ComputerCop
content control software
ComputerCop (stylized ComputerCOP) is content control software developed by the Bohemia, New York–based company ComputerCop Software. The software offers the ability for users to scan content on a computer (such as files, images, video, and web browser history) for objectionable content, along with a key logging component that allows parents to be notified if certain words are being typed. Upon its original release, the software was endorsed by NYPD detective Bo Dietl, and was originally branded as Bo Dietl's One Tough Computer Cop (in reference to his autobiographal film One Tough Cop). It initially only contained scanning software; later versions dropped Dietl's endorsement and branding, but also added a keylogger.
The software, which is intended to promote children's internet safety, is not generally sold to the public, but is sold directly to local law enforcement agencies and police departments in bulk with custom branding and endorsements, and then distributed to the public at no charge as a form of outreach.
The software gained infamy in October 2014 following the release of a report by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a non-profit digital rights group, which alleged that ComputerCop was privacy-invasive due to a number of security flaws, including the storage and transmission of key logging output in a non-encrypted format. The reports resulted in varying responses from agencies which had planned to, or had distributed the software, although they continued to endorse the software for its public safety benefits.
Operation
ComputerCop is distributed on a CD-ROM, and consists of two software components; a content scanner, and a key logger. The scanner can be run directly off the CD, and performs a scan of the system's hard drive for files containing objectionable content, and a user's web browsing history for objectionable websites. While it can scan the content of file names and documents for keywords relating to such content, it cannot scan the content of images themselves.
“ComputerCop” enters the record as content control software. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what ComputerCop, content and control can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“ComputerCop” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, ComputerCop, content and control provides the most credible route into that argument.
The date and method of observation matter as much as the stated conclusion, especially where classification or consensus has changed. The source revision retrieved here is dated Apr 24, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q18206134. 1 of 1 selected statements include explicit references; 0 carry qualifiers and 0 use preferred rank. The first chronological checks are 2014.
Current terminology should not be projected backward without checking the classification used when the underlying evidence was created. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Check terminology, classification and the date of the cited evidence. Scientific names and technical consensus can change while older records retain historical value.
- Current terminology
- Classification context
- Finding cited technical literature
Primary datasets, specimen catalogues, standards bodies and the most recent peer-reviewed literature.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “ComputerCop”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow ComputerCop primary sources, ComputerCop archive and ComputerCop research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “ComputerCop”?
- Which observation, specimen, dataset or publication supports the account?
- Has classification or technical consensus changed since the cited source?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “ComputerCop” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.