To: cybernot@microsys.com
Cc: mcfarlan@mail1.nai.net, aes@cyberia.com, cdf@colossus.net
Subject: Pagan Bashing Overlooked by CyberPatrol
It is apparent that CyberPatrol may be Pagan Bashing, or may be
aiding and abbetting Internet Pagan Bashing, by
failing to note obvious examples of religious intolerance
against Pagans by sites, including CNN [see attachment
where, in reference to the San Diego Christian group that
committed mass suicide, CNN refered to warnings against
"Techno-Pagans."
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9703/27/techno.pagans/index.html ]
and others.
Clearly these suicidals were Techno-Christians and in
no manner Pagans - technos or otherwise.
There are indications that CyberPatrol has lumped various
Pagan websites into CULT websites where clearly they don't fit
CyberPatrol's definition of a CULT.
Pagans, by most accounts, are the fastest growing religious group
in the US.
This may account for the increased Pagan Bashing and attacks
against Pagans by mainstream religious groups on the Internet and
CyberPatrol's possible winking at Internet Pagan Bashing.
Most any site mentioning Halloween (Pagan Samhain) will contain
standard Pagan Bashing and few of these balatantly religiously
intolerant sites get blocked by CyberPatrol.
Does CyberPatrol exist to bash Pagans?
Does CyberPatrol not care if minority religions get routinely
abused on the internet?
Is CyberPatrol only for narrow minded or intolerant Christian parents?
Does CyberPatrol avoid bringing Pagans onto its advisory panel?
Thank you,
Lowell McFarland mcfarlan@ct1.nai.net
Here is a copy of CyberPatrol's criteria as posted on Compuserve. CyberPatrol is
also the 3rd Party consultant for that system's parental controls.
Careful analogy of this seems to not only show inconsistencies in
religion but also in isues involving nudity. The banning of satanic
sites would be religious discrimination but a satanic church would have
to be the party suing undoubtedly. Also the nudity clauses allow for
certain types of nudity in that art and "National Geographic"-type images
are allowable. As such if you are an indigenous black native in Africa
its OK to show your breasts but if a white western recreationalist at a
nude beach its not OK. NAACP would love this one.
Observation - their criteria for cult closely fits the Catholic Church,
Church of Christ LDS (Mormon), and numerous others.
(Courtesy of D. Kirkpatrick.)
------------
Cyber Patrol CyberNOT List Criteria
Microsystems Software has used what we believe to be reasonable means to
identify and categorize CyberNOTs, but we cannot guarantee the accuracy
or completeness of our screens and we assume no responsibility for errors
or omissions. Please report errors and omissions using the Site
Investigation Report.
Category Definitions -- 5/9/96
Any on-line content that contains more than 3 instances in 100 messages.
Any easily accessible pages with graphics or text which fall within the
definition of the categories below will be considered sufficient to place
the source in the category.
Violence/Profanity (graphics or text):
Pictures or text exposing extreme cruelty, physical or emotional acts
against any animal or person which are primarily intended to hurt or
inflict pain. Obscene words, phrases, and profanity defined as text that
uses, but is not limited to, George Carlin's 7 censored words more often
than once every 50 messages (newsgroups) or once a page (web sites).
Partial Nudity:
Pictures exposing the female breast or full exposure of either male or
female buttocks except when exposing genitalia. (Excludes all swimsuits,
including thongs)
Full Nudity:
Pictures exposing any or all portions of the human genitalia.
Please note: Excluded from the Partial Nudity and Full Nudity categories
are sites containing nudity or partial nudity of a wholesome nature. For
example: Web sites containing publications such as National Geographic
or Smithsonian Magazine. Or sites hosted by museums such as the
Guggenheim, the Louvre, or the Museum of Modern Art.
Sexual Acts (graphics or text):
Pictures or text exposing anyone or anything involved in explicit sexual
acts and or lewd and lascivious behavior, including masturbation,
copulation, pedophilia, intimacy involving nude or partially nude people
in heterosexual, bisexual, lesbian or homosexual encounters. Also
includes phone sex ads, dating services, and adult personals, CD-ROM's
and videos.
Gross Depictions (graphics or text):
Pictures or descriptive text of anyone or anything which are crudely
vulgar or grossly deficient in civility or behavior or which show
scatological impropriety. Includes such depictions as maiming, bloody
figures, or indecent depiction of bodily functions.
