The term "content control" is used on occasion by CNN,[2] Playboy magazine,[3] the San Francisco Chronicle,[4] and The New York Times.
[6] Companies that make products that selectively block Web sites do not refer to these products as censorware, and prefer terms such as "Internet filter" or "URL Filter"; in the specialized case of software specifically designed to allow parents to monitor and restrict the access of their children, "parental control software" is also used.
[8][9] In general, outside of editorial pages as described above, traditional newspapers do not use the term "censorware" in their reporting, preferring instead to use less overtly controversial terms such as "content filter", "content control", 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 as CNET use the term in both editorial and journalistic contexts, for example "Windows Live to Get Censorware.
No solution provides complete coverage, so most companies deploy a mix of technologies to achieve the proper content control in line with their policies.
It is, however, also marketed on occasion to facilitate self-censorship, for example by people struggling with addictions to online pornography, gambling, chat rooms, etc.
Self-censorship software may also be utilised by some in order to avoid viewing content they consider immoral, inappropriate, or simply distracting.
Filter administrators may prefer to err on the side of caution by accepting over blocking to prevent any risk of access to sites that they determine to be undesirable.
[25] Part of the civil liberties argument, especially from groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation,[26] was that parents who wanted to block sites could use their own content-filtering software, making government involvement unnecessary.
[29] The Motion Picture Association successfully obtained a UK ruling enforcing ISPs to use content-control software to prevent copyright infringement by their subscribers.
[30] Many types of content-control software have been shown to block sites based on the religious and political leanings of the company owners.
[35] Nancy Willard, an academic researcher and attorney, pointed out that many U.S. public schools and libraries use the same filtering software that many Christian organizations use.
A small file is generated that contains a condensed, computer readable digest of this description that can then be used by content filtering software to block or allow that site.
ASACP members were concerned that various forms of legislation being proposed in the United States were going to have the effect of forcing adult companies to label their content.
[42] NetAlert, the software made available free of charge by the Australian government, was allegedly cracked by a 16-year-old student, Tom Wood, less than a week after its release in August 2007.
It was proposed by the Beazley led Australian Labor Party opposition in a 2006 press release, with the intention of protecting children who were vulnerable due to claimed parental computer illiteracy.
It was announced 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.
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.
[45] Criticisms include its expense, inaccuracy (it will be impossible to ensure only illegal sites are blocked) and the fact that it will be compulsory, which can be seen as an intrusion on free speech rights.
The filter might also provide a false sense of security for parents, who might supervise children less while using the Internet, achieving the exact opposite effect.
According to research conducted by the Radical Librarians Collective, at least 98% of public libraries apply filters; including categories such as "LGBT interest", "abortion" and "questionable".
[52] The Children's Internet Protection Act [CIPA] and the June 2003 case United States v. American Library Association found CIPA constitutional as a condition placed on the receipt of federal funding, stating that First Amendment concerns were dispelled by the law's provision that allowed adult library users to have the filtering software disabled, without having to explain the reasons for their request.
In November 2006, a lawsuit was filed against the North Central Regional Library District (NCRL) in Washington State for its policy of refusing to disable restrictions upon requests of adult patrons, but CIPA was not challenged in that matter.
In March 2007, Virginia passed a law similar to CIPA that requires public libraries receiving state funds to use content-control software.
Individuals with technical expertise may use a different method by employing multiple domains or URLs that direct to a shared IP address where restricted content is present.
[56] Some software may be bypassed successfully by using alternative protocols such as FTP or telnet or HTTPS, conducting searches in a different language, using a proxy server or a circumventor such as Psiphon.
Other ways to bypass a content control filter include translation sites and establishing a remote connection with an uncensored device.