Varying Approaches to Internet Safety:

The Role of Filters in Schools

An evening of reflections by senior officers and academics in six countries about
Internet filtering

Prepared by
Kathryn Moyle
University of Canberra, Australia
14 July 2009
Varying Approaches to Internet Safety

This paper has been prepared following discussions with senior officials from Ministries of Education,
national information and communication (ICT) policy bodies, or national school networking
organizations from Denmark, Sweden, The Netherlands, UK, the USA and Australia.

1. Introduction
The genesis of this paper was a dinner held in Austin, Texas USA, in March 2009 at the conclusion of the
annual conference organized by the US not-for-profit, the Consortium for School Networking (CoSN). A
small group of senior government officers and academics from Denmark, Sweden, The Netherlands,
USA, UK and Australia, shared an evening meal and discussed the practice of filtering on school
networks. With permission, this discussion was recorded and this paper has been prepared to
summarise the discussion held. This paper however, should not be considered as an ‘official record’ of
government or country positions. It represents the private views of informed guests.

The intention of the conversation held on that evening was to explore the different practices and
philosophies in which the home countries of those present, handled the education policies and practices
of filtering content in school education. The dinner guests could be thought of as belonging to one of
two groups: those home countries that do filter online content with software on servers (UK, USA and
Australia), and those who do not (Denmark, Sweden and The Netherlands).

Filtering was described as the use of blocking filters on schools’ servers. Filtering of the Internet can be
handled through both port-blocking (blocking services) as well as URL-blacklisting (i.e. blocking content).
The Internet is host to a number of services beyond the World Wide Web: email, video chat, and peer-
to-peer file-sharing among others. By convention, different services run on different ‘ports’: numbered
channels that separate transmission of data over the Internet. Particular ports can be blocked along the
way, preventing users on a particular network, a school for example, from engaging in online multiplayer
games, using Voice over Internet Protocols (VoIP) or email, while allowing Web pages to be displayed.
Alternatively, particular sites can also be blocked. Port blocking is used to stop people from engaging in
inappropriate activity with others on the Internet, as well as blocking traffic that can cost the
organisation a lot in traffic charges.

Technologies and the policies associated with their use are socially constructed. As such, the policies
influencing the use of technologies are reflective of the different values and interests that form part of
our respective social contexts. The five guests from ‘northern Europe’ - Denmark, Sweden and The
Netherlands, and the four guests from the USA, UK and Australia, acknowledged that these two groups
of countries share the same policy questions about how to keep young people safe on the Internet, but
address the issues in different ways. As one colleague said:
All our countries are comparatively affluent, Western countries. We all love our children just
the same. But we filter and you don’t.
Why is that?

2. Context
Our conversation began by posing the following questions:
· What are the filtering systems and policies of our respective countries?
· Where filtering is used, how is it managed?
· Apart from filtering are there other mechanisms or strategies used to achieve Internet safety?

1
Varying Approaches to Internet Safety

We then discussed the issues that arose from these initial questions. Throughout the conversation
different views and opinions were challenged and clarified.

2.1 Filtering systems and legislative requirements

The national policy of the Education Department in Denmark is not to filter content. Similar policies exist
in The Netherlands and Sweden. The question of whether to ‘filter or not’ in these European countries is
left to the local authorities. These local municipalities have considerable power, and the decisions about
which sites schools should block, are left up to officers at the local level. When a central government
department receives a complaint from a parent or the general public for example, these complaints are
referred to the local municipal level. Local decisions however, are taken in a context of national policies
where filtering is not mandated, and censorship is not tolerated.

In comparison, in the USA, UK and Australia filtering and surveillance of students’ use of the Internet is
seen as an important policy strategy at national, regional or local levels. For example, at a national level,
over the past 18 months the Australian Government has been proposing filtering at the Internet Service
Provider (ISP) level. Education Departments in the Australian states and territories filter content at the
jurisdictional level. In the USA, according to the Children’s Internet Protection Act, to receive Federal
funds for technology or E-Rate1 funds, then the school must filter online content. While US schools are
required to filter their online content, there is no national standard on how restrictive or open that
filtering should be. In addition to the use of Internet filtering software however, US schools are also
required to educate their students about how to use the Internet. Similarly, in the UK, there is a culture
of using Internet filtering software. Companies provide filtering software solutions to UK schools, and
various UK government agencies provide templates for schools’ Internet filtering policies.