Intolerance (graphics or text):
Pictures or text advocating prejudice or discrimination against any race,
color, national origin, religion, disability or handicap, gender, or
sexual orientation. Any picture or text that elevates one group over
another. Also includes and intolerant jokes or slurs.
Satanic/Cult (graphics or text):
Pictures or text advocating devil worship, an affinity for evil, or
wickedness. Or the advocacy to join a cult. A cult is defined by: A
closed society that is headed by a single individual where loyalty is
demanded and leaving is punishable.
Drugs/Drug Culture (graphics or text):
Pictures or text advocating the illegal use of drugs for entertainment.
Includes substances used for other than their primary purpose to alter
the individual's state of mind, such as glue sniffing. This would exclude
currently illegal drugs legally prescribed for medicinal purposes (e.g.,
drugs used to treat glaucoma or cancer).
Militant/Extremist (graphics or text):
Pictures or text advocating extremely aggressive and combative behaviors,
or advocacy of unlawful political measures. Topics include groups that
advocate violence as a means to achieve their goals. Includes "how to"
information on weapons making, ammunition making or the making or use of
pyrotechnics materials. Also includes the use of weapons for unlawful
reasons.
Sex Education (graphics or text):
Pictures or text advocating the proper use of contraceptives. This topic
would include condom use, the correct way to wear a condom and how to put
a condom in place. Also included are sites relating to discussion about
the use of the Pill, IUD's and other types of contraceptives. In
addition to the above, this category will include discussion sites on -
how to talk to your partner about diseases, pregnancy and respecting
boundaries. Excluded from this category are commercial sites wishing to
sell sexual paraphernalia.
Questionable/Illegal & Gambling (graphics or text):
Pictures or text advocating materials or activities of a dubious nature
which may be illegal in any or all jurisdictions, such as illegal
business schemes, chain letters, copyright infringement, computer
hacking, phreaking (using someone's phone lines without permission) and
software piracy. Also includes text advocating gambling relating to
lotteries, casinos, betting, numbers games, on-line sports or financial
betting, including non-monetary dares.
Alcohol & Tobacco (graphics or text):
Pictures or text advocating the sale, consumption, or production of
alcoholic beverages and tobacco products.
All of the above categories pertain to advocacy information: how to
obtain inappropriate materials and or how to build, grow or use said
materials. The categories do not pertain to sites containing opinion or
educational material, such as the historical use of marijuana or the
circumstances surrounding 1940's anti-Semitic Germany.
The following article, by Douglas Rushkoff ,
concerning Boston's turning over
of censorship of public computers in schools and libraries to
CyberPatrol, appeared on the UK's Guardian Online at
http://go2.guardian.co.uk:80/theweb/859389144-cyber.html
****************************************************************
CYBERLIFE US Douglas Rushkoff
Censor secrecy
Thanks to a mayor looking for votes from the moral right, children
in Boston are no longer allowed to access Internet sites offering
information about feminism, or counselling on eating disorders.
Odd? Indeed. But when a politician turns over the authority to
censor what our children see online to a company looking to maintain a
competitive advantage while advancing its own agendas, anything is
possible.
Net filtering software sounds like a good idea on the surface. It
prevents a Web browser from accessing sites with pornography and other
subjects parents might not like their children to see. The mayor
of Boston has ordered that such a filtering product, called CyberPatrol,
be
installed in all public schools and libraries in his city.
What most people don't realise is that CyberPatrol blocks access
to lots of things other than pornography. Among the currently banned
sites are a 130-nation network of environment activists called
Environet, a Jewish community guide called The Jewish Bulletin and the
anti-censorship archives of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Worse yet, the program's manufacturers, claiming market considerations,
keep the list of banned sites a secret. We don't even know what we
aren't allowed to see.
However reprehensible government-mandated censorship is, when the
Nazis banned books at least they made the list of undesirable
authors public. By keeping their lists a trade secret, software
companies appoint themselves the new arbiters of cultural decency.
Filtering programs such as CyberPatrol give parents the illusion
of control over their children's Web wanderings, but actually surrender
it to
total strangers whose true cultural and commercial objectives
might far outweigh their dedication to keeping kids safe from mental
harm.
Believe it or not, a city government in the US has officially
granted the authority to censor its citizens to a private company whose
criteria
for banning is never disclosed. Is there a name for this new style
of governance? Corporate fascism?
