Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

Censorship - Libraries and the Internet? 175

Posted by Cliff from the when-public-access-and-public-decency-collide dept.
JohnFred asks: "Recently I was in the North East of England for a quick visit. When the time came for me to depart Londonwards I needed to look up a train timetable so wandered in to my local library for a quick lookup on the net. The AUP document I was required to sign was so authoritarian as to be unbelievable. As well as the usual clauses about porn and virii it forbade the use of chatrooms and - get this: EMAIL. To add to this, they had set up the machines so that the only app that could be run was Internet Explorer. They also had blocking software that blocked evil, depraved sites like oh, Deja.Com. I think this is not acceptable in a service that is funded out of (partly) taxpayers pockets is so over-regulated as to be utterly useless. Are other libraries in the UK taking a similar line? Does anyone else know more about this, or is this just an individual council going overboard?" A few libraries in the US are moving to this kind of system as well. It's a tricky situation, and it was inevitable that we were going to have this kind of conflict when accessing the Internet through publicly funded outlets. Are there better ways to handle this situation?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Censorship - Libraries and the Internet? More

Censorship - Libraries and the Internet?

Comments Filter:

  • censorship (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I would like to point out a small technicality: this is not censorship. The library is choosing to provide internet access. It is not obligated to provide access at all, and it can provide access to whatever it wants on its own terms. A right to free speech and a right to government subsidized access to other people's free speech are two different things.

  • Makes a little sense (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The library blocking email and chat rooms makes absolute sense to me, as they provide those machines for reference and research, and to have some kid chatting on a computer for two hours while you really need to get on and find some information can be very frustrating. Blocking certain sites is a good idea to a point (but difficult to do), but wouldn't it also be a good idea to have computers that are in specified area (easily monitorable by library staff) with unrestricted access?
  • I agree completely. If all the computers in a library are in plain view of the world, you'll either prevent people from viewing porn in the library through shame, or when somebody who has no shame tries it, they get tossed out on the street quite rapidly.

    Of course, the downside is that when somebody comes along who has no shame, he'll be exposing everybody with a line of sight to the stuff.
  • Libraries are as subject to the Obscene Publications Act as anywhere else in the UK. And seeing as most US-based pr0n is more-than-technically illegal in this country, they're well within their rights.

    And if you want to look at nekkid pictures, then buy a jazz mag. It's cheaper and you can take it into the smallest room with you.

    [As an expat Teessider, I'm just glad that web access is available back home; there are plenty of libraries in the UK for which "computerisation" means mono terminals and antiquated catalogues.]
  • Once I was in a hotel room where they had a similar setup, where you were supposed to only be able to get to internet explorer and nothing else. This was a bit annoying as I wanted to test a few things with "nslookup" and "ping" - a site wasn't responding and I wanted to see what was up with it. There's a trick around this - just use a file: URL in the browser to get to the PC's C: drive. From there I could click on \windows\command.exe and it ran it. I don't know how well this technique would work elsewhere, though.
  • Yes most load balancers break traceroute as they rewrite packets esp when you trace to the virtual IP. Go get yourself a cookie for being so clueless.
    -
    router midget
  • You've got Teletubbies and ... umm ... ummm ... well, try it for yourself and see how hard it is :)

    Well, that leaves us with PBS. Oops, scratch the nature shows. :) I imagine even comedic depictions of accidents and violence is out too.

    I agree, trying to raise pacifists in a rude society (USA) is difficult and might possibly be unhealthy in terms of the possibility of being victimized. Heck, they'll either get victimized or think they are victims when they start school.

    Life's tough. You have to be tough on some level to live through it. I'm not saying desensitize yourself or your children, but they have to grow up and learn the truth someday.
  • I agree, I guess I would have a problem with people telling me what I have to look at. If slashdot didn't have the points moderation system, I wouldn't read or post at all, as there are too many garbage posts and too much noise.

    Frankly, I only have time to read about 10 posts per thread, and to make those worth my time I want them to be good ones with good information or interesting perspectives. I trust human moderators to do a decent enough of a job, so basically everything that's 2 points and above has someone behind it saying it's probably worth reading. For the heavily posted threads, I might choose to read at 4 or 5, and this reduces the amount of error, and usually there are two or three people that find value in the post.

    It isn't censorship because I can choose to read it or not read, and I can choose what I read, which is the basic point. Nothing is deleted at anyone's say-so. I've seen enough flamebaits and trolls and disgusting posts that I've decided not to wade in the sewer.

