Click for next page ( R2


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
YOUTH, PORNOGRAPHY, AND THE INTERNET Dick Thornburgh and Herbert S. Lin, Editors Committee to Study Tools and Strategies for Protecting Kids from Pornography and Their Applicability to Other Inappropriate Internet Content Computer Science and Telecommunications Board National Research Council NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C.

OCR for page R1
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20418 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This study was supported by Grant No. l9991N-FX-0071 between the National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Departments of Justice and Education; Grant No. P0073380 between the National Academy of Sciences and the W.K. Kellogg Foundation; awards (unnumbered) from the Microsoft Corporation and IBM; and internal funds of the National Research Coun- cil. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authoring committee and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organi- zations or agencies that provided support for this project. International Standard Book Number 0-309-08274-9 Library of Congress Control Number 2002110219 Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academy Press, 2101 Consti- tution Avenue, N.W., Lock Box 285, Washington, DC 20055, (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area). This report is also available online at . Copyright 2002 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
National Acaclemy of Sciences National Acaclemy of Engineering Institute of Meclicine National Research Council The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating soci- ety of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedi- cated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its mem- bers, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advis- ing the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sci- ences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal gov- ernment. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in pro- viding services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.

OCR for page R1
COMMITTEE TO STUDY TOOLS AND STRATEGIES FOR PROTECTING KIDS FROM PORNOGRAPHY AND THEIR APPLICABILITY TO OTHER INAPPROPRIATE INTERNET CONTENT DICK THORNBURGH, Kirkpatrick & Lockhart LLP, Washington, D.C., Chair NICHOLAS I. BELKIN, Rutgers University WILLIAM I. BYRON, Holy Trinity Parish SANDRA L. CALVERT, Georgetown University DAVID FORSYTH, University of California, Berkeley DANIEL GEER, Stake Inc. LINDA HODGE, Parent Teacher Association MARILYN GELL MASON, Tallahassee, Florida MILO MEDIN, Excite@Home rOHN B. RABUN, National Center for Missing and Exploited Children ROBIN RASKIN, Ziff Davis Media ROBERT I. SCHLOSS, IBM TV. Watson Research Center rANET WARD SCHOFIELD, University of Pittsburgh GEOFFREY R. STONE, University of Chicago WINIFRED B. WECHSLER, Santa Monica, California HERBERT S. LIN, Senior Scientist and Study Director GAIL PRITCHARD, Program Officer (through rune 2001) rOAH G. IANOTTA, Research Assistant JANICE M. SABUDA, Senior Project Assistant DANIEL D. LLATA, Senior Project Assistant (through May 2001) MICKELLE RODRIGUEZ, Senior Project Assistant (through February 2001) IV

OCR for page R1
COMPUTER SCIENCE AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS BOARD DAVID D. CLARK, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Chair DAVID BORTH, Motorola Labs TAMES CHIDDIX, AOL Time Warner rOHN M. CIOFFI, Stanford University ELAINE COHEN, University of Utah W. BRUCE CROFT, University of Massachusetts at Amherst THOMAS E. DARCIE, AT&T Labs Research rOSEPH FARRELL, University of California, Berkeley rEFFREY M. rAFFE, Bell Laboratories, Lucent Technologies ANNA KARLIN, University of Washington BUTLER W. LAMPSON, Microsoft Corporation EDWARD D. LAZOWSKA, University of Washington DAVID LIDDLE, U.S. Venture Partners TOM M. MITCHELL, Carnegie Mellon University DONALD NORMAN, Nielsen Norman Group DAVID A. PATTERSON, University of California, Berkeley HENRY (HANK) PERRITT, Chicago-Kent College of Law BURTON SMITH, Cray Inc. TERRY SMITH, University of California, Santa Barbara LEE SPROULL, New York University rEANNETTE M. WING, Carnegie Mellon University MARrORY S. BLUMENTHAL, Director HERBERT S. LIN, Senior Scientist ALAN S. INOUYE, Senior Program Officer rON EISENBERG, Senior Program Officer LYNETTE I. MILLETT, Program Officer CYNTHIA PATTERSON, Program Officer STEVEN WOO, Program Officer rANET BRISCOE, Administrative Officer DAVID PADGHAM, Research Associate MARGARET HUYNH, Senior Project Assistant DAVID DRAKE, Senior Project Assistant rANICE M. SABUDA, Senior Project Assistant rENNIFER BISHOP, Senior Project Assistant BRANDYE WILLIAMS, Staff Assistant v