As a consequence of placing a policy emphasis on filtering content, the roles of teachers in the USA, UK
and Australia include handling their own and students’ frustrations about lack of access to sites they
perceive to be legitimate and of value. There also tends to be a ‘bleeding’ of the policies where teachers
have to guide students away from potentially illegal activities such as ‘mashups’ and breaching
copyright. Unlike in Australia, the US and UK, in Denmark, Sweden and The Netherlands, filtering is not
seen as a legislative priority. Indeed, the opposite is the case: it would be seen as newsworthy if the
governments of these European countries proposed to introduce national filtering of education
networks.

2.2 How is filtering managed?

Filtering is a technical response to a social question about how to keep children safe on the Internet. In
Denmark, Sweden and The Netherlands it is up to local authorities to determine whether a site should
be blocked. In comparison, in Australia, government education departments tend to control content
filtering at the state or territory level, and in some cases at the regional level. It is up to officers in
individual schools to request sites to be unblocked.

It would seem then, that the main policy difference concerning the technical application of Internet
filtering software in Denmark, Sweden and The Netherlands on the one hand, and the UK, USA and
Australia on the other, is that the ‘baseline’ policy position in these European countries is to leave the
ports open unless at a local level there is an agreement to close them. In the UK, USA and Australia the

1
E-Rate is a national US initiative to provide financial support to schools and libraries to assist with funding their
telecommunications and Internet access costs.

2
Varying Approaches to Internet Safety

main ‘baseline’ policy position is to close ports and use filtering software, unless teachers and others at
the local level request a specific URL to be unblocked. It is probably easier however, to close a port and
block URLs, than it is to open them up.

2.3 Are there other mechanisms or strategies used to achieve Internet safety?
The dinner conversation also explored the differences between the motivations and mechanisms used in
our respective countries for managing Internet safety and controlling students’ behaviour, and the
different emphases put on these approaches. In Denmark, Sweden and The Netherlands, rather than
controlling specific technologies, an emphasis is placed upon building social responsibility, harnessing
positive social behaviours and controlling anti-social behaviours.

In the US, UK and Australia, while multiple approaches are used including a mixture of technical and
educational solutions, the starting point is to use technical responses such as to close ports and use
filtering software. Alongside of these technical responses, and depending on the location, there is the
development of national or state level education programs and policies. Then, in a cascading manner, at
the local level, schools develop specialised policies, sometimes using government-developed templates,
for policies such as ‘appropriate email use’, in order to define and control behaviour.

The policy approaches to developing responsible citizens in Denmark, Sweden and The Netherlands
were then further explored further.

2.3.1 ‘At school students study’

In Denmark, Sweden and The Netherlands, there are high expectations about how students behave at
school. The philosophy of these education systems is focused on students studying to achieve exemplary
results, rather than legislating to outlaw the use of particular technologies. Furthermore there is a
strong cultural expectation that teachers develop students’ understandings about what is good conduct.
It is considered a teacher’s responsibility to teach students that when they come to school they are to
concentrate on their studies.

Rules at the school level in these northern European countries then, tend to focus on establishing
expectations for achievement. For example, rules in many schools indicate that students cannot play
online games on school computers until after 3.00pm; and that students wanting to use computers for
school work have priority over students wanting to use computers for leisure activities. In addition to
the expectation that students focus on their studies at school in school time, there are also practical
reasons for having such rules in place. Controlling students’ access to online games during school hours
protects the available bandwidth for studying purposes, rather than it being used for recreational
purposes during school hours.

