libraries use Net filters on computers used by children only. Some libraries that employ content-control software allow the software to be deactivated on a case-by-instance footing on application to a librarian; libraries that are subject area to CIPA are required to accept a policy that allows adults to asking that the filter be disabled without having to explicate the reason for their request.

Many legal scholars believe that a number of legal cases, in particular Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, established that the use of content-control software in libraries is a violation of the First Subpoena.[41] The Children's Cyberspace Protection Act [CIPA] and the June 2003 case United States v. American Library Association found CIPA ramble as a condition placed on the receipt of federal funding, stating that First Subpoena concerns were dispelled by the police'due south provision that allowed adult library users to have the filtering software disabled, without having to explain the reasons for their asking. The plurality decision left open up a future "as-practical" Constitutional claiming, however.

In November 2006, a lawsuit was filed against the North Central Regional Library District (NCRL) in Washington Land for its policy of refusing to disable restrictions upon requests of adult patrons, but CIPA was not challenged in that matter.[42] In May 2010, the Washington Country Supreme Court provided an stance afterwards it was asked to certify a question referred by the U.s. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington: "Whether a public library, consistent with Article I, § 5 of the Washington Constitution, may filter Internet admission for all patrons without disabling Spider web sites containing constitutionally-protected speech upon the request of an adult library patron." The Washington State Supreme Court ruled that NCRL's cyberspace filtering policy did not violate Commodity I, Section 5 of the Washington State Constitution. The Courtroom said: "Information technology appears to us that NCRL'due south filtering policy is reasonable and accords with its mission and these policies and is viewpoint neutral. Information technology appears that no article I, department 5 content-based violation exists in this instance. NCRL'due south essential mission is to promote reading and lifelong learning. As NCRL maintains, it is reasonable to impose restrictions on Cyberspace access in order to maintain an environment that is conducive to report and contemplative thought." The instance returned to federal court.

In March 2007, Virginia passed a police similar to CIPA that requires public libraries receiving state funds to apply content-control software. Similar CIPA, the law requires libraries to disable filters for an adult library user when requested to practice and then by the user.[43]

Australia [edit]

The Australian Internet Safety Informational Body has data about "practical advice on Internet condom, parental command and filters for the protection of children, students and families" that too includes public libraries.[44]

NetAlert, the software made available free of charge by the Australian government, was allegedly croaky by a 16-twelvemonth-former student, Tom Wood, less than a week after its release in Baronial 2007. Wood supposedly bypassed the $84 million filter in most half an hour to highlight problems with the government's approach to Internet content filtering.[45]

The Australian Government has introduced legislation that requires ISP'due south to "restrict access to age restricted content (commercial MA15+ content and R18+ content) either hosted in Australia or provided from Australia" that was due to commence from 20 January 2008, known as Cleanfeed.[46]

Cleanfeed is a proposed mandatory Internet access provider level content filtration system. It was proposed past the Beazley led Australian Labor Party opposition in a 2006 printing release, with the intention of protecting children who were vulnerable due to claimed parental computer illiteracy. Information technology was appear on 31 December 2007 as a policy to be implemented by the Rudd ALP government, and initial tests in Tasmania have produced a 2008 report. Cleanfeed is funded in the current budget, and is moving towards an Expression of Involvement for live testing with ISPs in 2008. Public opposition and criticism have emerged, led by the EFA and gaining irregular mainstream media attention, with a majority of Australians reportedly "strongly against" its implementation.[47] Criticisms include its expense, inaccuracy (it will be impossible to ensure only illegal sites are blocked) and the fact that it will exist compulsory, which tin be seen equally an intrusion on gratis speech communication rights.[47] Another major criticism point has been that although the filter is claimed to stop sure materials, the secret rings dealing in such materials volition not be affected. The filter might also provide a simulated sense of security for parents, who might supervise children less while using the Internet, achieving the verbal opposite upshot.[ original inquiry? ] Cleanfeed is a responsibility of Senator Conroy's portfolio.