OCR for page R1
BOARD ON CHILDREN, YOUTH, AND FAMILIES EVAN CHARNEY, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Chair TAMES A. BANKS, University of Washington DONALD COHEN, Yale University THOMAS DEWITT, Children's Hospital Medical Center of Cincinnati MARY rANE ENGLAND, Washington Business Group on Health MINDY FULLILOVE, Columbia University PATRICIA GREENFIELD, University of California, Los Angeles RUTH T. GROSS, Stanford University KEVIN GRUMBACH, UCSF/San Francisco General Hospital NEAL HALFON, UCLA School of Public Health MAXINE HAYES, Washington State Department of Health MARGARET HEAGARTY, Columbia University RENEE R. rENKINS, Howard University HARRIET KITZMAN, University of Rochester SANDERS KORENMAN, Baruch College, CUNY HON. CINDY LEDERMAN, Juvenile Justice Center, Dade County, Florida VONNIE McLOYD, University of Michigan GARY SANDEFUR, University of Wisconsin-Madison ELIZABETH SPELKE, Massachusetts Institute of Technology RUTH STEIN, Montefiore Medical Center ELEANOR E. MACCOBY (Liaison, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education), Stanford University (emeritus) WILLIAM ROPER (Liaison, IOM Council), University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill MICHELE D. KIPKE, Director (through September 2001) MARY GRAHAM, Associate Director, Dissemination and Communications SONrA WOLFE, Administrative Associate ELENA NIGHTINGALE, Scholar-in-Residence rOAH G. IANNOTTA, Research Assistant Al

OCR for page R1
Preface Youth, pornography, and the Internet. The combination of these ele- ments is a subject on which individuals from all walks of life parents, teachers, librarians, school administrators, library board members, legis- lators, judges, and other concerned citizens have thoughts and strong opinions. Those with products and services to sell are also interested in and concerned about the subject. Some from the online adult entertain- ment industry fear that efforts to restrict the access of children to certain kinds of sexually explicit material on the Internet will impinge on what they see as legitimate business opportunities to market their products and services to adults. Those with technology-based protection systems to sell hope to capitalize on what they see as a growing market for solutions to the problem, however that may be defined. Views in this subject area are highly polarized. Because strongly held values are at stake, the political debate is heated, and often characterized by extreme views, inflammatory rhetoric, and half-truths. Against the backdrop of intense lobbying in the halls of Congress and many local school and library board meetings in communities across the country, a document assembling in one place the different dimensions and pros and cons of approaches that might be taken to address the problem can help to conduct the debate over "what to do" in a more informed manner. Thus, one purpose of this report is to provide a reasonably complete and thorough treatment of the problem and potential solutions that airs all sides. In addition, different communities or groups of readers are likely to be interested in different aspects of this report. . . V11

