REPORT TO CONGRESS

October 20, 2000
2

COMMISSION ON ONLINE CHILD PROTECTION

Donald Telage, Network Solutions Inc. –

Chairman

Stephen Balkam, Internet Content Rating Association

John Bastian, Security Software Systems

Jerry Berman, Center for Democracy & Technology

Arthur H. DeRosier, Jr., Rocky Mountain College

J. Robert Flores, National Law Center for Children and Families

Albert F. Ganier III, Education Networks of America

Michael E. Horowitz, Department of Justice

Donna Rice Hughes, Author, Kids Online/Founder, Protectkids.com

William M. Parker, Crosswalk.com

C. Lee Peeler, Federal Trade Commission

Gregory L. Rohde, Department of Commerce/NTIA

C. James Schmidt, San Jose State University

William L. Schrader, PSINet Inc.

Larry Shapiro, Walt Disney Internet Group

Srinija Srinivasan, Yahoo! Inc.

Karen Talbert, Nortel Networks

George Vradenburg III, America Online, Inc.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This Commission was not funded. Its operations were made possible by

contributions of time by numerous individuals and companies, and by monetary

grants from Network Solutions. Inc.; Yahoo! Inc.; America Online, Inc.; Education

Networks of America; and PSINet. These contributions of time and funds were

supplied unconditionally and with no expectation or receipt of consideration in

any form from the Commission, under statutory gifts and grants authority. The

Commission further thanks America Online, Inc.; Yahoo ! Inc.; San Jose State

University, San Jose, California; the University of Richmond, Richmond, Virginia;

McGuire Woods Consulting; and US Postal Service, for donating hearing

facilities or related assistance; Congressional Internet Caucus Advisory

Committee for donating web site design and hosting; and Alice Ganier for

preparing the appendices.

Gifts and grants were used in part to pay Dittus Communications for essential

organizational services. The Commission thanks Dittus, particularly Kristin

Litterst, Jennifer Moire, Caroline Dietz, Marcy Stansbury, Kyle Pirnat, Jack

Choate, Rob Gieser, Kathleen Mikitko, and Peggy O’Neill for services above and

beyond what we could reasonably have expected.

Finally, we thank David R. Johnson and Susan P. Crawford of the law firm of

Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, who served as legal staff to Chairman Donald

Telage. Their organizational and strategic advice was essential to the

Commission’s success.
3

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

October 20, 2000

To The Congress of the United States:

On behalf of the Commission on Online Child Protection, I am pleased to

transmit to Congress the Commission's final Report reflecting its study of

technologies and methods designed to reduce access by minors to harmful to

minors material on the Internet. This Report fulfills the Commission's statutory

mandate to report the results of its study no later than October 21, 2000.

I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the outstanding efforts of

eighteen Commissioners who devoted their time and energies to thoughtful

consideration of the questions presented to the Commission by Congress. I am

proud to have served in the company of such a distinguished group, and I

commend the dedication and collegiality of the Commissioners.

Sincerely,

Donald N. Telage

Executive Advisor for Global Internet Strategy,

Network Solutions Inc.

Chairman,

Commission on Online Child Protection
4
5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ............................................................................7

I. Introduction..............................................................................11

II. Technologies and Methods.........................................................14

A. Common Resources and Parental Education.........................17

B. Filtering/Blocking...............................................................19

C. Labeling and Rating Systems............................... ...............23

D. Age Verification Systems.....................................................25

E. New Top-Level Domain/Zoning.............................................28

F. Other Technologies or Methods............................................32

III. Recommendations.....................................................................39

IV. Affirmative Defenses..................................................................46

V. Proposed Future Work...............................................................47

VI. Conclusion...............................................................................48

Appendix

See companion volume containing personal statements of individual

Commissioners. The personal statements are also available on the Web

site at www.copacommission.org.
6
7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The experience of America’s children online has been at the forefront of concern

for families and policymakers since the Internet first became widely available.

The Internet is revolutionizing access to information, providing undeniable benefit

to consumers and commerce. Nonetheless, it risks exposing children to sexually

explicit material that many believe is inappropriate or harmful.

In October 1998 Congress enacted the Child Online Protection Act and

established the Commission on Online Child Protection to study methods to help

reduce access by minors to certain sexually explicit material, defined in the

statute as harmful to minors. Congress directed the Commission to evaluate the

accessibility, cost, and effectiveness of protective technologies and methods, as

well as their possible effects on privacy, First Amendment values and law

enforcement. This report responds to the Congressional request.

The Commission studied a wide range of child-protective technologies and

methods, including filtering and blocking services; labeling and rating systems;

age verification efforts; the possibility of a new top-level domain for harmful to

minors material; “greenspaces” containing only child-appropriate materials;

Internet monitoring and time-limiting technologies; acceptable use policies and

family contracts; online resources providing access to protective technologies

and methods; and options for increased prosecution against illegal online

material.

The following “scattergram” provides a snapshot of the Commission’s analysis of

the positive and negative attributes of each of the technologies and methods

evaluated in this report. The horizontal axis shows scores for the combination of

effectiveness and accessibility. The vertical axis shows cumulative scores for

user cost, cost to sources of otherwise lawful harmful to minors materials and

adverse impacts on privacy, First Amendment values and law enforcement.
8
9

Technologies and methods identified in the lower right quadrant are most

effective and accessible while imposing fewer costs and adverse impacts. Those

identified in the upper left quadrant are relatively ineffective and create the most

adverse effects.

After consideration of the information gathered through hearings and comments

filed by a wide range of parties, the Commission concludes that no single

technology or method will effectively protect children from harmful material

online. Rather, the Commission determined that a combination of public

education, consumer empowerment technologies and methods, increased

enforcement of existing laws, and industry action are needed to address this

concern. The Commission’s specific recommendations are as follows:1

Public Education:

• Government and the private sector should undertake a major education

campaign to promote public awareness of technologies and methods

available to protect children online.

• Government and industry should effectively promote acceptable use policies.

Consumer Empowerment Efforts:

• Resources should be allocated for the independent evaluation of child

protection technologies and to provide reports to the public about the

capabilities of these technologies.

• Industry should take steps to improve child protection mechanisms, and make

them more accessible online.

• A broad, national, private sector conversation should be encouraged on the

development of next-generation systems for labeling, rating, and identifying

content reflecting the convergence of old and new media.

• Government should encourage the use of technology in efforts to make

children’s experience of the Internet safe and useful.

Law Enforcement:

• Government at all levels should fund, with significant new money, aggressive

programs to investigate, prosecute, and report violations of federal and state

obscenity laws, including efforts that emphasize the protection of children

from accessing materials illegal under current state and federal obscenity law.

• State and federal law enforcement should make available a list, without

images, of Usenet newsgroups, IP addresses, World Wide Web sites or other

 

1

 This is an abbreviated version of the recommendations. The full text of the Commission’s

recommendations can be found at pp. 39 to 46 of the Report.
10

Internet sources that have been found to contain child pornography or where

convictions have been obtained involving obscene material.

• Federal agencies, pursuant to further Congressional rulemaking authority as

needed, should consider greater enforcement and possibly rulemaking to

discourage deceptive or unfair practices that entice children to view obscene

materials, including the practices of “mousetrapping” and deceptive metatagging.

• Government should provide new money to address international aspects of

Internet crime, including both obscenity and child pornography.

Industry Action:

• The ISP industry should voluntarily undertake “best practices” to protect

minors.

• The online commercial adult industry should voluntarily take steps to restrict

minors' ready access to adult content.

Conclusion

The child-protective technologies and methods evaluated by the Commission

provide an important but incomplete measure of protection from harmful to

minors material online. The efforts recommended in this report, if implemented

by industry, consumers, and government, will result in significant improvements

in protection of children online.
11

I. INTRODUCTION

The protection of America’s children online has been a powerful motivating issue

for policymakers since the Internet became widely available in our nation’s

homes, schools, and libraries. The Internet promises to revolutionize access to

information, create new forms of social interaction, promote economic

opportunity, and reinvigorate civic discourse. Yet this same technology risks

exposing children to material, particularly material of a sexually-explicit nature,

that many believe is inappropriate or harmful to their development.

Policymakers have found no easy and effective response to the problem of

protecting children online. Laws directly restricting potentially harmful content

online have encountered technical and Constitutional difficulties. The

effectiveness of domestic laws in the global context of the Internet has been

called into question, and U.S. courts have struck down these same laws for

infringing the First Amendment rights of American adults. These difficulties have

led to a cycle of legislation, litigation, and court action that has provided little in

the way of solutions for families seeking to deal with inappropriate content on the

Internet.

The mission of the Commission on Online Child Protection is to evaluate

potential solutions to the problem of restricting children’s access to inappropriate

material on the Internet. In doing so, the Commission’s goal has been to assess

these solutions in light of the technical realities of the Internet and legal concerns

raised by First Amendment, privacy and law enforcement interests.

A. The Commission’s Mandate

In October 1998 Congress enacted the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) and

established the Commission on Online Child Protection2 to study “methods to

help reduce access by minors to material that is harmful to minors on the

Internet.”3 Congress directed the Commission to evaluate the accessibility, cost,

 

2

 The Commission is a temporary, 19-member organization composed of representatives of

industry and government. 47 U.S.C. § 231 note.

3

 The term harmful to minors is defined as any “communication. . . that is obscene or that –

(A) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find, taking

the material as a whole and with respect to minors, is designed to appeal to, or is

designed to pander to, the prurient interest;
12

and effectiveness of protective technologies and methods, as well as their

possible effects on privacy and law enforcement. It asked the Commission to file

a report to Congress by October 21, 2000 containing its evaluation of these

technologies and methods, making recommendations for further legislative or

administrative action, and identifying which technologies or methods might meet

the requirements for use as affirmative defenses to civil and criminal provisions

of the COPA.

This report responds to the Congressional request. Because the Commission

membership was not finally established until the end of 1999, the Commission’s

first meeting was held March 7, 2000. Thereafter, the Commission gathered

input for its deliberations through three hearings held this summer in Washington,

DC; Richmond, VA; and San Jose, CA; and through written submissions by the

public. It also established a web site to provide the public with information on the

Commission’s activities and mission and to accept public comment.

B. The Legal Context

In considering technologies and methods for protecting children on the Internet,

the Commission has been particularly concerned with their impact on speech.

Congress, along with several states, has passed laws attempting to limit

children’s access to “indecent” or harmful to minors content online.4 In 1997, the

Supreme Court held unconstitutional the indecency provisions of the first of

these, the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Enforcement of the criminal

provisions of the second of these, COPA, was enjoined by federal district and

appellate courts on constitutional grounds and remains the subject of litigation.

Based on the records before them, the courts in these cases cited the impact of

content restrictions on the First Amendment rights of adults. Courts have applied

strict scrutiny to these Internet statutes and found that the statutes did not utilize

 

(B) depicts, describes, or represents, in a manner patently offensive with respect to

minors, an actual or simulated sexual act or sexual contact, an actual or simulated

normal or perverted sexual act, or a lewd exhibition of the genitals or post-pubescent

female breast; and

(C) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic political, or scientific value for minors.”

47 U.S.C. 231(e)(6).

For the purpose of this statute, a minor is a person under 17. Id. at 231(e)(7).

4 E.g., VA. CODE ANN. § 18.2-391 (Internet content "harmful to juveniles"); N.M. STAT. ANN.

§ 30-37-3.2 (dissemination of material that is harmful to a minor by computer).
13

the “least restrictive means” most narrowly tailored to protect children effectively

without unacceptably restricting free speech.

Even when not mandated, protective technologies and methods may have the

effect of restricting speech. Protective technologies may be implemented at a

variety of points -- not only on home computers, but in such places as public

libraries and businesses, and by Internet service providers. Used in these ways,

even voluntarily implemented protective methods reduce access to fully

protected speech. Accordingly, a key question for the Commission has been:

What are the most effective means of serving the public’s interest in protecting

children online that have the least potential adverse impacts on protected adult

speech?

C. The Internet Context

The Commission has also been mindful of the unique characteristics of the

Internet and its impact on the ability to protect children. The Internet’s technical

architecture creates new challenges as well as opportunities for children and

families. Material published on the Internet may originate anywhere, presenting

challenges to the application of the law of any single jurisdiction. Methods for

protecting children in the U.S. must take into account this global nature of the

Internet. In addition, thousands of access providers and millions of potential

publishers provide content online. Methods to protect children from content

harmful to minors must be effective in this diverse and decentralized

environment, including the full range of Internet activity such as the Web, email,

chat, instant messaging, and newsgroups.

The Internet is also rapidly changing and converging with other, more traditional

media. Effective protections for children must accommodate the Internet’s

convergence with other media and extend to new technologies and services

offered on the Internet, such as instant messaging, interactive television, or

broadband access. And unlike one-way broadcast media, the Internet is

inherently multi-directional and interactive. This interactivity may create new

possibilities for Internet users to exercise greater control over the content they

see online and for content producers to target their audience. While these

characteristics of the Internet challenge traditional policy-making, these very

features also are the source of the Internet’s promise and success.
14

The Commission also is aware that many families feel unfamiliar with the

Internet, and find it harder to protect their children online than they do in the real

world. Differences in language or culture and resource limitations may challenge

families’ ability to protect their children online. Further, children may access the

Internet in places other than their own home – at school, at libraries and at the

home of friends, relatives and caregivers, where the direct supervision of parents

may not be possible.

D. The Commission’s Assessment and Report

This report considers the following protective technologies and methods: filtering

and blocking services; labeling and rating systems; age verification efforts; the

possibility of a new top-level domain for harmful to minors material; “green”

spaces containing only child-appropriate materials; Internet monitoring and timelimiting technologies; acceptable use policies and family contracts; online

resources providing access to protective technologies and methods; and options

for increased prosecution against illegal online material.

This report reflects the Commission’s analysis and conclusions. Following this

introduction are 18 sections, each containing the Commission’s analysis of a

specific technology or method, including a description of the technology or

method;5 a bar chart setting forth a summary of the COPA Commission’s rating

of the technology or method’s effectiveness, accessibility and costs; and a brief

discussion of the technology or method’s advantages and disadvantages. The

recommendations that follow represent the Commission’s analysis of childprotective technologies as a whole, as well as suggestions for Congress and

industry.