Not to worry. The programs don't really work too well. Sure, they
prevent public-owned computers from accessing sites that are deemed
objectionable; but the lists of banned sites are regularly cracked
by anti-censorship hackers, and then posted to newsgroups and Web
sites. Ironically, this helps only to highlight the material that
the censors would hope to quash. Kids circumvent the filter programs or
log
on to private terminals and then seek out the banned sites with
renewed vigour.
Ultimately, isolating and thus spotlighting so-called questionable
behaviours only serves to fetishise them.
While I might personally disagree with parents who hope to limit
their children's access to the online world, I wholly support those who
might choose to do so. But parents who think their children's Net
meandering can really be regulated with a software package have
been lulled into a false sense of security. More disastrously,
when they allow themselves to be intimidated into permitting a private
company to make these sorts of decisions for them and their
communities, they are inviting social tyranny by non-elected,
unaccountable entities.
If you or your community are planning to institute a system of Net
filtering, at least make sure the list of sites being banned and the
criteria for such selection is in your control. Anything short of
this might take the cultural agenda out of the hands of pornographers
only to give it to someone worse.
© Douglas Rushkoff 1997
Action Results: CyberPatrol's Reply
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 11:19:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: "David R. Burwasser"
To: cuups-usa@efn.org, cuups-l@uua.org, danica@mills.edu
Cc: susang@microsys.com
Subject: re: CyperPatrol and religion intolerance (fwd)
I received the following post regarding the filter protocols of Cyber
Patrol from the responsible party, Susan Getgood, who gave me forwarding
permission (for which, thanks). IIRC there was one correspondent on one
list whose site was banned by this software for no apparent good reason;
this is particularly to her attention.
Blessed be,
Dave Burwasser
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 09:50:33 -0800
From: SUSAN GETGOOD
To: "David R. Burwasser"
Subject: re: CyperPatrol and religion intolerance
Thank you for your e-mail.
It is entirely possible that a pagan site might be filtered in Cyber Patrol
under the Satanic/Cult or other criteria. It is equally possible that any given
pagan site is NOT filtered. We apply our published criteria to the sites as we
find them and restrict according to the content found on the site. You can find
our criteria at http://www.microsys.com/cybernot/ If a Wiccan or Pagan site is
restricted, it is because it meets the criteria.
If you have specific URLs that you would like to check for inclusion on our
list, I urge you to visit our search engine at www.microsys.com/cybernot and
check the URL there. If you would like further information at that point,
please send us an e-mail with your questions.
If you believe we have mis-classified a site, please let us know.
Regards
Susan Getgood
> From: "David R. Burwasser" , on 3/31/97 8:37
> AM:
>
> Dear "susang@microsys.com":
>
> I am writing to you as the reportedly responsible party for the
> programming of CyperPatrol, a software product to permit parents to block
> their children's access to pornography, drug encouragement, hate
> literature, etc on the Internet.
>
> My understanding is that several Wiccan and/or Pagan web sites are
> blocked by CyberPatrol because of supposed "Satanic/Cult" connections.
>
> These are religions we are talking about, and they are not out to exploit
> children. Pagan spirituality is recognized formally by the United States
> Government, in that the Military Chaplain's Handbook has a section on
> chaplaincy to Pagan servicemembers -- a section written by Gordon Melton,
> a Methodist religion scholar. The Unitarian Universalist denomination has
> recently recognized Earth Centered Spirituality as one of its religious
> sources.
>
> There is no more justification for labelling these sites "Satanic/Cult"
> than there is to apply that label to a Jewish or Buddhist site.
>
> Application of that kind of label to Earth Centered religion, is an
> enthusiasm of a small minority of clergy who call themselves Christian.
> Somehow you or your advisors have allowed someone of that orientation to
> influence your protocols. The result is that CyberPatrol has become what
> it is designed to filter out: A piece of Internet hate literature.
>
> As an Internet professional you are, I assume, aware that the current
> media flap over the web site of the "Heaven's Gate" suicide cult is
> basically the non-Internetted panicking one another, and that "Heaven's
> Gate" is as atypical of Internet traffic as would its printed material be
> of ink-on-paper publishing. There is no premise here for silencing an
> entire category of religious site.
>
> Very sincerely yours,
>
> David R. Burwasser
>
*******
Susan Getgood, Microsystems Software, Inc.