OCR for page R1
V111 PREFACE Parents will be interested in its description and assessment of a reasonably comprehensive set of tools and strategies for protecting their children on the Internet from exposure to inappropriate sexually explicit material (and other inappropriate material for that matter), many of which can be deployed in their homes. Furthermore, to the extent that parents understand the advantages and disadvantages of these various tools and strategies, they can engage their legislators and local administrative bod- ies more effectively. Adults responsible for children and youth in other settings school, libraries, after-school programs, camps, and so on will be interested in this description and assessment as well for classroom and other purposes, but also in the political and organizational issues that surround the use of these various tools and strategies. Those responsible for education broadly construed will also be attentive to the issues related to material that is improperly or incorrectly identified as inappropriate for children and youth. The information technology (IT) sector is likely to be interested in finding business opportunities for helping parents and others deal with the issues as they see fit, while many commercial interests in the IT sector and in other corners are concerned about the possibility of regulation. Law enforcement agencies may be interested in this report to help clarify their roles and responsibilities in both preventive and tactical op- erations, and may benefit from the report's overview about existing law in this area. The judiciary, especially at the local level, may find perspec- tive and understanding that can be useful in trying and hearing cases touching on the subject matter of this report. Policy makers will be interested in all of these dimensions of the issue, and must decide how to weigh them in their attempts to formulate appropriate policy. Further, much of this report points to legal, eco- nomic, technical, and social realities that affect how legislation and regu- lation might actually play out. ORIGIN OF THIS STUDY In November 1998, the U.S. Congress mandated a study by the Na- tional Research Council (NRC) to address pornography on the Internet (Box Pip. In response to this mandate, the Computer Science and Tele- communications Board (CSTB), responsible within the National Acad- emies for issues at the nexus of information technology and public policy, engaged the NRC's Board on Children, Youth, and Families (BOCYF) to form a committee with expertise diverse enough to address this topic. The resulting committee was composed of a diverse group of people, including individuals with expertise in constitutional law, law enforce- ment, libraries and library science, information retrieval and representa-

OCR for page R1
PREFACE

OCR for page R1
x PREFACE lion, developmental and social psychology, Internet and other informa- tion technologies, ethics, and education. CSTB, with input from BOCYF, developed a proposal that was re- sponsive to the legislative mandate. As a result of discussions with the Department of fustice's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Pre- vention, the Department of Education, and various private companies in the information technology industry, the study's statement of work was adjusted to include non-technological strategies as well as technology options for protection and to address "pornography" as the primary sys- tematic focus of the study's exploration of inappropriate content, with other areas addressed as appropriate for context-setting purposes, ex- plored incidentally rather than systematically. Further, the negotiated statement of work noted that the final report would place the issue of concern in context, provide a range of useful alternatives for constituencies affected by this issue, and explicate the foundation for a more coherent and objective local and national debate on the subject of Internet "pornography," but would avoid making specific policy recommendations that embed particular social values in this area. METHODOLOGY AND CAVEATS As with most controversial issues, the reality of both problem and solution is much more complex than the rhetoric would indicate. To complement the expertise of its members and to understand the issue more effectively, the committee took a great deal of testimony over the course of its study. In its plenary sessions, it heard testimony from some 20 parties with differing points of view and expertise; these parties are identified in Appendix A (which provides the agendas of the various plenary sessions). It held two workshops to explore both technical and non-technical dimensions of the issue; summaries of these workshops were published prior to the publication of this report. Members of the committee also visited a range of communities across the United States to hear firsthand from the various constituencies not the least of which were the children involved. Thus, the committee con- ducted seven site visits from April through June 2001 in a variety of iSee National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 2001, Nontechnical Strategies to Re- duce Children's Exposure to Inappropriate Material on the Internet: Summary of a Workshop, Board on Children, Youth, and Families and Computer Science and Telecommunications Board, Joah G. Iannotta, ea., National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.; and Computer Science and Tele- communications Board, 2002, Technical, Business, and Legal Dimensions of Protecting Children from Pornography on the Internet: Proceedings of a Workshop, National Academy Press, Washing- ton, D.C.

