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.
Is it normal for your company to block such large art sites?
Have you ever blocked major museums who's sites show images
of fine art containing nudity? Or do they remain accessable
due to their high profile in the art world?
Also, how do you determine what fine art needs to be blocked?
Is it any art that contains nudity? even though it is art?
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
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
seems to be the case as CyberPatrol blocked Sito.org.
I am already pretty 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)