508 879 9000, e-mail susang@microsys.com
www.microsys.com / www.cyberpatrol.com
CyberPatrol Process
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 19:21:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: "David R. Burwasser"
To: FIRE
Cc: zburwasser
Subject: Re: FIRE: action info: CyperPatrol
On Wed, 2 Apr 1997, John Brightshadow Yohalem...
> Went over the cyberpatrol criteria, and none of them struck me as things
> under which most pagan sites I've visited could possibly be eliminated.
> Letters to them might point out that we don't worship devils or anything
> Satanic -- I know it's a bore to do that all over again, guys, but they
> don't get the message
Outlaw Pussycat has been snagging stuff from web sites on this, and
together with that and what has been unearthed here and on ERAL/ERACL:
Alas, would it were that simple.
The process sucks. They have a network of people surfing the net all day
and recommending sites for banning. The recommendation is often
sufficient. Eg, an animal-rights site was banned because its pictures
were icky. (Another "family values" oriented product that bans the topic
of feminism(!) gets recommendations from existing customers.)
To appeal, you have to find out you have been banned; you are not
notified. And the appeal process is not swift. One guy complained about
his own website, just to see what would happen; it worked fine & fast. He
is now appealing, and waiting...
The advisory board for this product does not know the whole banned list
-- it is updated weekly -- and have been surprised to find out what is on
the list when third parties tell them. That board include reps from NOW,
NAACP and a gay/lesbian anti-defamation outfit called GLAAD, but they
seem to be figureheads and not know it. (Other advisors include Morality
in Media, the PTO, the teachers' union, and the NRA(!).)
This product was touted as a smut-blocker, but it has other categories,
as we have seen. It is promoted as a parental service for the
protection of children, but it is being proposed for use in public
libraries. Boston is probably going to implement it in the children's
section of the city libraries; that is a compromise from the total
implementation the mayor wanted.
>From what I have seen, these folks have a product to sell, and they care
most about that, less about fairness, and least about consistency.
ERAL/ERACL is noodling strategies. I am constrained not to be more
forthcoming off that list. :-(
> But I don't think they have a leg to stand on by their own
> criteria -- except the prejudice they themselves denounce in another of the
> criteria.
Getting them into any venue of judgement other than the marketplace, to
count how many legs they have to stand on, is not that simple. They don't
debate; they are a private operation not bound by the strictures of the
Bill of Rights; they have a (rhetorically) powerful defense in the
argument that nobody is forced to use their product -- the same argument
used by the pornographers who are their primary target of record.
On the surface, it *looks* like a free-market-of-ideas standoff,
unless you are in one of the marginal categories (Pagan, HIV+, nudist,
gay teenager, etc) caught in the gears.
Blessed be,
Dave Burwasser
CyberPatrol, one of the leading providers of Web Site "filtering"
(blocking/censoring to some) has agreed to discuss adding a
Pagan or Wiccan to their Oversight Committee:
*********************************************************************
> From: Lowell & Nancy McFarland , on 3/28/97 9:56 AM:
> To: debrag@microsys.com
> I seem to note that CyberPatrol's advisory panel contains several
> Christian advisors but there is no indication of a
> Pagan advisor.
[CyberPatrol Overview Committee
(http://www.microsys.com/pr97/cnot397.htm)
"...meets every two months and is made up of
representatives from a wide range of social,
political and civic organizations,
including the National Organization of Women (NOW),
the National Rifle Association (NRA),
the National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People (NAACP),
the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD),
Morality in Media,
the teacher's union
and the PTO,
as well as a superintendent of schools,
a social worker,
a psychologist and a
minister.
All decisions by the committee are made by majority vote."
This added by LMcF April 6, 1997, for clarification. ]
> As Pagans are reportedly the fastest growing religious group
> in the US and the group most maligned by mainstream
> religious fanatics, is this an oversight or is it on purpose?
> Christian groups regularly call Pagans Satanists (even CyberPatrol
> lumps Satanists with Cults and then bans Pagan sites under
> the category of Satanists/Cults) and infers anti children
> activities.
> Of course, Satan is a mainstay of Christian, Jewish and Muslim
> (etc.) religions, but absent in most Pagan and Celtic religions.
> Celts don't even have a Hell as all Celts go to Avalon -
> regardless.