OCR for page R1
PREFACE Xl i geographical locales: Austin, Texas, on April 3-4; Greenville, South Caro- lina, on April 17-18; Salt Lake City, Utah, on April 26-27; San Diego, California, on May 2-3; Blacksburg, Virginia, on May 8-9; Coral Gables, Florida, on May 30-lune 1; and Redding, Shelton, Bristol, Kent, and Hamden, Connecticut, on tune 1-2. Finally, the committee issued a call for white papers and received about 10 (all of which are posted on the project Web site at ~. The committee noted the existence of other work and reports on the subject, such as the final report of the COPA Commission,2 the report of the House Committee on Commerce on the Children's Online Protection Act,3 Safeguarding the Wired Schoolhouse from the Consortium on School Networking,4 and various efforts supported by the Bertelsmann Foundation (e.g., Protecting Our Children on the Internet5~. And, because the committee was, by design, composed of individuals with varying expertise and perspectives on the issues, the committee learned from it- self through argument and discussion. As a result of this process, it is fair to say that every committee member came to understand the issue differently than when he or she first joined the study and left behind any notion that an instant solution could be found. This study is not a comprehensive study of safety on the Internet, nor even one on safety for children on the Internet. The primary emphasis of this study is on approaches to protect youth from pornography or more properly, sexually explicit material deemed inappropriate for minors- though the relevance of these approaches to some other kinds of material deemed inappropriate receives some attention as well. This emphasis does not reflect a consensus of the committee that inappropriate sexually explicit material is or is not the most important safety issue on the Internet for children, but rather the fact that such material was a central element in the legislative mandate to the committee. This study is not a study on the impact of exposure to such material, nor does it come to a consensus on this question. Committee members had, and continue to have, a variety of different views. Committee mem- bers do share common views about the undesirability of exposing chil- dren to some kinds of sexually explicit material, but they do not share 2The COPA Commission was established as part of the Child Online Protection Act, discussed in Chapter 4. Information on the COPA Commission can be found online at . 3H.R. No. 105-775. 4Consortium for School Networking. 2001. Safeguarding the Wired Schoolhouse. Available online at . 5Jens Waltermann and Marcel Machill, eds. 2000. Protecting Our Children on the Internet. Bertelsmann Foundation Publishers, Gutersloh, Germany.

OCR for page R1
xx ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Lynne Shrum, University of Georgia, lane M. Spinak, Columbia Law School, Bruce Taylor, National Law Center for Children and Families, Jody Townsend, Colorado PTA, Joseph Turow, University of Pennsylvania, Willis H. Ware, RAND Corporation, Ellen Wartella, University of Texas at Austin, Gio Wiederhold, Stanford University, and Nancy Willard, University of Oregon. Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive com- ments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Lyle Tones, University of North Carolina, and Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law School. Appointed by the National Research Council, they were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.

OCR for page R1
Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PART I 1 1 INTRODUCTION 17 1.1 The Internet: Source of Promise, Source of Concern, 17 1.2 A Critical Definitional Issue What Is "Pornography"?, 20 1.3 Other Types of Inappropriate Material and Experiences, 22 1.4 A Broad Spectrum of Opinion and Views, 25 1.5 Focus and Structure of This Report, 28 2 TECHNOLOGY 31 2.1 An Orientation to Cyberspace and the Internet, 31 2.1.1 Characteristics of Digital Information, 31 2.1.2 The Nature of the Internet Medium and a Comparison to Other Media Types, 32 2.2 2.1.3 Internet Access Devices, 35 2.1.4 Connecting to the Internet, 36 2.1.5 Identifying Devices on the Internet: The Role of Addressing, 38 2.1.6 Functionality of the Internet, 39 2.1.7 Cost and Economics of the Internet, 47 2.1.8 A Global Internet, 47 2.1.9 The Relative Newness of the Internet, 48 Technologies of Information Retrieval, 49 X~1

OCR for page R1
X- 11 2.3 2.4 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 4.1 4.2 CONTENTS Technologies Related to Access Control and Policy Enforcement, 51 2.3.1 Filtering Technologies, 51 2.3.2 Technologies for Authentication and Age Verification, 59 2.3.3 Encryption (and End-to-End Opacity), 65 2.3.4 Anonymizers, 66 2.3.5 Location Verification, 66 What the Future May Bring, 68 THE ADULT ONLINE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY 71 The Structure and Scale of the Online Adult Entertainment Industry, 72 The Generation of Revenue, 74 Practices Related to Minors, 78 What the Future May Hold, 79 3.4.1 The Structural Evolution of the Industry, 79 3.4.2 Increased Regulation, 79 3.4.3 Future Products and Services, 81 Industry Structure, Product Differentiation, and Aggressive Promotion, 82 LEGAL AND REGULATORY ISSUES The First Amendment, 84 4.1.1 First Principles, 84 4.1.2 The First Amendment, Pornography, and Obscenity, 86 4.1.3 The First Amendment and Protecting Children from Exposure to Sexually Explicit Material, 89 The First Amendment Rights of Minors, 92 4.1.4 4.1.5 The First Amendment and Child Pornography, 93 4.1.6 The First Amendment in Public Libraries, 94 4.1.7 The First Amendment in Public Schools, 95 4.1.8 The First Amendment and the Commercial Advertising of Sexually Explicit Material, 96 Relevant Statutes and Common Law, 96 4.2.1 Federal Obscenity Statutes, 96 4.2.2 Child Pornography Statutes, 97 4.2.3 The Communications Decency Act, 99 4.2.4 The Child Online Protection Act, 101 4.2.5 The Children's Internet Protection Act, 103 4.2.6 The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, 104 4.2.7 State Statutes, 107 4.2.8 Regulatory Efforts, 107 84

