Talk:Secure Web SmartFilter EDU

Wikipedia blocked by Bess?
Just trying to justify the edit about Bess blocking WIkipedia. According to Bess' website, Wikipedia.org is in the Education exception category and is not blocked. Is this true on every system which uses Bess?

No it is not.

-You're right, as I am using Wikipedia from my school's system(which uses Bess). To make the article more accurate, I have changed "Note that Wikipedia is blocked by Bess." to "Note that Wikipedia is blocked by Bess on some systems.".- Emerald 00:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

- Since this line keeps getting added, edited, and removed, can we agree on a particular wording? Here's my vote. - Peedl 01:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The Bess system allows administrators to block sites of their choosing. Wikipedia is blocked on some Bess systems, depending on local decisions.

- I think it's funny how everytime i try to go to a site that opposes bess, the site is blocked for "p2p/loophole" Hawaiianchief

proxify.net is used to bypass bess

As of 6.15.06, proxify.net is blocked by Bess (under their category: anonymizers)

most of your school internet accounts are blocked by the local area network connection. The local area network section(lan) is set to use the proxy server of there choice. By removing that then you bypass the server and can go onto the internet. Most schools have blocked students from accessing those features but by pressing F1 on the keyboard then going to options and then internet options, connection, lan settings the settings can be changed

Bess blocks Wikipedia on my school's system, as it contains "personal pages", though it only blocks the English and Spanish versions; and for the reason (I am assuming though correct me if I'm wrong) that they are the two Wikipedias with the most content. Quite a shame, as Wikipedia really is the best source for school reports, and I trust most of the content relating to science, history, etc., topics I'd typically have to write about. --Wikiwøw ­­ 22:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

move to Bess (internet filtering software)
Censorware is in my opinion a derogatory term, which violates WP:NPOV. I believe that the use of 'internet filtering software' is a better usage and a more neutral one. I'd like to start a poll on whether the page should be moved. ~crazytales56297. chasing cars // e 12:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment- In my opinion, censorware is just as neutral a name as "web-flitering software", despite the word censorship 's negative connotations. However, I can't say whether I would object or support the move, considering I don't know what's the most commonly used or acurate term, though that should be the title of this article. Though, for future reference, it's best not to group together support, object, and comment on these discussions like you had done. --Wikiwøw ­­ 22:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks Wikiwow. I only really grouped support/oppose/comment because I know that's used on RfA, I'm not an expert on talk page polls. ~ crazytales 56297 O rly? 20:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The list seems to contradict itself many times over.216.186.53.212 19:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * AGREE - and I added a relevant section below. I think the name should be Bess (content-control software) as that is the page censorware redirects to after much discussion by fellow wikipedians.  In fact, since no one has really responded to your or my sections, I say just do it as it complies with the aforesaid comments and redirect page. I just personally don't know how to do it or I would. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 01:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The Bias opinion
This article is bias it only gives a point of veiw from the bess company everyone that has ever had to deal with bess knows of its scandals in the past and its censure issues with organizations like peacefire. I believe That information should be included in the article so that it is no longer bias.

-- danieljackson (tlk) (cntrbtns) 06:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that this should definitely be included. I don't know if everyone who has used Bess knows about the scandals, but most users probably do know about how damaging its blocking procedures are to education and to sanity.  I don't think anything in the article is biased towards the Bess company but it would be much improved if it had a section on conflicts with organizations and more specific examples of critique besides what is listed. -- Peedl 00:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm interested. But tread carefully.  A quick Google search produced for me only pro and anti Bess sites, nothing unbiased.  One site was called "The Official Anti-Bess Site," for example. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 03:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Move to Bess (content-control software)
Folks, this must be moved to Bess (content-control software) and references to censorware must be removed based on, and because the issue is already addressed in, Content-control software. The wording there and in the Talk pages applies here as well. Someone please do this. Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 06:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * When this gets done, the phrase "(often referred to as censorware)" ought to be removed as well as this will no longer be needed to reference the title. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 20:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll do this soon seeing no other comment for well over a month. Anyone want to say anything? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 06:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think that is a bad idea, if after careful consideration Wikipedians agreed to redirect as discussed above. However, I think we need to keep a  reference of some sort in the article about censoring.  Many of my teachers and administrators outright called the system a form of censorship and were not at all happy with it.  There is some wishy washy mentions of these opinions in the article right now but it should be fleshed out if we are to give the Bess program a politically correct name such as "content-control software." Peedl 22:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, but it is not a "politically correct" name. It's the name wikipedians have arrived at as the least POV.  --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 03:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't want to start an argument but I do want to make it clear that I chose the word carefully. I think 'content-control' is a euphemism for 'censor'.  However, I understand that that is my own opinion and is POV, so I would not want it to remain in the main article.  I was trying to convey with my comment above both the necessity to rename the article to be NPOV and my reluctance to do so. Peedl 04:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I just did this. Peedl 03:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've put it off for so long! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 12:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Peedl, what do you think of ? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 15:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As I've said, I really believe that these products should be referred to as censorware, as that is what they appear to be doing by every definition I've ever known. I re-read the discussion page on content-control software and I do appreciate the citations of newspapers, which suggest that "filter" is the least POV.  However, I do not feel strongly enough about the issue to pursue any changes in the censorware category list, or to argue that it should remain how it is.  If you feel really strongly about it though, I'm sure you could make the same case you made in this article in order to get it changed. Peedl 06:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thanks.  --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 12:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