2.3.2 Bullying and cyberbullying

In Denmark, Sweden and The Netherlands there are strong rules about bullying. It is not acceptable for
children or adults to bully other children. Rather than an emphasis being placed on the technology, the
general policy issue is considered to be the question of what constitutes appropriate student behaviour.
It is acknowledged that bullying can occur across a range of media and so filtering of school networks is
not seen as the answer to issues of ‘cyber bullying’. Instead these European countries have chosen to
have strict education policies about bullying, no matter when and how it happens, rather than trying to
filter, or to control specific types of bullying with technical solutions.

3
Varying Approaches to Internet Safety

2.3.3 Criminal acts

Perpetrating pornographic and violent acts via the Internet is not considered acceptable in any of the
countries of the guests present. The social mores in Denmark, Sweden and The Netherlands however,
provide strong social sanctions against such anti-social and illegal behaviour. Illegal acts of violence or
pornography by school students are rare but if they do occur, these become the province of the police.
That is, there is clarity about when to change from educative to punitive processes; and about what is
the role of schools and what is the role of the police.

2.3.4Technical methods of control have limited effect

Dinner guests discussed examples where filtering online content in schools has failed or has had a
limited effect. They acknowledged the overall futility of using technical solutions to stop young people
accessing blocked sites. Everyone present could relate an anecdotal story or quote some research about
the multiple ways students use technologies outside of schools. To limit and control students’ access to
sites in schools however, seemed a counter- productive policy position doomed to failure, to the guests
from Denmark, Sweden and The Netherlands however, as a somewhat counter-productive policy
position, doomed to failure. They argued that students are by nature curious, especially about things
that are forbidden. They also argued that there are a lot of ways to circumvent school networks by
cracking the network or using mobile phones. Instead of attempting ever-grander technical solutions, in
Denmark, Sweden and The Netherlands, the bigger policy questions for them are about personal safety,
appropriate behaviours, and respect for others. These issues account for behaviours beyond those that
occur using technologies and therefore carry more policy ‘weight’.

Stories from Australia however, highlighted not only the futility of blocked sites, but also the reactions
from students when policies do not work as they were intended. Debate in Australia has been whirling
around during 2009 because the Australian Media and Communications Authority allegedly maintains a
secret list of around 2000 banned websites. Over the past few months several individuals claim to have
accessed the banned list and made the ‘secret’ list public. As a result, the Minister responsible for the
maintenance of this list has canvassed options such as referring such matters to the Australian Federal
Police. Furthermore, trials of filtering software in Australia have brought with it media stories in which
students are interviewed about the ease with which they have cracked the filtering systems and
accessed the forbidden sites. While politicians threaten criminality, software vendors respond with ever
more expensive and sophisticated filtering software.

2.4 Societal context

As a group we then explored the social contexts within our respective countries in relation to issues such
as censorship and the role of the media. In Denmark, Sweden and The Netherlands censorship is not
something that is generally supported by the public. The Danish constitution endorses freedoms such as
the freedom of the press and of religion. Furthermore, according to the Danish constitution,
“Any person shall be at liberty to publish his [sic] ideas in print, in writing, and
in speech, subject to his [sic] being held responsible in a court of law.
Censorship and other preventive measures shall never again be introduced”
(1953, § 77). 2

The Netherlands and Sweden have similar constitutions. Indeed, Sweden was one of the first countries
in the world to introduce a constitutional law that abolished censorship. Both these countries commit

2
The Constitutional Act of Denmark , (1953) http://www.folketinget.dk/pdf/constitution.pdf

4
Varying Approaches to Internet Safety

the freedom of the press to constitutional law, and all three countries (Denmark, Sweden and The
Netherlands) take seriously in practice, the freedoms enshrined in their respective constitutions.

Differences in the roles the media play in the respective countries were also discussed, to explore
whether there are relationships between the press and the constraints and blocks put on the Internet,
or not. The apparent duplicity of the press from time to time was acknowledged. While the press in
countries such as Australia, USA and UK seem to delight in reporting when students crack government
filtering systems, they also regularly carry horrific stories about instances of events such as
cyberbullying. Inevitably such stories lead to the simplistic solutions of ‘banning’ and ‘filtering’. These
stories also feed politicians paranoia about the ‘evil’ nature of the Internet. Political representatives in
Australia, USA and UK are acutely sensitive to the nature of media reporting about the use of the
Internet in schools. Filtering software is an easy policy answer to provide a Government Minister with
peace of mind.