OCR for page R1
CONTENTS 4.3 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 6 6.1 6.2 6.3 7 7.1 7.2 . . . X- 111 4.2.9 International Dimensions, 112 Law Enforcement, Training, and Education, 112 CHILDREN, MEDIA, AND EXPOSURE TO SEXUALLY EXPLICIT MATERIAL Children and How They Use Media, 115 Sexuality in Culture, 120 The Role of Media in Providing Information on Sexuality to Youth, 123 Dimensions of Exposure and Access to the Internet, 127 5.4.1 Venues of Access, 127 5.4.2 Sources and Channels of Exposure, 128 5.4.3 Extent of Exposure, 132 Internet Exposure to Sexually Explicit Material, Solicitations, and Harassment, 136 Deliberate Search for Sexually Explicit Material, 138 Inadvertent Exposure to or Intrusion of Sexually Explicit Material, 138 Sexual Solicitations and Approaches, 141 Harassment, 142 THE RESEARCH BASE ON THE IMPACT OF EXPOSURE TO SEXUALLY EXPLICIT MATERIAL: WHAT THEORY AND EMPIRICAL STUDIES OFFER Theoretical Considerations, 143 Empirical Work, 149 6.2.1 Violence, 149 6.2.2 Sexually Violent Material, 152 6.2.3 Exposure to Non-violent Sexual Material, 153 6.2.4 Caveats and Cautions, 155 Factors Affecting the Impact on Minors of Exposure to Sexually Explicit Material, 157 6.3.1 Impact, 157 6.3.2 Minors, 157 6.3.3 Gender, 158 6.3.4 Special Needs, 159 Exposure, 159 6.3.6 The Type of Sexually Explicit Material, 160 BEYOND THE SCIENCE: PERSPECTIVES ON IMPACT AND THE PUBLIC DEBATE Challenges to Parents, 161 Speculations and Other Perspectives on Possible Impact, 166 115 143 161

OCR for page R1
XXIV CONTENTS 7.3 Rhetorical Concerns and Issues of Public Debate, 172 7.4 Judgments in the Absence of a Reliable Research Base, 175 7.5 Concluding Observations, 178 PART II 8 APPROACHES TO PROTECTION FROM INAPPROPRIATE MATERIAL 183 8.1 The Identification of Inappropriate Material, 183 8.1.1 In Principle, 183 8.1.2 In Practice, 186 8.2 Dimensions of "Protection," 188 8.3 The Time Line of Protective Actions, 190 8.4 Differing Institutional Missions of Schools and Libraries, 191 8.5 The Politics of Protection and Inappropriate Material- Who and When?, 192 8.6 Techniques of Protection, 194 8.7 Approaches to Protection, 196 9 LEGAL AND REGULATORY TOOLS 201 9.1 Vigorous Prosecutions of Obscene Material, 201 9.2 Civil Liability for Presenting Obscene Material on the Internet, 205 9.3 Options for Dealing with Material That Is Obscene for Minors, 205 9.3.1 Age Verification, 206 9.3.2 Plain Brown Wrappers and Age Verification, 208 9.3.3 Labeling of Material That Is Obscene for Minors, 209 9.3.4 Prohibiting Spam That Is Obscene for Minors, 209 9.3.5 Prohibiting the Practice of Mousetrapping to Web Sites Ninth Mail They To (Han for Minors 717 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 10 _ ~ . . . it, , . ~ ~ , Enforcement of Record-Keeping Requirements, 213 Streamlining the Process of Handling Violations, 214 Self-Regulatory Approaches, 215 General Observations, 216 SOCIAL AND EDUCATIONAL STRATEGIES TO DEVELOP PERSONAL AND COMMUNITY RESPONSIBILITY 10.1 Foundations of Responsible Choice, 218 10.2 Definition of a Social or Educational Strategy, 221 10.3 Contextual Issues for Social and Educational Strategies, 222 10.4 Parental Involvement and Supervision, 225 218

