This document provides an inventory of technologies that support parents’ ability to choose content appropriate for their children, or address online personal safety issues affecting children.

This document focuses on tools that empower parents, teachers, librarians, and others to choose appropriate content for children. These technologies generally provide mechanisms for identifying content of a particular type, and taking an action based on the specified type of content. The described practices and technologies take six types of actions based on characteristics of online content: suggest, search, inform, monitor, warn, and block.

1 Overview

The present document focuses on tools that empower parents, teachers, librarians, and others to choose appropriate content for children. However, another set of tools is emerging that supports the development and deployment of empowerment tools. Examples of these support tools include Web sites and software that assist content providers and/or third parties in labeling content, and software that can be used to distribute such labels.
We hope this inventory serves to raise awareness of existing technologies that can address concerns raised by those who care for children. Even more importantly, we hope it will help people identify needs in this area that are not currently being addressed by technology, and stimulate efforts to address these needs.

2 Empowerment Tools Design Space

Identifying or describing content of a particular type and taking an action based on the type of content.

2.1 Actions

Currently there are technologies available that take six types of actions based on content labels or characteristics of online content: suggest, search filtering, inform, monitor, warn, and block.

2.1.1 Suggest: recommend appropriate content for children.

A wide variety of Web sites, pamphlets, and books provide lists of child-appropriate content. In addition, some filtering software includes lists of suggested sites for children to explore. Examples of suggestion mechanisms: Yahooligans!, American Library Association’s “Great Sites”, Bonus.com, Microsystems Route 6-16 and CyberYES list, The Internet Kids & Family Yellow Pages.

2.1.2 Search filtering: select content that is appropriate for children and matches a query.

There are many search engines, which are filtering the result for adult content by default. This is been recognized as an advantage in their company CV, and a marketing strategy, which aims attracting more parents and their children for using the engine.
Examples of blocking tools include: Google.com, Altavista.com.

2.1.3 Inform: provide information about the content.

PICS labels, reviews, and other descriptions of content can help parents and other supervisors guide children towards appropriate Internet content.  However, in order for this information to be useful, it must be easily accessible.  Some tools are designed to provide information about content when a user begins to access that content.  This information may be displayed in the form of a graphic or banner on a Web page, or as part of the browser or other software.  For example, TRUSTe displays a “trustmark” graphic on Web sites that have certain types of approved privacy practices.  evaluWeb displays a banner indicating the age appropriateness of content as part of the corresponding Web pages.  Web navigation service Alexa displays information about a site in a toolbar pop-up that gives background information about any site.

2.1.4 Monitor: record for later inspection a list of the content accessed or attempted to be accessed by a user.

Many filtering tools also include monitoring mechanisms.  For example Cyber Snoop logs all Internet activity while a child is online. The adult “administrator” may review the log to determine what Web sites the child visited, what email the child sent, or what kinds of chats the child was participating in.  Another filtering program, Net Nanny, optionally logs all attempts to access content in violation of the administrator’s policy. Other examples of software with monitor mechanisms: Bess, CYBERsitter, I-Gear, SmartFilter. (Unfortunately all monitoring schemes are in discrepancy with the right of inviolable personal life. Not always violating one’s rights is the way to benefit its safety.)

2.1.5 Warn: provide information about content and recommend against accessing that content before it is displayed.

Warning mechanisms indicate that content is not recommended, before the content is displayed. These tools can be useful for protecting against children accidentally downloading content that could be upsetting to them. Many adult Web sites include a prominent warning on an introductory page that content on other pages at the site is inappropriate for those under 18, or using a age check systems.
A tool such as the Microsoft Internet Explorer Content Advisor, which is designed to block content but also includes a password override, could be used as a warning mechanism as well. Parents could provide a password that their children could use to access content that would otherwise be blocked. Thus children would be warned that the content may not be appropriate, but can proceed to access it anyway if they so desired.
The problem with parent/child relationship regarding the child internet safety is that youth are highly computer literate and the parents may be extremely computer illiterate.