This Commission acted under significant time restraints with limited resources.

With more time and appropriated funding, it would have conducted independent

evaluations of new technologies, and held further hearings that would likely have

elicited more useful information. Nonetheless, the record provides ample support

for the evaluations and recommendations that follow.

 

5

 The report evaluates categories of technologies and methods, not specific products. It may

offer examples of specific technologies, but it is not designed to suggest a preference for any

current product.
15

II. TECHNOLOGIES AND METHODS

The Commission6 rated each technology or method in light of both its current

effectiveness and near-term potential effectiveness, relative to other technologies

and methods, in reducing access by children to harmful to minors materials

(when used along with other related technologies and methods). Except where

explicitly noted, the Commission’s inquiry focused primarily on use of a

technology or method in the home and other private environments. Although

COPA by its terms applies strictly to the Web, the Commission examined use of

a technology or method in other Internet-related contexts, such as email, chat,

instant messaging, and newsgroups.

Ratings were made on a scale of zero to ten regarding the relative effectiveness,

accessibility, user cost, cost imposed on sources of lawful harmful to minors

materials, and adverse impacts on privacy, First Amendment values, and law

enforcement. The Commission assumed, for each technology and method rated,

a high quality example of that technology and method was being assessed (and

not any particular product). The Commission notes that further analysis could

make substantial differentiation between sub-categories within any particular

technology and method -- to allow study of important differences in particular

types of implementations or in different environments.

The “effectiveness” rating, in general, assumes the technology is currently

available. “Accessibility” again assumes the technology is currently available,

and is designed to measure whether the technology or method is easy to find,

implement, and use. “User cost” refers to costs to consumers and other users,

and, in some cases, costs spread across all users by means of taxes. “Source

cost” refers to costs imposed on the sources of otherwise lawful adult content

that would be deemed harmful to minors under COPA. “Privacy” refers to

potential and actual risks to information that may or may not be kept secure.

“First Amendment” refers to impact on overall First Amendment values

concerning the free flow of information, rather than narrowly to actions taken by

 

6

 The government representatives to the Commission were appointed in an “ex officio”

capacity. This is an advisory role. Accordingly, they did not rate the technologies and methods,

vote on the recommendations, or approve this report.
16

governmental actors. The Commission directly rated only adverse effects on law

enforcement but comments will note where a technology or method could create

specific positive benefits for law enforcement.
17

A. Common Resources and Parental Education

1. Online information resources

Collection of information regarding technologies and methods that can protect

children and publication of such information on an open web page, with links to

additional pertinent materials.7

Commentary

• Internet companies have made substantial efforts to make these online

information resources available. While not directly preventing access to

harmful to minors materials, online information resources are essential to

protecting children, as they can effectively provide access to technologies,

information for families online, and hotlines to reach and report to authorities.

Easily accessible online, the “one-click-away” approach is well-designed to

make sure that notice of available technologies is provided at common points

of entry to the Internet.

• These provide substantial benefits with little adverse impact on privacy, free

speech, or costs imposed on users and publishers of otherwise lawful harmful

to minors materials. These can have a potential positive effect on law

enforcement by fostering greater information flow.

 

7

The following bar chart sets forth a summary of the COPA Commission’s rating of this

technology or method’s effectiveness, accessibility, and costs. See p. 15 for a description of the

rating system.
18

2. Family Education Programs

Active outreach to educate families about both opportunities and dangers of the

Internet, as well as the technologies and practices that can optimize a child’s

experience online -- with a goal of encouraging families’ involvement with their

children’s online experience and wider adoption of common sense practices.

Commentary

• Good educational programs are readily accessible online.

• As with online resources, family education programs do not themselves

directly prevent minors’ access to harmful to minors materials, but they are an

essential part of an overall solution. As families are the first line of defense in

raising and protecting children, education programs can be highly effective in

giving caregivers needed information about online risks and protection

methods, and access to technologies and ways to get help.

• Availability of offline education materials varies from community to

community.

• Offline education programs may be especially effective at reaching families

that are not currently online, and may serve as a catalyst to encourage

parents and other caretakers to take a more active role in childrens’ online

experience.

• Non-English language versions of these programs are less readily available.

• Family education imposes little or no cost on publishers of otherwise lawful

harmful to minors materials and creates little adverse impact on privacy, First

Amendment values, or law enforcement.
19

B. Filtering/Blocking

3. Server-side filtering using URL8 lists

Voluntary use by Internet Service Providers and Online Services of server

software that denies access to particular content sources (identified by uniform

resource locators) that have been selected for blocking. The selection of the

blocked list can rely upon automated processes, human review, and user

options. The list of blocked URLs may or may not be disclosed. The list is

regularly updated at the server.

Commentary

• Server-side filtering using URL lists is available now from numerous sources.

• Relative to other technologies, the best of these technologies can be highly

effective in directly blocking access to global harmful to minors content on the

Web and also on newsgroups, email and chat rooms. Server-side filters may

be more easily implemented on a wide scale than client-side filters and may

be more difficult for children to defeat.

• Due to rapid growth in Internet content, server-side filters using URL lists may

not be perfectly effective in blocking. Server side technologies are accessible

and easy to install and require few actions by the family. Different systems

offer different degrees of customizability to reflect parental values, though

many offer less control than client-side systems.

• Moderately costly to end-users, while costs to publishers of otherwise lawful

harmful to minors materials are low.

• This technology raises First Amendment concerns because of its potential to

be over-inclusive in blocking content. Concerns are increased because the

 

8

URL” is the abbreviation for “universal resource locator” and refers to the address of an Internet

site. For example, this Commission’s URL is “www.copacommission.org.”
20

extent of blocking is often unclear and not disclosed, and may not be based

on parental choices. There is less of an impact on First Amendment

concerns if filtering criteria are known by the consumer or other end-user and

if filters are customizable and flexible.

• Central collection of preference and access information raises privacy

concerns, as compared with client-side filtering systems.

• These systems could work with labeling regimes and greenspaces.

• There are significant concerns about First Amendment values when serverside filters are used in libraries and schools.
21

4. Client-side filtering using URL lists

Voluntary use by end users of software that causes the browser not to download

content from specified content sources. The list of blocked sites may originate

from both the software supplier and/or from decisions by the user. The list may

be updated periodically by means of a download from the site of the software

provider. The list may or may not be disclosed. A denial of access may be

overridden with the use of a password controlled by a parent. The PC-based

software may also filter out email or instant messaging from unapproved sources.

Commentary

• These systems are widely available from retail and other outlets. They require

some effort by the end user to configure and update.

• Client-side filtering can be effective in directly blocking access to global

harmful to minors content on the Web, in newsgroups, in email and in chat

rooms. While often more flexible than server-side filters, client-side filters

may be easier for children to defeat. Additionally, they require updating to

keep pace with the global proliferation of harmful to minors content.

• Due to rapid growth in Internet content, client-side filters using URL lists may

not be fully effective in blocking.

• This technology raises First Amendment concerns because of its potential to

be over-inclusive in blocking content. Concerns are increased because the

extent of blocking is often unclear and not disclosed. Still, many of these can

be customized based on family choice.

• This technology is moderately costly to end users, while costs to publishers of

harmful to minors material are low.

• The privacy impact of client-side filtering is lower than that for server-side

filtering, as data resides locally.

• These systems have little impact on law enforcement.
22

5. Filtering (server- and client-side) using text-based content

analysis

Voluntary use of some combination of PC-based software and server software

that conducts (when necessary) real time analysis of the content of a web site

and filters out content sources that fit some algorithm. The Commission

assessed only text-based systems, which seem more promising than image

analysis. Such a system may be able to analyze email and attachments. The

end user may or may not be informed of the nature of the algorithm and may or

may not have full information regarding what is being excluded.

Commentary

• This is an emergent technology that is not yet widely available.

• This technology may work well on text, but to be fully effective it must work on

a combination of text and images. Application in real-time makes it easier for

filtering to keep up with the growing and changing content on the Internet.

• This technology raises First Amendment concerns because of its potential to

be over-inclusive in blocking content. Concerns are increased because the

extent of blocking is often unclear and not disclosed. Client-side systems

may be customized based on family choice.

• These technologies are moderately costly to consumers and other end-users.

Adverse impacts to First Amendment values and costs to publishers stem

from risk of over-inclusive blocking.

• Server-side products may raise privacy concerns based on the presence of

centralized data about a user’s preferences and access patterns.
23

C. Labeling and Rating Systems

6. First-party labeling/rating

Voluntary action by content sources to indicate that a site or particular content

meets a particular standard or fits a particular category. The “label” can take the

form of a metatag, or entry into a database listing, or display of a seal. The use of

a label may be audited. For purposes of considering this technology, the

Commission will assume that the voluntary labeling scheme would identify

material that is harmful to minors and thereby allow others to filter or block such

material.

Commentary

• Although potentially effective if widely used, this method has not been

adopted by many Web publishers.

• The effectiveness of voluntary first-party labeling is limited because it is

dependent in part on widespread adoption.

• This is a low cost method for consumers and other end-users; browsers that

look for self-labels do so at no cost.

• This method may impose costs on all sources of harmful to minors material,

depending on the complexity of the labeling or rating design and on

requirement to label or rate each web page. 

• This method raises First Amendment concerns due to the financial cost to

constitutionally protected sites, blocking of unlabelled sites, and the threat

that voluntary labeling regimes might be made mandatory.

• This method may facilitate creation of lists of child-appropriate sites and

greenspaces.
24

7. Third-party labeling/rating

Voluntary action by third parties to review content sources and to associate

labels or ratings with such sources so as to enable filtering or blocking by others.

The review may involve some automated parsing and some human judgment.

For purposes of considering this technology, the Commission will assume that

the labeling and related filtering may involve various “categories” established by

private parties and that no affirmative action is required by a content source.

Commentary

• This approach is similar to that followed in the motion picture industry, where

a third party assigns a rating to each film. It is not widely used on the Internet

at this time. It requires that third parties engage in rating a large number of

sites.

• Third-party labeling/rating could be effective if third parties, such as advocacy

groups, were to decide to engage in this process, or if the adult-content

industry were to cooperate in establishing a third-party labeling regime. Any

such scheme will be challenged by the immense scope of the content to be

rated and constant changes in web site content.

• This technology has the potential for coordination with rating schemes in

other media. At this time, however, there is no clear business model for this

approach on the Internet.

• First Amendment concerns derive from the fact that labels assigned to

content by third parties will reflect cultural or social standards that may not be

shared by others.

• Third party labeling would have little or no adverse impact on privacy or on

law enforcement.
25

D. Age Verification Systems

8. Age Verification Systems based on credit cards

Use by a content source of a system to condition access to a web page (or

pushed content) on the end user’s ability to provide a credit card number. The

number may or may not be verified as relating to a valid card (it may not be used

for charging a fee) and may or may not be further analyzed to assure that the

holder of the card is an adult.

Commentary

• Use of a credit card verification system to access harmful to minors material

can be effective to protect minors from accessing some harmful to minors

material. A large number of sites operated by the commercial online adult

content industry use this system now, but they may still make some images

available for free.

• This system’s limitations include the fact that some children have access to

credit cards, and it is unclear how this system would apply to sites outside the

US. It is not effective at blocking access to chat, newsgroups, or instant

messaging. Delay in billing means that unauthorized access to harmful to

minors materials could occur.

• Credit card systems are readily available, but it may be difficult or

burdensome for small or non-commercial sites to implement card verification

systems. This system would make some content inaccessible to those users

without credit cards.

• This approach imposes moderate costs on consumers and other end-users,

who must have a credit card and accept risks in providing it to sites. This

approach imposes high costs on publishers, who must pay to verify cards.

Use for verification without putting through a charge is viewed with disfavor by

the credit card industry.

• Collection of individually-identifiable information at central points via this

system poses privacy risks.
26

• Adverse impacts on First Amendment values result from cost to publishers

and chilling effect of identifying users before providing access.

• Central collection of credit card numbers coupled with the “embarrassment

effect” of reporting fraud may have adverse effects on law enforcement.
27

9. Age Verification System based on independently-issued ID

Use by a content source of a system to condition access to a web page (or

pushed content) on the end user’s use of a password protected identifier that is

issued (by a third party) only to those who have presented some credentials

indicating adult age.

Commentary

• A number of sources provide this service on a commercial basis at this time.

For sites that utilize it, this approach is generally effective at preventing

access by children. Overall effectiveness of this approach depends on the

extent of control over access to the identification codes and the extent of

adoption. This approach is not effective at blocking access to chat,

newsgroups, or instant messaging.

• This approach imposes moderate costs on users, who must get an I.D. It

imposes high costs on content sources that must install systems and might

pay to verify I.D.s.

• The adverse effect on privacy could be high. It may be lower than for credit

card verification if I.D.s are separated from personally-identifiable information.

• Uncertainty about the application of a harmful to minors standard increases

the costs incurred by harmful to minors sites in connection with such systems.

• An adverse impact on First Amendment values arises from the costs imposed

on content providers, and because requiring identification has a chilling effect

on access. Central collection of credit card numbers coupled with the

“embarrassment effect” of reporting fraud and the risk that a market for I.D.s

would be created may have adverse effect on law enforcement.
28

E. New Top-Level Domain/Zoning

10. Establishment of a gTLD for harmful to minors content

Creation for voluntary use of a new top level domain (e.g., .xxx or .adult) the use

of which would be understood to signify that materials on web pages located in

such domain (and email coming from such domain) are harmful to minors

materials -- and the existence of which would make it easy for browsers or ISPs

to filter out all material so located.

Commentary

• This method is technically feasible but such a domain does not currently exist.

It requires that ICANN9 establish such a new top-level domain.

• This system may be only moderately effective because of questions about

whether harmful to minors content sources would locate material exclusively

in the .xxx domain. This method also may be inapplicable to chat, email,

newsgroups and instant messaging. Use of the domain name system to

implement policy raises concerns.

• Privacy and First Amendment concerns may be raised by the clear

identification of a “red light district” and the stigma involved in being found

 

9

 ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) was created in response

to the call by the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, in their June 1998 "White Paper," for a "new not-forprofit corporation formed by private sector Internet stakeholders to administer policy for the

Internet name and address system." It is responsible for technical management of the domain

name system and for issues of management and administration of Internet names and numbers.