OCR for page R1
CONTENTS 10.5 Peer Assistance, 233 10.6 Acceptable Use Policies, 235 10.7 After-the-Fact Strategies, 240 10.8 Education, 242 10.8.1 Internet Safety Education, 242 10.8.2 Information and Media Literacy, 245 10.8.3 Collateral Issues, 249 10.9 Compelling and Safe Content, 250 10.10 Public Service Announcements and Media Campaigns, 254 10.11 Findings and Observations About Social and Educational Strategies, 256 11 A PERSPECTIVE ON TECHNOLOGY-BASED TOOLS 11.1 Technology-Based Tools, 258 11.2 Contextual Issues for Technology-Based Tools, 261 11.3 The Questions to Be Asked of Each Tool, 265 12 TECHNOLOGY-BASED TOOLS FOR USERS 12.1 Filtering and Content-Limited Access, 267 12.1.1 What Is Filtering and Content-Limited Access?, 267 12.1.2 How Well Does Filtering Work?, 275 12.1.3 Who Decides What Is Inappropriate?, 286 12.1.4 How Flexible and Usable Is the Product?, 289 12.1.5 What Are the Costs of and the Infrastructure Required for Filtering?, 292 12.3 xxv 267 12.1.6 What Does the Future Hold for Filtering?, 298 12.1.7 What Are the Implications of Filtering Use?, 301 12.1.8 Findings on Filters, 303 12.2 Monitoring, 304 12.2.1 What Is Monitoring?, 305 12.2.2 How Well Does Monitoring Work?, 307 12.2.3 Who Decides What Is Inappropriate?, 309 12.2.4 How Flexible and Usable Are Products for Monitoring?, 310 12.2.5 What Are the Costs and Infrastructure Required for Monitoring?, 311 12.2.6 What Does the Future Hold for Monitoring?, 314 12.2.7 What Are the Implications of Using Monitoring?, 315 12.2.8 Findings on Monitoring, 316 Tools for Controlling or Limiting "Spam," 317 12.3.1 What Are Technologies for Controlling Spam?, 318 12.3.2 How Well Do Spam-Controlling Technologies Work?, 319

OCR for page R1
XXVI CONTENTS 12.3.3 Who Decides What Is Spam?, 320 12.3.4 How Flexible and Usable Are Products for Controlling Spam?, 320 12.3.5 What Are the Costs and Infrastructure Required for Using Spam-Control Products?, 320 12.3.6 What Does the Future Hold for Spam-Controlling Systems?, 321 12.3.7 What are the Implications of Using Spam-Controlling Systems?, 321 12.3.8 Findings on Spam-Controlling Technologies, 321 12.4 Instant Help, 322 12.4.1 What Is Instant Help?, 322 12.4.2 How Well Might Instant Help Work?, 324 12.4.3 Who Decides What Is Inappropriate?, 324 12.4.4 How Flexible and Usable Is Instant Help?, 324 12.4.5 What Are the Costs and Infrastructure Required for Instant Help?, 325 12.4.6 What Does the Future Hold for Instant Help?, 325 12.4.7 What Are the Implications of Using Instant Help?, 326 12.4.8 Findings on Instant Help, 326 13 TECHNOLOGY-BASED TOOLS AVAILABLE TO NON-END USERS 13.1 A .xxx Top-Level Domain, 327 13.1.1 What Is a .xxx Top-level Domain?, 327 13.1.2 How Well Would a .xxx Top-Level Domain Work?, 330 13.1.3 Who Decides What Material Should Be Confined to .xxx Web Sites?, 332 13.1.4 How Flexible and Usable Are Schemes Based on a .xxx Top-Level Domain?, 332 13.1.5 What Are the Costs and Infrastructure Required for a .xxx Top-Level Domain?, 332 13.1.6 What Does the Future Hold for a .xxx Top-Level Domain?, 333 13.1.7 What Are the Implications of Using a .xxx Top-Level Domain?, 334 13.1.8 Findings on a .xxx Top-Level Domain, 334 13.2 A .kids Top-Level Domain, 335 13.2.1 What is a .kids Top-level Domain?, 335 13.2.2 How Well Would a .kids Top-Level Domain Work?, 335 327