    You don't see me telling someone not to read what level you want.
  • Oh please - I mean, Score: 3, Informative for pointing out that two links were broken - I mean, karma whore 'ho or what?

    All I wanted was for it to be fixed. I can't stop people moderating my comments.

    --
    "Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"

  • Alright, I was confused. Sengan posted the story *before* this one, and the anecdote was from a reader. Sorry, all.

    My criticism of Sengan (in general) still applies, and my take on internet access in library still applies, but the link between them is broken. Bad poster.

    My apologies. This is what happens when you stop to post a comment "real quick".

    --Lenny
  • Oh yes you can.

    The Finder is basically a shell. The OS is run by the System suitcase (and nowadays with the New World ROMs, etc.) There are a number of venerable 'minifinders' that would let you run another application from an open dialog (they were really small to fit on an emergency boot floppy with room for another app) and of course you could put any program into a System Folder, change the creator/file types appropriately and call it Finder and it would run at boot time.

    Besides - haven't you ever quit the Finder and discovered that you're still running other applications? Used to happen to me all the time on one particularly flakey machine - fortunately DragThing was bright enough to realize that Applescript wasn't able to get the Finder to respond to commands because it was quit, and would reload it for me.

    Bootable CDs are basically what killed the need for this ability, though sometimes people quit the finder to gain a little bit more free memory.
  • Of course one of the real CYA's can come from this situation:

    Cracker Bill goes into the library with some source to a program to bypass copy protection in and he inserts this code into the net from the library.

    Irked company C, sees his usenet missive posted from the library and tries to find out who posted the offending item. The library indicates it was some John Doe who just paid cash to use the station for 5 minutes.

    Repeat as necessary for CyberCafe's. They will be next I am sure. Soon they will want verifiable ID before you can use a station.

    The golden days of privacy on the internet are gone I am afraid.

    Hedley
  • Explorer (not necessarily Internet Explorer) is an integrated part of the OS.

    Um, nope. The Windows Explorer is a shell on top of the OS services, it can be replaced; For instance, if you install MSIE 4 with the Captive Deskslop option.

  • I also helped admin machines at a public library. Our policy on the internet access terminals had four simple parts:

    1) No porn / violence / whatever_offends_the_librarian_who happens_to_look_over on the kiddie machines,
    2) Internet use only.
    3) If somebody is waiting, there is a 30 min. limit.
    4) Kiddies need parental permission.

    This worked quite well. #2 was mostly because we didn't have enough copies of productivity software (MS Office) to go around, and was a big hassle to secure (we had enough unauthorized software getting installed with just web browsers allowed anyway). #3 meant that you could check email, research a report, or whatever, and the machines weren't hogged by people addicted to their email. #1 was simple an extension of our already implemented policy of dirty books - they are set off by themselves, and the librarians try to make sure kids don't get into them.

    There was no censorware, no usage limit, nothing except some words on paper posted above the machines, and the threat that the little old ladies at the desk would call the big bad janitor to kick you out. It worked quite well, although there was talk of putting very loose censorware on the kiddie machines before I left. The last time censorware was installed, the big boss had it done by the head IT guy, on threat of termination. It lasted under a week, by which time the big boss realized it looks really bad when you have massive staff turnovers (a few people actually quit, it was mostly just threats).

    I don't know about other libraries, but every librarian I've talked to has taken that little first amendment thingy to heart. I know it doesn't seem like it sometimes, but there are a lot of institutions that will fight tooth and nail over the silliest little threat to the 1st, and the American Library Association is one of them.
  • Watch out: Free speech is just the (a popular) name of the beast, the real thing is freedom of information!
    And information is only free when the flow is allowed to be in both directions!
    So you better rethink the rest of your ideas about this cencorship. Besides, a public library is typically funded with public money (ours) and the governement should not be allowed to meddle in our information exchange.
  • Nice start, even better when computers are assigned to kids depending on their parents authorisation. It has been sugested before on /. ; Adults have every right to view what pleases them and only the parents have the authority to limit information exposure of their (own!) kids.
    Thus membership cards should have the K,F or U classification countersigned by the parents. No card-no U class computer.
  • Good for the US of A!
    But does the UK have such an institution? And is that British librarian institution at all interested in free access to information?
    Don't forget the UK does not have anything remotely like a bill of rights.....
  • I used to work in an academic library. It was the same sort of thing - no email, and fairly strict rules about what you were not supposed to be looking at.