Denmark [edit]

In Kingdom of denmark it is stated policy that it volition "prevent inappropriate Internet sites from beingness accessed from children's libraries across Denmark."[48] "'It is important that every library in the country has the opportunity to protect children confronting pornographic material when they are using library computers. It is a chief priority for me as Culture Minister to brand sure children tin surf the cyberspace safely at libraries,' states Brian Mikkelsen in a press-release of the Danish Ministry of Culture."[49]

United Kingdom [edit]

Many libraries in the U.k. such as the British Library[50] and local say-so public libraries[51] employ filters to Net admission. Co-ordinate to research conducted past the Radical Librarians Collective, at least 98% of public libraries apply filters; including categories such every bit "LGBT interest", "abortion" and "questionable".[52] Some public libraries block Payday loan websites[53]

Bypassing filters [edit]

Content filtering in general can "be bypassed entirely past tech-savvy individuals." Blocking content on a device "[will non]...guarantee that users won't eventually be able to discover a way around the filter."[54]

Some software may exist bypassed successfully past using culling protocols such as FTP or telnet or HTTPS, conducting searches in a different language, using a proxy server or a circumventor such as Psiphon. Also cached spider web pages returned by Google or other searches could bypass some controls as well. Web syndication services may provide alternate paths for content. Some of the more poorly designed programs can be shut downward past killing their processes: for example, in Microsoft Windows through the Windows Job Manager, or in Mac Os X using Strength Quit or Activity Monitor. Numerous workarounds and counters to workarounds from content-control software creators exist. Google services are often blocked past filters, but these may most often exist bypassed past using https:// in identify of http:// since content filtering software is non able to translate content under secure connections (in this case SSL).

An encrypted VPN tin can be used every bit means of bypassing content control software, especially if the content control software is installed on an Internet gateway or firewall.

Other ways to bypass a content command filter include translation sites and establishing a remote connection with an uncensored device.[55]

Products and services [edit]

Some ISPs offering parental control options. Some offering security software which includes parental controls. Mac OS X v10.4 offers parental controls for several applications (Mail, Finder, iChat, Safari & Dictionary). Microsoft'southward Windows Vista operating system also includes content-control software.

Content filtering engineering exists in two major forms: awarding gateway or packet inspection. For HTTP access the awarding gateway is called a web-proxy or just a proxy. Such spider web-proxies tin inspect both the initial request and the returned web page using arbitrarily complex rules and will non return any part of the page to the requester until a decision is made. In add-on they can make substitutions in whole or for any office of the returned result. Bundle inspection filters do not initially interfere with the connectedness to the server merely inspect the data in the connection equally it goes past, at some point the filter may decide that the connexion is to be filtered and it will then disconnect it past injecting a TCP-Reset or similar faked packet. The two techniques can exist used together with the bundle filter monitoring a link until it sees an HTTP connection starting to an IP address that has content that needs filtering. The packet filter and so redirects the connectedness to the spider web-proxy which can perform detailed filtering on the website without having to pass through all unfiltered connections. This combination is quite pop because it can significantly reduce the cost of the organisation.

Gateway-based content control software may exist more difficult to bypass than desktop software as the user does not have physical access to the filtering device. However, many of the techniques in the Bypassing filters department still piece of work.

Run across too [edit]

  • Adultism
  • Ad filtering
  • Comparison of content-control software and providers (incl. parental control software)
  • Reckoner and network surveillance
  • David Burt, a former librarian and abet for content-command software
  • Deep content inspection
  • Egress filtering, control of outbound network traffic
  • Fiscal Coalition Against Child Pornography
  • Internet censorship
  • Internet censorship circumvention
  • Cyberspace condom
  • Opposition to pornography
  • Parental controls
  • Peacefire, a U.South.-based website dedicated to "preserving Outset Amendment rights for Internet users, particularly those younger than xviii"
  • Russian State Duma Nib 89417-vi - a proposed bill that would mandate content control software
  • Wordfilter, generic proper noun for scripts typically used on Internet forums or chat rooms that automatically scans users' posts or comments as they are submitted and automatically changes or censors particular words or phrases

References [edit]

