As an artist, I was really concerned when I heard that
CyberPatrol was blocking a major art site called Sito.org.
This particular site contains fine art from many hundreds
of living artists from around the world.
Even blocking a subsection of such an art site, to me,
seems extreme. What is your company's criteria for determining
if something is "adult material" or not? Do you even consider
the fact that it is, afterall, art?
If so, how do you determine what fine art needs to be blocked?
Is it any art that contains nudity? Or is it just works that
people complain about?
Art is a very subjective thing and each person interprets
pieces in their own way. If someone finds a piece objectionable,
do you just block it without thought as to the artistic value
the work may have?
Do you block only works of unknown artists of today because
you do not feel that their work is considered to be art?
Or do you block access to the masters works who are no longer
with us as well?
It's very disconcerting to see a company such as CyberPatrol
trying to determing what is or isn't art when your company
most likely has little knowledge of the arts. At least this
seemed to be the case when CyberPatrol blocked the Sito.org
I am already concerned about blocking software because it gives
alot of power to a few people who determine what should or shouldn't
be seen. The ACLU just wrote an excellent white paper on the issues
and problems that blocking software and rating systems cause which
I encourage you to read. Please see:
I look forward to your response.
Art on the Net (art.net)