    The thing about email is understandable. A lot of the students would come in and work on their email for a long time. They're not supposed to do this because the library computers are supposed to be for research.

    As for the other stuff (porn, etc.), they had to do this for legal reasons. In my state, it is illegal for state-owned computer networks to be used to transmit obscene materials. Of course, this is impossible to enforce, but all it takes is for one student to complain about what's on the next student's monitor, and there can be hell to pay.

    No librarian I know wants to be on the internet porn patrol, but when Princess tells her daddy, the Taxpayer(tm), that someone was looking at dirty pictures on the computer, someone's going to get a phone call.

    The irony of the whole thing is that most of the students at this school can hack around the defenses in about 30 seconds.
  • Hahahaha, that's funny. Mainly because you're a twit who didn't read the article (or even the story) to find out that the situation occured in England. Not New England. England. Over the Atlantic.
  • I do some tech support for a network of libraries and I completely understand the need for nazi regulations like this, execept the no email clause. The computers in our lib are not for people to plop down and chat with their friends for hours and hours. They are for doing research, using the online card catalog, and for writing documents. I sure as hell don't pay taxes so that people can play games and look at porn on the machines.
  • I agree that a person that can haxx0r is not necessarily ready for stileproject.com

    When I was in Junior High School, I hacked into BBS, wardialed for calling card numbers, dove in dumpsters for phone company manuals, and used linesmen's handsets at neighborhood telco crossconnects for free calls.

    My father, an electrical engineer, knew none of this, simply because it was out of his realm of experience. There was no way he could have configured my computer to stop my ph/c/hacking forays.

    As good as I may consider myself with computers, my children will be better. They will reach an age where technical measures will not be able to restrict them from getting to information/ideas/images they want. I doubt removing net access from the house will be a reasonable idea, so I will have to accept that they will see things I wish they wouldn't.

    What my wife and I must do is prepare them for the day when they do see pornography or get a come on from the chat room perv.

    We are going to have to teach them about the dangers of the net, just like we will teach them how to drive a car and balance a budget.


    -----
  • "Tropic of Cancer", and other O. Henry novels

    Errm... ITYM Henry Miller.
  • Also, the whole concept of this sign for use which prohibits certain uses is foreign to me. Do I have to sign an agreement when I check out a book which tells me how I can read the book, which pages I'm allow to view, etc. No.

    That's because the library has preapproved the material in question. If they didn't want it, or deemed it inappropriate, they would not have it on their shelves.

    The whole solution to this is to provide your own network connectivity and computing resources. Then you get to formulate the AUP.

    This is an example of the golden rule: them's that gots the gold, makes the rules.

    James

  • There is a legit use for blocking e-mail. Not so much for security or privacy sake (although I can see some kid e-mailing threat letters to members of congresss and stuff).

    Oh, that's happened. Except it was a large public university in northern Florida. I don't know the details, but someone sent email from the library to the President (USA? the university?? a missing detail) and there was a major stank.

    James - you can hear some interesting things at LUG meetings... :)

  • Libraries buy those books which their patrons want to read. As far as I can tell, there are three ways that my local public library determines what books they want to have.

    1. Requested books.
    2. Books similar to those taken out commonly.
    3. Books that the librarian has heard good things about.

    A good librarian will not use public opion as a judge of what books should be in his library.

  • That simply doesn't work. There are legitimate concerns that people might want to investigate that they don't want others to see. What about an abused child looking for resources to protect him from abusive parents? A man looking up information about prostate cancer or impotence? There are many reasons people should be able to access the internet without broadcasting the contents to the whole world.
  • and I tell you to shut up

    You're being pretty nice to them. If someone comes to my door with a pamphlet, I'll either close the door in their face without word one, or I'll tell them that their sect has visited before and been warned that they can and will be prosecuted upon their next unwanted visit. I then offer them a seat on the porch steps whilst waiting for the police. They always leave, and they rarely come back.
  • now is this no email because they don't want people spending that much time writing emails? or they don't want people downloading and/or sending email anonymously from a machine (ie downloading an email client or using Outlook Express)?

    and what if you use hotmail or even access your Exchange email through the browser window? is that permitted?

    Can you write email through the browser or is that against the rules?
  • "Internet Explorer is an integrated part of the Windows operating system."

    well, that all depends. Microsoft swore up and down at first that it wasn't and that you could take it out without screwing up the computer. And comparing Internet Explorer to the Mac Finder is a horrible analogy.

    Explorer (not necessarily Internet Explorer) is an integrated part of the OS. But you can run windows without the browser. You cannot run the mac without the finder.
  • If you are using one of the free mail services you can use email all right.

    I would not allow E-Mail too on an publicly accessible System (at least I would not allow anyone to change the configuration of the browser, that is what I think the author relly meant by *no email*)

    It is a matter of security and lastly it is a measure to ensure that this station is in service for all users and not down 90% of the time because anybody is allowed to mess up configuration.

    Just my thoughts
  • E-mail is banned in my high school, but we compromise by using less popular services, like space.com mail. http://www.homestead.com/netropolis10/uen.html
  • It's the same here in Columbus, OH. INfact, our library has some stupid probgram that tottally hides the basic IE interface. The retrictions are all there, and you have to pay to print (10 cents per page). Make me wish IE would not do that stupid thing of printing the last two lines at the top of the next page! Even if it would fit on the first page!!

  • It makes sense that email isn't allowed. Some people would be on the computer for hours doing email. Maybe email should be allowed, but only for 15 minutes. Some people would be on the computer for hours chatting about nothing, too. I think that visiting a chat with a focus (like the About.com Pregnancy & Birth chat) should be considered ok, because you might actually learn something there. But lots of IRC channels and telnet chats / muds won't teach you a thing, in which case you should let someone who is going to learn something use the computer. Maybe there should just be a time limit & do what you want, except no porn or virii. Proud father, Jason Uppenborn "The problem isn't whether computers think, but whether men do." -- ??
  • Setting up machines that are only browsers makes sense, but they should not be using MS. Email and the like are not part of the libraries mission and open up the machines to recieving viruses. Browsers are useful for research and have a legitimate place in the budget. To reduce costs further they should have used freeware which would save them both initial costs and upkeep. Those MS machines are just too easy to break.
  • No telnet client? No ssh client? Have the powers-that-be install a Web E-Mail server, such as http://ashaw.dyn.cheapnet.net/webmail/.
  • You missed part of his point.

    From what I know of UK tax rates, he already is laying out more than a bit of cash for the service..

    "What, don't like having to sign a form and comply with restrictive rules to read the NYT? Go to a news stand and spend some money!"

  • best snow on earth my ass

    *cough*vail*cough*


    FluX
    After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network

  • School (Score:1)

    by xee ( 128376 )
    My school's computer policy is almost that good!!! Not only are chat rooms, e-mail, and naughty sites prohibited, but you're not allowed to STAND at the computer, and GET THIS: If more than one person is at a system, the get kicked off. That's it, you can't work on anything with another person!!!


    -------
  • You left out a link.

    Does anyone else know more about this, or is this just an individual council [stockton-bc.gov.uk] going overboard?
  • You left out a link.

    Does anyone else know more about this, or is this just an individual council [stockton-bc.gov.uk] going overboard?
  • Both of the A elements in this story are missing the trailing double quote from the HREF attribute. Please fix this.

    --
    "Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
  • Now there's a blast from the past. I wouldn't mind if he stayed there, myself. And yes, Sengan, we know you're British. Those who've been around a while well remember your anti-US tirades, as well.

    But, back to "topic", so teenagers with mod points don't mark me down... The increasing restriction on internet use in libraries *in* troubling. Aren't libraries about sharing information widely? Maybe not, but, I think they should be.

    Unfortunately, libraries are a workplace, and thus can be smacked with sexual harassment charges if some one loads porn on the screen, and some one else gets offended. If you ask me, the library should not be liable for such things, but, even in the UK, you have to have *someone* to sue. Unfortunately, libraries have to cover their asses, and so they forget about Sharing Information, and lock down the boxes as hard as they can. First it's porn, then hate sites, then drug information sites, then "fringe" political sites, and soon you are left with Barnie and Friends.

    It is a disturbing trend, but certainly nothing new. Slashdot has been particularly vocal on this topic. I don't see what Sengan's antidote adds to the discussion.

    I guess the summary, as always, is pay attention and write your congressman! (or whatever the equivalent is in your country)

    --Lenny
  • Okay. Here's the deal.
    Is Censorship wrong? Sure. If it's enforced by the government on it's citizens.

    But a Library? Hey. Libraries chose what software to lend out. Libraries chose what books to keep. They an ALSO chose how to provide you with network access.
    If you want it unfiltered, you can always get it yourself.

  • No.. Many books *are* censored, in the US and in Canada, and in other countries, and they are NOT permitted to be on the shelf. Or the library choses not to carry them.

  • There are still a few days left in the Foil the Filters Contest [dfn.org]. They're looking for failures at both extremes...
  • So they locked the terminals down and provided limited aps? BFD. SO what.

    Just because it looks like a PC, and a PC is probably the easiest way for the l;ibary to bring in the kind of functionality they want does not mean they have to provide a complete cyber-cafe.

    Who cares if IRC is shut down. For that matter, why should you care which browser is being used? The point is it is their machine and they are the ones letting you use it.

    The only services they really need to let you have is access to their book catalogue. If that is on an online terminal, then so be it. If they decide to give you the option to use online info sources, then that is their choice.

    I'm starting to believe that there is an unrealistic expectation for the level of service that libraries shoudl be providing here on slashdot. Want unlimited access? Get your own damn machine.

  • Any unaccompanied 7 year old gets only filtered content, the filtering perhaps being based on what he or she could legally purchase at the local magazine store.

    More likely based on whatever the company who wrote the software considers to be OK. Which is something explicitally not open to any review. Unlike the magzines sold in a store.
  • The choice is not necessarily binary -- either/or. Because current filtering software censors breast cancer sites is no reason to just give up and say 7 year olds must have public library access to the entire net, animated blow jobs and all. One does the best one can.

    Except that the current companies in this kind of business do not do the best job they can. For various reasons such as: As it's software they can disclaim any responsibility anyway. They typically lie about the use of people vs (simple) computer programs for selecting what to block. And finally, they often have criteria such as "block anywhere who gives us a bad review" and appear to drawn from political extreamists.
  • An Access Control List
    Human operators simply cannot filter all of the sites (despite censorware claims to the contrary). Either censorware has to miss much of the content that they deem "offensive", or they must filter using some automated procedure. The result is that many censorware products blacklist sites based on an algorithm without any human supervision. The algorithms are typically keyword matches (in one example, the presence of the word "couples" in the URL blocked out a harmless photo of Al Gore and Tipper).

    The above example is also likly to block sites about mechanics and trains. What the people involved forget is that there are very few keywords which are unique to whatever "bad" catagory they think of.
  • Don't forget the wonderful censorware.org site. This is what we recommend to parents. Peacefire has more of a "how dare they lock me out!" mentality.

    As well as a "look how trivial it it to subvert anyway..." mentality.
    One think Peacefire does have the "Solid Oak archive", which gives an insight into the mentality of a censorware producer.
  • What the Library is doing is covering their butts in case some kid gets in there and catches sight of something he shoulden't. I can understand it, to a point.

    And what do they do when (not if) something nasty gets past their (expensive) filtering/censorware package?
    Or they get hit with a libel suit due to blocking something that shouldn't have been blocked?
  • I was just thinking, all the references I've seen so far have been to windows and IE. Are there any libaries that use Linux for their publicly accessible terminals ?

    Which would also address issues of viruses or downloading programs. Whilst certain people may moan about Linux not having the ability for an end user to easily download and install programs in may situations (including this one) this is actually a positive feature.
  • minor typos in post, it should have read:

    ...depraved sites like oh, Deja.Com [deja.com]. I think this is not acceptable in a service that is funded out of (partly) taxpayers pockets is so over-regulated as to be utterly useless. Are other libraries in the UK taking a similar line? Does anyone else know more about this, or is this just an individual council [stockton-bc.gov.uk] going overboard?"...
  • Thats the thing, not everyone can afford internet access or computers. Libraries are so that people can read and have access to information that they may not be able to afford or gain access to.

    You might as well say "If the bus doesn't take you downtown, then buy a car"
    FunOne
  • Any unaccompanied 7 year old gets only filtered content, the filtering perhaps being based on what he or she could legally purchase at the local magazine store.

    But that's the real trick, isn't it? No filtering software can deliver this, and will block a bunch of ancillary stuff as well.
  • DFN, the Digital Freedom Network [dfn.org] is running a contest until September 25th to find the most egregious example of censorware error. The Foil the Filters [dfn.org] contest is being held to coincide with the American Library Association's Banned Books Week [ala.org].

    Entries can be either a site you'd expect to be filtered that wasn't, or one that shouldn't have been but was. WIRED [wired.com] is running a story on it here [wired.com]

  • Libraries have had books and magazines with nudity in them and books and magazines with violent pictures in them, many parents have complained, a few have sued, I don't know of anybody who has won a lawsuit (the library is, afterall, not a babysitting service, though some parents treat it as such).

    The Library Bill of Rights, created by the American Library Association states in part:
    Libraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and enlightenment. Libraries should cooperate with all persons and groups concerned with resisting abridgment of free expression and free access to ideas. A person's right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views.
  • I have to agree with what they are doing to a point. I can understand blocking email, nearly anonymous message sources can be a dangerous thing. They are perfect for people making threats or harassing statements without much fear of being caught. There is also the risk of some spammer catching the address the email is coming from and then the library has to deal with that increased bandwidth, admittedly this is not a top concern but more of a notable. I also understand filtering some content. Put the flames away and let me explain. There are definitely sites on the internet I don't want some perv at a library viewing while someone wanting to use the computer for school based work or research should wait...persiankitty.com comes to mind. I'd also hate to have a child of mine be strolling the library and be exposed to adult content because captain hard-on walked away from his terminal to refill his coffee. The library is still a public place after all. I've heard all the arguments about the filters not being perfect and yadda yadda but I'd rather they used what's available rather than "trusting" people to use the computers in an acceptable manner. There's good reason we have rules and laws rather than saying "we trust people" and that's because not all people can be trusted.
  • The obligatory link to Peacefire [peacefire.org]. Founder Bennett Haselton usually shows up when a library is under attack to argue against immediately reaching for blocking software.
  • The library laid down the gold for those computers, so they make the rules about using them. Don't like it? Don't use them.

    The folks of that little town (?) presumably think that their tax pounds sterling are being used in a suitable way. Here is the US, at least, that would have probability >>0. If you don't like the outcome of the public debate there, either stay home, or move there and get involved.

    It is the nature of these socially funded goods that the rules controlling them WILL be set socially, by the political process, and thus in general suboptimally. What can you do about this? Well, try to keep your society from providing things which are not strictly speaking public goods! These computer terminals are rivalrous in consumption, and pretty darn excludeable. Certainly not public goods. My point is not that there should be no "public" access points for the web, but rather that it's not appropriate for the government to fund them. Why not set up a charity to provide open-access terminals, subject to sane conditions of use? Then anyone who doesn't like YOUR idea of sane can go found his own charity. Don't think it's worth while? You're probably right, so stop complaining.

    The point here is not censorship, exactly, but rather the more fundamental question of "what should the government be doing?". Today we would all be far better off if the government did just a bit less. Not nothing, mind you; just a bit less. Then we wouldn't have to decide so many fundamentally private questions in the public arena, where the folks who sniff a handout always have more incentive to yell 'till they get their way than the rest of us. Think how much more restful life would be if we didn't have to continually lobby for this bill that will line our pockets at the expense of others, and against that bill which will line someone else's pockets at our expense!

    Nels Tomlinson
  • So, if I choose not to buy a book, am I a censor?

    How far exactly would you like to carry this argument? As long as the library's resources are limited, they will have to purchase some books, and exclude others. CENSORSHIP!

    Should the librarians choose the books randomly, to avoid making value judgements? Librarians don't limit access (much) to books and such. But they should certainly remember who pays the bills. The folks of that town are ponying up lots of pounds to provide that library. I think that it is entirely proper for the townsfolk to have a BIG say about what their money gets spent on. If you don't like their taste, spend your own money to make whatever they don't approve of available to the public. Don't try to force others to pay for your opinions. The burning desire to implement your opinions at the expense of others is what this censorship argument always boils down to.

    There is, here in the US, a national organization for librarians. They buy into your argument hook, line and sinker. It makes them feel brave and daring to "fight censorship", I suspect, and is always a good argument for a bigger budget: "we need more money to buy reference books... the porn is so expensive, and so popular we can't cut back on it...". I'm sure that's true in GB too, so you can rest easy: the public's right to be robbed to fund utopias isn't in any real danger.
  • I think this is not acceptable in a service that is funded out of (partly) taxpayers pockets is so over-regulated as to be utterly useless.

    Utterly useless, huh? Well, did you get your timetable?

    I'm not (just) being snotty here. You went into the library with an almost archetypical legitamate purpose : to gather some useful information in a short timeframe. Yor goal did not need porn, or virii, or IRC or email. People using the computers for any of those purposes could have seriously increased the time you had to wait. So, were you able to get what you legitamatly needed or not?

    If so, how can you then call the system utterly useless? If not, do you think the failure had anything to do with the blocking software, or just the railways not keeping their info accessable on line?

    Just trying to keep some perspective arround here.

    -Kahuna Burger

  • What exactly is wrong with teenagers sending e-mail to eachother? What better way to build written communications skills?

    Maybe it was just too much like having fun, and god forbid that any public schooler would actually enjoy themselves at the taxpayers' expense.

  • The UK Library Association [la-hq.org.uk] has a policy statement [la-hq.org.uk] which is against filtering software:

    The Library Association does not endorse the use of filtering software in libraries. The use of such software is inconsistent with the commitment or duty of a library or information service to provide all publicly available information in which its users claim legitimate interest. Access to information should not be restricted except as required by law.

    Filtering software

    Filtering is the term used to describe the use of software that restricts or blocks access to material on the Internet. Such software is intended to prevent access to undesirable and extreme material.

    Many library or information services are providing their users with access to the Internet. The provision of unrestricted Internet access raises a number of concerns, for example, that a library user may access illegal material or that a child may see inappropriate material in a library. The use of filtering software may be considered as one way of addressing these concerns. The consequence of the use of filtering technologies is, however, to deny users reasonable access to information in digitised form.

    --
  • bugger off [slashdot.org]

    --
  • If you want email access, uncensored web browsing, and all your other "rights" online then you need to go to a CyberCafe and pay a few quid. I'm sure even Stockton has cybercafes.
  • Yes, there ARE better ways to handle the situation. Especially all the porn crap-- just put the computers in an open area in plain sight, like near the entrance to the library, near where they check out books. Then not only can the librarians see what you're doing, but so can anyone entering the library. Put the computers all right next to each other, too.

    Maybe that doesn't solve 100% of the problems, but I bet it solves more than censorware does.

    On a side note, the "IE only" thing is really funny. I was at the Metreon in San Francisco, and went into the Microsoft store to check my e-mail. It was IE-only with high security settings. Guess whose web e-mail client doesn't work under that? That's right, Microsoft Outlook. I couldn't check my Microsoft Outlook e-mail using Microsoft Internet Explorer on Microsoft Windows in the Microsoft Store. That rocked.
  • Our city (Virginia Beach) libraries have recently begun a new system that seems to please all sides of this issue. Each library has about a dozen internet-enabled computers.

    Above each of these computers is a sign with a big letter on it: K, F, or U. These letters represent the type of internet access that particular terminal has. K(id) terminals only allows sites that have been pre-approved for children. F(iltered) terminals prohibit certain sites/words. U(nfiltered) terminals have full access to the web.

    Have any other cities used a similar system? Does anyone see a reason to be opposed to it?

  • They did this at my high school [quadium.net] and at every public library I've been to. I just turned it into a game to see how many distinct ways to bypass the "security" I could find and how fast I could get.

    I can sit down at almost any "locked-down kiosk" and be completely in control within 10 seconds (a minute for the well-done ones). Take that, librarians! =)

  • The reality is that the net is full of stuff some people shouldn't see. My daughters, 2 & 4, are already on the net playing games at zoogdisney.com, mamamedia.com, etc. I really don't think it's for them to see porn. I'm not a prude but banner ads of animated oral sex is too much for children.

    For an interesting counterperspective, my friend Andrea is a 20-year old single mother of twin 18-month old girls. She has no problem with them seeing sex when they're 14, or 7, or 4, or now, she believes sex is healthy and fun -- but she is a committed pacifist and wants to protect the kiddies from viewing any violence.

    Do you have ANY idea how hard it is to do that in our society? I didn't have any clue how hard it actually was until I saw her trying. You've got Teletubbies and ... umm ... ummm ... well, try it for yourself and see how hard it is :)

    Personally, I agree with her that sex shouldn't be treated as something dirty even around infants, North American society is very sick in that regard, but I think that by trying to raise them as pacifists she's letting them in for a life of victimization. But I've never known anyone who goes to the length she does to remove all depictions of violence from their formative years, so it's going to fascinate me to see how they do turn out...

  • I would like to point out a small technicality: this is not censorship. The library is choosing to provide internet access. It is not obligated to provide access at all, and it can provide access to whatever it wants on its own terms. A right to free speech and a right to government subsidized access to other people's free speech are two different things.

    This is most certainly censorship. Libraries don't have to carry potentially offensive books, either. But they do (or, at least, many do). Any librarian worth his salt would never even consider limiting access to the information on paper; why should access to the digital stuff be any different?