Published sources indicate that ICANN has received applications to establish a .kids or similar

top level domain.
29

there, and the concern about a “slippery slope” toward mandatory location in

the gTLD.

• This approach raises the possibility of adverse effects on law enforcement,

because creation of a ”red light district” might serve as an attractive nuisance,

and because incentives for law enforcement to prosecute unlawful material in

the red light district might be reduced.
30

11. Establishment of a gTLD for non-harmful to minors

content

Creation for voluntary use of a new top level domain (e.g., .kids) the use of

which would be understood to signify that materials on web pages located in

such domain (and email coming from such domain) would universally be

considered suitable for minors of all ages -- and the existence of which would

make it easy for browsers or ISPs to establish “green zone” features that

point or accept only to such materials.

Commentary

• This method is technologically feasible but such a domain does not currently

exist. It requires that ICANN establish such a new top level domain. Again,

the use of the domain system to implement policy raises questions.

Alternatively, a lower level domain (such as .us.kids) could be established

without the need for ICANN to take action.

• This approach could be an accessible and generally effective way to protect

children from harmful to minors content. It would be more effective to the

extent that children were restricted to such a zone. It would be more visible

than mere establishment of multiple greenspaces or lists of child-appropriate

sites. It would not, however, be effective at addressing content located in

chat, newsgroups, or instant messaging.

• Costs to consumers and other end-users, to sources of harmful to minors

content, to law enforcement, and to privacy interests are low.

• First Amendment concerns arise from fears that children, particularly older

teens who are restricted to this zone, may be unable to access potentially

informative and appropriate material.

• Creation of such a gTLD could have an adverse effect on law enforcement

because of the risk that concentration of children’s activities in this area could

attract predators.
31

12. Establishment of a “green zone” or “red light zone” by

means of allocation of a new set of IP numbers

Creation for voluntary use of a set of IP numbers (in the new IP version 6

protocol, which has not yet been widely implemented) the use of which would be

understood to signify that materials on web pages on servers with such IP

numbers (or email coming from such servers) would be either non-harmful to

minors material or harmful to minors material, respectively. Any material not in

such an IP number zone would be considered to be in a “gray zone” and not

necessarily either harmful to minors or non-harmful to minors.

Commentary

• This is a proposal for a system that does not currently exist. Technical

difficulties involved in implementing this technology make effectiveness

uncertain. Effectiveness would require substantial effort to attach content to

specific IP numbers. This approach could potentially reduce flexibility and

impede optimal network performance. It would not be effective at blocking

access to chat, newsgroups, or instant messaging.

• Creation of a voluntary system dividing IP numbers could be the first step

toward a mandatory division of IP numbers, which raises significant First

Amendment concerns.

• This approach would impose significant costs on content sources, because it

would require publishers to redesign hardware and allocate content between

appropriate IP numbers.

• This approach would have little adverse effect on privacy or law enforcement.
32

F. Other technologies or methods

13. Hotlines

Creation of facilities for easy reporting of problems to the parties who can

address them, either online or via telephone. Such hotlines would bring

problems to the attention of both relevant government authorities and private

sector groups that can act in response to reported problems. Activity levels in

aggregate and general nature of complaints would be made public.

Commentary

• Some service providers and law enforcement agencies currently operate

hotlines.

• While hotlines do not directly block access to harmful to minors materials,

they can be an integral part of an effective child-protection effort.

• Hotlines would increase visibility and information regarding the extent of

problems concerning the exploitation of children, both for public and

governmental use. High user costs reflect the fact that consumers ultimately

bear the costs of hotlines, which can be substantial.

• Hotlines have little or no adverse effect on privacy and First Amendment

values.

• The effect on law enforcement could be both positive and negative. Because

of increased reporting, more information about harmful to minors material

would be available to law enforcement. At the same time, law enforcement

might receive more baseless reports.
33

14. Greenspaces

The voluntary creation of lists of materials determined to be appropriate for

children and provision, via a browser or an online service or server filters, of an

environment that allows children to go to or receive only such materials.

Commentary

• Numerous greenspaces exist now, although many of them do not enjoy a

high level of public awareness. Greenspaces may be very effective when

they are readily accessible to children and when parents are involved in

assuring that children use these spaces exclusively. It is unclear whether

they are effective at blocking access to chat, newsgroups, or instant

messaging.

• Effectiveness at protecting older children is limited, because they are more

likely to seek access to content outside of the “walled garden” of

greenspaces.

• Some of these content sources are available for a fee and thus impose a cost

on consumers and other end-users. They may also impose some cost on

publishers or compilers of greenspaces.

• While greenspaces impose little adverse impact on privacy and on lawful

adult speech, concerns about First Amendment values relate to children’s

inability to access appropriate materials not incorporated into a greenspace.
34

15. Monitoring and time-limiting technologies

Use (typically at the PC) of software that creates logs showing details of a child’s

online activities and, optionally, enforces rules regarding the amount of time that

may be spent online. Such systems may track both web use and email and

instant messaging activities. In analyzing this technology/method, the

Commission will assume that the child is told that the monitoring is taking place

and that only the parent has access to the resulting information.

Commentary

• These systems are available in the marketplace at this time. Some of them

are sold as part of a filtering or blocking system. They work automatically and

thus are not adversely affected by the constant changes in content available

on the Internet.

• Monitoring and time-limiting technologies can be effective when used in the

home because they influence children’s activities and require involvement of

parents. These technologies can be effective for email and other non-Web

communication, and for access to global content.

• Monitoring and time-limiting technologies encourage greater parental

involvement in the child’s online experience; however, because a parent

learns of activities only after the fact, effectiveness in reducing accidental

access to harmful to minors materials may be limited.

• Use of these technologies requires some technical sophistication on the part

of parents.

• Consumers and other end users absorb monetary and time costs to use

these systems.

• The inability of teens to access appropriate informative materials without

parental supervision and oversight is reflected in ratings regarding adverse

effects on privacy and First Amendment values. Privacy concerns may be

raised when this technology is used in schools and libraries.

• These technologies do not impose costs on providers of harmful to minors

speech.
35

• The logs created by these technologies can be helpful to law enforcement in

identifying predators.
36

16. Acceptable use policies/family contracts

Establishment by a parent or an institution (school or library) of rules regarding

the types of materials that may be accessed. Typically, such policies would be

enforced by means of denial of further access in the event of a violation. Such

policies may or may not be accompanied by monitoring that would allow the

parent or institution to detect violations.

Commentary

• Examples of many different kinds of acceptable use policies and family

contracts are widely available on the Internet.

• Involvement of parents and institutions in expressly establishing guidelines

through an acceptable use policy or family contract can have a significant

positive impact on awareness and behavior, although they do not themselves

directly reduce access by minors to harmful to minors material. While this

approach can address the extent to which children seek out material, it is of

less help in addressing accidental access or incoming spam.

• These approaches impose some cost on families and other caregivers

because of the time commitment involved for active implementation and

involvement.

• This approach imposes negligible costs on providers of harmful to minors

material.

• When used in schools or libraries in conjunction with monitoring, this

approach may raise privacy and First Amendment concerns.
37

17. Increased prosecution

Governmental expenditure (at federal, state and local levels) of more funds to

investigate and prosecute online activities that are unlawful. While this “method”

assumes a change in current governmental activity, the Commission will analyze

its likely effectiveness (and potential adverse impacts) to provide a basis for its

recommendations. The Commission will assume that US law could not practically

be enforced against all content sources located in other countries with differing

legal standards for content.

Commentary

• This approach could be highly effective in reducing children’s access to

harmful to minors material because of its deterrent effect on publishers of

illegal content. Targeted prosecution could show the US as an international

leader, which might affect global enforceability over time. It is not clear that

increased prosecution will have as significant an effect on content published

outside the US, especially where the content might not be unlawful in the

foreign country of origin.

• Costs to consumers of targeted prosecutions against clearly unlawful content

would not be substantial. Sources of harmful to minors and lawful adult

content could bear significant costs due to the need to assess the lawfulness

of materials.

• Increased prosecution raises privacy risks because of law enforcement’s

increased efforts to obtain information about online activities. First

Amendment concerns about increased prosecution relate to the chilling effect

of investigation and decisions by lawful speakers to curtail speech to avoid

risk of prosecution.
38

18. Real time Content Monitoring/Blocking

Use of real time monitoring methods to detect and block harmful to minors

material sent via email, instant messaging, chat rooms and Usenet in addition to

the web. Such monitoring assumes the ability to detect harmful to minors

material in areas where filtering may not apply.

Commentary

• Products meeting this description are available in the marketplace.

• This technique can apply to messages (e.g., real time chat) that cannot be

filtered effectively with automated processes.

• To be effective, real time monitoring may require human involvement.

• The expense of human involvement may be substantial.

• To the extent that these products are more effective, potential impact on First

Amendment values and costs to sources of harmful to minors content are

increased due to the risk of over-blocking.
39

III. RECOMMENDATIONS

After consideration of the record, the Commission concludes that the most

effective current means of protecting children from content on the Internet

harmful to minors include: aggressive efforts toward public education, consumer

empowerment, increased resources for enforcement of existing laws, and greater

use of existing technologies. Witness after witness testified that protection of

children online requires more education, more technologies, heightened public

awareness of existing technologies and better enforcement of existing laws.

Government at all levels and the Internet community must unite to provide

broadly available education resources to families and caregivers. Voluntary

methods and technologies to protect children must be developed, tested,

evaluated and made readily available. Coupled with information to make these

methods understandable and useful, these voluntary approaches provide

powerful technologies for families. As we move forward, it is important that

technologies to protect children reflect next-generation Internet systems and the

convergence of old and new media. Finally, it is imperative that government

allocate increased resources to law enforcement at the federal, state and local

level for training, staffing and equipment so that existing laws against child

pornography and obscenity are more effectively enforced.

Witnesses appearing before the COPA Commission testified that distribution

over the Internet of obscene material, child pornography, and harmful to minors

material continues to grow in a troubling manner. Law enforcement resources at

the state and federal level have been focused nearly exclusively on child

pornography and child stalking. We believe that an aggressive effort to address

illegal, obscene material on the Internet will also address the presence of harmful

to minors material.

The Internet’s global nature presents law enforcement with an additional

concern, because a substantial amount of obscene material, child pornography

and harmful to minors material originates abroad. While issues of extradition,

need for legal assistance from foreign law enforcement, and conflict of law issues

make prosecution difficult, these problems have been addressed previously in

the narcotics, fraud, and intellectual property areas. US leadership in this area

may lead to models of international cooperation.
40

Public Education

• 1. Recommendation: Government and the private sector should

undertake a major education campaign to promote public awareness of

technologies and methods available to protect children online. Public

education must be done in a sustainable manner that effectively reaches

families both online and offline.

• The campaign should stress the importance of involving caregivers in a

child’s online activity; the availability of both offline resources and oneclick-away Internet technologies; access to child friendly sites; information

about the range of technologies available to protect children; and

information about testing and assessment of new technologies.

• Public awareness efforts should include an online component, a targeted

and cost-effective way to reach those who need help most – families on

the Internet. Online initiatives can be a highly effective way to directly

access information and technologies, providing families with one-stop

shopping where they can get detailed information, report trouble, and be

linked to technologies and resources so that they are only “one click away”

from assistance.

• Sellers of consumer PCs should be encouraged to stock filtering

technologies, parental controls or other user empowerment technologies

in a prominent place at the point of sale of consumer PCs to make such

technologies easily available to consumers, and operating system sellers

should be encouraged to bundle such technologies prominently within the

operating systems.

• Government at all levels should devote substantial resources as part of a

public-private sector partnership to promote public awareness.

• Public libraries, community centers, schools and PTA’s would be essential

components of this effort.

• Resources should include information about access to law enforcement

and child advocacy organizations.
41

• Government should provide block grants to states to create materials

appropriate for Internet safety curricula. Materials for community and

school publications, and libraries should be developed and distributed.

• 2. Recommendation: Government and Industry Should Effectively

Promote Acceptable Use Policies. Acceptable use policies refer to stated

parameters for use of online systems. They are a non-technological

technology or method for protecting children online. Government at all levels

and industry should encourage parents and public institutions that offer

access to online resources to adopt such policies. Just as we provide children

with firm rules for crossing the street and guidelines for dealing with a variety

of unfamiliar situations, we need to provide them with rules and guidelines to

facilitate their online learning experiences as well as their safety.

• Acceptable use policies should be voluntarily implemented by public

institutions that offer access to online resources. An acceptable use policy

should disclose to parents what safeguards will be in place in the school and

library setting that are designed to permit users to have educational

experiences consistent with local or family values.

Consumer and Responsible Adult Empowerment

• 3. Recommendation: The Commission recommends allocation of

resources for the independent evaluation of child protection

technologies and to provide reports to the public about the capabilities

of these technologies. The current lack of information about how well

technologies work, and lack of transparency about what they might block, is a

major hurdle for their adoption by families or caregivers.

• The Commission recommends that the private sector – industry,

foundations, and public interest organizations - provide support for an

independent, non-governmental testing facility for child-protection

technologies. This facility would provide consumers with objective, wellresearched information on the features, effectiveness, prices, search

criteria, transparency, flexibility, and ease of use of various technologies.
42

• 4. Recommendation: The Commission recommends that industry take

steps to improve child protection mechanisms, and make them more

accessible online.

• Industry should improve filtering and blocking technologies, monitoring

technologies, and child-safe “greenspaces.” We support fully family and

responsible adult decisions to use these Internet technologies.

• Protective technologies, which feature strong visibility and easy

implementation, have unusually high use levels. Service providers should

make protective technologies more accessible and easier to use.

• In addition, browsers, portals, and popular web sites could display

parental control links in prominent locations. This is a low-cost, userfriendly method for bringing these resources to the attention of families

and responsible adults.

• 5. Recommendation: The Commission encourages a broad, national,

private sector conversation on the development of next-generation

systems for labeling, rating, and identifying content reflecting the

convergence of old and new media.