  1. ^ "Going online in Cuba: Internet under surveillance" (PDF). Reporters Without Borders. 2006.
  2. ^ "Young, angry ... and wired - May three, 2005". Edition.cnn.com. three May 2005. Retrieved 25 October 2009.
  3. ^ Umstead, R. Thomas (20 May 2006). "Playboy Preaches Command". Multichannel News . Retrieved 25 June 2013.
  4. ^ Woolls, Daniel (October 25, 2002). "Web sites become blank to protest strict new Internet law". sfgate.com. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 8 July 2003.
  5. ^ Bickerton, Derek (xxx November 1997). "Digital Dreams". The New York Times . Retrieved 25 October 2009.
  6. ^ "It Glossary: Secure Spider web Gateway". Gartner. Retrieved 27 March 2012.
  7. ^ "Censorware Projection". censorware.net. Archived from the original on 20 June 2015.
  8. ^ "159.54.226.83/apps/pbcs.dll/commodity?Assist=/20060319/COLUMN0203/603190309/1064". Archived from the original on 19 October 2007.
  9. ^ "DMCA 1201 Exemption Transcript, April 11 - Censorware". Sethf.com. 11 April 2003. Retrieved 25 October 2009.
  10. ^ "Windows Live to go censorware - ZDNet.co.great britain". News.zdnet.co.uk. 14 March 2006. Archived from the original on 5 December 2008. Retrieved 25 October 2009.
  11. ^ Client-side filters. NetSafekids. National Academy of Sciences. 2003. ISBN9780309082747 . Retrieved 24 June 2013.
  12. ^ "Protecting Your Kids with Family Safety". Microsoft. Retrieved 10 July 2012.
  13. ^ Xu, Xueyang; Mao, Z. Morley; Halderman, J. Alex (5 Jan 2011). "Net Censorship in China: Where Does the Filtering Occur?" (PDF). Academy of Michigan. Archived from the original (PDF) on 24 March 2012. Retrieved 10 July 2012.
  14. ^ Christopher Williams (3 May 2012). "The Pirate Bay cutting off from millions of Virgin Media customers". The Daily Telegraph . Retrieved viii May 2012.
  15. ^ "Explicit and Transparent Proxy Deployments". Websense. 2010. Archived from the original on 18 April 2012. Retrieved xxx March 2012.
  16. ^ Filtering. NetSafekids. National University of Sciences. 2003. ISBN9780309082747 . Retrieved 22 Nov 2010.
  17. ^ "Accountability Software: Accountability and Monitoring Software Reviews". TechMission, Safe Families. UrbanMinistry.org. Retrieved 25 Oct 2009.
  18. ^ "Web Censors Prompt College To Consider Name Change". Slashdot. 2 March 2000. Retrieved 22 November 2010.
  19. ^ Lester Haines (8 October 2004). "Porn filters have a field day on Horniman Museum". The Register.
  20. ^ Stark, Philip B. (10 November 2007). "The Effectiveness of Internet Content Filters" (PDF). Academy of California, Berkeley. Retrieved 22 November 2010.
  21. ^ Lui, Spandas (23 March 2010). "Microsoft, Google and Yahoo! speak out in Internet service provider filter consultation". arnnet.com. Retrieved 22 November 2010.
  22. ^ "Google and Yahoo raise doubts over planned net filters". BBC News. xvi February 2010. Retrieved 30 April 2010.
  23. ^ "Mainstream Loudon five. Board of Trustees of the Loudon County Library, 24 F. Supp. 2d 552 (E.D. Va. 1998)". Tomwbell.com. Retrieved 25 October 2009.
  24. ^ "Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union - 521 U.S. 844 (1997)". U.South. Reports. Justia.com. 26 June 1997.
  25. ^ "Legal Victories". Electronic Frontier Foundation . Retrieved 2019-02-01 .
  26. ^ "Children Internet Condom". www.justice.gov. 2015-05-26. Retrieved 2019-02-01 .
  27. ^ Attorneys for Microsystems Software, Inc. and Mattel, Inc. (fifteen March 2000). "Microsystems v Scandinavia Online, Verified Complaint". Civil No. 00CV10488, United States District Courtroom, District of Massachusetts. Electronic Frontier Foundation. Archived from the original on 12 February 2009. Retrieved 25 October 2009. {{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors listing (link)
  28. ^ Seth Finkelstein & Lee Tien. "Electronic Frontier Foundation White Newspaper 1 for NRC project on Tools and Strategies for Protecting Kids from Pornography and Their Applicability to Other Inappropriate Cyberspace Content". National University of Sciences. Archived from the original on xix April 2006.