2.1.6 Block: prevent children from accessing content.

A wide variety of tools prevent children from accessing inappropriate content.  Some, like the MS Internet Explorer, filter content based on any set of PICS labels chosen by the parent. Others, such as Bess, filter out content that contains words that have been deemed inappropriate or that appears on a “bad for kids list.”  Still others, such as AME, filter out all content unless it appears on a “good for kids list.” There are many tools that are used on company level or
Other examples of blocking tools include: Bonus.com, Cyber Patrol, CYBERsitter, Cyber Snoop, evaluWEB, I-Gear, Net Nanny, PlanetView,

2.2 Location

The mechanisms that implement the actions described above may be located in a variety of places in a computer system including on the user’s personal computer, on a local area network (LAN) or local or remote proxy server, at an Internet Service Provider (ISP), or as part of a search engine or Web site.

2.2.1 Personal computer

Placing mechanisms on personal computers can facilitate their configuration and reconfiguration by parents, teachers, or other administrators. On the other hand, it may also facilitate the reconfiguration of these mechanisms by children, against their parents’ wishes and possibly without their parents’ knowledge. Some PC-based products have been designed with mechanisms to prevent tampering. Many PC-based products require frequent updates; some can update themselves automatically when the PC is connected to the Internet.
Examples of tools that can run on a personal computer include: Cyber Patrol, CYBERsitter, Cyber Snoop, NetNanny, SurfControl, Net Shepherd, Firefox browser extensions.

2.2.2 Local Area Network firewall or local proxy

Placing mechanisms on LANs or implementing local proxy servers can be a useful solution in situations involving networked PCs, such as schools and libraries. Centralized configuration is easier for system administrators and harder for individuals to tamper with.
Examples of tools that can be run on LANs or local proxy servers include: CyberPatrol, Bess, Cyber Snoop, I-Gear, NetNanny, SafeSurf Internet Filtering Solution, SmartFilter, SurfControl.

2.2.3 Internet Service Provider

Internet service providers cannot effectively monitor the vast amount of material generated by organisations and individuals. Some ISPs, offer services designed especially for children. ISPs may provide filtered Internet access or restrict access to chat rooms, newsgroups, or other types of services.
Examples of tools that can be run by an ISP include: AME, I-Gear, netFilter, SurfControl.

2.2.5 Search engine

Some search engines return, by default, only pointers to content that is appropriate for children and youth. For example, Google and AltaVista image search engines are designed not to show adult content. They must be explicitly configured to do that.

2.2.6 Web site

A variety of Web sites list content that is appropriate for children. In addition some Web sites contain labels, graphics, or other descriptions of their content that can be useful to parents in guiding their children towards appropriate Web content. The Internet Content Rating Association (ICRA) is an international, non-profit organization of internet leaders working to develop a safer internet. The centerpiece of the organization is the descriptive vocabulary, often referred to as “the ICRA questionnaire.” Content providers check which of the elements in the questionnaire are present or absent from their websites. This then generates a small file containing the labels that is then linked to the content on one or more domains. Users, especially parents of young children, can then use filtering software to allow or disallow access to web sites based on the information declared in the label. A key point is that the Internet Content Rating Association does not rate internet content - the content providers do that, using the ICRA labeling system. The ICRA vocabulary consists of several issues:

• The presence or absence of nudity
• The presence or absence of sexual content
• The depiction of violence
• The language used
• The presence or absence of user-generated content and whether this is moderated
• The depiction of other potentially harmful content such as gambling, drugs and alcohol

2.3 Customizability

Internet filtering products provide a large range of customization options including: mechanisms for customizing allow and block lists; specifying key words or phrases to trigger actions; specifying categories of content to allow or block; and specifying whether inappropriate content should trigger a block, a warning message, a log entry, or other action. While highly customized products can often address a wide variety of customer needs, unless they are carefully designed they may be quite complicated to configure.

2.4 Classification

Regardless of what actions are taken, mechanisms are needed to label or identify content of a particular type. For any system of labeling or classifying content, it is important to understand who is performing the classification, and what criteria they are using to perform it.

2.4.1 Who/how

Classification may be done by:

Content providers. ICRA and SafeSurf are examples of PICS rating systems designed to be used by content providers.
Third-party experts. Many filtering companies use teams of information specialists, parents, and teachers to assist in classifying content. For example, AME, Bess, Bonus.com, Cyber Patrol, SurfControl.
Local administrators. A parent, teacher, or other local “administrator” may personally decide what content should be accessible to children under his or her supervision. Cyber Snoop and Click & Browse Jr. are examples of products that include allow lists generated by local administrators. Of course there have to be applied an error checking mechanism for “controlling the controller”.