• The Commission has determined that rating and labeling may have

positive synergistic effects on other technologies, such as filtering. The

use of such systems could have a significant impact on consumer

empowerment. This dialogue must consider the significant impacts on

 free speech and consumer privacy.

• Recent advances in metadata may facilitate the implementation of such a

rating and labeling system.

• 6. Recommendation: Government should encourage the use of

technology in efforts to make children’s experience of the Internet safe

 and useful.

• No particular technology or method provides a perfect solution, but when

used in conjunction with education, acceptable use policies and adult
43

supervision, many technologies can provide improved safety from

inadvertent access from harmful to minors materials.

Law Enforcement

• 7. Recommendation: Government at all levels should fund, with

significant new money, aggressive programs to investigate, prosecute,

and report violations of federal and state obscenity laws, including

efforts that emphasize the protection of children from accessing

materials illegal under current state and federal obscenity law.

Specifically, the Commission recommends that Government at all levels fund

aggressive programs to investigate and prosecute violations of obscenity

laws.

• This prosecution effort should include an emphasis on minimizing access

by children to obscene material.

• Significant new money should be appropriated to this effort to allow the

investigation and prosecution of obscenity, child pornography and

exploitation; train law enforcement officers, especially forensic

investigators and examiners; and retain technical experts by increasing

the ability of government to pay competitive salaries and benefits.

• This investigation and prosecution program should supplement the

Government’s existing effort to investigate and prosecute child sexual

exploitation, sexual abuse, and child pornography.

• Such a program should be of sufficient magnitude to deter effectively

illegal activity on the Internet.

• 8. Recommendation: The Commission recommends that state and

federal law enforcement make available a list, without images, of Usenet

newsgroups, IP addresses, World Wide Web sites or other Internet

sources that have been found to contain child pornography or where

convictions have been obtained involving obscene material. This

information may be used to identify obscene materials or child pornography

under the control of the ISP or content provider. The Commission recognizes
44

that, consistent with this recommendation, law enforcement will take

appropriate steps to limit dissemination of this information to those entities

that have a legitimate purpose for accessing such information. Use of this list

must remain voluntary.

• 9. Recommendation: The Commission recommends that Federal

agencies, pursuant to further Congressional rulemaking authority as

needed, consider greater enforcement and possibly rulemaking to

discourage deceptive or unfair practices that entice children to view

obscene materials, including the practices of “mouse trapping” and

deceptive meta-tagging.

• Prosecution should focus on major producers, distributors, and sellers of

obscene material that use fraudulent or misleading methods to market

their material to children.

• 10. Recommendation: Government should provide new money to

address international aspects of Internet crime, including obscenity and

child pornography.

• The Federal Government should review and seek to amend or negotiate

new international agreements to address extradition and the gathering of

evidence in cases involving international distribution of obscenity and child

pornography over the Internet.

• Provide new and substantial funding to enable investigation and

prosecution of international obscenity and child pornography distributors

and producers that use the Internet to distribute or sell said material

• Congress should review federal rules of evidence and procedure to

determine its sufficiency to deal with international investigations and

prosecutions and make any necessary changes

Internet Service Provider Industry Self-Regulation

• 11. Recommendation: The Commission urges the ISP industry to

voluntarily undertake “best practices” to protect minors. These

practices should include:
45

• Voluntarily providing, offering, or enabling user empowerment

technologies to assist end-users to protect children from material that is

harmful to minors.

• Providing that ISPs, when made aware of violations of best practices, will

address them in a timely manner.

• Stating that ISPs reserve the right to take action in good faith to restrict

availability of material that violates best practices.

• Increasing awareness among ISPs and promoting timely implementation

of their legal obligations to remove child pornography hosted on their own

servers when notified of its presence.

• Voluntarily cooperating with local, state, federal, and international

authorities in the investigation of crimes involving the use of their service,

to the extent practical and lawful.

Adult Industry Self-Regulation

• 12. Recommendation: The Online Commercial Adult Industry Should

Voluntarily Take Steps To Restrict Minors’ Ready Access to Adult

Content. Representatives of the commercial online adult content industry

testified to their willingness to take voluntary steps to reduce ready access to

online commercial adult content by children. Self-regulatory steps could

restrict children’s access to commercial online adult content and thus address

a substantial portion of the concerns surrounding such materials.

• These efforts should call on members to provide that the public front

pages of commercial adult content sites will not contain explicit graphics or

text, but be limited to material sufficient to make clear that the site

contains sexual material. Teaser pages should be located only beyond

the front, public page.

• These efforts should call on members to use the most effective currently

available technologies for verifying age, the further development and use
46

of which should be a priority.

• Self-labeling is potentially among the most effective means of empowering

parents to limit access to harmful to minors material, especially in concert

with other technologies and methods such as filtering. This industry

should pursue efforts to encourage web sites to self-label and should

provide incentives for them to do so.

• These efforts should call on members to avoid use of metatags that result

in their sites being selected by search engines in response to searches

seeking information of a nonsexual nature, or in the posting of search

engine responses containing sexually-explicit text or graphics. Children

entering innocent search requests, or accidentally mis-typing a request,

should not be presented unexpectedly with lurid text and graphics.

Search engine responses should simply reflect that the content of pages

responsive to the request contain sexual material.

• These efforts should call on members to comply with federal and state

laws applicable to unsolicited commercial email, and not to use mass,

unsolicited emails likely to include addresses available to children to

promote adult content. Commercial email promoting adult sites should not

contain links directly to adult content. Any commercial email should be

targeted only to adults and should contain a prominent disclosure that it

promotes sexually explicit sites.

IV. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

The Congressional charge to the Commission states that "[t]he Commission shall

conduct a study to identify technological or other methods that (A) will help

reduce access by minors to material that is harmful to minors on the Internet; and

(B) may meet the requirements for use as affirmative defenses for purposes of

section 231(c).” Section 231(c), in turn, describes these requirements in terms of

actions taken to restrict access by minors to material that is harmful to minors by

means of “any reasonable measures that are feasible under available

technology." Section 231(a) and (b) already recognize use of credit card and

other age verification systems as affirmative defenses.
47

The Commission discussed whether and how to respond to the Congressional

charge in Section B quoted above, in light of the fact that the COPA statute has

now been preliminarily enjoined as unconstitutional. The Commission agreed that

the question presented to it is not whether or not a particular technology or

method should or should not be considered an affirmative defense, much less

whether any statute should be found constitutional or unconstitutional. We

interpret the question presented to the Commission in Section B as asking

whether there are any feasible technologies or methods that are currently

available and that may constitute “reasonable measures” to restrict access by

minors to harmful to minors materials.

The Commission studied many different technologies and methods that may be

used to restrict access by minors to harmful to minors materials. Some

technologies did not meet all the statutory requirements because they are not

feasible or are not currently available. We determined, however, that some of the

technologies we analyzed, for example first party labeling, may become

“reasonable” means of preventing child access to harmful to minors material

when such technologies become more widely adopted in the marketplace. We

did not have the time or resources, however, to conduct a detailed inquiry into

the “reasonableness” of the use of any particular technology in the hypothetical

context of an assertion of an affirmative defense under COPA. Because of the

limitations on its study, the Commission did not conclude that any particular

technology “may meet the requirements for use as affirmative defenses for

purposes of section 231(c).”

V. PROPOSED FUTURE WORK

The Commission is concerned that its lack of funding and short timetable has

limited the inquiry in which it has been able to engage. We anticipate that, with

additional resources and an extension of the statutorily allotted time for

submission of this report, the Commission would have undertaken the following

efforts to provide the Congress with a more in-depth and detailed report:

1. Engage in a more robust analysis of technologies and methods.

• Conduct a more in-depth examination of individual technologies. This

examination could include convening additional hearings on technologies
48

about which we received insufficient testimony and observing technology

demonstrations.

• Present our recommendations for review by a panel of technical experts.

• Investigate new technologies that came to the Commission’s attention.

• Clarify and break out the criteria and assumptions for evaluation of

technologies and methods to allow the Commission to make more

meaningful and specific assessments of individual technologies. Such an

approach would allow the Commission to examine the distinct

Constitutional and privacy impact, as well as the usefulness of these

technologies in the home, school and libraries.

2. Investigate the criteria and explore models for an independent testing lab

that would provide consistent, reliable evaluation of technologies and provide

an optimal service to the industry and consumers.

3. Solicit input from additional operators of filtering and monitoring systems.

While this additional effort would have been desirable, it does not detract from

the fact that the information gathered by the Commission was significant in

quality and quantity, and provides an ample basis for our conclusions and

recommendations.

VI. CONCLUSION

The Commission appreciates the opportunity to have served the Congress of the

United States by studying technologies and methods designed to reduce access

by minors to "harmful to minors" material on the Internet. We respectfully submit

this document as our final Report.
49

APPENDIX

TABLE OF CONTENTS

An electronic version of the report’s appendix, including a detailed index of

documents that were submitted to the Commission, are available on the

COPA Commission web site at www.copacommission.org.

Appendices to COPA Commission Report

A. Commission Overview

1. Scope and Timeline

2. Original Statute

3. Amended Statute

4. Technologies and Methods

5. Biographies of the Commissioners

B. Commission Finances

1. Report on Commission Finances

C. Commission Meetings

1. Meeting, March 7, 2000

2. Meeting, April 28, 2000

3. Meeting, June 9, 2000

4. Meeting, July 21, 2000

5. Meeting, August 4, 2000

6. Report Drafting Meeting, September 18-19, 2000

7. Report Drafting Meeting, October 4-5, 2000

D. Materials Submitted to the Commission

1. Hearing 1, June 8-9, 2000

2. Hearing 2, July 20-21, 2000

3. Hearing 3, August 3-4, 2000

4. Research Papers and Reports

5. Correspondence

E. Compilation of Matrices on Filtering, Labeling, and Rating Technologies

F. Commission Responses to Questionnaire

The Commissioner’s individual responses to the questionnaire are available

on the COPA Commission’s web site at www.copacommission.org

G. Catalog of Drawer Files

A detailed index of all materials submitted to the commission in non-electronic

format such as books, software programs, and handouts. Also includes VHS

tape recordings of hearings and transcripts.
PERSONAL

STATEMENTS

OF

COPA COMMISSIONERS

COMPANION VOLUME TO

THE COMMISSION ON ONLINE

CHILD PROTECTION (COPA)

REPORT TO CONGRESS

October 20, 2000
Donald N. Telage

Executive Advisor for Global Internet Strategy

Network Solutions Inc.

Chairman, Commission on Online Child Protection

I am deeply proud to have served as the Chairman of this distinguished

Commission. The Commission has struggled with a difficult and multidimensional problem and has emerged with thoughtful and constructive

unanimous recommendations that will serve as a blueprint for future action.

Each Commissioner has approached the hard work of the Commission with

enormous seriousness, collegiality, good will, high energy, and intelligent

engagement. It has been, for me, a moving experience to serve with these

Commissioners, and I am grateful to have been given the opportunity to

facilitate in the Commission's efforts.

The Commission's recommendations not only reflect the will of the

Commission but also represent the distillation of an enormous amount of

material with which the Commission was presented over the last six months.

Our hearings, held in Washington, D.C., Richmond, Virginia, and San Jose,

California, were instructive -- there was a great deal to learn about the various

technologies and methods studied by the Commission. Commissioners

closely questioned witnesses, brought to bear their own rich expertise, and

most importantly focused intensely on the questions presented to the

Commission by Congress. Our conversations were always constructive, and

often animated, and yet a spirit of public service punctuated every meeting.

This discussion is clearly not over. The work of this Commission

shows that people holding widely-divergent political points of view can reach

consensus as to the strengths and weaknesses of technologies and methods

that may help protect America's children from accessing "harmful to minors"

material on the Internet. It is my hope that this conversation, held so

effectively and with such genuine thoughtfulness among the Commissioners,

will continue in many places and among many different groups. The

Commission has recommended that the online industry in general have a

conversation about the necessity for and efficacy of labeling and rating

systems (which may have significant synergistic effects with other

technologies), and that the adult content industry in particular have a

conversation about regulating itself. These conversations are fundamentally
important, and all of us will be well served by continuing constructive

exchanges of ideas in the same spirit in which the Commission operated.

I want to take this opportunity to thank my chief of staff, Kristin Litterst

of Dittus Communications and her team for their dedication. She was the

backbone of this Commission and I owe her an immense debt of gratitude. I

would also like to express my gratitude to Network Solutions, Inc for its

support of Ms. Litterst and her staff. Finally, I wish to thank David Johnson

and Susan Crawford, my counsel, of Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, for their

never-ending wisdom and the river of creative ideas they supplied to the

Commission. The efforts of Mr. Johnson and Ms. Crawford were pro bono

contributions to me. This support was facilitated by Mr. Lloyd Cutler, founder

of that firm, resulting from our discussions of the importance of the COPA

challenge.

In the pages that follow, each COPA Commissioner has been afforded an

opportunity to provide their individual personal view of the work of this

Commission and the position they would have taken if acting alone. The

range of views these statements reflect render our unanimous

recommendations all the more remarkable.
Joint Statement of Government Representatives to the COPA

Commission1

As children’s Internet access has increased, so too have concerns that they

have positive, safe online experiences. Children are shielded from commercial

pornography in the real world of homes, schools, libraries, and neighborhoods.

In neighborhood convenience stores and other areas that children frequent, for

example, pornographic magazines are shielded from public view behind brown

wrappers and located on the higher shelves, and not sold to minors; television

rules limit programming containing indecent adult material to late evening

hours.

Children are entitled to an analogous level of protection online. Often, they

do not have this. Innocent search requests turn up lurid descriptions of

pornographic sites that can be accessed via a mouse-click. Unsolicited email

promotes access to this material. At best, these experiences are discomforting

and unwelcome. The children who testified at the COPA hearings voiced their

unease with the intruding presence of online pornography. Moreover, children

may be lured to Web sites where they do not belong.

The Child Online Protection Commission was established by Congress to

look at tools and methods to protect children from harmful to minors materials

online. The Administration believes that the work of the Commission is vitally

important in this effort. Acting under a tight deadline and difficult

circumstances, the Commission has developed an extensive and valuable

record regarding the available child-protective tools and methods. Each

member contributed his or her expertise and demonstrated objectivity in

considering the wide range of evidence presented at the hearings. The

Commission as a whole and the individual Commissioners deserve high praise

for their efforts.

