Filtering: Chicken Breasts, Breast Cancer or Breast Stroke


Following up on our article from earlier this week , here's an editorial from Clark Cty (Vancouver) WA on the subject of filtering. The editorial calls for a more liberal, forward-thinking board, to "meet the needs of the community." Columnist Elizabeth Hovde writes "We have got to get over our fear of a lack of breast-related bodies of work by school children. Once we do, we can make a sensible community decision to filter Internet terminals at public libraries so the library board can move forward with expansion plans."


Filters first appeared in 1995 and used the concept of key word blocking (as well as url specific blocking) but the referred "breast" problem. The argument that keeps bringing this up is as old as those pearly filters. Our modern filter uses a concept we call an analytical phrase filter. Most good filters contain a "bypass " feature. This is a requirement of CIPA compliance.Using the old argument of key word blocking as a judgement on filtering is like judging windows to be un worthy on the basis of 3.1 (Pre Win95 Operating System). It is ridiculous. Upgrade the argument.This is how an analytical phrase filter works.Something has to do something to something.a b c________ _______ ________That is the essence of the phrase filter.It goes like thisSo example.(blond, redhead, dog, gay man, etc, etc) [sucks,*****, *****, etc, etc,etc,] a big {cock,****,****,etc etc etc}Craft the permutations and combinations of these elements and youhave a porn "analytical phrase filter". And if a page has theseelements you are very likely correct about the nature of the page.This concept seems to work the can read more about how this all works at:

Subscribe to Comments for "Filtering: Chicken Breasts, Breast Cancer or Breast Stroke"