3. Approaches to school education

As indicated earlier, the major policy issue being addressed through the use of content filtering is how to
keep children safe on the Internet. While Australia, the US and UK have chosen technical solutions as
their main policy approach, Denmark, Sweden and The Netherlands have chosen to address the issue as
one that should primarily be dealt with through education, with the use of supportive pedagogies. Using
education to address issues of Internet safety however, requires having faith and confidence in the
country’s teaching force. It also requires the provision of professional development programs for
educators, so they can learn how to support their students to learn how to be safe on the Internet.
Discussion about approaches to school education ranged across topics such as the pedagogies and the
culture of schools; notions of rule-making; and the role of parents.

3.1 Pedagogies and the culture of schools

Guests from all the countries present agreed that knowing how to stay safe on the Internet is something
that students must learn. Rather than creating punitive environments which can potentially push anti-
social behaviours below the surface, it was instead argued that creating environments of trust in which
the issues can be discussed should be created. Developing students’ ability to take responsibility for
their actions and to learn how to justify and explain why they chose to take particular actions over
others, were all seen as valuable learning experiences for students. But it was also argued that such a
pedagogical approach requires a school culture that is confident enough in itself and its identity
sufficiently embedded in the community, to enable students to debate such issues openly.

Those from Denmark, Sweden and The Netherlands talked about one of the roles of schools being to
create environments in which students feel safe to experiment, create new knowledge, and to take
risks. They argued that this is one of the reasons they suggest having computers in classrooms: it gives
teachers the ability to easily watch and guide students as they use the Internet for educative purposes;
and it allows them to monitor activities by students to ascertain whether they are appropriate for
school.

3.2 Notions of rule-making

Linked to the establishment of educational environments that foster learning with technologies, the
concept of rule-making was raised. There are iterative and reflexive relationships that exist between the
rules governing the use of the Internet at school and the culture of schooling. The differences in

5
Varying Approaches to Internet Safety

approaches to rule-making in the respective countries of those participating at dinner seemed to fall
into whether the rules governing Internet use should be created to be pre-emptive or reactive.

Colleagues from The Netherlands, for example, argued that the primary policy position should be to
start with educating children – not with forbidding things. Rather than creating rules to stop students
using technologies at school, it was argued instead to start with the philosophical position of accepting
that students may make mistakes and that the majority of students will do their best to do the right
thing. As such, the notion of rule-making to address potential issues created by a small minority of
potentially disruptive students while possibly disadvantaging the majority of students, was not seen as a
wise policy choice.

3.3 Role of parents

All the guests agreed that in each country, the role of parents in their students’ education is necessary
for students to achieve well at school. In the UK, there is an increasing responsibility being placed on
parents to be an active partner in their child’s education. In Denmark, Sweden and The Netherlands,
parents are seen as important and powerful stakeholders in the education of their children. In Australia,
the mutual responsibility of parents and schools is being advocated. Furthermore, in all the countries
present, parents can influence policy decisions by being a member of the school’s Governing Board,
School Council or a similar decision-making body.

It was reiterated in the discussions that in Denmark, Sweden and The Netherlands, if there is parental
disquiet at the local level about leaving particular sites and ports open to school students, these issues
can be dealt with through the available local decision making-mechanisms. These countries are pluralist,
democratic countries, and if there are sufficient people with similar concerns about a particular issue,
this issue can be raised at the local level and local solutions found.

The European Union is conducting the Safer Internet Project. Denmark, The Netherlands and Sweden are
all taking part in this project, which includes awareness-raising activities with parents about how their
children can stay safe on the Internet. The project suggests strategies for parents to use with their
children which include putting computers into public spaces in the house rather than into private,
individual spaces, and to talk with their children. While talking with children about strategies by which to
stay safe on the Internet is probably the cheapest option for parents, sometimes their lack of confidence
in their understanding about the Internet and in their own technical abilities can make such talking
difficult. Buying an off-the-shelf software package is then seen as an easy alternative option.