The Administration has long supported an industry-led, self-regulatory

approach to address these concerns. First, it has encouraged industry and

nonprofit organizations to develop and provide ready access to child-friendly,

 

1

 We would like to acknowledge the following staff members, who assisted our work on

the COPA Commission: Janet M. Evans, Federal Trade Commission; Sallianne Fortunato

and Kelly Levy, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Department

of Commerce; Janis Kockritz and Hemanshu Nigam, Department of Justice.
quality content on the Internet and to develop technological tools that help

parents and guardians protect children from material they consider harmful or

inappropriate. Second, it has encouraged public institutions offering Internet

access to adopt “acceptable use” policies that offer parents a reasonable

assurance that schools and libraries have safeguards in place to permit users to

have educational experiences consistent with their local values. Third, it has

strongly supported the enforcement of existing laws that prohibit the distribution

of child pornography, distribution of obscene material, and use of the Internet to

entice children away from the safety of their homes. Through projects like the

FBI’s Innocent Images Project, which includes representatives of the Postal

Inspection Service and the U.S. Customs Service, the U.S. Government is

continuing to combat the use of the Internet to traffic in child pornography and

to stalk children for illegal sexual activity. Additionally, the Administration has

actively advanced policy regarding Internet content, both in bilateral discussions

and multilateral meetings with foreign governments. Bilateral agreements with

foreign governments have emphasized the importance of filtering technologies

rather than the use of government censorship to protect minors from accessing

inappropriate material on the Internet.

The record of the COPA hearings makes clear that significant efforts have

been made to respond to this challenge of protecting children online. The childprotective tools and methods available to date permit parents, teachers, and

librarians to provide children with some level of protection on the Internet. As

currently configured, these tools provide a limited level of safety and are likely

to reduce child access to online pornography and other harmful to minors

materials. Still, it is clear that they are not up to the task of providing full

protection. Indeed, no one approach or tool, alone, is likely to provide children

with protection from such material. Instead, government and industry need to

work together to devise an improved “safety net” of protections -- coupling

improved technology with new self-regulatory standards -- to reduce children’s

exposure to commercial pornography and other sexually explicit materials

online.

The Administration looks forward to working with lawmakers and industry on

improving protections for children online. During the COPA hearings, we

identified efforts that government and industry could take to increase protection

of children online; these proposals are described below. We are pleased that

the Commission endorsed many of these suggestions, addressing them in its
recommendations. If the COPA Commission’s recommendations are

implemented, we believe that they will result in meaningfully increased

protection of children online.

Local, State, and Federal Governments Should Increase Enforcement

of Laws Prohibiting the Distribution of Child Pornography, the Intentional

Distribution of Obscene Materials to Minors, and the Use of the Internet to

Entice Children for Illegal Sexual Activity. The Internet has become the

online equivalent of the proverbial "playground" frequented by predators

seeking child victims. Law enforcement must continue to investigate and

prosecute instances of child exploitation via the Internet.

• Multi-agency task forces, such as the Internet Crimes Against Children Task

Forces sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention, work together effectively to enforce state and federal crimes against

children.

• Multi-disciplinary centers for the investigation of computer crimes, such as the

U.S. Customs Service’s Cyber Smuggling Center, bring together the expertise

of online investigators and computer analysts to combat the use of the Internet

to commit a myriad of crimes, including the distribution of child pornography.

• The FBI is expanding and will continue to expand its "Innocent Images" project

by creating regional "franchises" to aggressively target child pornographers and

predators wherever they are found.

• Continued funding is necessary to cover the costs of these pro-active online

projects and to train new agents on the techniques of online investigations.

Browsers Should Feature A “Parental Control” Button In a Prominent

Location. This feature would increase accessibility of child-protective tools and

methods. This is a low- cost, user-friendly method for bringing these tools to

parents’ attention.

• The Administration strongly supports one-click-away type of tools that can

provide parents easy online access to tools and information about keeping their

children safe online. The Administration has also been a strong supporter of

the public interest group/industry-led initiative “Get Net Wise,” an easy-to-
access online resource for parents to help them keep their children safe online

by providing information on Internet safety tips, consumer content filtering

products, law enforcement contacts, and guides to quality educational and ageappropriate online content.

The Online Commercial Pornography Industry Should Voluntarily

Adopt Standards That Restrict Ready Access to Pornography. In addition

to whatever effective legal protections can be fashioned, it is clear that the

online commercial pornography industry itself can and should be doing more to

protect children from online access to their products. This industry has stated

its willingness to engage in self-regulation. It should adopt standards to reduce

ready access to online commercial pornography by children.

• These standards should require use of the most effective available technology

for verifying age. While genuine age verification technology is not yet available,

its development must be a priority. Until such time, industry should require

credit card verification or other adult identifier confirmation to access these

sites.

The Online Commercial Pornography Industry and Search Engine

Operators Should Voluntarily Adopt Standards To Reduce Intrusiveness

of Pornography. These industries should adopt a cyberspace equivalent of a

“plain brown wrapper” for commercial online pornographic material.

• The public front pages of commercial pornographic sites should not contain

explicit graphics or text. They should be limited to material sufficient to make

clear that the site contains sexual material. Teaser pages should be located

only beyond the front, public page.

• Children entering innocent search requests, or accidentally mistyping a request,

should not be unexpectedly presented with lurid text and graphics. Internet

searches seeking information of a non-sexual nature should not receive

responses containing sexual text or graphics. Return links should simply reflect

that the content of linked pages responsive to the request contain sexual

material.
Industry Should Improve Available Technological Protections,

Including Filtering and Blocking Technologies, Monitoring Technologies,

and Child-safe “Green Spaces.”

• We fully support community decisions to use Internet blocking and filtering

technology. These protections should be made more accessible and easier to

use.

• Only a third of parents now avail themselves of these tools. Low use levels are

likely due to lack of familiarity and difficulty of use. The record shows that one

company’s parental controls, which feature strong visibility and easy

implementation, have unusually high use levels.

• Other service providers should make parental controls easy to access via links

from their home pages. Protective technologies also should take steps to make

their products easier to use.

• The COPA Commission found little objective information about the actual

effectiveness of the technologies at blocking access to pornography. The

Administration supports objective third party testing of the various filtering and

blocking products, in order that they may compete on the basis of efficacy and

thus achieve more widespread use.

The Online Industry Should Provide More Support to Rating Systems.

Substantial effort has been committed to ratings systems but they have not yet

reached critical mass.

• Large sites should voluntarily participate in ratings efforts, as they can be used

to facilitate parental choice.

Government and Industry Should Promote Acceptable Use Policies.

Acceptable use policies are a non-technological tool for protecting children

online. The Administration encourages parents and public institutions that offer

access to online resources, including the Internet, to adopt such policies. Just

as we provide children with firm rules for crossing the street and guidelines for

dealing with a variety of unfamiliar situations, we need to provide them with

rules and guidelines to facilitate their online learning experiences as well as

their safety.
• The Administration has supported legislation that requires that any school or

library that receives federal e-rate funds must have an acceptable use policy in

place before such funds are awarded to them.

• The Administration encourages use of acceptable use policies by all public

institutions that offer access to online resources, including the Internet. An

acceptable use policy should, while being sensitive to local needs and

concerns, offer reasonable assurances to parents that safeguards will be in

place in the school and library setting that permit users to have educational

experiences consistent with their values.

Conclusion. The COPA Commission completed a complex task in a

short amount of time under difficult circumstances. Its Report will provide

significant assistance to industry and government alike as we continue to

grapple with the difficult issue of protecting children online while ensuring the

broadest possible flow of information.
Commissioner Stephen Balkam

Executive Director

Internet Content Rating Association

The Internet changes everything. It upsets our notions of how things should

be, how countries should be governed, how companies should be run, how

teachers teach and children learn. It mixes up our conceptual framework of

what we think we know about the world, about each other and about

ourselves. It is liberating, exciting, challenging and terrifying all at the same

time. It is technology as a social force and it is instantaneous and it is

everywhere. No wonder the Chinese authorities want to keep it from its

people.

While the Internet has and continues to grow at an exponential rate, we

remain witnesses to the first faltering steps of a phenomenon that is still in its

infancy. To a majority of the world’s people, the Internet remains mysterious,

forbidding, incomprehensible and frightening. The greatest inhibitor to the

continued growth of this new medium is fear. And when you ask people what

they are most frightened of, invariably they return the top three concerns of

porn, privacy and security. While the COPA Commission heard testimony

that touched on the issues of personal privacy and numerous security issues,

we focused on the issue of material deemed “harmful to minors”. The US

Congress asked us to recommend constitutionally acceptable remedies that

would help shield children from pornographic images, while continuing to

respect the rights of adults to access this type of material. I believe our multifaceted approach of public education, increased prosecutions, the further

development of filtering tools, the promotion of self-labelling and selfregulatory regimes within both the ISP and adult industries, is a remarkably

comprehensive and dynamically balanced approach. I applaud my fellow

Commissioners and their staff for bringing us to these conclusions.

It has not been easy. We had little time and even less money. We took our

hearings out on the road which added to the challenge while reaping greater

rewards in the quality, range and depth of the testimonies. We are a

disparate group from a broad range of political, moral and personal

perspectives. This diversity contributed to the challenge of reaching

consensus on so many hotly disputed issues. It is a testimony to our
Chairman, Don Telage, that we remained so cohesive and productive as a

group.

Doubts remain, however, on how best to further what we have begun with our

findings and recommendations. It became obvious to me during the Third

Hearing in San Jose that a similar Commission was needed to address the

same issues on an international basis. Although the United States has long

lead the Internet revolution, other countries and regions of the world have fast

caught up and are taking this medium into new and uncharted territory. I am

thinking in particular about wireless applications and the convergence of

media into Internet appliances. The United States must share what it has

learnt while remaining open and receptive to other approaches emerging in

Europe, the Asia Pacific and beyond. This is not exclusively a US problem,

nor will an exclusively US range of remedies work in this the most interlinked

and international media the world has ever known. New governmental,

organisational and association models will have to be found to bridge the

linguistic, cultural and political differences that bear on this issue when it is

addressed at a global level. The ICANN experience is a recent example of

this new world and it can be a tough and painful road.

Finally, we need to more vigorously spread the gospel of industry

responsibility and consumer empowerment. The myriad of companies,

concerns and individuals that make up the “Internet industry”, while resisting

government legislation, must see that it is in their own commercial interest to

participate, fund and develop self-regulatory efforts in this area. Similarly,

parents, caregivers and other concerned adults will need to invest some time

and energy in getting to know what tools are available to protect their children

from the worst of the web. Industry must make those tools easy to find and

easy to use. Parents must be encouraged, educated and persuaded to use

them. It is neither practical nor desirable for a governmental censor to pick

and choose what a child will experience on the Internet. While government

has a reduced role to play in this area, it can legitimately keep up the pressure

on Industry to respond to the legitimate concerns of consumers. Government

must finesse the art of carrot and stick and it must find new ways to do this in

a global environment.
Commissioner John C. Bastian

CEO, Security Software Systems

The rapid growth and popularity of the Internet has made it an indispensable

vehicle for commerce, information and communication. With a vast interactive

audience, a wide diversity of content is available to any Internet user.

Unrestricted access provides the ultimate diversity in information, culture, art,

music and sex.

Harmful to Minors (HTM) content is a large, diverse part of the Internet.

Hundreds of thousands of explicit web sites exist with millions of pages of

HTM material are easily accessed by a few clicks of a mouse. Marketing

strategies of these “sex” businesses vary widely from simple real-world

advertising to unsolicited explicit email spams.

Commissioners heard testimony from a wide diversity of organizations,

technology vendors and individuals who all represented their perspective and

information succinctly. However, I feel we have only opened the door on many

issues and because of time and resource limitations, not fully explored

important facets of our investigations.

I believe an acronym is appropriate to express the diversity a solution may

entail.

The ALERT Equation

Awareness, Law enforcement, Education, Responsibility and Technology all

have a part to play in the protection equation. As we all learned. a single

solution, or magic bullet is not a reality.

Awareness

A sensible approach is necessary to inform caregivers and young net citizens

of the dangers of unrestricted on-line access but balanced with the benefits

and responsibilities that go with its use. Awareness is not just identifying the

problem, it must encompass solutions. Throughout history, society has paid a

cost for technological advances. The major difference with the “on-line”

generation is the simple fact that children are the early adopters and can have

a higher degree of technological knowledge than the adult caregiver. This

not an “out of sight, out of mind” problem, awareness is a key element.

Harmful to minors material, designed for an adult audience often is easily
accessible by a child. Access can be accidental or intentional, but the result is

the same.

Law Enforcement

Even though the report centers on HTM content, a serious problem exists for

children in the form of sexual predators and pedophiles. Law enforcement

witnesses attested to the dramatic rise in child molestations arising from open

or unmonitored Internet communication pathways. Chat rooms, e-mail and

Instant Messengers have given a new channel for predators and pedophiles

to solicit children.

Current laws need to be fully enforced by well trained, web savvy officers and

prosecutors.

Education

Schools, Libraries, Government and Industry must initiate a major educational

campaign to inform the public of protective technologies and methods

available to protect children online.

As caregivers, we all need to be involved and educated in the process of

protecting our children to assure a positive experience for our youth.

Responsibility

Partnerships need to be established between Government and the Internet

community to fund programs designed to; educate caregivers, promote public

awareness, develop new protective and investigative tools. Federal, State

and Local Law Enforcement needs adequate funding to train and add staff.

The adult industry has to take responsibility as well. Pornographic site

operators fail to understand that even “teaser page” or “mouse trapping”

marketing tactics are detrimental to children. We cannot assume

pornographers will ever become “good” internet citizens as some witnesses

purported. Even explicit sites touting protective technologies still place this

technology behind the teasers. Caregivers also have the responsibility to

learn the facts and know what the child is doing on-line.

Technology

The real-time nature of the Internet allows site content to be changed at

anytime. Because of this fact, technology designed to protect children from

HTM materials faces significant challenges. Chat rooms, E-mail and Instant

Messaging are additional challenges for technology. As testimony indicated,
there is a real need for a credible independent “benchmarking” organization to

evaluate marketplace protective tools for effectiveness and proper

application. We found that “one size fits all” is not the reality. Protective

technologies are as diverse as their clients.