OCR for page R1
CONTENTS 13.2.3 Who Decides What Material Should Be Allowed in .kids Web Sites?, 337 13.2.4 How Flexible and Usable Are Schemes Based on a .kids Top-Level Domain?, 337 13.2.5 What Are the Costs and Infrastructure Required for a .kids Top-Level Domain?, 338 13.2.6 What Does the Future Hold for a .kids Top-Level Domain?, 338 13.2.7 What Are the Implications of Using a .kids Top-Level Domain?, 338 13.2.8 Findings on a .kids Top-Level Domain, 339 13.3 Age Verification Technologies, 339 13.3.1 What Are Age Verification Technologies?, 340 13.3.2 How Well Do Age Verification Technologies Work?, 341 13.3.3 Who Decides What Is Inappropriate?, 343 13.3.4 How Flexible and Usable Are Products for Verifying Age?, 344 13.3.5 What Are the Costs and Infrastructure Required for Age Verification?, 344 13.3.6 What Does the Future Hold for Age Verification Systems?, 345 13.3.7 What Are the Implications of Using Age Verification Systems?, 347 13.3.8 Findings on Age Verification Technologies, 348 13.4 Tools for Protecting Intellectual Property, 349 13.4.1 What Are Tools for Protecting Intellectual Property?, 349 13.4.2 How Well Do Tools for Protecting Intellectual Property Work?, 349 13.4.3 Who Decides What Is Inappropriate?, 351 13.4.4 How Flexible and Usable Are Products for Protecting Intellectual Property?, 352 13.4.5 What Are the Costs and Infrastructure Required for Protecting Intellectual Property?, 352 13.4.6 What Does the Future Hold for Tools for Protecting Intellectual Property?, 352 13.4.7 What Are the Implications of Tools for Protecting Intellectual Property?, 353 13.4.8 Findings on Tools for Protecting Intellectual Property, 353 XXVII . .

OCR for page R1
XXVIII 14.2 PART III 14 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND FUTURE NEEDS 14.1 Framing the Issue, 357 14.1.1 Social Dimensions, 357 14.1.2 Developmental Dimensions, 358 14.1.3 Legal Dimensions, 359 14.1.4 Technical Dimensions, 360 14.1.5 Economic Dimensions, 361 On the Impact on Children of Exposure to Sexually Explicit Material and Experiences, 362 On Approaches to Protection, 364 Trade-offs and Complexity, 368 14.4.1 Social and Educational Trade-offs, 370 14.4.2 Technology Trade-offs, 371 14.4.3 Public Policy Trade-offs, 373 14.5 Take-Away Messages for Different Parties, 374 14.5.1 Parents, 374 14.5.2 Teachers and Librarians, 378 14.5.3 Industry, 380 14.5.4 Makers of Public Policy, 383 14.6 Research Needs, 386 14.7 Conclusion, 387 APPENDIXES INFORMATION-GATHERING SESSIONS OF THE COMMITTEE B C D INDEX CONTENTS 357 391 GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS SELECTED TECHNOLOGY ISSUES SITE VISIT SYNTHESIS BIOGRAPHIES 407 418 430 434 445

OCR for page R1
Y"I TrFl] PORNOGRAPHY, AND THE INTERNET

OCR for page R1