  29. ^ "Sky, Virgin Media Asked to Cake Piracy Site Newzbin2". BBC News. nine November 2011. Retrieved 26 March 2012.
  30. ^ Kelly Wilson (2008-11-06). "Hometown Has Been Shutdown - People Connection Blog: AIM Community Network". Hometown.aol.com. Archived from the original on 2008-05-09. Retrieved 2009-ten-25 .
  31. ^ "Find!!". Members.tripod.com. Retrieved 2009-ten-25 .
  32. ^ "www.glaad.org/media/archive_detail.php?id=103&". Archived from the original on June 7, 2008.
  33. ^ "The Listen of a Censor". Spectacle.org. Retrieved 2009-10-25 .
  34. ^ "CYBERsitter: Where do we non desire you to go today?". Spectacle.org. Retrieved 2009-10-25 .
  35. ^ "See: Filtering Software: The Religious Connexion". Csriu.org. Archived from the original on 2008-07-05. Retrieved 2009-x-25 .
  36. ^ "See: ADL and The Learning Company Develop Educational Software". adl.org. Archived from the original on 2011-02-09. Retrieved 2011-08-26 .
  37. ^ "Come across: Cyber Patrol Examined". peacefire.org. Retrieved 2011-08-26 .
  38. ^ "ICRA: Technical standards used". FOSI. Retrieved 2008-07-04 .
  39. ^ "Scan the Spider web with Cyberspace Explorer 6 and Content Advisor". Microsoft. March 26, 2003.
  40. ^ "ASACP Participates in Financial Coalition Against Child Pornography". November xx, 2007. Retrieved 2008-07-04 .
  41. ^ Wallace, Jonathan D. (Nov nine, 1997). "Purchase of blocking software by public libraries is unconstitutional".
  42. ^ "ACLU Suit Seeks Access to Information on Internet for Library Patrons". ACLU of Washington. November sixteen, 2006. Archived from the original on December 5, 2006.
  43. ^ Sluss, Michael (March 23, 2007). "Kaine signs library bill: The legislation requires public libraries to block obscene material with Net filters". The Roanoke Times.
  44. ^ "NetAlert: Parents Guide to Internet Safety" (PDF). Australian Communications and Media Authority. two August 2007. Archived from the original (PDF) on nineteen April 2013. Retrieved 24 June 2013.
  45. ^ "Teenager cracks govt's $84m porn filter". Sydney Morning Herald. Fairfax Digital. Australian Associated Press (AAP). 25 Baronial 2007. Retrieved 24 June 2013.
  46. ^ "Restricted Access Systems Proclamation 2007" (PDF). Australian Communications and Media Authorisation (ACMA). 2007. Archived from the original (PDF) on 24 March 2012. Retrieved 24 June 2013.
  47. ^ a b "Larn - No Clean Feed - End Internet Censorship in Commonwealth of australia". Electronic Frontiers Commonwealth of australia. Archived from the original on 7 January 2010. Retrieved 25 Oct 2009.
  48. ^ "Danish Ministry of Culture Chooses SonicWALL CMS 2100 Content Filter to Keep Children's Libraries Free of Unacceptable Material". Prnewswire.com. Retrieved 2009-x-25 .
  49. ^ "Danish Minister of Civilization offers Internet filters to libraries". Saferinternet.org. Retrieved 2009-10-25 .
  50. ^ "British Library'due south wi-fi service blocks 'violent' Hamlet". BBC News. 13 August 2013.
  51. ^ "Practice we desire a perfectly filtered world?", Louise Cooke, Lecturer, Department of Data Scientific discipline, Loughborough Academy, November 2006. Archived 4 December 2013 at the Wayback Machine
  52. ^ "New inquiry maps the extent of spider web filtering in public libraries". eleven April 2016. Retrieved eighteen July 2016.
  53. ^ Brusk, Adrian (3 Apr 2014). "Should public libraries block payday loan websites?". Pirate Political party United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland.
  54. ^ Satterfield, Brian (4 June 2007). "Understanding Content Filtering: An FAQ for Nonprofits". Techsoup.org. Retrieved 24 June 2013.
  55. ^ "Is It Possible To Easily Avoid Cyberspace Filters?". comodo.com. 4 June 2007. Retrieved 2 October 2018.

What Is A Web Filter,

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_filter

Posted by: sipesagat1982.blogspot.com

0 Response to "What Is A Web Filter"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel