Online Rights And Real World Censorship? 588
Denubis asks: "I'm a firm believer in the freedom of expression, free speech, anti-censorchip, et al, and recently I've found myself walking a very fine line. I've been asked to create a list of 'blocked' keywords (and/or URLs) for a proxy server for a community 'Internet' automatic laundry. However, as an avid reader on Slashdot, I've been indoctrinated about free speech, anti-censorware, and all those wonderful topics that I quite firmly believe in. However, my ideals now get to meet the real world, and they're finding a rude awakening. As a semi-public service, we cannot allow ourselves to display porn, since a junior high school is across the street. How do I make a list of keywords that will satisfy that requirement yet allow someone to look up breast cancer research, or the recipe to chicken Parmesan? My question to Slashdot is "What happens when our ideals hit the real world?"
"How do we deal with the censorship issue ourselves, so that we can offer constructive solutions instead of ranting, raving, and otherwise having fun? On a side note, this automatic laundry (using smart-cards) is located in South Central LA, and is in a very poor area where people haven't been exposed to the Net. How do we go about quelling their fears about the Net?"
Blah, blah, blah... (Score:2)
Be honest, if your going to go ahead and do this, your 'beliefs' are in reality 'things which you consider to be a good idea.' Say that to yourself. A belief would have you refuse or quit, and you're not going to do that. Having accepted that fact, do what you must. Perhaps someday you will find something in which it is worth believing.
Where did you get that statistic? Slashdot? (Score:2)
Actually 75% of females, and 73% of males have no had sex at age 15, and the average age of the first sexual experience is approximately 17 years, according to mangrove and terry's work, available at http://www.childtrends.org/r_ac.cfm [childtrends.org].
Please check the stats before you post them.
----------------------------
Old enough to make their own decisions.... (Score:2)
----------------------------
The Billion Dollar Question (Score:2)
If someone here knew a good way to do it, they could make a pretty penny selling their solution themselves, or to one of the big name censorware companies. They haven't so far, and I think that tells you something.
The industry has tried URL lists, keywords, heck, even picture recognizition, and none of them have solved the problem to everyone's satisfaction (despited what their marketing departments will tell you).
My suggestion is to take a low-tech approach:
- Don't allow anyone under the age of 18 on the computers. Period. This will make some people mad, but I suspect not very many of your customers fall into this category.
- Put the computer in a very visible location. There is still enough of a social taboo against pornography that you can use the subtle threat of "getting caught" as a deterrent.
- State your usage policy clearly on the wall. If an employee catches someone using the system inappropriately, kick them off, revoke their account, etc.
- Scare people with a warning that "for the security of our customers" all internet usage is logged. Whether or not you actually do that is irrelevant. Again, the suspicion of being caught will work wonders.
I think this will be more successful in the long run than trying to do the impossible.Arrest the abusers... (Score:2)
In Mionnesota (and probably other states) it is illegal to view pornographcis images. Just put print out a copy of the relavent law, and in large print hang some signs "Warning, we will provide evidence to law enforcement." (Make sure you provide the evidence when you find it!)
The advantage is you don't block anything accidently. If someone wants to take a chance, that is their problem. If they think they are going to a legitmate sight and "accidently" end up at the wrong one, let the courts sort it out. (Whitehouse.com comes to mind as a potentialy accident). If you are researching breast cancer, tell that to the judge.
Just remember to make the signs big so that nobody can claim they weren't warned. And it wouldn't hurt to face the monitors towards the donut shop so cops can see it...
Remember too, most people want their porn in private. I don't know anyone who doesn't know one prude that they wouldn't want to know about their porn habbits. A public place is therefore not someplace people will be looking for porn, just go the last step to scare them away.
You Have Been Trolled,You Have Lost,Have A NiceDay (Score:2)
-----
The real meaning of the GNU GPL:
Mayberry? (Score:2)
Re:i tend to think this is futile (Score:2)
>access", you know they'll go through trying every
>single porn site until they hit one that beats >your filters
Completely true. And they're smart enough to disable Java to avoid pop-ups, too. I've worked at a public access center before.
And let's not forget that the web is not the entirety of the Internet. Don't forget that there's a few orders of magnitude more porn through newsgroups than on the web, and it's far, far easier to find. Web filters don't block any of that.
There's your solution: Do whatever you're bosses want you to do, but feel safe in the fact that Usenet, email, and FTP will remain open to those users willing to take the time to use them.
keyword filtering == useless (Score:2)
WARNING: the following are actual links to a real live porn site. if you are offended by graphic nudity or are underage, dont click on them. i hereby disclaim any responsibility for the consequences of following the links.
before [pornopeeps.com] and after [cgi.exit.de] filtering through the l33t surfer.
as you can see, all of the naughty words (and all the non-naughty ones as well) are pretty unreadable, but the pictures are still there. any links you subsequently follow from that page are also filtered by the CGI. observant folks will notice that the META tags used by search engines arent touched by the l33t surfer's CGI program, but im sure it would be a trivial modification to make them unreadable as well.
my point is, as long as someone can sit down and search out a filtering site like this one (babelfish anyone? try filtering porn in bad translations of several languages), keyword filtering will be futile.
--Siva
Keyboard not found.
think first of what you want to provide (Score:2)
There are three main kinds of answer coming out here: social, technical and ideological.
The social ones are most interesting, to me at least. They go something like, 'build your space so that normal social pressures move people away from the behaviour you don't want to encourage'. Which is smart, but defeats the object.
apart from the getting people to choose your particular laundry object.
Let's say someone is trying to work out whether they're gay or not. Or they want to become a muslim, or find out whether their kid is disabled or not or what technically constitutes impotence. or any of a hundred other things that you or i would use the net to find out about and probably wouldn't want people looking over our shoulder while we did it.
it's too easy to think of censorship only in terms of blocks and cuts: by denying people their privacy you are censoring their access to anything that might be poorly tolerated within their community.
if there's a point, then isn't it to broaden and propagate this rich access to information, make it more than the playground of the rich and technical minority? the best thing about the net is that it's inherently agnostic about everything, and to my mind the point of the anti-censorship debate - in its practical form - is to keep it that way, despite the deep unease it creates in people whose interests are served by restricting access to information. Which is just about anybody who's trying to persuade you to buy, use or believe in something.
(which brings up a question i've always wanted to ask here: what's the point of circumventing technical barriers to freedom of information, if you don't also address the economic barriers?)
so my answer to the question is that you should instead think about the access to information that you want to create, work out how you're going to do that and only then consider what you will need to exclude in order not to get closed down, and whether you can still do the thing you wanted to do.
My experience as a library sysadmin (Score:2)
The librarians were a lot less concerned than we were. They told us to just leave the access completely open, and if it became a problem, we'd address the problem at that time. We were a little surprised, but were happy to not deal with the technical and ethical issues.
The librarians were right. The machines were in well-trafficked areas, usually with reference librarians nearby, and we received no reports of any problems. I'm sure some people went and viewed porn on them a few times, but if so, then the simple shoulder-tap by a librarian sufficed to handle it.
The simple fact is that most people would rather view porn privately, and porn mags are cheaper and higher-quality than paying for online access to view porn in a public place, and people who are determined to make a scene have far better ways to do so than by using an public-access terminal.
You don't bar people from bringing in magazines just because someone could bring in a hardcore mag and show it to someone's nine-year-old, do you? No; you don't expect them to do that, and if you do, you tell them to buzz off. Same goes here.
Just put the terminals out there. Avoid dark corners, try to have them facing a staff person, but don't be too paranoid about it. Post the usage policies, and specifically point them out to new users, so they have no excuse for violating them. Address problems as they arise, but not sooner.
The one thing you might want to do is make sure that the browser restarts after 5-10 minutes of idle time. The main reason for this is to avoid user confusion -- if an inexperienced user walks up to a web browser and it's showing the ESPN homepage, for instance, they will often get the impression that all the terminal can do is browse ESPN's site. (Besides, you want to have a branded homepage with good links, and you want the user to see your page and your links, not ESPN's.) But it also has the side effect of ensuring that if someone has been browsing unsuitable sites, the next user won't see them on the screen and complain.
Alan
An adaptive solution (Score:2)
(1) start with a fairly simple solution. Something that covers the "reasonable attempt to block obscene content" hurdle and will go a little way toward staving off lawsuits.
(2) Log (anonymously -- you don't care who's accessing what) every page accessed and every page blocked.
(3) Once a week, review, say 200 each of the blocked and viewed pages. There will probably be relatively few blocked pages, anyway.
(4) If your basic rules failed on one of those pages -- a false positive or false negative -- revise your rules. Then check which of the logged pages would move across the Line Of Truth and keep tweaking the rules until you're happy.
(5) Lather, rinse, repeat.
No static solution will ever match perfectly; a responsible administrator should update the rules to adapt to new trends and to correct lingering bugs. Adapt, adapt, adapt.
--G
Re:You may not want to hear this, but..... (Score:2)
I've been asked to do similar things for the school district I work for, but thus far I have been able to stall and put it off; fortunately, it's not presently a big issue where I am.
When it gets to be, then I'll quit. Yeah, it'll suck, but it's not like I'm being asked to pick up an M-16 and go to the front lines. If your ideals are so weak that they'll fold in the face of financial hardship, why bother having ideals at all? You have to ask yourself, "If I'm willing to sell out freedom of expression in exchange for a consulting fee, what will else will I sell out, and how cheaply?"
The previous poster who suggested that refusal to compromise would lead to a miserable existence is mistaken in this instance. There are plenty of jobs available that don't involve censorship. Pick one, and sleep well.
--
Use a service (Score:2)
http://www.bess.net/ [bess.net]
before we ended up dropping the project. They offer a service where you filter Internet access to only connect to their proxy, then you set up your Web browser to use it. They worry about finding inappropriate sites, which is a full-time job for several people. They have contacts in case you catch them allowing something they shouldn't be, or blocking something they shouldn't be.
Apart from not having to maintain a list of blocked sites, the nice thing about using a service is that the user can't just uninstall Net-Nanny from the PC to get around the restrictions; the restrictions are implemented on a router they do not have access to.
I also haven't heard any stories of N2H2 blocking sites critical of them, or blocking sites that contain anything other than obscene material, although I haven't actively looked.
When I played with them, I was able to find sites that weren't on their list, but it was hard, and they may have gotten better since then.
Re:Have you tried explaining why censorware fails? (Score:2)
What else could attempt to keep children out of porn sites? Supervising their access is the only option I can think of, and that's going to be more expensive than censorware. I suppose you could put up signs stating that children aren't allowed to access porn, but depending on local laws, that might not be good enough.
Re:You need to block more than just the porn. (Score:2)
Or worse,
SANTA CLAUS DOES NOT EXIST
This hypothetical situation is of no signifcance whatsoever (other than proving ones self-righteousness in a condescending, sarcastic, ineffectual manner). There is no legal obligation for a proprietor to keep these words from being viewed by children. Porn is another story completely.
This whole question all falls back to one thing: Legal Liability. It's not about protecting the children, it's about showing a good faith effort to abide by the laws that exist in order to avoid lawsuits, plain and simple.
Re:Have you tried explaining why censorware fails? (Score:2)
I agree, but as a company that's providing public unsupervised internet access, you have to show that you're at least making an effort to protect underaged children from smut. That's why they put those plastic boards in front of the nudie mags at 7-11.
By not doing anything, you open yourself to a wide range of frivolous, sefl-serving lawsuits.
Would this be Possible............ (Score:2)
For example, a simple parse of the code for porn sites not only have offensive language in them, but also have images with names like "cumshot1.jpg". A condition for to be blocked could be 5 consored words in 10, and images with blocked words. This was, even a site that may have "fuck" in it(like this thread) would go though. While "fuck my tits with hard cock" would be blocked.
Maybe you could even take this idea a step further. Have the program re-script the web page. Be helpful in web searches. Have rules set up to what Yahoo!, Google, etc. search results HTML looks like, can have it filter out results based on the same set of rules. Then you can search for "breast cancer" and not get 50 porn sites as the top matches.
Just an idea......
Re:On Censorware In General (Score:2)
No it wouldn't - there are plenty of people who are really unhappy about kids discovering alternate viewpoints on religion, health, sexuality, and so forth. None of those things are necessarily sexually explicit or obscene, but they are adult topics - they make adults uncomfortable and there are plenty of adults who are dead set on passing on their closed mindsets to children.
There would be one benefit - moving porn into its own TLD would force people to admit that it isn't really the sex on the Internet that bothers them, it's the openness and the freedom. Once the public has to admit that it's been living in the dark ages, maybe some attitudes will start changing.
Be clear and inform them (Score:2)
Re:You need to block more than just the porn. (Score:2)
The first few were accually arguments against that clame. Others argumenst for it. Many are convoluted and/or scary. To a child not quite ready for this level in indept philosophical argument it could scare far worse than porn.
But it's not about protecting kids. It's purely liability. Thies filters don't protect kids and it will allways be up to parents to be activly involved.
But this is purely a liability issue. The kids will still be damaged but it won't be from porn.
(as if seeing the nude human form could cause damage)
Grrr. (Score:2)
Second off, don't sell out. You already know censorship is bad. Your "real world" thing boils down to this: "I have a job and I want to sell out so I can make butt loads of cash." That is all fine and good, but I really hope you are thinking long and hard about what you are doing here.
My solution to this "wash-n-surf" thing? Don't do it. You can't censor the net. It is already doomed to failure based on your criteria.
Re:You have so many preconceptions and a narrow mi (Score:2)
I am not advocating censorship! Let's get our definitions in order. I do not advocate the blocking or filtering of websites on your computer, or anyone else private computer. I have in the past advocated supervision for computers publically accessible by children, but supervision of children is a far different thing than denial or blockage.
And I am not a prude. I find the "yucky" stuff like coprophilia to be indeed yucky. And I find leathers, whips and handcuffs to be strange and not at all titillating. This is not prudishness (look it up). I mentioned some types of sexual behavior because many parents would find it objectionable to expose their children to it. Perhaps these parents are indeed prudish. Perhaps they're overly protective. So what? It is not a crime to be prudish.
"it's your responsibility as a parent to set out boundaries for your youngster and teach him/her not to cross them"
No one is arguing against this...
"not my responsibility as someone who wants to provide a free Net terminal in my laundromat/restaurant/bookstore/whatever, to make sure I dumb down my Net access just for your kids."
I am not saying it is your responsibility. You can do whatever you want within your own private sphere, including your private laundromat. That's not the point. The original poster seemed to think that it might be somewhat prudent to filter the net access since *his* laundromat was so close to a school. If he does decide to restrict net access, and you don't like it, the solution is simple: don't patronize his establishment!
"Use whatever you want in private, I don't care."
Last I checked, the vast majority of Laundromats in the United States were private. I am absolutely confident that the one mentioned is private. I am belaboring this point because I am seeing exactly the same emotional outrage against this private use of filterware as I saw a few months ago when it was in reference to public libraries. The equal levels of outrage make me think that some people are unaware of the differences between public and private.
">What possibly right do you have to pick and choose who is fit to be a parent?...
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America gives me that right.
Perhaps I am parsing the English language wrong. Please excuse the following mini-rant if I misunderstood you. You may have the right to hold an opinion on the topic, express it in speech, press or other medium, and even hold public assemblies for the purpose of getting your views adopted as law, but you do not have the right to deny parentage to anyone! Certainly you have the right to advocate tyranny, because that's what you're doing.
Now that I think about, I am certain that I misparsed your previous statement simply because it is so outrageous.
"Libertarian my ass--I'm a libertarian, and you're too narrow minded to see the forest for the trees."
Libertarianism is about the non-initiation of force. Censorware and internet filtering software does not initiate force. It is not coercive. Neither does the use of it in laundromats consitute coercion. In fact, the use of filterware in public libraries does not initiate force either, only the collection of taxes to support them does.
A laundromat that installs filtering software does not infringe on your rights any more than a liquor store that decides not to carry adult magazines does.
Re:Yes, it is about prudiskness, and censorship... (Score:2)
Unfortunately, the law says that you are a minor until the 18th anniversary of your birth, regardless of whether you were born premature or not
However stupid this law is, it also has the stupid corollary that parents have the legal responsibility for their minor children, no matter how mature they may be (or how immature they may be after turning 18).
"Today's cut off ages are a legal kludge, they do amount to stomping all over my freedoms, and they don't work very well, but no one has a better system in mind."
The law being what it is, a line has to be drawn somewhere. Personally, I am of the opinion that when a child decides he or she is mature, they move out of the home, get a job, and support themselves. Other societies in the past have worked this way, and from all accounts, were relatively successful at it.
"Americans are generally really prudish, and this is what is causing this debate in the first place."
Prudish? Not really. Look up the word. You'll find adjectives like "excessive" and "extreme" in reference to an attitude. Sexually uptight and/or repressed? Absolutely! America isn't perfect, but then again, neither is any nation. Other nations may not have our problems in the area of sexuality, but they have just as much or maybe more bad juju in other areas.
I first visited Europe when I was 16. I was immediately struck by the abundance of nudity in advertising. I thought it strange, and then being in the throes of adolescent hormonal overflows, I thought it both repugnant and fascinating. But at the same time I witnessed other European behaviors that were just as repressive as this American "prudishness".
Ideals and Reality (Score:2)
The first thing you need to do is figure out what your ideals really are. And get your definitions in order. All too often we go through life with half-baked ideals and fuzzy definitions, and when we discover that reality is rock-solid and not subject to our perceptions, then it will be us that have to bend.
I seriously doubt that your ideal on censorship is your right to expose other people's children to pornography. Ideal hits reality and reality wins again. Despite what those in the ivory towers (or slashdot pits) say, there is indeed pornography on the net and it is easy to access and parents can't watch over their children 25 hours a day. So figure out what your ideal really is.
And maybe you need to get your definition of "censorship" in order. We would all agree that government institutions have no right to censor. And we probably all agree that parents do have the right to limit their children's access to certain materials. But you need to figure out where to draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable censorship. If a liquor store owner can go to jail for selling Hustler to a minor, then you too have the possibility of landing in the same cell by selling a minor pornographic access.
I'm not sure what "Surfnwash" does, or how it will operate. But I think your real question is not "what happens when our ideals hit the real world?" but rather "what competent blocking software or mechanisms are available?"
Re:Filtering by Words is Insanely Foolish... (Score:2)
It's not about being prudish, it's about blocking off what you don't want to see. I don't like going into adult bookstores, and when I see one I simply do not enter. Simple, huh? But that's not how it works on the internet.
Objecting to double penetration, copraphilia, bondage, sadism, 'barely legal', and even bestiality does not qualify as prudery. (yes, bestiality, I saw a bannerad for it at a swimsuit site last week) My biggest objection however is the insistance that I can't keep my children away from anything that isn't immediately fatal.
What happens when our ideals hit the real world? (Score:2)
Well, they see what's actually going on, they run back to your cortex for the autopsy.
Here's a list (Score:2)
Microsoft
MPAA
RIAA
Lawyer
Janet Reno
Apple
DoubleClick
I'm sure there are others but this is a good start.
Re:Is a better solution people instead of filters? (Score:2)
This is a good idea - but only for the context of a school (okay, *I* don't like it).<p>
The problem is defining "What are we offering?". If you're just providing "Kill some time" terminals, then any censorware should work (use one less than foolproof for intelligent people to get around).<p>
If, however, you're trying to provide a "Community Service", then having the terminals obviously watched is going to be VERY counterproductive. Think about a scared teenage girl who wants to make a decision for herself, and tries to research "adoption" and "abortion". Consider a macho guy who is starting to be worried, and wants to look up an anonymous AIDS testing facility. Censorware is also likely to hinder both searches.<p>
A public facility like a laundomat is *perfect* for those who don't have home or business net access but who could use the resources available on the web. There are plenty of people, either blue collar workers or otherwise intelligent but not web-savvy, who would want an open terminal... do you think our hypothetical football quarterback from a family unable to afford a computer would ask a friend to look up VD symptoms on his AOL account?<p>
Consider your *purpose*, and then adjust the capabilities accordingly.
<p>
--<br>
Evan
Re:On Censorware In General (Score:2)
Many sites will have a backdoor access page that is designed to avoid being filtered by keyword blockers, just as the main site is designed to be found by porno search engines. The result is that using any filter that is not overly conservative, will still allow a fair amount of adult content for those eager to find it (aka. horny kids)
I haven't been to an internet cafe in a while: Is there a large percentage of persons using the internet to surf for porn? Are there many kids in there porn surfing?
Re:On Censorware In General (Score:2)
This is something I don't think gets enough attention nowadays. I think that a business owner should be permitted to allow or disallow smoking, drinking, nakedness, being white, being black, being purple, adhering to a particular religious belief, being a certain gender or whatever within his/her establishment. It's frustrating to me when the government steps in and tells a business owner what they are permitted to do with their resources (within certain limits, of course. Killing people and taking pictures of naked children is just not OK). We as the consuming public have the right to patronize that business, or not, at our discretion. This is critically different from the public library, which I am compelled to support with my tax dollars.
Food for thought.
Very very easy (Score:2)
So here's what you do:
Setup 10 kiosks. Make 3 of them "adult" (meaning they have no filter and you must present proof of age before using) and 7 of them "non-adult" (meaning everyone can use them but content is filtered--possibly over-zealously). You can put gradations in there like "anyone can use it but the session is logged" or whatever you want.
Objection: But underage kids can just get an overage kid to log them onto the adult kiosk.
Response: Yes, and that same overage kid could buy them cigarettes, beer, R-rated movie passes, etc.
Objection: But then underage kids can't do research without a parent or guardian.
Response: We're talking about a laundromat, right?
--
Use a scare tactic of sorts (Redux) (Score:2)
I mentioned this strategy on another thread, but here's my thought: make sure that the terms of service includes something to the following effect
The user realizes that [your organization] provides these terminals as a public service, and as such reserves the right to restrict or deny access to these terminals on the basis of improper usage, as determined by the judgement of [your organization]. Improper usage includes but is not limited to:
In the event that usage not listed here is deemed to be improper usage, a warning will be sent regarding the matter. Further violations will result in revocation of usage privileges.
(Here's the biggie) In order to ensure that such standards are met, usage logs (including but not limited to sites accessed) will be maintained and reviewed on a continuing basis. Any evidence that improper usage is occurring will be investigated and dealt with. Also, any reports of observed improper usage will be investigated.
(Here's where you allay concerns about Big Brother) [Your organization] reserves these rights as the owner/maintainer of the equipment and facilities provided. Nevertheless, in respect to individual privacy, any information which does not relate to the restrictions indicated will be disregarded and will not be provided to any third party without prior consent from the individual(s) referenced by said information and/or a court order from the government for specific information. Any persons associated with [your organization] that disregards this will be (list vile punishments here; termination + the company's willingness to cooperate in civil or criminal proceedings should suffice).
In short, you're telling people "Be responsible. We own the stuff you're using, that gives us the right to make sure you aren't being asses about it. We'll be watching. Screw up, and we nail you to the wall. Keep it acceptable, however, and we'll tactfully forget anything else you may do."
If an organization holds itself to the same standards that it expects of it's users in regard to civic duty (and puts it in writing), then legitimate users should have nothing to fear. It's a hell of a lot more effective than babysitting them, IMUO.
-TBHiX- ;)
IANAL, but sometimes I think I should have been.
Pathetic (Score:2)
I cringe reading this.
Sounds like the advice Clinton's lawyer gave him just before he said he "never had sexual relations with that woman".
.02
My
Quux26
Lets take this a step farther (Score:2)
Or am I taking this too far
Keyword Filtering? In English? French? Japanese? (Score:2)
I guess some website could spend, oh, about ten minutes one day, render all their text as tiny GIFs, then use a script to replace the text with the GIF of that letter, and completely bypass keyword filtering by not having a single letter of text on their website. Except for the meta and title tags. But those could refer to Martha Stewart and George Washington and other words that keyword filtering deems "OK".
Re:Obscene language is the key (Score:2)
1) bad webdesign (bandwidth-robbing, cannot be indexed etc.) and
2) not automatically detectable.
So there will always be sites that 'escape'.
Another question: How to handle a website that is made up of many pages in its subdirectories? Something like xoom or geocities comes to mind. While one person might upload all of his pr0n there, another one has insightful material on his last vacation (boring yet harmless). Where does one draw the line?
Re:Obscene language is the key (Score:2)
It would be interesting to know if search engines have more advanced heuristics to put content into different sections like 'personal homepage', 'news site' etc. In a perfect world everyone would truthfully fill in the details in the meta elements, but that is certainly not the case.
Options (Score:2)
Action: Refuse to censor. Get fired. Contact the media.
Side effect: poverty
Goal: protect the kiddies, unless they're persistent
Action: Get commercial censorware. Allow users to disable it with a password. Post flyer saying "NO PORN! If you want a password and have read our policy, email me your name. If cyberpatrol is blocking something you think it shouldn't be, email peacefire.org.". Then make a few spot checks of the log for the most frequent users.
Side effect: you give money to the bad guys.
Goal: Do what you can do on your own to make pr0n a nuisance
Action: block jpeg's and realmedia. Allow access with a login, as above
side effect: lots of pages will look cheesy without the login. Hate speech and textual porn will get through, but you probably won't get caught for that.
this is sorta redundant.. (Score:2)
i covered some of it below, but oh well.. he gets +4 i get +1 karma,.. can't win 'em all
anyway, i like the idea of banning everything then adding things as people suggest them. the problems with that kind of system is :
a) extra paperwork/wasted staff time (and it's not just a matter of someone asks for site X to be added, then the staff member adds it, obviously they need to go make sure it's 'clean'..)
b) will the list of things people want added ever end?
c) you're always going to offend some people, and when you at least appear to be taking the steps not to, and you do, they tend to get exceptionally upset.
like i said, i'm more for the 'don't let little kids into the porn store' approach.. there's no reason for anyone who's too young for porn to be on the net anyway. (of course, my definition of this might be a little 'liberal' since i was downloading porn online when i was 11.)
...dave
*sigh* almost a good analogy.. (Score:2)
except that most people don't have the urge to go break into people's houses, whereas most people like to look at porn (whether they admit it or not..) especially teenage boys
obviously you're just set in the opinion that 'censorware serves a purpose' and you can't see outside of that. so there's no sense in this discussion.
...dave
exactly where,.. (Score:2)
..did i say that he cannot do what he wants?
i didn't, i said none of it is foolproof.
if he wants a patchwork, half-assed working censoring system in there, i'm sure he could cobble one together. but there is a much larger issue here, and really, what's the point in doing it at all if it's still going to let a good portion of the porn through? (and it always will, there are numerous articles on this.)
so many people consider so many different things obscene that it's really impossible to do this kind of thing, and that's the real issue.
i'd appreciate if, in the future, you relax a little before you reply to my posts.
...dave
Is a better solution people instead of filters? (Score:2)
One thing they did in high school several years ago when they only had one machine was they had the computer also output to a TV in another area, where they could keep watch on what they were doing.
Also, to quell the fears, that person could help them find some interesting things to do on the net, perhaps have good websites bookmarked. So the glimpser serves two purposes...To kick out anybody doing unwholesome things and to help others find the "joy of the Net".
Re:Never going to work... (Score:2)
-- iCEBaLM
Re:Never going to work... (Score:2)
Not only does it not effectively block porn, I'm sure it overblocks on many, many sites. That is the big reason why filters suck.
-- iCEBaLM
Never going to work... (Score:2)
-- iCEBaLM
Re:Never going to work... (Score:2)
I see, so you're an employee of this system, no wonder you like it so much. And no doubt these numbers are skewed, which I can't verify as you no doubt keep your blocked site lists closed.
One thing your forgetting is that computers are designed to compute - we often forget that these things can do a lot if we put our minds to it and just design better software. I'll agree with you that its not 100% accurate, but, I think its a lot more accurate then most censor software out there.
I'm forgetting this? No, I'm really not, thats the whole basis of my argument. Computers are very sophisticated and fast calculators. They can add numbers blazingly fast and accurate, but you try to get them to discern the meaning behind typed text or to analyze a picture to try to figure out what it is and they simply can't do it, and won't be able to for a very long time. This is why filtering doesn't work, especially on the scale we're talking about here.
The biggest reason why you probably haven't seen this in use in ISP's or Schools is because our primary client is currently big corperations. Sometime next year one of America's biggest ISPs will switch over to our system - then you'll get a chance to see it in action.
And I hope I never see it in ISP's or schools. The day we quit thinking for ourselves and allow a machine to tell us the information we can and cannot access is the day I give up on humanity as a whole, as it has truely become too lazy to sustain itself.
-- iCEBaLM
Re:Never going to work... (Score:2)
Haven't you heard? A company is trying to do this, and they are finding that it's impossible.
-- iCEBaLM
Re:Never going to work... (Score:2)
-- iCEBaLM
Re:Dammit (Score:2)
You can say anything you want, but the moment you modify or restrict a medium in order to impose an agenda (e.g. children should not see smut), you are censoring.
I think what you were trying to say was that it is perfectly reasonable for a business to display what it wants, and no more. This is fair, however the business in this case (according to our questioner) did nto want to censor, it felt compelled to because of the possible legal implications of allowing "inappropriate material" to be displayed so close to a school.
What was it about this that you felt was inappropriate for a Slashdot discussion?
Re:i tend to think this is futile (Score:2)
Re:i tend to think this is futile (Score:2)
Just to be contrary :)
For quite a large part of my childhood (possibly about 14 to 24 - with a couple of years out, college etc) I watched pretty much 0 TV, no reception, and for half+ the time no electricity either.
But anyway the culture shock when I first started watching again was incredible, half the time I was sitting there thinking 'how the fuck can people watch this crap...'
Like it was just impossible for me to conceive that people could ever be watch tv, or take in the ads without leaving.
Happily now 4 years later I can spend a whole day veggeing out in front to the box (even sky tv UK) without finding anything strange.
Technical Solution to a social "problem" (Score:2)
This is yet another example of trying to apply a technical solution to a percieved social problem.
What do you plan to do to keep people from bringing in their issue of Butt Cheeks Monthly and reading while they wait for their clothes to dry? You could persuade all local retailers to put tracking tags in pr0n magazines, and have one of those shoplifting alarm systems at the door that goes off if somebody walks in with a dirty magazine.
Or you could have cameras with sophisticated (read: impossible) image recognition algorithms that would vaporize offending magazines with a laser.
The solution to this issue has to be social, rather than technical.
Re:i tend to think this is futile (Score:2)
As a matter of fact, I find the whole argument about censorware being ineffective to be kind of pointless. I will never use it, and there is presently no law in the US that would force me to use it. I wouldn't use it for my own children, just as I don't leave them alone to gaze at the television for hours on end.
In this case, I say do what you can do to get a paycheck and redeem yourself in your spare time by doing something more worthwhile.
South Central LA, huh? (Score:2)
Reading about reversing the problem, this was my idea too - except for the fact that you would run into the problem of people who are using the service not knowing what/where they can go/see, because they may have never have used the internet (or a computer) before.
I would say have an opt-in method - block everything, but put a few sites on that are normal sites (like news sites, entertainment sites and some information sites - too bad there wasn't so much possible "bad" stuff on
In addition, don't allow typed in URL's - the only way to "add" a URL should be via the comments box or the email system. Lock down the box pretty tight (both physically and network wise - IE, don't leave any cables, except for power, exposed, lock the CPU away, and set the system up so that no one can get root), maybe provide a keyboard that has certain keys disabled (if a keyboard is absolutely necessary - maybe you can get away with a trackball). Definitely use a trackball, probably a large one, for any disabled or elderly folk who may want to use the machine.
Also, every once in a while, go down to the place, and talk with the people - find out what their interests really are, and let them know what you can, and can't do - and why (I mean, if a ton of people say they want porn, point to the jr high across the street, and tell them your policy). Don't the leave the computer(s) to sit and be faceless things, that nobody ever sees anybody working on (which is one thing that always depressed me about some laudromats - they felt faceless).
Finally, take to heart the whole "elevate the monitor" thing - make the computers kiosks where you need to stand, and use large monitors (or 27" TV's running @ 640x480 - not pretty, but cheap)...
If you must... (Score:2)
Re:Turn off images (Score:2)
Of course the other solution is for parents to supervise their kids and not let them run around in laundromats looking for porn.
Re:this is sorta redundant.. (Score:2)
Do you care to speculate on the reason for the cap? Maybe there's a karma tax... Maybe user #1 wants to have the highest karma of all...
--
Filter Dumb Porn (Score:2)
Eliminating that is as useful as eliminating email spam.
Re:This will get on-topic eventually... (Score:2)
Tiered approach (Score:2)
The internet was created by adults for adults. (Score:2)
Just like the non-electronic world, it has the equivalent of libraries, newspapers, and shopping malls. And also like the non-electronic world it has its bars, X-rated theaters, and red-light districts.
When children go out into this virtual world, the ways available to protect them are limited:
- They can be accompanied by adults.
- They can be restricted to areas known to be safe.
And that's about it.
Some people have tried to provide a robot companion to cover their eyes when they come to the seamier side of town. But robots are still too dumb. They often cover the eyes when they shouldn't, and don't cover them when they should. (And how can you expect a poor robot to figure out what is "improper" for a child when adults can't agree on that and courts can't define it?)
Some people have tried to remove from the adults' virtual world anything that is "unsuitable" for children, just as they have tried this with the physical world, throughout history. The courts stopped them - and rightly so. (And even if the courts hadn't stopped them, they'd no doubt have as much success as the book-burners of the past.) Just as with the physical world, creating a padded-nursery world for children ruins the world for adults.
Restricting children's access to known safe places restricts them to the tiny space that has been checked. "Don't cross the street!" works - for some value of works. But it eliminates the park, and Disneyland, and Africa,
So the only real choice for a child's guardian is to escort the child, or hire a babysitter, until the child can be trusted to wander on his own.
Your business is creating a door into the virtual world. So your decision-makers have to decide: Are they going to let children wander freely through that door? Are they going to demand permissions from their guardians to pass through alone? Are they going to demand the guardians accompany them or hire a baby sitter to do so? Are they going to provide the (necessarily defective) robot? Are they going to restrict the children (and perhaps everyone else) to the local block? Or are they going to bar children entirely?
Sometimes they bend, sometimes not (Score:3)
That is what humans do. Unlike other living things, when we meet something that doesn't suit us, we can change it. What happens depends on you, your ideals, your convictions, your strength and the "resistiveness" of the real world. Sometimes the real world wins and you are modified. Each and every day someone faces a part of the real world that doesn't match up with their idea of that it should be. It is up to each one to change the world to fit them, or to change themselves to fit reality.
Have you tried explaining why censorware fails? (Score:3)
Leaving out the ideological arguments, it has been quite adequately demonstrated that censorware can't and won't work. Have you tried explaining this to the decision-makers involved, and going from there to discuss the alternatives already canvassed here (Lynx, login and tracking, placing the computers where access is supervised, etc)?
Re:Yes, it is about prudiskness, and censorship... (Score:3)
Censorship is not prudishness.
And yes, you're obviously prudish; you lump bondage and "barely legal" in the same category as bestiality and coprophilia.
Oh gee, I don't like bondage so I'm a prude!? Get real. I lumped these items together because they are things that a lot of parents would have severe objections to their children witnessing. Bondage may be consensual, and for the most part is play-acting, but real dominance in a relationship, particularly when it is usually associated with sadism, is not normal. "Barely legal" caters to the borderline pedophile, and is the pederast's methadone.
"You pro censorship types are such blame-shifting imbeciles."
I am not pro-censorship. If you have read any of my other posts, you will know that. I am a radical libertarian, and as such I have absolutely no interest in telling you what you can or cannot do.
But as a libertarian, I greatly object that you wish to ban a class of software for use in private. Censorware may be morally objectionable to you, but for some people it isn't. It is one thing to keep censorware out of publically funded libraries, but it is quite another to keep it out of a private laundermat. There is a universe of difference between government censorship and the outright banning of pornography and parents restricting what their minor children can view.
This whole slashdot topic was about using or not using censorware in a private business. Your morality simply does not enter into it. Your comment about the ineffectuality of filtering by words was right on topic and informative. Your accusal of Americans as prudes was very off topic.
"If your kids are raised properly, you don't need to protect them from the Big Bad Internet, they'll know which sites are good and healthy and which sites are negative and unhealthy."
It would be great if all children were raised properly. But they're not. But it's completely irrelevant. It's absolutely stupid to say to a parent "you did a bad job raising your kids so you forfeit all rights to keep pornography away from them".
"If parents aren't willing to do that, they shouldn't be parents, and you have no responsibility to filter through software what parents should be filtering by education."
What arrogance! What possibly right do you have to pick and choose who is fit to be a parent? You, sir, have absolutely no moral, legal or ethical right to tell someone else how they should raise their own children. How dare you! Before you start accusing us of reducing the net to our own "narrow ideology and belief and morality", take a good look at youself. We certainly do not want to impose our morality on the net. But you, on the other hand, want to impose your morality on people's lives and children.
there is no way to effectively censor (Score:3)
You can't. At present there is no meaningful way to censor the internet without losing valuable content. The very notion of 'censoring' is predicate on a fixed idea of what is and what is not appropriate. There is no computational method for finding isAppropriate(viewer, content).
i tend to think this is futile (Score:3)
as i said in another post, putting net connections in libraries and schools is like running a freeway through the playground.
if you don't want kids and sheltered adults from finding porn 'on accident' *cough* then the simple solution is don't give them net access.
there is no form of blocking, automatic nor manual that is foolproof. if you go with automatic, either you end up blocking things you'd rather have available, or you miss some of the porn.
for manual, you just simply can't keep up with all the porn sites.
the only 'possible' solution, which is
i really don't see another way.
...dave
Re:Do what needs to be done (Score:3)
I think that filtering in general is a slippery slope to censorship and loss of liberties. that is why I am against a filtering system. Certainly, I agree, as I've stated in other posts, that this is not a big deal - It's a laundromat, for godsakes - however precedents are often set and followed by starting with something innocent and then taking it to the extreme. That is what worries me - how far will we go? Will everything be censored? Will all business access to the internet be filtered? Will we only be able to see what "they" want us to see? Will everything be product placements and advertising and other forms of highest-bidder speech?
That is what I worry about, not the fact that a laundromat is blocking internet access.
Whom ever pays the bill sets the rules (Score:3)
In the other case, I am doing the server/filesharing at my own expense. No one can dictate to me the terms upon which I may or may not share my own files, save perhaps the ISP.
Censorwaring JPEGs and maybe GIFs but not words. (Score:3)
Somebody commented in the past that p0rn pictures are almost always JPEGs rather than GIFs, because of better picture quality and because it's what digital cameras generate, so you can do a surprisingly effective crude first cut by killing JPEGs and letting GIFs through. That does block web sites with pictures of people's kids and cats, and doesn't block animated GIFs or advertising banners for p0rn sites, but it's usually close enough for government work and better than blocking pictures entirely.
no problem (Score:3)
Concerning the moral dilemma...there isn't one. You are not the U.S. government. You are not shutting down these servers with objectionable content, you are not prohibiting anybodies free speech. True, surf n' wash is limiting the content available to it's customers. That's not censorship. It's a business policy. Newspapers don't print expletives found in letters to the editor (at least mine doesn't). Government censors, businesses do not.
Now, businesses and corporations are gaining power in the ability to dictate government policy (maybe they have already gained?). At some point it may be necessary to worry about businesses controlling online content...I don't think we are there yet.
What does AOL do?
Maybe allow for the filter to be switched off with proper identifcation....but would you want to do your laundry at a place where teenage boys are surfing porn?
TGL
Yes, it is about prudiskness, and censorship... (Score:3)
And that is the very definition of censorship. When you filter based on what you, personally, don't wish to see, and have that choice be applicable to everyone, that's censorship. And in this case it's censorship for the purposes of being prudish. If you don't like something, don't look at it. If someone leaves a terminal pointed to a site you don't like, close the window. It's that simple.
And yes, you're obviously prudish; you lump bondage and "barely legal" in the same category as bestiality and coprophilia. The latter two are considered very unusual perversions, while bondage is a consensual lifestyle choice much like homosexuality or heterosexuality, and "barely legal" is a term usually used to refer either to the Hustler magazine/website of the same name, or to girls 18-22 who look young and girlish--in other words, the type of women most men are naturally sexually attracted to.
> My biggest objection however is the insistance that I can't keep my children away
> from anything that isn't immediately fatal.
You pro censorship types are such blame-shifting imbeciles. Sir, you can keep your kids away from anything you want to. You can keep them from going to public access Internet terminals--hell, you can lock them into AOL-only sites on your home computer, if that's what you want. You can keep them out of standard junior high/high school sex ed classes, if you want to. You can keep your kids away from whatever you choose to keep them away from. My sole point is that ultimately it's a parent's responsibility to teach his or her children well enough so that they don't need useless and inaccurate key-word filtering on public terminals to keep them from looking at inappropriate things. If your kids are raised properly, you don't need to protect them from the Big Bad Internet, they'll know which sites are good and healthy and which sites are negative and unhealthy. But I guess Americans just don't want to take responsibility for raising their kids and teaching them well any more, I guess they want to censor the world in the hopes that their kids won't be exposed to sexuality of any kind, ever. That's why we have insanely high teenage pregnancy rates and sex crime rates compared to France, England, and most of the rest of Europe, where kids are taught about sexuality and taught the difference between constructive and destructive sexuality.
It's very telling that someone modded down my first comment in this thread, which simply pointed out that filtering by words contained on the page is ineffectual, and that ultimately it's a parent's responsibility to raise children who know what they should and should not be looking at on a public access Internet terminal. It's very telling indeed, about the outright Puritanism which is still rearing its ugly head in this nation, holding us back even after centuries.
I repeat, and pay attention this time: "Yes, there's lots of unhealthy sexuality on the net that I wouldn't want my kids exposed to at an early age. But do you know the best way to keep them from looking at that stuff? It's by having honest discussions with them about adolescence, life, sex, and the difference between sex with love and sex without it, and the difference between healthy sexuality and destructive sexuality. If parents aren't willing to do that, they shouldn't be parents, and you have no responsibility to filter through software what parents should be filtering by education. Censorship "for the good of the children" is no better than cesorship for any other reason. Nazis and NetNannys are two sides of the same coin; it's the parent's responsibility to supervise the child, to raise the child, to teach the child the difference between constructive and destructive sexuality, not to try half-assedly to reduce the Net to their own narrow ideology and belief and morality."
I worked at a community college... (Score:3)
Really, the only "censorship" we found necessary was blocking web based chat sites. And that was just to keep people from hogging machines in busy labs. I swear, some of those people are friekin' chat JUNKIES!
Point is that you are wasting your time trying to censor content. Personally, I really don't think there is anything worth censoring. Most information, and lets keep it this way, is still legal. There is nothing illegal or unethical about researching illicit drugs or reading racist manifestos. What people DO with the information is another story. I think you should be strong and insist that if it isn't illegal and it isn't blatantly inappropriate, it should be permitted.
-matthew
sigh...young/old, what's the difference? (Score:3)
The truth is that people who are interested in smut will always be interested in smut whether or not they are exposed to smut as young kids in the first place.
Smut is just an interest. If somebody has nothing better to do in his/her life, and like smut then he/she will want it. If somebody likes smut, but then found something else more interesting to do (like writing obfuscated Perl code), then he/she will just lose interest in smut and channel his/her interest somewhere else.
Block smut in Junior/Senior/Blah blah anywhere is NOT going to make a more "moral" world. What's the difference? 12 year old kids will eventually grow up to be 18 anyway.
I personally think watching smut is not amoral. I just think it's boring after a while : there are just so much more interesting things I can do.
Re:You may not want to hear this, but..... (Score:3)
Sticking to your ideals isn't imperative by any means. What most people think are "ideals" are just preconceptions about the way things are and the way things "should" be. Whenever you examine your preconceptions under a bright light, you find them to be not quite so black and white as you first thought.
I'd go even further, in fact. It is imperative that you not stick to your ideals. Your response should be appropriate to the circumstances, not just a knee-jerk reaction because of your preconceptions. It is quite immature, and logically falacious, to say that one preconception overrides all other concerns.
Witness the pro-life groups. Would you say they are right to kill doctors for their ideals? It's a tricky issue, and you can't answer complex questions like these by using your dogma and preconceptions.
You use the term "something you feel strongly about". If only more people would think about the world, rather than try and feel their way through it. Emotions are unreliable indicators.
The fact that the original poster admitted that Slashdot has "indoctrinated" him into these ideals is also quite telling...
Re:The Real World - which one are you living in? (Score:3)
Here's another illustration. My summer job is providing support for public web terminals at a mall. We have filtering software for one simple reason - if we didn't and someone complained about their kid looking at porn, we'd be kicked out of the mall in about 5 seconds flat. It would happen - no question about it. It doesn't matter if it's fair or not. That's the way things work in the "real world."
I don't like filtering any more than anyone else, but the reality is that it really is necessary sometimes. If you're offering public web access, you're taking a huge risk if you don't at least make some effort to restrict content. No, filtering is not perfect and never will be. My point is that there are situations where it's the only answer.
Censorware or predefined sites (Score:3)
I read an article in the Vancouver Sun about new product which has a rather large database of educational and 'safe' sites and they have a panel adding more sites weekly. It is SafeXplorer.com [safexplorer.com].
What does the /. community think of this option?
don't do it. (Score:3)
community censorship (Score:3)
Re:i tend to think this is futile (Score:4)
Comment removed (Score:4)
Re:Obscene language is the key (Score:4)
Re:You may not want to hear this, but..... (Score:4)
-Vercingetorix
Re:i tend to think this is futile (Score:4)
Please remember that this is a PRIVATE business, not a PUBLIC library. While you may object to censorware on general principles, installing it in a private business is an entirely different proposition than having the government mandate it's use in a public institution. If a private company (or individual) wants to install censorware their own computer, THAT IS THEIR RIGHT. You may not agree with the decision, but it is none of your fscking business. A private laundremat or cybercafe is NOT a public library; it is NOT government censorship, and your tax dollars are NOT funding it.
In this situation, I see nothing wrong with installing censorware. A laundremat isn't a place someone would go to do serious research; so over-blocking isn't going to be a big issue. The idea here is to let people kill time by surfing while their clothes are washing, not give them unfettered net access.
I wouldn't buy any commercial censorware, however, because they are all snake oil and the companies that sell them are beneath contempt. I would suggest using Squid and one of the numerous open-source blocking lists.
"The axiom 'An honest man has nothing to fear from the police'
Re:Just keywords or the whole blocking system? (Score:4)
---
Re:You may not want to hear this, but..... (Score:5)
On the other hand, if you truly believe in your cause, then you'll do what you can to make sure there's a little censorship as possible going on at this laundromat. If you fail to meet the requirements of the management, they will find someone else to replace you, and that other person may simply install CyberPatrol [peacefire.org]. It may be best to compromise your ideals in order to maintain your influencial position.
Isn't politics great?
--
Re:Sometimes they bend, sometimes not (Score:5)
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress
depends on the unreasonable man."
-- George Bernard Shaw
Intelligent filtering (Score:5)
There is no substitute yet for a human when it comes to intelligent filtering. Squid, Perl, and ipchains goes a long way, but there really isn't a substitute for scanning the log files.
I set up something similar for public use for my troop of Boy Scouts. After explaining to them how their privileges would go away (and their parents would be notified) if they disobeyed the rules, and showing them how easy it was for me to monitor what they were surfing (a quick example involving a simple Perl script and the squid access log) they were off and running.
The system has been surprisingly automatic, and it has had the added consequence of getting several of the boys interested in tools like Perl, Squid, and Linux.
However, it wouldn't work at all if there wasn't an intelligent person manning the switches. Much of the tedium can be removed from the job, but your computer is not going to make value judgements for you. No matter how fancy your porn detection algorithms are there will be a way around them, or worse yet, there will be web sites that generate false positives. But if you put an actual human in the mix, then you can make the type of useful system that the poster above mentions.
This is how I've seen it done. (Score:5)
This is the approach that was take for a University hall of residence.
Firstly, squid was used to do some IP address filtering. The suspect domains were obtained by greping the
The next thing was to put posters up, explaining what was done, stressing the blocked sites were selected by an automatic method, and that porn (and others - warez etc) was banned.
The next step was to ensure that all the monitors could be seen anyone (ie no terms tucked in a corner).
After that, anyone caught, the site was baned, and so were they [1].
The bandwidth each user utilised was also examined (automatically). If it was found that a person downloaded more than a limit [2] of data from one site, in one day, the site was flagged for checking to the admin. This was desiged to catch warez sites, and similar. IIRC, the only think it caught was uk.kernel.org
This approach yeilded one complaint about an incorrectly blocked site (It was along the lines of fuckedcompany [fuckedcompany.com], although I forget the exact one, and one person caught for looking at porn.