US v. ALA
I changed the wording here to read "being too aggressive in its filtering procedures, not being aggressive enough in its filtering procedures, and violating the First Amendment, though this was proven false in US v. ALA, 539 U.S. 194, 2003." to "being too aggressive in its filtering procedures or not being aggressive enough in its filtering procedures. Others have accused Bess and other filters of violating the First Amendment. However, it was decided in US v. ALA, 539 U.S. 194, 2003 that this argument is unfounded." It seems to me that judicial decisions are never proofs, but are authoritative, arbitrary decisions. 128.151.253.249 00:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC) (Sorry forgot to login) Peedl 00:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I eliminated the reference entirely because the decision did not consider or rule upon the Constitutionality of mandatory filtering. In fact, the court upheld the Children's Internet Protection Act as a condition placed on federal funding and noted that any First Amendment difficulties were resolved by the fact that adults are able to ask libraries to disable Internet filters without having to explain the reasons for their request.  Two justices noted that the law was still vulnerable to an "as applied" challenge, and in fact, a Washington State library system is being sued right now (2007) for failing to disable filters at the request of library users. If you consult the FCC regs (linked from the Children's Internet Protection Act entry) the regs tell libraries that in implementing CIPA, they must have a policy in place to disable filters.
 * I rephrased the original statement to focus the Constitutional concerns on mandatory filtering. - Anon.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.22.196.241 (talk) 06:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC).


 * And I removed your changes as they are incorrect and biased. Further, "Anon," you are a sock puppeteer vandalizing this and other pages, in clear violation of wiki policy, but more obviously, in clear violation of history and talk comments by numerous people who revert your POV/vandalism in numerous pages under your various sock puppets.  If the original sentence needs refining, it's not by adding the POV/vandalism of a sock puppeteer who disregards community consensus repeatedly. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 11:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Anon says, "in fact, a Washington State library system is being sued right now (2007) for failing to disable filters at the request of library users." Anon is being purposely misleading to bring this up in the context of CIPA and US v. ALA.  Why?  Because the issues raised in that case have nothing to do with CIPA or US v. ALA!  Now can this sock puppet/vandal be trusted where it not only violates community common sense and respect, but also claims things are "in fact" when they are not and its statements are designed to mislead people? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 11:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Anon here again, with an appropriate Anon "puppet" in place to receive your personal abuse. I've reverted your statement as the CIPA decision never set forth that conclusion. If and when you can provide a citation within the decision that says "Bess's critics are wrong" you are welcome to add the court's words with the proper citation.  In the meantime, I stand by my assertion that CIPA was upheld as constitutional only because the government promised the Court that the law provides adults with the right to ask that filters be disabled in the library, without explaining the reasons for their request.  That is not my conclusion. It is the conclusion of the FCC, the agency charged with enforcing CIPA:
 * "On June 23, 2003, the Supreme Court issued its opinion reversing the judgment of the District Court and finding that CIPA, on its face, is constitutional. The Supreme Court found that CIPA does not induce libraries to violate the Constitution because public libraries’ Internet filtering software can be disabled at the request of any adult user and, therefore, does not violate their patrons’ First Amendment rights. In upholding CIPA, the Supreme Court emphasized “the ease with which patrons may have the filtering software disabled,” and that a patron who encounters a blocked site … need only ask a librarian to unblock it (or at least in the case of adults) disable the filter.” The plurality also highlighted the government’s acknowledgment at oral argument that “a patron would not ‘have to explain … why he was asking a site to be unblocked or the filtering to be disabled.’” Paragraph 9, FCC Order 03-188 dated July 23, 2003