Challenges

Today’s youth face a multitude of challenges regarding technology that many

adult caregivers cannot fully understand. We, as a society, face the challenge

of protecting our children from inappropriate content and communications

from a new media that has a unique character.

In recent history, the dominance the U.S. experienced in the Internet

community is being diminished by fast adoption in other countries. Soon half

the content on the web will be from foreign sources. This provides multiple

challenges for law enforcement, legislators, child protection technology

vendors and more importantly, children.

I would like to thank all my fellow commissioners and the support staff for their

dedication to this commission. Additionally, I would like to thank all the

witnesses for their insight and commitment.
Commissioner Jerry Berman

Center for Democracy and Technology

The Center for Democracy and Technology participated in the work of this

Commission with two goals in mind. First, CDT sought to empower parents to

protect children online in a manner consistent with their own values as

individual families. Second, CDT sought to protect First Amendment values

on the Internet – a democratizing medium that expands the power of citizens

to engage in speech in unprecedented ways.

The recommendations of this report endorse the policy CDT pursued.

Acknowledging the unique, global character of the Internet, the Commission

concludes that new laws would not only be Constitutionally dubious, they

would not effectively limit children’s access to inappropriate materials. The

Commission instead finds that empowering families to guide their children’s

Internet use is the only feasible way to protect children online while preserving

First Amendment values. The Commission cites public education, user

empowerment and enforcement of existing laws against obscenity and child

pornography as the most effective means to assure the safety of children

online. To realize the full potential of these approaches to protecting children,

the Commission’s recommendations call for a redoubled commitment of

resources for further development and deployment of tools and educational

materials.

The Nature of the Internet and the Protection of Children

The Commission On Online Child Protection has done what Congress has not

– it has examined how to protect children online in ways consistent with the

Internet’s architecture and Constitutional requirements. The Commission

reviewed testimony describing the global reach of the Internet, the

decentralized nature of its architecture, and its ability to promote the speech

of a wide range of speakers representing diverse values. The Commission

rejects a legislative approach to protecting children not only because laws

restricting distribution of or access to harmful to minors materials are

Constitutionally suspect, but also because United States law cannot affect the

flow of content originating in other countries and therefore cannot effectively

protect children.
The Commission also considered whether any of the technologies and

methods it reviewed could serve as an affirmative defense to a violation of the

criminal provisions of the Child Online Protection Act. Keeping in mind the

Internet’s unique character, the Commission finds that none of the

approaches could adequately serve as an affirmative defense in a manner

respectful of the First Amendment.

Finally, the Commission rejects the creation of a top-level Internet domain for

material harmful to minors. The Commission recognizes that such an

approach could only succeed if mandated by law, and that such mandatory

zoning would present serious First Amendment problems and chill protected

speech.

The Commission’s Recommendations

The Commission recommends increased education for children and their

families. Public education is a powerful tool to protect children and does not

restrict protected speech. But to succeed, public education must be deployed

with serious commitment and substantial resources. When we educate

children at home and at school, we impart important values to them – we

teach them to use seat belts, not to smoke, and to stay away from illicit drugs.

Our message to children about safe activity online must be as clear and

strong. Industry and government must also commit the resources necessary

to promote widespread family awareness of the importance of protecting

children online and the practical ways in which families can protect children.

The Commission recommends, and CDT concurs, that education must be

coupled with empowerment tools. While monitoring and filtering technologies

are available to parents, it is critical they be evaluated, assessed and tested,

so that families know what tools are available to them, what they do, and how

well they work. Information about these tools must be widely available, so

that families have the information they need to make choices about their

children’s online experience that reflect their values.

Finally, recognizing that new laws against harmful to minors materials would

not survive judicial scrutiny, the Commission urges Congress and law

enforcement to focus on better enforcement of existing laws against obscenity

and child pornography. These laws target unprotected speech and are clearly
Constitutional. Historically, enforcement of these laws online has suffered

from insufficient funding. A renewed commitment to their robust enforcement

and full funding can assure that children can safely take advantage of the

positive resources the Internet offers.

A Word of Thanks

It has been a pleasure to serve on this Commission. With no resources from

the Congress, the Commission worked diligently and in good faith. This

report reflects the effort of Commissioners representing diverse perspectives

on the question of how best to protect children online. It is an example of how

individuals holding a range of opinions can, through a thoughtful, deliberative

process, find common ground.

The work of the Commission was facilitated by the tremendous effort of

people who care about protecting children. I would like to thank the Chairman

and my fellow Commissioners. I would also like to acknowledge the work of

Dittus Communications, the contribution of the law offices of Wilmer, Cutler

and Pickering, and the funding by companies who stepped in with resources

when the Congress did not. Finally, I must thank Alan Davidson, Paula

Bruening, and Rob Courtney of the Center for Democracy and Technology,

whose efforts behind the scenes were critical to the success of this endeavor.
Commissioner Arthur H. DeRosier, Jr.

Rocky Mountain College

Participating in the Commission on Online Child Protection has been

both frustrating and exhilarating. Nineteen original Commissioners were

faced with an assignment without federal funding, and a timetable almost

impossible to meet—seven months from meeting each other in Washington,

D.C. in March, 2000 to an agenda, hearings, evaluation of myriad

technologies and invited and non-invited reports, articles, and expressions of

opinion, and, finally, the need to sift through it all finding nuggets worthy of

consideration, and reaching recommendations worthy of the high calling felt

by all of the Commission members in October 2000. To my knowledge, no

investigating and recommending body has had more potholes to avoid, and

no group with whom I have ever been associated worked harder or smarter

for the public good than did the COPA Commission.

The Commission recommendations on public education, consumer

empowerment, law enforcement, and industry call for action were crafted out

of hard evidence, thoughtful concerns from various viewpoints, and were

agreed to unanimously by conservatives as well as liberals on a Commission

crying for solutions to a deepening dilemma while wanting to protect First

Amendment rights all Americans cherish. We knew we could not keep and

eat our cake simultaneously, but we wanted to provide observations,

evidence, and recommendations worthy of a Congress seeking input and a

nation wanting answers.

The Commission dealt with an industry growing at an alarming rate,

technology changing daily, and children more knowledgeable about the

internet and how it is accessed and used than parents who grew up in a

simpler world. I especially offer recommendations 1 and 2 to all interested in

the solution to this dilemma. This is not a problem that can be solved by

parents alone—parents both of whom might be working (if there are two

parents) and whose children have access to the internet at home, in school, at

the home of a friend or caregiver, or home alone without parental supervision.

Neither is it a government alone dilemma to solve. Yes, the government is

concerned and can help, but the solution to this problem must be found in a

forging of parental and government activity. Government needs to undertake

a public awareness campaign, and parents need to learn more about

technology and the internet. One cannot remain untutored and hope to make

a difference. One cannot say: “don’t do this” or “don’t do that.” Those are
commands signifying fury without knowledge, blind utterances without

understanding.

On the other hand, government and industry have to shed adversarial

roles and work together to promote acceptable use policies. The government

cannot do this alone: neither can one expect industry to go it alone if

government cares not to help. It is to industry’s benefit to labor long and hard

to end child access to pornography—a goal sought by parents—and a goal

that will clearly forestall a stream of government laws and policies that hurt an

industry that seems not to care about the public good.

Though the short road just trod by the COPA Commission was a

difficult one, it was illuminated by a talented, caring Chairman, Donald Telage,

talented and responsible fellow Commissioners whose energy was amazing

and whose abilities would grace any Commission, and a Dittus staff that

deserves applause and deep appreciation. I would like individually to single

out five individuals who helped me greatly; Senator Conrad Burns, who

nominated me for membership on the Commission, Brett Scott, President of

Capital Coalitions in Washington, D.C., Todd Capser, Executive Director of

the Rocky Mountain Technology Foundation in Billings, Montana, Susan

Stewart, the College’s Controller monitoring a COPA restricted account

housed on our campus, and Suzanne Dierenfield, an Administrative Assistant

without peer in my office. They offered guidance, sound advice, and much

work as I made my way forward in the good work of a fine Commission which,

too, deserves applause.
Commissioner J. Robert Flores, Esq.

Vice President and Senior Counsel

National Law Center for Children and Families

This Commission was tasked by Congress to evaluate technical and

non-technical means of protecting minors from harmful to minors (HTM)

material. Congress did not ask the Commission to recommend new

legislation or comment on the COPA’s constitutionality. The fact that the

Commission did neither should not be construed as anything except our

adherence to our Congressional mandate. Though we accomplished a great

deal, the lack of federal funding made it impossible to conduct independent

evaluations of technologies or industry claims. Nonetheless, the Commission

made a number of findings in areas that have been the subject of endless

debate. It is that accomplishment, I trust, that will enable Congress to move

forward to assist parents, communities, and others to protect children.

The Commission received testimony on the effectiveness of filtering,

blocking, and monitoring technologies. Librarians, parents, and business

executives, who use or produce such products, convincingly demonstrated

that the use of these technologies will reduce exposure to pornography.

Though none of the technologies, either alone or in tandem, provides perfect

protection, we do not live in a world where either the law or reality permits or

encourages only perfect solutions. Moreover, the record before us

demonstrates that past criticisms of filter technology are no longer valid in

light of improvements in accuracy and customizability. Today, there is no

basis to believe that the user of these tools will not be able to access a

chicken breast casserole or get directions to Middlesex County.

Some have attempted to assign total responsibility for protecting

children from HTM material to parents. While I agree with the premise that I,

as a parent, am responsible for my children and their welfare, those who

furnish HTM material also have an obligation to take reasonable steps to

protect children. I am entitled to expect my children will not be targeted for

exploitation or abuse.

The Commission heard testimony about three current technologies that

can effectively be used by distributors and providers of HTM material to

protect children: self-labeling; age verification IDs; and Age verification Credit
Cards. While the effectiveness and accessibility of these technologies may

vary in particular settings, the Commission found that self-labeling would

satisfy the criteria to be treated as an affirmative defense. Congress’s

decision to identify the other two technologies as affirmative defenses is

supported by Commission findings that both ranked high in their effectiveness

at keeping minors away from HTM materials.

Witnesses from the law enforcement community were unanimous in

their belief that those engaged in the distribution of hard-core pornography,

child pornography, and HTM materials do not believe they will be caught or

prosecuted. FBI, state, and local officials told this Commission that the risk to

children using the Internet of sexual abuse or exploitation continues to grow.

Most chilling, is that the situation has gotten so bad that law enforcement is

now forced to pursue only those cases where a child is being stalked.

This situation of limited law enforcement action has paralleled an

exponential increase in Internet available obscenity. This material is now

marketed in ways that make it nearly impossible to avoid. Pornographic

spam, mousetraps, and other deceptive practices that have gone unpunished

with the exception of recent FTC actions, have contributed to the mentality

that “anything goes,” on the Net. Law enforcement’s inaction on this issue

has sent the unintended message that if you are not involved in stalking

children you are safe. That message also contributes to the notion that child

pornographers and pedophiles can hide among the pornographic flotsam and

jetsam, sending obscene e-mail and instant messages, and looking for

children to exploit.

The Commission recommends launching an aggressive effort to

address obscenity on the Internet because it is clearly linked to the problem of

HTM material. This effort may be initiated using existing laws, is targeted at a

narrow category of material, and sends a significant deterrent message. As a

former prosecutor, I believe that without a credible threat of prosecution the

distribution of illegal obscenity on the Internet will not diminish.

There is no way to restore innocence lost and a diet of pornographic

fare will lead to disasters in fighting sexual harassment, STDs, and sexual or

domestic violence. Congress, parents, other adults, and certainly the

pornography industry must take steps to stop our children from being hurt. If

we fail to act, our children will be right to blame us for what we have allowed.
The work of any commission depends greatly on the quality of its staff.

I would like to thank Chadwick L. Groover, counsel at the National Law

Center, for his extraordinary contributions to the report and the Commission’s

success.
Commissioner A. F. Ganier, III

 CEO, Education Networks of America, Inc.

My focus during the Commission hearings has been on this country’s

approximately 53 million k-12 children and their 50 million parents.

While a great deal of the testimony and debate presented to the Commission

revolved around the home and parents, it is clear that the schools and other

public centers in America’s communities have a special role to play in the next

generation’s adoption and utilization of the Internet. Unlike television, which

was introduced into the home and never meaningfully penetrated schools and

libraries, the Internet has quickly become a reality in these places. Indeed, it

is estimated that our schools currently have installed 7,500,000 Internetconnected computers. This number is expected to double over the next few

years.

And with good reason. Computers and the Internet represent educational

tools of enormous value. Technology, if properly incorporated and used,

really does have the ability to transform education. Moreover, the ability of an

individual to understand, develop and use technology effectively will be critical

to his or her ability to succeed in the world and to the country’s continued

economic development.

While many of the Commission’s recommendations, such as parental

education and posting information on the Web are laudable, they do not

address the more than 50% of children who do not have access to technology

in their homes or whose parents have no inclination towards technology.

Government must continue to focus on what is going on in the schools. I

estimate that Federal, State and Local governments invest more than $12

billion on Internet connectivity and related technology each year. Most of this

connectivity, however, has been for connectivity’s sake. The truth is that the

corresponding bandwidth and hardware are not being used for productive

educational programs.

One of the ways to move from the mere ability to access the Internet to the

ability to enhance education is to ensure that all public places that offer

Internet access to our children also offer them a safe experience. Without

safety, there will be no Internet experience. Localities that find themselves
confronted with online predators and other HTM material will continue to turn

the computers off and let their children fall further behind the digital divide.

Moreover, safety solutions must work transparently in order to be of real

value. I personally offer low scores to many of the solutions presented

because they do not work for parents, children, teachers, administrators and

other members of communities that do not have the high tech skills or the

inclination towards technology that such solutions require. Most policy

decision-makers have almost no exposure to communities of this nature, and

their recommendations therefore tend to focus on well educated communities

that have high tech skills, plenty of money, and families with the time and

energy to work with kids on a one-on-one basis. This is contrasted with

communities where low education levels, low incomes and cultural barriers do

not lend themselves to technology adoption. The goal is to break this pattern.