> As a Celt, often referred to as a Pagan, I recognize that
> Pagans, being older than today's mainstream religions, have
> differing ideas and concepts about many things including
> parenting, tolerance, good & evil, art, history, importance of
> females, etc.
> Is it possible that you could add Pagans to your advisory council?
> Thank you,
> Lowell McFarland mcfarlan@ct1.nai.net
>
> SUSAN GETGOOD wrote:
> > Thank you for your e-mail. At our next CyberNOT Oversight
> > Committee meeting, we will indeed be discussing adding a Pagan
> > or Wiccan member to the Oversight Committee.
> > Regards
> > Susan Getgood
> > Director of Marketing
> > SUSANG@MICROSYS.COM
> From: Lowell & Nancy McFarland , on 4/3/97 1:23 PM:
> SUSAN GETGOOD
> Dear Ms. Getgood,
> Thank you for your quick reply.
> I appreciate your (and Microsystems, CyberPatrol's) consideration
> of a possible Pagan member for your oversight committee.
> As there is so much anger and misinformation about Pagans,
> I don't know how non-Pagans can fairly access the need for a Pagan
> and Pagan viewpoints on your oversight committee.
> I would like to send you some material that may be of assistance
> in case you do not have a live Pagan, at your next oversight
> committee meeting, to explain aspects of Paganism and how a Pagan
> might assist in parental choices.
> As the Pagan community is very concerned about issues involved
> with CyberPatrol, absent your objection, I would like to forward
> our communication to the Pagan Net.
> I think Pagans can contribute important viewpoints about Internet
> Web Sites - if I can be of further help, please call on me.
> Loch Sloy!
> Lowell McFarland mcfarlan@ct1.nai.net
>
Lowell --
please feel free to forward any information you think might be
helpful to us.
You are certainly welcome to forward our recent correspondence
to a listserv or newsgroup.
I would appreciate it if you would copy me on your posting.
regards
susan
*******
Susan Getgood, Microsystems Software, Inc.
508 879 9000, e-mail susang@microsys.com
http://www.microsys.com / http://www.cyberpatrol.com
**********************************************************************
Background
In short, recently there has been increased concern among Celts, Pagans,
Witches, Wiccans, etc., about the apparent increase in Pagan Bashing,
especially on the Internet.
The thirtynine suicides of the the Christian Heaven's Gate cult
seemed to slide into the usual inaccurate Pagan Bashing of "Pagans
are cultists and Satanists and parents (and concerned groups)should
protect their children from Pagans."
Pagans and their cults(???) seem to be in the forefront of parental
warnings rather than those cultists who are fixated on the Book of
Revelations.
Coupled with multiple complaints from Pagans that their Web Site
has been unfairly censored (by a variety of "Net Nanny" groups) as
"inappropriate to children" or related to Satanic Groups or Cults,
plus additional concerns including CyberPatrol contracts with city
governments to "filter" all computer usage of schools and libraries,
I wrote to CyberPatrol and the e-mails are shown above.
On reflection, I recommend that those in our community in Boston,
Salem or New England could better continue this dialogue with
Ms. Susan Getgood of CyberPatrol/Microsys Inc.
I would/will assist or continue to present our concerns and
abilities to Ms. Getgood and CyberPatrol, if wanted.
If there are any recommendations, of any sort, please let me know.
I believe that the possibility of Pagans, with our unique sense of
tolerance, sexual equality, educational importance, parenting, etc.,
achieving standing with "Net Nanny" organizations is crucial.
Absent achieving a seat at the filtering table, dialogue is the
next best thing.
I wish to again thank Ms. Susan Getgood for this opportunity
for dialogue and possible participation by the Pagan Community.
References;
http://www.microsys.com/cyber/cp_list.htm
http://www.microsys.com/pr97/cnot397.htm
http://www.microsys.com/prfiles/sn896.htm
http://www.microsys.com/cyber/cp_site.htm
http://go2.guardian.co.uk:80/theweb/859389144-cyber.html
http://www.artbell.com
Microsystems Software Inc
600 Worchester Road
Framingham, MA 01702
USA
Microsystems Software International Ltd
Silwood Park, Buckhurst Road
Ascot, Berkshire SL5 7PW
UK
info@microsys.com
Loch Sloy!
Lowell McFarland mcfarlan@ct1.nai.net
This page last updated January 18th, 1997.
Return to Fire's main menu
See our Current Actions
Email us