4. Metaphors
Throughout the dinner conversation, the guests used stories and metaphors to illustrate their views.
One of the metaphors used to illustrate the policy challenges facing educators around the world was
that of teaching children how to cross the road. Learning to cross the road is an inherently dangerous
thing to do, but in none of the countries present do we ban students from crossing the road as a
government policy. What we do instead is to teach children safe practices for crossing the road. We
employ strategies such as having adults accompany young children to help them cross busy streets until
they have sufficient experiences of roads and cars to demonstrate they are self-sufficient. Teachers
watch and guide students’ behaviour as they learn the road rules.

Similarly, we do not stop teenagers learning how to drive a car. We set up scaffolded approaches to
learning how to drive safely. These education programs generally include a mixture of learning the road

6
Varying Approaches to Internet Safety

rules, practising the requirements of driving, and learning how to respect others on the road. If these
drivers then violate the road rules in a manner that is sufficiently severe, then these drivers are
forbidden from driving and have their driving licences removed for a period of time or permanently,
depending on the violation.

The use of these metaphors during dinner assisted us to think about our views concerning how to stay
safe on the Internet, and about our respective countries’ approaches to Internet filtering.

5. Observations and reflections

The conversation that led to this paper opened up several further issues about which additional trans-
national conversations would be beneficial. Based upon some of the observations and reflections made
by the guests, here are some of these issues, presented as problematics. This list however, should not be
considered as either extensive or exclusive.
· What is ‘filtering’?
· Downloading and uploading?
· Duty of care?
· Models of IT deployment?
· Criminalising young people.

5.1 What are the implications of filtering online content?

As a group we agreed that to come to shared, deep understandings of what each other understood by
the term ‘filtering’ required more discussions such as the one held that evening. We generally accepted
that ‘filtering’ referred to the technical solution of blocking access to Internet sites at the level of the
server, or to Internet services by port-blocking.

We discovered however, that the term ‘filtering’ is also used as shorthand for the policies associated
with the basic technical response to the more complex social question of how to teach students to keep
safe on the Internet. The more we discussed what we understood by the implications of filtering
however, the more it became apparent that filtering can operate as a blunt policy instrument to
allegedly provide school students with safety on the Internet. It also became clear during the evening,
though, that policies to filter content are deeply linked to the culture of a society and are reflective of
the values of that society. As such, a more sophisticated understanding of what we collectively mean by
the term ‘filtering’ was seen to be required.

5.2 Downloading and uploading

Guests also observed that much of the emphasis and discussion about filtering tends to be focused upon
protecting students’ from inappropriate or dangerous downloads. We observed in our discussion
though, that there is also an issue about teaching students what is safe and appropriate to upload. The
often perennial nature of data storage on the Internet means that some circumspection is required by
individuals about what private information they should upload. Frank, frivolous and ‘silly’ material
uploaded to social networking sites during students’ teenage years for example, could later be seen as a
possible impediment to getting future employment. Teaching students how to establish ‘sunsets’ on
personal information on social networking sites through the privacy settings on sites such as Facebook
may be one practical way to address this issue.

7
Varying Approaches to Internet Safety

5.3 ‘Duty of care’ argument

In the USA, educators talk about how the school has a legal requirement of acting ‘en parentis’. In
Australia and the UK this responsibility is described as a ‘duty of care’. One of the benefits of filtering
online content seen in Australia and the UK is the assistance filtering software provides to teachers to
meet their ‘duty of care’ requirements to the children attending their schools. The types of ‘duty of care’
policies used in Australia and UK indicate that filtering is the baseline policy position, and it is justified
because the protection of students when on the Internet is a school’s and an education department’s
‘duty of care’ responsibility to the students. That is, protecting students from potentially harmful sites
and from potentially harming others through accessing anti-social sites, is constructed as a ‘duty of care’
responsibility of the school. Technical solutions are then promoted to address those potential problems.
This policy position is constructed as a ‘pre-emptive strike’. But using filtering in this way outsources
parents’ and educators’ responsibilities to deal with the substantive issue of how children can stay safe
on the Internet.