Finally, it should be noted that the safety of our children does not come at the

expense of the First Amendment. The real barrier to free speech is that the

Net is unsafe for children and, therefore, decision makers are refusing to let it

be used. The baby is being thrown out with the bathwater. This is especially

true in communities where the need is the greatest.

Moreover, public institutions have limited resources and enormous missions

to accomplish. The responsibility of a librarian or a teacher to select how to

allocate available bandwidth is no different than the decision as to how best to

fill a limited number of bookshelves. There are only so many units of Internet

access per dollar available. Technology permits these decisions to be made.

The conclusion that I offer the Congress is that no one solution will solve all of

the problems. A combination of approaches will be required. However, any

such combination must focus on schools and work in the poorest and most

technologically illiterate areas. Only once this philosophy is adopted will longterm solutions such as educating 50 million parents, or encouraging them to

visit a web page about safety and take the time to transfer that knowledge to

their children, actually work.
Every year a whole generation of children whose parents do not have the

resources or the inclinations to expose their children to technology are left

further behind. The schools are where these children will find digital equality,

and safety must, therefore, begin there.
Commissioner Donna Rice Hughes

Author, Kids Online/Founder, Protectkids.com

It has been a privilege to serve on the Child Online Protection Commission, and I

am grateful to Senator Trent Lott for giving me this opportunity. I applaud the

efforts of each Commissioner, especially the leadership of Chairman Don Telage,

in building a solid foundation of unanimous recommendations to better protect

children in cyberspace. I also wish to thank my client, FamilyClick and their staff,

specifically, Ken Baker; Enough Is Enough; and my dedicated assistant, Judy

Hyon.

Since its onset in the early nineties, the online porn industry has grown to $1.5

billion annually (Forbes, 14 June 1999). The result - today's generation of

children can, intentionally or accidentally, easily access child pornography,

prosecutable obscenity and harmful to minors (HTM) material. The Commission

heard testimony from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, that

one in four youths ages 10 -17, reported an unwanted exposure to online

pornography in the past year. The Commission’s report, which fully

complements COPA, emphasizes the importance of multiple efforts on different

fronts to make the Internet safer for children. This supports my belief that a threeprong solution, involving a shared responsibility between the public, the high-tech

industry, and the legal sector, is essential to protect kids online.

Law enforcement officials testified that few, if any resources, have been devoted

to the prosecution of obscenity. As the problem has gotten worse, the focus of

prosecution has been narrowed only to those who stalk children online or

produce large quantities of child pornography. The failure to adequately enforce

child pornography and obscenity laws has led to a pervasive “anything goes”

mentality by online pornographers and sexual predators. Our recommendation

for Law Enforcement action is critical to curbing the sexual exploitation of

children online. Aggressive prosecution will not only minimize children’s direct

exposure to online porn and sexual predators, but also decrease the sexual

abuse of children by those acting out behavior depicted in pornography. Finally,

the compliance of Internet Service Providers with current law should be

enhanced by my recommendations of an ISP “best practices” code and the
utilization of the master list of convicted pornographic sites provided by law

enforcement.

The recommendation for the adult online industry to implement readily available,

age-verification technologies also supports COPA. Since commercial sites

already utilize some form of online payment, efforts such as credit card

verification, serve to shield kids from free pornographic teaser images. While

supporting the Commission’s recommendation for the adult online industry to

voluntarily protect children from HTM content, I am skeptical of industry-wide

adoption, since, to date, the “e-porn” industry has not responded to selfregulation.

I believe there is a role for additional government regulation, even if COPA is

upheld. Because COPA addresses only commercial HTM providers, I support a

mandated HTM label, which the Commission found would be effective. Noted

First Amendment attorney Larry Lessig, in a memorandum to the Commission,

recommended such a proposal and stressed that it “provides an affirmative

reason to prefer regulation over doing nothing.” Additionally, a diverse panel of

experts in Hearing One agreed that if HTM content were placed in a new toplevel domain (gTLD) to the exclusion of other domains, and such action

constituted an affirmative defense under COPA for non-obscene HTM material, it

could be effective in zoning sexually-explicit content.

Witnesses before the Commission made it plain, that while there are a

tremendous amount of Internet safety information and resources available,

permeation into most communities has been insufficient. The Commission found

that increased awareness efforts are a critical need. For maximum offline and

online impact, a large scale, multi-media campaign should balance both Internet

benefits and dangers. Internet 101 basic training and the implementation of

effective safeguards should be encouraged in the home, school and library

settings.

Technological solutions such as flexible, customizable filtering tools were found

by the Commission to be very effective in preventing children’s access to

inappropriate content originating both in the United States and abroad. Based on

Hearing Two testimony, safety rules without software tools leave an open door
for children to access pornography. Testimony showed that schools and libraries

that install customizable filtering software to complement their acceptable-use

policies and avoid providing publicly funded peep shows for kids, were

successful.

The valuable work that we achieved, in spite of time and funding constraints,

further convinces me that the Commission should continue in order to build on

the extensive groundwork provided by this record and report. We have an

unprecedented opportunity to make the Internet safe and rewarding for children.

In only a few mouse clicks, children can be exposed to material that can never be

erased from their minds. Never before in the history of telecommunications has

an entire generation of children been invaded by sexually-explicit material with so

few restrictions. It is incumbent on parents, industry and government to work

together to provide children the protected space of innocence they deserve.

Innocence lost can never be regained. The time to act is now.
Commissioner William M. Parker

CEO and President

Crosswalk.com, Inc.

Because there is so much that can be done by Government and industry to

improve the protection of our children online, I feel confident that the

recommendations that we have made will make a big difference if promptly

implemented. They represent a first step.

When I joined this Commission I recognized the threats to our children online,

and because of those threats initiated a free filtering alternative on

Crosswalk.com to protect children wherever they surfed on the Internet. But

as a result of my work on this Commission, I’m even more concerned about

the vulnerability of children in cyberspace. Given the dangers, I must say that

the time and resources given this Commission for this important task were

disappointing. A task scoped to require two years by the statute was hurried

to completion in six months, and with no funding. I consider this to be a credit

particularly to our chairman, Don Telage, but I feel strongly that our Congress

should have provided the needed time and money. Given Congress’s lack of

attention, or will, in this regard, I sincerely hope that the recommendations of

this Commission will not similarly languish.

Furthermore, this Commission could have done much more to assist the

Congress given time and money. Although the recommendations of the

Commission are sound, more could have been done, and indeed, more needs

to be done. The fact that the Commission is not recommending new

substantive means to protect children should not be assumed to indicate that

new substantive measures should not be taken. The work of the Commission

to date has been merely to point out the obvious measures for which there is

broad consensus and that should be taken immediately. The Congress

should immediately initiate another commission, or reconvene this one, to

pursue these possibilities.

I feel that the technology is available, or can be integrated, to effectively

protect our children online. I particularly think that first party labeling,

combined with other browser filtering technology has the promise to protect

children and provide an affirmative defense to COPA, while not violating first

amendment rights. The Commission did not have the time or money to
effectively pursue this potential alternative or others. Unfortunately, this

Commission only progressed to the point of conducting a technology

overview. We did not systematically examine technology. We did not

effectively consider combinations of technologies. And we did not establish

objective criteria for weighing technological approaches or methods against

first amendment issues. We relied upon the testimony of vendors regarding

their products. We did no testing, and we conducted no analysis of

technology integration.

All that being said, there clearly is much action that can be taken now by the

Government to make parents and children more aware of online dangers, and

to make illegal pornographers and child abusers fearful.

Many parents and children simply are not aware of online dangers. And while

many in the Internet industry are fearful of scaring people off the web, a

comprehensive program to inform the general public of the dangers of the

Internet must be initiated. The dot com advertising blitz is more than sufficient

to inform the public of the great promise and opportunity associated with the

Internet. The Government cannot remain silent about the clear dangers of

this medium, particularly for children, and particularly while there are no

current effective safeguards for them. This public awareness campaign must

be on a scale with Government campaigns to warn of other dangers, with an

objective that every parent be aware of the need to engage to protect children

online. This public awareness campaign must be complemented by an

education program sufficient to provide those parents (and children) with the

information they need for effective protection.

While this is a complex problem, I was appalled at the almost total lack of

enforcement of existing obscenity law. The adult entertainment industry is

almost boastful about the neglect of law enforcement officials that they

currently enjoy. Several witnesses testified that producers of obscene and

“harmful to minors” material have no fear of prosecution. There is currently

very little funding to pursue violations of current statutes, and there is no

coordinated law enforcement strategy (and effort) being pursued by the

federal government. Congress must give the Justice Department an

aggressive mandate and funding to enforce existing laws.
If the Congress decides to re-establish and fund this Commission consistent

with the intent of the statute, I would be honored to serve again as a

Commissioner.
Commissioner C. James Schmidt

Professor

School of Library and Information Science

San Jose State University

It has been said that the Internet is a “world-wide conversation”. There

is no limit to the number who may speak, the admission price for speakers is

low, users can seek and “hear” the speech of their choosing.

As is the case with the printed medium, where the cost of speaking –

publishing – is higher, the Internet’s world-wide conversation contains speech

offensive to some.

Congress asked the Commission established by the COPA legislation

to examine ONE facet of this world-wide speech – content which might be or

is “harmful to minors” – and to recommend ways in which minors might be

protected from such content.

I did not enter into our task confident that the Commission could

identify a constitutionally permissible way for American intervention into this

world-wide conversation. A previous Congressional attempt to regulate

content on the Internet – the Communications Decency Act – was declared by

the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional. Attempts by several states to

regulate content on the Internet including harmful-to-minors material, e.g.

Michigan, New York, Georgia, New Mexico, Virginia, have also been nullified

by the courts. And a portion of the COPA legislation itself, aimed at regulating

content, has been temporarily enjoined by a federal district court, and that

enjoinment has been upheld on appeal.

However, the decisions of American courts are only a part of the story,

since the Internet, by action of the Congress in 1998, is now subject to

international governance through ICAAN. Therefore, enforcement of content

regulation on the Internet in many instances will require multinational

agreement – on definition of content, on reciprocity, on extradition, etc.

Analogous difficulties, mitigated by some agreements, exist with respect to

enforcement of laws about narcotics, currency transfers, terrorism, etc.
In the end, the protection of minors from Internet content that may be

harmful to some will require active adult supervision. “Too much to do and

too little time” is the response from many parents, guardians and care-givers.

Hence a massive educational effort is needed, combined with the

development of easily accessible tools, so parents and kids can participate in

the world-wide conversation and realize the benefits while feeling safe.

The educational effort proposed is urgent and will be expensive. The

urgency arises in part from the rapid growth of content – innocuous as well as

offensive – on the Internet and the Web. Millions of web pages added each

week. Web sites appearing and disappearing. The world-wide conversation

has new speakers every second and content which appears and disappears

with the speed of light. Urgency also arises from pervasive access. Schools

are wired, classrooms are connected, ninety-five percent of American public

libraries provide Internet access to their patrons. And then there is the

wireless revolution, with broadband wireless – sufficient to carry broadcast

quality video – just months away from introduction to consumers in Japan. A

child who can’t access certain content because of adult supervision or

protective technology tools at home or school may easily access such content

with a friend’s wireless device in the backyard, on the bus, or while walking.

Not many months away, Internet access won’t require a home or school or

library computer connected to a cable but rather a cheap and easily portable

device.

The expense of the proposed educational effort owes to the need, first,

to overcome adult fears of a medium – the Internet – which many know less

about than the minors entrusted to their care. There are some simple rules

for the electronic highway, which kids should be taught and which have their

analogs in the physical world. “Don’t accept a ride with a stranger”; “Don’t

give out your address or phone number to strangers”; etc. Second, besides

reaching large numbers of adults in many languages, the educational effort

must be sustained over time. Such efforts have been undertaken with respect

to smoking, tobacco products and kids, alcohol and pregnancy, seatbelts.

To assure participation by all in this world-wide conversation, education

is needed where law cannot reach.
A note about law enforcement. Testimony and submissions to the

Commission’s record were clear on two points. First, vigorous prosecution of

Internet content under existing obscenity and child pornography statutes does

not have a high enough priority. Secondly, law enforcement, especially at

state and local levels, lacks the tools and the skills to investigate such crimes.

Significant new resources will have to be provided at all levels, especially

state and local.
Commissioner William L. Schrader

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,

PSINet Inc.

I commend my colleagues on the Commission for striving

wholeheartedly toward consensus. Our respective viewpoints are very

different, but at every turn the Commission moved away from polarization and

discord so that, as a body, we could bring forward a set of recommendations

with the weight of unanimity behind them. This is no small achievement and I

am proud to have been a part of it.

The problem the Commission was asked to address – how we can

protect our children from exposure to the grotesque images that are the stock

in trade of the “adult content industry” on the Internet – does not admit of a

one-dimensional solution. The law that brought this Commission into being,

the Child Online Protection Act (“COPA”), shares the characteristics of other

“magic bullets” – most are superficially appealing but deeply flawed. I believe,

like several other members of the Commission, that the restrictions on speech

enacted into law by COPA are unconstitutional. Participating in the work of

the Commission has only brought into sharper relief the fundamental

obstacles to legislating our way out of the problem.

One of the hard truths that complicates legislative efforts is that

material that is “harmful to minors” (as legally defined) is not limited to the

puerile, pornographic output of the “adult content industry.” There is a wealth

of content on the Internet that is sexually explicit but valuable (and therefore

lawful) for adults – from the standpoint of literary, scientific, artistic, and even

political values. Measures that are entirely appropriate to suppress the

availability to minors of content purveyed by the “adult content industry” often

have decidedly adverse impacts on the ability of serious-minded authors,

educators, artists, or journalists to reach their intended audience via the

Internet. For this reason, I believe there is no single, one-size-fits-all,

technological equivalent of a “brown paper wrapper” in this new medium.