 * To the extent that your argument is that the CIPA decision gave filters a complete blessing, you are wrong. The constitutionality of mandatory filtering that is imposed by a government agency is still an open question; that assertion is supported by the Washington State lawsuit wherein library patrons are suing the library for violating their First Amendment rights by imposing mandatory filtering in their library.  I brought up that lawsuit to demonstrate that your flat conclusion that filters do not violate the First Amendment is your opinion, and not a generally accepted legal conclusion.


 * So, as I said, provide a proper citation for your claim. If you cannot, it should not be included here.


 * Anon, I am unclear as to what you are talking about.
 * Further, repeatedly requesting you follow wiki policy and work with the community is not "personal abuse." On the other hand, such advice will help you to become a better wiki editor.  It's for your own good.  If you do not work with the wiki community, people will relentlessly revert you, and I notice that that is indeed what has been happening.  Certainly you are not going to accuse all the others also reverting your edits of personally abusing you, are you?
 * You know, I really do not care who you are since that's irrelevant -- the relevant part is that we are all on an even playing field, courtesy of Wikipedia. The sooner you are guided by the rules of the level playing field, the sooner you are a welcome part of that community.  Honestly, when I first got on here, I felt all powerful.  Soon I learned what I have been telling you.  Now numerous people are making the same reverts of your edits that I am making.  I think you can see the great advantage of working within the community and I encourage you to do so.
 * Have a nice day!
 * (By the way, except in special "as applied" cases that have not yet occurred in the 4 years since US v. ALA, not even in Washington State as you first implied, Internet filters as used in accordance with CIPA do not violate the First Amendment. That's the law, that's SCOTUS, not my opinion.  Further, in the recent COPA case from the Eastern District of Pa., ACLU v. Gonzalez, the ACLU's own experts testified that filters work well, work wonderfully, and do not violate the First Amendment, else the ACLU would not be extolling them, right?  Knowing you are a major leader in the ALA makes me understand why you are reluctant to expose to the public your major misunderstanding of the law you lost in US v. ALA.)--LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 16:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The personal abuse I referred to were your gratutious ad hominem attacks based upon my anonymity and the fact that I challenge your unsupported opinions and conclusions (my so-called "bias"). I read the decisions and do not find what you claim is there. The CIPA decision is not a wholesale endorsement of mandatory filtering; in fact, it is the opposite: in saying that the Constitution requires that filters be disabled, that any legal infirmaties under the First Amendment are cured if the user can turn off the filter, it actually supports a conclusion that mandatory filtering, imposed without the consent of the user, is legally suspect under the First Amendment. Or why else require that the library have a disabling policy in place?


 * Simply saying "CIPA is constitutional, so therefore, filters are constitutional" is misleading and inaccurate. Per the FCC, the federal agency in charge of enforcing CIPA, CIPA is constititutional only as long as the adult user can turn off the filter, i.e., eliminate the filter and remove the block on the Internet. And simply saying "The COPA decision says filters are wonderful and therefore, filtering is okay and constitutional" is also misleading. What the court concluded in COPA is that the government cannot censor material published on the Internet because those who want to avoid such materials can voluntarily use filters to avoid it, as much as those who don't like what's on television can hit the off switch.


 * Finally, the court case in Washington state is an "as applied" challenge, based upon the library's policy of refusing to unblock sites or disable the filter. See Internet Filtering Lawsuit in Washington State


 * Again, provide citations and support for your own statements.


 * I come here to contribute as part of the community. I'm tiring of responding to you with guidance you are clearly not following.  I'm tired of your claiming I say things I don't, such as about "mandatory" filters that is not the point anyway.  And your claim that my saying filters are constitutional under CIPA when SCOTUS said filters are constitutional under CIPA, your claim my saying this is "misleading and inaccurate" is very sad yet funny at the same time.   And my statement about COPA was an obvious oversimplification, though essentially true.  Perhaps you personally find it distasteful that the ACLU is now supporting filtering technology, considering the ACLU and the ALA both lost in US v. ALA.