Webmasters and Hosting providers. One of the privileges in an open information society is to have a right to express an opinion of own content and share it with others, which also have the right to evaluate your content. This is the line where we have not only illegal content, but also another category – immoral content. We should mention that not always immoral issues are illegal. Of course morality is culture dependent and the Internet safety is global issue, but main moral values are constant.

Survey or vote. One way to classify items is through a survey or vote. This technique has been used by several organizations to rate restaurants and movies. Recently, Net Shepherd began using this approach with their World Opinion Rating Service. Net Shepherd has established a “Rating Community” of people who rate and classify content and receive points that can be exchanged for rewards.

Automated tools. There are automated tools for assisting the classifying of online content. Some of these tools, for example evaluWeb, are used to classify content dynamically, as the user requests it. Others, such as the tools employed by N2H2, are used to assist human classifiers in finding suspect sites. Other software that employs automated tools for classifying content include: CYBERsitter, netFilter, Net Nanny.

2.4.2 Classification scheme

Classification schemes may be designed to identify content that is “good for kids” or content that is “bad for kids” or both. The content may be classified on the basis of its age suitability, on the basis of specific characteristics or elements of the content, or on the basis of who created the content, such as a distinction between government and non-government sources.

2.4.3 Scope

Internet content is provided through a variety of protocols including HTTP (hypertext transfer protocol), FTP, SMTP, RSS/RDF, chat, telnet, etc. Some products and services focus on one or a small number of these protocols, while others provide more comprehensive solutions, monitoring everything a child does online using cookies for example. In addition, some products and services monitor only incoming communications, while others monitor both incoming and outgoing communications. Tools that monitor outgoing communications can often be configured to prevent children from giving out personal information that could be used to harm them such as their home address or phone number.

3 Gaps

While considerable progress has been made in filling up the toolbox for parents, teachers, and librarians, improvements could be made in nearly all the types of tools, and some of the tools are not yet widely available. We highlight a few kinds of tools that seem to be most in need of further development.

3.1 Self-rating system(s) with wide coverage

While several PICS-based self-rating systems have emerged, and ICRA in particular has drawn significant media coverage around the world, none of the self-rating systems have achieved near-universal coverage. Alexa Internet reports that in August 1997 they searched a collection of 88,647 Web pages (these were the pages most requested by users of their service) and found 2363 had ICRA labels and 483 had SafeSurf labels. A year later ICRA reported that over 80,000 sites have been rated with ICRA, and that many of these sites consist of large numbers of pages. It is not clear, however, what percentage of the most popular sites or of the most offensive sites has self-rated, or even whether this percentage is growing.
Also note that there are policy actions, such as mandatory self-labeling, that could lead to expanded coverage for self-labeling systems. These policies are used by some of the search engines and indexing services, which require ICRA labeling to run the procedures.

3.2 More exploration of the “warn” action

Although many blocking tools could be used as warning tools simply by telling children the override password, none have designed their user interfaces specifically to make this option attractive, nor do they actively encourage parents to consider this option. This option could be a useful tool to protect against children accidentally downloading content that could be upsetting to them.

3.3 Easy configuration for terminals in public spaces

When computers are used in public spaces, the configuration may need to be changed frequently. For example, when computers are used in a classroom science lesson, it may be desirable to provide access only to science-related web sites, but later in the day the same computers may be available for more general use.
While most of the available tools offer some degree of flexibility, the configuration process itself usually requires a number of keystrokes and mouse clicks, and a high level of understanding of what the tool does. It should be possible to switch among several canned configurations with just one or two mouse clicks. Software vendors are beginning to respond to the need for these installable configurations for other kinds of settings (e.g., proxy server settings in a browser), but they should be encouraged to allow installable configurations in all of the tools described in this document. The forthcoming PICSRules specification makes it easy for filtering products to include installable configurations, and similar interchange formats should be developed for configuration of search, monitor, and other tools.

3.4 Tools to help law enforcement find on-line criminals

In addition to the tools for parents, teachers, and librarians, law enforcement officers may need a different toolbox, with a different set of tools. For law enforcement, the goal is not so much to support recipients of information in the task of finding what they want and avoiding things they would prefer not to receive. Instead, the goal is to identify and trace the sources of illegal activities. Some of the safety issues are deeply connected with phishing and fraud, and detailed analysis of these is beyond the scope of this document. However, it is empirically proven that netiquette is being applied between ISPs, distributors of digital content and the consumers, regarding criminal or immoral activities of third parties.