The reason for the porn ban is that porn is just about the only clearly recognisable objectionable item, at a distance (ie for someone at the next term). There were other banned catagories, but they were unlikely to cause problems. Porn is also a bandwith killer.
Today, we'd probably be looking at throttling Napster, or possably blocking it [3].
Whilst this is possably slightly more than you want to block, it's justifyable on most fronts.
[0] In the UK, the netherlands is infamous (rightly or wrongly) as a source of, uh, XXX porn.
[1] This, of course requires user authentication, which I assume you are doing.
[2] Something insane, like 400 Mb (we were on the back of 155Mb/s ATM link).
[3] The Net was explicitly for 'academic purposes only'. One guy we found downloading porn claimed it was for his course
This will get on-topic eventually... (Score:5)
The whole filtering debate is useless, as everything is shades of gray -- like the poster alluded to, showing a baby breast-feeding is not porn to most people. I'll bet it is to someone, though. Violent scenes could essentially be porn to someone; pornography is not about genitals and breasts and butts -- it's about lasciviousness, gluttony, and passivity (not necessarily bad things in themselves, IMHO). The reason you see governments, big business, the wealthy, the powerful, and elite having problems with porn is that they have a hard time using it to control you (well, that's not totally true, but mostly, I think). Violence in the news, on the other hand is a very effective tool for them to get their way (which is usually to fill their pocketbooks), by teaching the public their own filtered view of reality.
I'll try to make this on topic again by saying that you, the poster, as well as anyone else who cares about their freedom, have a duty to NOT participate in such filtering nonsense. Anyone who would be harmed by certain content on the internet should not be using it without parental guidance anyway; filtering software is NOT a suitable replacement for a human being. It is far worse, IMO, for benign content to be accidentally blocked that it is for a child/sensitive viewer to see something that might prod their value system a little bit (heaven forbid!).
In a word: abstain.
On Censorware In General (Score:5)
You have been given an impossible task. There is absolutely no chance in hell that you will be able to block even .001% of the pr0n/objectionable sites out there. Commercial software filters can cover a lot more sights, but not with much better accuracy. Instead, look at your target audience. You are serving people who have little if any experience with the net. Therefore, a nice portal site will lead them in the right direction without you worrying about "objectionable" material.
You definetally need to make your users sign agreements for internet use. You need to make sure your company isn't held liable for any problems they have or cause. Another clause must deal with objectionable material. Perhaps simply having an agreement that they will immediately close any material that the management deems inappropriate to the customer base. Maintain no liability, but keep the option open to kick people off the system if you get enough complaints. Train your staff to simply scan the monitors and make sure nothing explicit is available.
The problem with censorware has always been choosing what is objectionable to whom. I am a strong advocate of free speech, but when people are using a pay service in public, the proprietor of the service has a right to enforce certain rules. Allowing the on-site staff to survey online use to make sure nothing "inappropriate" to the customer base is probably the best solution - this way people on the scene can address whether content affects them and their neighbors, instead of relying on a person or company far removed.
Wrong approach (Score:5)
A better option?
1. Put the computer near the counter or wherever your guys stand. People won't mess around when their screen can be seen by employees.
2. Post usage policies next to the computer in a _visible_ location.
It acts on the same principle that should hopefully keep our libraries uncensored: People wanting to avoid public embarrassment.
--
You may not want to hear this, but..... (Score:5)
-Vercingetorix
The Real World (Score:5)
That said, IMHO there is no good technical solution in terms of blocking, whether by keyword or anything else. Witness the tens of commercial products that are rediculed by Peacefire on a frequent basis. For any blocking scheme, there will always be holes in the system, and also sites that are incorrectly blocked.
I would suggest that each person should have to log on with a unique ID to use the system, and that all accesses would be logged, and that they are told that their activities are logged, and analyzed.
That said, it would probably also help to put the terminals in a position where the contents of the screen are prominently visible to other patrons of said laundromat. Public embarassment can be a reasonably good deterrent.
My $0.02
Just keywords or the whole blocking system? (Score:5)
For example, say that the word "breast" is a -1 word, being rather mild and usable in ok ways ("There goes a robin red-breast!") while "worse" words such as "penis" are -5. Some phrases ("hot bitch") would be -10, and so on.
Some words would activate "positive" words, so that finding "breast" might allow "cancer" to be a +1, so "breast cancer" is a 0, not a -1.
Once the page has been scanned and a score has been figured, determine a score needed to allow viewing, adjusted for number of words (so that someone looking at "-1" on Slashdot doesn't find it blocked because some troll posted "Jon Katz is a cunt" 30 times in a row).
I dunno how well this would really work, but it's an idea. It still runs into some problems - the optimal solution would be to have someone watching people online. And of course, go over the proxy logs and see where people have gone - block sites that shouldn't have been allowed that way.
how often do you guys wash your clothes? (Score:5)
1. The "Social shame will keep porn to a minumum" argument.
Laundromats are strange places. They attract strange people. And they seem to make ordinary people lose a lot of their inhibitions. I've seen people take off their pants and throw them into a washing machine, as if it were perfectly normal to get nekkid in public. That some dirty old man won't immediately begin to hunt for porn seems like wishful thinking, even if he's got an enormous audience.
2. The "Supervisory staffing will be a burden" caveat.
Laundromat employees are hardly burdened as it is. Maybe there's some secret work that they do that I've never noticed, but it seems like most of the time they sit around and watch TV or read or stare at people. Once in a while they'll clean a lint trap or yell at someone for using too much detergent. Asking them to keep an eye on the internet terminals, or even to man an administrative terminal to process un-blocking requests, seems like no big deal to me.
3. The "Stick to your ideals! Screw the Man!" exhortation.
We're talking about a laundromat. Nothing noble has ever happened in a laundromat. Stop quoting Camus and making wild comparisons to great moments of integrity throughout history.
Re:i tend to think this is futile (Score:5)
That's why you don't block.
If you want to give junior high kids "internet access", you know they'll go through trying every single porn site until they hit one that beats your filters
Instead of selective denial, the best you can do is selective allowance. Give them access to msn.com, aol.com, disney.com, dictionary.com, a few encyclopedias, etc. I mean, in a school library, they don't start by buying every book in existence and then beginning the horrific task of throwing out the porn and racist manifestos. They add things, one at a time. That's the same way school 'net connections should work, too.
Re:i tend to think this is futile (Score:5)
Browsing the Internet while washing your jeans is not as big of an issue as racism. It's just not.
If you are unable to discern the difference, you will end up a mad hermit like Harrison Ford in "The Mosquito Coast", putting yourself and your loved ones through hell because of your unwillingness to participate in a society that forces you to make small compromises.
Obscene language is the key (Score:5)
Remember that the sites want to be found by search engines, so think about what they are going to put into their text to get indexed and act accordingly.
Filtering based on "breast" is not going to lose any porn sites that filtering stronger language left behind.
TWW
Use Lynx (Score:5)