 * And as one last example of how you play fast and loose with the facts, a direct quote from the source you provided is, "The lawsuit challenges the library system’s rigid policy of using a very restrictive Internet filter to bar access to information on its computers and of refusing to honor requests by adult patrons to temporarily disable the filter for sessions of uncensored reading and research." Yes, CIPA requires filters to be temporarily disabled, and yes, this library refused to do so, but the associated legal brief on that page says the refusal to disable the filters "violates Article I, Section 5 of the Washington State Constitution on its face and as applied."  The only place where CIPA is mentioned is where the letters appear as part of the word "municipal."  As shown, your statements are just plain false.  When the article had discussed CIPA, but you implied the Washington case was an as-applied challenge to CIPA, you were incorrect.  I wouldn't trust your edits until I see some positive consistency after your initial attempt to play fast and loose with the facts or to ignore them completely.


 * So I'm just going to give up. There's a policy on that too.  "Don't feed the trolls."  Bye.  --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 18:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I will give instructions to bypass if interested
post if interested
 * Well, then you may be interested in Content-control software as I believe there are bypassing instructions there, though I don't recall clearly. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 11:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think including bypassing instructions (here or elsewhere) is at all relevant to this Wikipedia entry. I think the entire article should be revised so it meets wiki standards and is not a place for high schoolers to share their methodology for bypassing the system.

Mandatory Filtering is factually false and sock puppeteer has conflict-of-interest problems as well
All, a sock puppeteer continually adds in the phrase, in parenthesis, "(mandatory filtering)" to this wiki page. I ask everyone to revert the sock puppeteer's relentless attempts to add this.

1) Mandatory filters is factually incorrect. For example, libraries are not required to use the filters.  Further, under the law, adults may ask for the filters to be temporarily disabled.  Therefore, the filters are not mandatory.

2) The sock puppeteer is a high ranking member of the American Library Association, an organization whose main purpose in life lately is to oppose mandatory filters. Indeed, the law requires that the filters either must be disabled on request, and the law does not require the use of the filters.  So they are not mandatory.  But the ALA opposes even this.  So they want people to think the filters are mandatory when they are not so that the people will not want even perfectly legal filters.  This is pure POV pushing, let alone being simply dishonest.  Pure soap box.  It does not belong here.  Let the ALA page be written any way they want, but Wikipedia has rules designed to make information accurate, not POV.

3) The sock puppeteer will claim, as on other pages, that his/her actions are innocent in nature. They are not.  I have been challenged to provide proof of the claim that the person is of high rank on the ALA.  Purely to avoid embarrassing the person, I have never provided such proof in response to these requests and instead have referred people to use their own eyes to watch the POV edits in action.  So I will ask the sock puppeteer directly, will you please just admit you are a high ranking member of the ALA so that no one need reveal information that may be embarrasing to you and your organization?  On wikipedia, conflict-of-interest edits are a no-no.  You're hiding behind IP addresses helps you commit the no-no.  Simply say you are a high ranking member of the ALA so people will know you are being honest and interested in working with the wiki community instead of despite it. No one need know your actual identity.

4) In one speech, the sock puppeteer has publicly claimed filters were mandatory then twice corrected his/herself. In other words, the sock puppeteer knows the mandatory filtering claim is false but is still placing it here and doing similar POV edits on numerous other wiki pages.  Again, not to embarrass him/her, I will not reveal the source of that information.  But he/she knows it is true.  Only the sock puppeteer his/herself will prompt me to release this information which will necessarily reveal his/her identity.  It would be better for the sock puppeteer to simply stop trying to add something he/she knows to be false and to be POV, or to make some statement that might explain the change in position that continues to be pushed in wiki articles.

5) Look at the history of this person's edits and the history comments to see this person is acting despite, not with, the wiki community.