As PSINet has joined in legal actions to overturn recent “harmful to

minors” enactments by State legislatures, I have found it instructive that none

of the other plaintiffs can be considered purveyors of porn. Instead, they

include sex educators, authors and publishers of controversial literary or

artistic works, and AIDS activists. I do not doubt that much of the material

published on the Internet by these content providers may meet the legal

definition of “harmful to minors,” especially for younger minors, for whom the
educational or artistic value may be beyond their comprehension. To

suggest, however, that these authors should be forced by law to segregate

their work behind a credit card or age verification barrier, or label it as part of

a new “.XXX” domain, or require that it be “X-rated” in a manner similar to

adult movies and videos, illustrates how troublesome it is to apply these

measures to the exceptionally diverse range of lawful content that may be

“harmful to minors.”

Wisely, the Commission recommends that only the “adult content

industry” – not all authors or publishers of “harmful to minors” content – adopt

certain of these measures, and that they do so voluntarily, as part of a selfregulatory regime and not as a legal mandate enforced by the threat of

criminal prosecution.

The other hard truth that vexes our efforts is a constitutional one – that

the ultimate legal judgment of content as “obscene” or “harmful to minors” can

only be made in the context of local community standards. For this reason, I

had suggested that the Commission call for a public dialogue, including

lawyers, advocacy groups, and academics, on the constitutional question

whether it is possible to reconcile First Amendment obscenity jurisprudence

with the technological fact that the “community” of speakers and listeners on

the Internet is inherently global. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals in

Philadelphia held that, in enacting COPA, Congress recognized this

conundrum but tried (unsuccessfully) to sidestep it. My concern is that, while

encouraging stepped-up efforts at prosecution of obscene content, the

Commission has perhaps glossed over the difficulties prosecutors may face in

obtaining convictions, and sustaining them against challenge, for obscenity in

a medium that (unlike any other in history) enables anyone, anywhere, to be

both a “publisher” and a “listener” in a community that knows no geographical

bounds.

For these reasons, I applaud the Commission for embracing solutions

that rely primarily on educating and empowering parents and caregivers to

protect children, while setting aside proposals for content-based legislation

that would not only fail to protect children but would threaten the robust First

Amendment protection that federal courts at all levels have extended to the

Internet.
Commissioner Laurence Shapiro

Executive Vice President

Walt Disney Internet Group

Upon careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that a variety of

measures – as opposed to any singular measure – must be supported in

order to effectively protect children from harmful material on the Internet. I

believe that it is also important to note that there is no single or combined

pure technological solution to protecting children from harmful materials.

Indeed, I believe that all the measures and resources imaginable will never be

an adequate substitute to homes where parents are fully involved in the online

activities of their children. In order to provide parents with the necessary

assistance to guide their involvement, these measures should primarily

include a significant new public education campaign geared towards

educating parents and their children of the growing resources available to

protect children from harmful materials. These measures should include

easy-to-use and –find online tools that parents can use to ensure that their

children avoid harmful material. In addition to these educational efforts, the

Commission heard clear evidence that efforts to protect children from harmful

materials should include heightened enforcement of existing laws against

child pornography and obscenity and I fully support the recommendations of

the Commission in this area.

It is important to note that these measures must be undertaken with

cooperation not only between the private and public sectors in the United

States but also throughout the world. The Internet is a global medium and its

problems must be handled as such. While we have been charged with

reporting back to Congress on how to protect children from harmful material

online, we must be mindful that domestic solutions alone will never fully

resolve international problems.

As an executive with The Walt Disney Internet Group, I can report that we are

trying to do our part to protect children from harmful material through filtering

tools, such as Go guardian, and educational initiatives, such as Disney’s Safe

Surf Island and Doug’s Safety Page. We are a founding member of

GetNetWise and will continue to be active in our support of industry-wide

educational initiatives. In addition to the above-mentioned measures,
companies, like mine, must remain resolved in our commitment to providing

safe and trustworthy online experiences.

It has been a pleasure and an honor to serve on the Child Online Protection

Act (“COPA”) Commission. I am particularly grateful to Congressman Richard

Gephardt, the Minority Leader in the House of Representatives, for having

recommended my nomination. I want to thank Chris Curtin, in the

Washington office of The Walt Disney Company, for the assistance he

provided to me throughout this process. Finally, I want to commend Don

Telage, the Chairman of the COPA Commission, for all he did to facilitate the

appropriate deliberation of these important issues.
Commissioner Srinija Srinivasan

Yahoo! Inc.

Since 1995, Yahoo! has reflected the power and potential of the Web,

committed to being a fun, friendly, effective starting point for online

exploration. The benefits of the Web to adults and children alike are

innumerable and growing. In many cases, the Web has eliminated the

boundaries of space and the limitations of time, bringing a staggering array of

content, communication facilities, and commercial possibilities to anyone in

the world, at any time, at the click of a mouse.

The myriad benefits of the Web are accompanied by some risks and potential

dangers, however, particularly to young children who engage in online

activities without appropriate supervision and education. Since the launch of

Yahooligans! in 1996, Yahoo! has additionally been committed to providing a

safe haven for children to explore online.

No single method or technology is a panacea for protecting children. In the

“real world” we spend time teaching children to make good decisions about

even seemingly simple tasks such as when and how to cross the road. The

same care and attention is necessary to promote safety online. Ensuring that

the Web is safe for children starts with educated and involved adults, who

help children understand what’s appropriate and how to avoid danger. Offline

parental education resources, online one-click-away resources that highlight

useful tools and technologies, and the incorporation of acceptable use policies

are all highly accessible, effective methods that ensure parental involvement

in children’s online explorations.

Yahooligans! is built by a team of experienced educators who know how to

create an entertaining, edifying experience for a young audience.

Yahooligans! is full of content intended specifically for children, but the

informed human judgment of the editors also allows for inclusion of a vast

array of material that is age-appropriate even if targeted at a general

audience. Content from sources such as the Smithsonian, the White House,

NASA, or the New York Times may not fall within a limited children-only

umbrella (such as a .kids domain), but greatly enhance a child’s online

experience. As a greenspace, Yahooligans! does not prevent children from

venturing outside its walls, but by gathering and presenting a wealth of
interesting, age-appropriate material, it provides children a safe, compelling

environment to keep them from seeking harmful or inappropriate material

outside the safe zone.

Keeping children from seeking harmful content is a crucial component of

protecting them online. Keeping harmful content from seeking or finding

children is also critical to ensuring a safe environment. The former is

addressed through the active involvement of parents and teachers, as well as

the use of greenspaces, educational resources, and acceptable use policies;

the latter can be addressed with the use of various technological aids as well

as through effective law enforcement.

While technology will never be a substitute for parental involvement, and no

technology will ever replace the guidance of a caring teacher, many

technological solutions exist that supplement non-technological methods of

protecting children. Filtering and blocking software, as well as monitoring and

tracking tools, can serve to exclude harmful content, complementing areas

like greenspaces that include appropriate content.

When these various methods and technologies are coupled with effective law

enforcement to stop bad actors, the Web offers unlimited potential for children

to enjoy a safe, rewarding, entertaining and educational experience online.

It has been a privilege to serve on the Commission on Online Child

Protection. I would like to thank the Yahooligans! team for sharing their

insights with the Commission, and for their infectious enthusiasm and tireless

dedication to creating a fun, friendly, enriching and safe place for children to

go online. I am proud to be part of an organization that helps children have a

safe, rewarding web experience.

I have been honored to serve with my fellow Commissioners, and I would like

to thank each of them for their hard work and dedication to protecting children

online, throughout the life of the Commission and beyond.
Commissioner Karen Talbert

Nortel Networks

It has been my privilege to serve on the Commission on Online Child

Protection and an honor to be a part of this important study. I would like to

thank Chairman Don Telage and my fellow commissioners for their respect,

knowledge, and thoughtful contributions, which have led to our agreement on

final recommendations. Additionally, I would like to thank Amerivision

Communications and Nortel Networks for supporting my participation on the

Commission.

The problems and issues we have addressed concern me as a citizen, a

parent and as an individual who cares about kids. Over the past few years,

based upon my exposure and involvement in a wide range of Internet

projects, I have had the opportunity to closely use, observe and formulate

opinions regarding this resource. I have seen the problems it can create for

families. I have researched possible solutions and contributed to the

development of a server-based filtered product. My personal conclusions

follow that of the Commission; there is no single solution, but we must

continue to address the issues with a variety of solutions that exist today and

make sound recommendations for the future.

We have established a solid base of information from which many solutions

can be immediately implemented while setting the groundwork for the future

and improvements to be built upon. We have clearly seen the safety issues

and threatening situations that children can easily be exposed to on the

Internet. We understand that a profoundly simple approach does not exist.

I believe the biggest risk we face, is that nothing is done as a result of our

efforts. I will always remember the children who testified to their frightening

experiences on the Internet. The consequences of doing nothing were clearly

articulated by the testimony of experts who educated us on the dangers of

harmful content and of not protecting our children; our greatest fears

confirmed.

Unfortunately, statistics show that a high percentage of children are online

and unsupervised while their parents are at work. I have met with many
parents who are knowledge workers during the day, but who are out of touch

with what their children are seeing online in their home.

With most of my 15 years experience working in a large corporation, I am

an advocate of educational programs in the workplace. Within the working

environments of our country are vast resources that can be deployed to

deliver information on Internet safety to working parents and employees of all

ages. Government should consider incentives for businesses to educate

employees as a fast and effective way to enhance public awareness.

More and more companies are becoming aware of Internet safety, security

and privacy issues as they apply to the workforce. It seems a natural

extension to carry that awareness a step further and educate workers on

basic Internet safety. Businesses can benefit from offering training, literature,

demonstrations and online information to help parents become

knowledgeable about the Internet. Parents benefit from knowing how to help

their kids have a safe Internet experience. I hope to see organizations

embrace a commitment of “best Internet practices” to educate their workforce

and adopt safety policies that can be carried over into the home.

What do YOU want the Internet to be? The question is a service mark of

Nortel Networks. It is also a provocative question that we have asked

ourselves many times during the course of the Commission’s work. What do

you want the Internet to be – for our children? Is the answer – a powerful

educational resource and fun tool...or a place where kids don’t feel safe, or

where curious kids can lose their innocence?

It will take the efforts of everyone, from care givers of children to service

providers of access and content, to have a positive impact on the problems.

The dynamics of this powerful medium will continue to challenge us. Directly

or indirectly, our children will continue to educate us about the good and the

bad aspects of the Internet.

I challenge Congress to address the Commission’s recommendations. It is my

sincere hope that our recommendations will solicit specific and long-term

actions that gain acceptance and momentum toward making the Internet a

safer place. To keep children safe, we must persevere in finding and

implementing solutions that meet and exceed the objectives of our original
charter. Our overall success will be measured by the collective willingness of

government, private and public sectors to accept responsibility for addressing

the problems and to take immediate action.
Commissioner George Vradenburg, III

Vice President for Global & Strategic Policy

America Online, Inc.

It has been my pleasure and honor to serve on this Commission, along with

my distinguished colleagues from throughout the Internet industry and the

public interest community. I appreciate their dedication and creative thinking

in the critical area of keeping children's online experiences safe, educational,

and entertaining. I also want to thank Elizabeth Frazee of AOL and Liza

Kessler of Leslie Harris & Associates for their hard work on my behalf in

support of this Commission.

This Commission has worked hard to meet the challenge Congress presented

to us: evaluating technologies and methods to help protect children from

exposure to harmful to minors material, and making recommendations based

on our findings. We heard from producers of cutting edge technology,

educators, law enforcement agents, and young Internet users.

Based on my experience on this Commission, three things stand out:

1.) Technology choices are robust and continue to develop.

We heard testimony from GetNetWise that they have grown to include over

120 parental empowerment tools. We also heard testimony from companies

that analyze information on the Internet in real time, companies considering

children's online safety in wireless and broadband, and companies with many

creative approaches to Internet safety. None is a "magic bullet" for child

safety, but each may fit the needs of some families. Furthermore, there is

every reason to believe that these technologies will continue to develop and

thrive.

2.) Education works.

No law, technology, or corporate initiative can take the place of an

involved parent who understands the importance of exercising parental

control over children online. AOL has been leader in this area, and will

continue to educate children, parents, and other consumers about how to

have a safe online experience, and about their choices for parental controls.
We look forward to continuing work on this with other industry leaders,

educators, non-profit organizations, and especially parents.

AOL's internal efforts to educate consumers about online safety, useful childfriendly content, and the Parental Controls available to them have been an

extraordinary success. We believe that similar efforts must continue to take

place throughout the Internet industry. GetNetWise is a good example of the

kind of work that we can do together to educate families on Internet safety

and their choices of parental empowerment tools. AOL will continue to

promote public-private interest partnerships that focus on educating families

and caregivers on Internet and online safety.

3.) Existing laws with regard to child sexual exploitation, child

pornography, obscenity, and where clearly applicable, "harmful to minors,"

should be enforced.

Many law enforcement officers and children's safety advocates testified to the

COPA Commission that they are hard at work protecting our children from

sexual predators who use the Internet as a means of contacting children.

They testified that police resources are stretched thin, and that they had

trouble recruiting, training, and retaining sufficient officers to address this

problem.

Every level of government, from Congress and the Executive Branch of the

federal government on down must recommit themselves to protecting children

from online exploitation, and to making resources available to hire staff,

improve training programs, and foster cooperation between law enforcement

agencies and jurisdictions.

This Commission examined innumerable technologies and methods for

protecting children from harmful to minors material online. A well-informed

parent has the power to teach his or her child the safety rules of the Internet

and the power to find -- and fine-tune -- a technology that approximately

reflects that families' values. Unfortunately, the kind of broad-based multimedia education that families need in order to make informed choices online

does not have the reach it needs.
At AOL we have always believed that protecting children online must be a

collaborative effort between families, caregivers, and the private and public

sectors, including law enforcement. Particularly as technology evolves and

converges, we must look together for new ways to give parents the skills and

tools they need to keep up with technological advances. We all need to work

together supporting efforts such as GetNetWise, educating children, parents,

and caregivers about safe and appropriate online activity, and developing and

refining technological tools so that families and caregivers can make informed

choices about how their children use the Internet. AOL has been a leader in

these efforts and will continue this leadership.

Our work together must not stop with the submission of this report to

Congress. AOL is committed to remain involved in this critical national issue

and to continue pushing it forward.