In Denmark, Sweden and The Netherlands, teachers are encouraged to teach their students about wider
issues than simply what websites they should or should not go to. Students are taught about how they
relate to other people using the Internet; what sorts of things happen in their community; what sorts of
photos they should upload to the Internet; and about how to safely communicate with their friends. It
was argued that there are so many things happening between children and adults, to think that these
can be stopped with filtering was seen to be naïve – instead safety on the Internet is considered to be
about relationships. It was further argued that choosing a technical filtering solution to address these
complex issues, far from being an exercise in duty of care, is actually an abdication of duty of care, and
that by having an open Internet enables the necessary teaching of students to occur, in order to prepare
them as capable and responsible citizens once they leave school.

5.4 Models of IT deployment

Links between models of IT deployment and filtering policy approaches were also briefly discussed. Just
as there are iterative and reflexive relationships between the rules governing the use of the Internet at
school and the culture of schooling, so too there are iterative and reflexive relationships between
technical filtering solutions, our views of education, and the model of IT deployment used. The IT
architecture of a network influences the extent to which filtering blocks are applied, and these technical
responses in turn influence pedagogical practices. The nature of these reflexive relationships however,
requires considerably more thought and discussion.

On a slightly different note, our discussion also covered the possibility of creating sufficiently neutral IT
networks that would allow students to bring their own devices to school rather than relying on the
school’s equipment. Such an option is easier if filtering software is not part of the equation. Indeed, our
colleagues from Denmark advised us that in 2 or 3 years in Denmark, upper secondary and universities
must be 100% wireless.

5.5 Criminalising young people

One of the moral challenges facing countries where there are serious legal consequences for students
accessing blocked sites is the criminalisation, or similar, of these young people. The old adage that the
punishment should fit the crime however, ought to provide a reflection point from which to consider
what are the implications of creating blocked sites as a country or a region’s first policy position. It is
salutary to note that it took the Catholic Church until the 20th century to denounce the Index of the
Catholic Church, which was a list of prohibited books. The Index was only abolished in 1966, almost 500
years after its creation. The aim of the Index was to protect the well-being of the followers of the

8
Varying Approaches to Internet Safety

Catholic Church by preventing them reading books deemed as ‘immoral’. In Australia in the 21st century
the alleged list of banned websites mentioned earlier does not seem so far away from the past practices
of the Catholic Church.

6. Summary
This paper summarises the conversation between nine informed dinner guests who reside in six
different countries. We discussed philosophical and policy questions associated with filtering content
and how to teach students how to stay safe on the Internet. We concluded that, as yet, the interactions
between technologies and pedagogies on this issue are not sufficiently unpacked or understood. We
also reflected upon the efficacy of seeking technical solutions to pedagogical problems. We were not all
convinced that the quick and convenient policy approach of using filtering software necessarily
addresses the challenging and complex societal issues associated with keeping children safe on the
Internet. We agreed that these issues require much more discussion, because they raise questions of
freedom, censorship, the safety of minors, pedagogies and technologies. We felt that we had begun to
understand the complexity of the interplays between these different concepts, but much more work is
required.

The ‘duty of care’ debate most starkly highlights that different policy approaches are being used to meet
the same policy outcomes in our respective countries. Yet ‘duty of care’ is not really the final endpoint
towards which we are aiming. The fundamental question for educators around the world is, what
knowledge, skills and capabilities are those with which students should leave school, if they are to be
educated, confident, respectful, tolerant lifelong learners, who are able to meet the various challenges
they will face in the first half of the 21st century?

Acknowledgements

CoSN would like to thank Kathryn Moyle and the participants in this discussion. We believe this is the type of
global discussion which is useful to educators and policymakers, and enables better 21st century learning.
We at CoSN are particularly proud that the informal discussions at the CoSN annual conference sparked this
important exploration of how various countries deal with Internet safety concerns for students. The views
expressed in this paper are, of course, the views of the individuals and do not necessarily represent the views
of CoSN.

Thanks to CoSN and to the dinner guests involved for their generosity of time and ideas in assisting in the
preparation of this paper. Without their input this paper would not have been possible.
Kathryn Moyle