Again, I ask everyone to revert the sock puppeteer's relentless attempts to add the false POV "(mandatory filtering)." --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 15:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * On Filtering and censorship: In fact, where a government or an organization imposes filters without the consent of the user, that is "mandatory filtering" and a form of censorship that many organizations believe is a violation of the First Amendment. (Few would argue that the kind of filtering practiced by China to control what its citizens view on the Internet isn't mandatory filtering and censorship.) In reading about this issue just here on Wikipedia alone, There is an entire list of organizations included in the  Children's Internet Protection Act entry, like ACLU, ALA, EFF, NCAC, and others, that express this idea and support it with reasoned arguments.  Legitimate and Even Compelling advances the idea that the phrase mandatory filtering applies only to the one situation where public libraries are filtering under the  Children's Internet Protection Act. There are other circumstances where the phrase "mandatory filtering" is appropriate, and in fact, according to the Content-control software entry, a federal court has ruled that mandatory filtering in a public library without unblocking is a violation of the First Amendment.  So the statement is neither illegitimate, false, or an unsupported POV.


 * I note that the Legitimate and Even Compelling's claims of sockpuppetry are based solely on the fact that the editor is anonymous and disagrees with his edits. Legitimate and Even Compelling needs to deal with the substance of the edits and not try to use personal attacks as the grounds for arguing for or against a particular edit.


 * As for conflict of interest, I'll note that Legitimate and Even Compelling is a high-ranking member of safelibraries.org and plan2succeed.org, two organizations that promote internet filtering and censorship in public libraries that are listed in the the Children's Internet Protection Act entry (and placed on that page by Legitimate and Even Compelling himself, if I am reading the page history correctly.) So one might ask who is really the one pushing a point of view here, and who has the conflict of interest. I point out that everything that Legitimate and Even Compelling says is equally applicable to himself and that if, in fact, groups like the ALA are not supposed to edit Wikipedia pages concerning these issues, neither is a "high-ranking member" of safelibraries.org and plan2succeed.org. This is not a conclusion I've reached alone; Legitimate and Even Compelling's talk page is replete with many similar controversies concerning his advocacy of the views expressed on safelibraries.org and plan2succeed.org and his efforts to inject his POV into pages about the ALA, libraries, filtering, and censorship.


 * Well said! Very clever!  Excellent parody.  Absolutely nothing said is true (except I am a low ranking member of safelibraries, very low), but it is entertaining and well written. For example, emphasis mine, "In reading about this issue just here on Wikipedia alone, There is an entire list of organizations included in the  Children's Internet Protection Act entry, like ACLU, ALA, EFF, NCAC, and others, that express this idea and support it with reasoned arguments."  That is so funny, since some of those very parties lost in the US Supreme Court in US v. ALA on those very same "reasoned arguments." Note I was once unaware of wiki rules and was prone to ignore them as I did not know about them, but I have not been that way since--the use of my original edits against me is unfair, to say the least.  And pointing out violations of wiki policy is not personal attack, but using newbie editting errors as was done here in the manner it was done is. As to the identity and proof of the sock puppeteer, I can prove it, but that would embarrass the person and the ALA, so I will just say look at the record.  Even Jessamyn of the ALA just reverted a sock puppeteer's self/ALA promotion.  Only if the sock puppeteer gives me permission will I provide further evidence in this regard, but I doubt I will get such permission.  If personal attacks are to be made, it won't be by me.  Oh, and you didn't address the sock puppeteer's public statements calling into question the mandatory filter claim that is not true. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 17:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry all, I see the person to whom I just responded was a vandal himself who added sexual matter to the page. Just realized this. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 17:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Does Bess exist anymore?
This may be a dumb question but, as I was searching the Secure Computing website attempting to update the categories section of this article I noticed an utter lack of the product "Bess." I am aware that they merged and changed things around and that there's now "SmartFilter, Bess Edition". (I thought I read this somewhere on Wikipedia but now I can't seem to find the article.) Anyway, my main question is if this product still exists in schools and libraries or if it has been changed over. Even if it hasn't been changed over, is it still using the old categories (which I listed before Bess disappeared/was absorbed) or is it using this? --Peedl 06:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It is still in use at my school (and thus by many schools, as it is run by the Department of Education and Childrens Services, South Australia, Australia) and thus there are still presumably updates issued for it. If this were not the case then it would be somewhat foolhardy to continue using software designed to cater to a large userbase from a single system, as the advent of security holes is inevitable. Tspshilt 08:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It was renamed to "Secure Web SmartFilter EDU". Mike R (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Another Bypass
When i was in high school we would go to regedit and just delete all the bess files... the system would reinstall them every reboot so the admin never knew. 99.238.236.206 (talk) 16:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)