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 R2
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 R3
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 R4
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 R5
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 R6
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 R7
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 R8
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 R9
PREFACE
OCR for page R10
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 R11
OCR for page R20
OCR for page R21
OCR for page R22
OCR for page R23
OCR for page R24
OCR for page R25
OCR for page R26
OCR for page R27
OCR for page R28
OCR for page R29
OCR for page R30
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
. .
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
Y"I TrFl]
PORNOGRAPHY,
AND THE INTERNET