    Certainly, this is the work of mindless bureaucrats; most have gotten over their penchant for censoring books, but there are still plenty who are keen on censoring the Internet. If it looks like censorship, smells like censorship, and makes you feel dirty all over like censorship, it's probably censorship.

    If there's a national organization of Librarians, they need to get on top of this ASAP.

  • I worked at the Carlsbad CA library for about a year and a half. The last half I helped out with the internet computers we had set up. We had E-mail locked down and porn was as well. There were a few good reasons for this.

    1. Virii protection: The computers were linked to the rest of the network. A E-mail virus coulda caused much damage.

    2. The people running them were not computer gurus. They were librians. There were a few employees who probally could have protected the system better but most of them were part time college students working as clerks.

    3. The person that made the policy (president of the library) certianly didn't know much about computers. He got very confused outside of microsoft word and outlook.

    4. and possibly most important.. These systems are out in the open where not only can small children (usually 6 and up or so) see them but often did. They also used them. If you notice libraries will carry copies of say the Kama Sutra but will not carry Hustler. Is this censorship. I don't think so. It is an intelligent choice made by the head of the library.

    Also remember that libraries are funded by public funds. While any of us would have stood up and fought with our jobs to keep the Kama Sutra or almost any other book with even a modicum of literary merit to it on the shelves most of us felt that Hard-Core porn is a worthy topic to filter out of the public library.

    If there was a law passed saying libraries could not have this sort of thing I would probally agree with standing up and fighting with all that I was worth for. Or if a library banned works of serios literary merit (even something like the Mummy from Ann Rice which has little literary merit) agian it would be something to rant and rave about. But filtering hard-core porn in the presence of minors. Come on.

    Also if it seriously bothers you don't post it here on slashdot. you are wasting your breathe. Get a petition signed from members of your community and present it to the head clerk. State your arguments. The floor clerks kept a few books on the shelves agianst the will of the city mayor with this tactic.

  • there is someplace else just as bad as Utah. This is just the same here in SLC
  • AUP: audible user pissandmoan
    lucky me, I get to hear it all day long.

  • Same reason kids arn't let into rated R movies, cant buy playboy..ect.. if their parents don't mind, they can acompany the kid, or use their own computer. it's a dicy issue, and it comes down to proper education and parents that actualy care.

  • Not.
    IE is tied heavily into the OS, but it's entirely possible to have the browser as the only interface to the PC. System policy's can keep users out ot the control panel, start menu,..ect.....
    That having been said, IE is just an app running on top of the os. you can remove it and windows still works fine.

  • Yeah, libraries need some uniformed police to keep kids from passing dirty notes to each other instead of studying.

    Better still, use some technology to make sure the library patrons really do "look up information for a paper or research project" instead of just hanging out there and socializing. Maybe something like electronic bracelets?

    If those nasty people could be kicked out of the university in the first place--without returning their tuition--then the rest of us could enjoy smaller classes and a lot of the computers would end up not being used at all--we smart folks would walk in and see lots of them just waiting for us to use them properly.

    And think of what the Internet could be if it were not for all those stupid AOL subscribers, chatting and emailing away! And the pornography--why, without some people downloading the stuff all the time, think of what our bandwidth might be!

    After all that, we could turn to the real purpose of libraries and colleges. Libraries should preserve books, not allow people to use them to death. And colleges should be places where little bits of exquisite wisdom are distilled by expert professors and carefully handed down only to the worthy few.

    If some stupid people misuse computers, who knows what they will do next. Better to put them in jail to prevent that from happening.

  • It's a children's library. They're *supposed* to romp around.
  • Exactly. I let my kids use the libraries without close supervision because I know that there won't be some teenager downloading porn. It's my taxpayer dollars they're using, and that kind of controlled Internet access is exactly what I want them to provide.

    And since when can you not access email through a browser?
  • Uh, no. Just the hour a week I leave them to romp around the library while I read. Any you try explaining to a three year old (or even a seven year old) what porn is and why they shouldn't be very, very upset by it.

    Your company's webmail policy makes no sense, but I suppose you already knew that. How do they stop you? There are literally hundreds of free webmail sites.

  • A simple solution to the problem is a hardware key that is issued to adults at the library desk. If your ID says your over 18, you get the dongle that tells the computer to let you see what you want on the terminal. If you are underage, you get censorship. Sorry but that's the breaks.
    But at 7 years old, should my children be confronted with full frontal internet?
    At 7 years old, should you be the one to decide whether my children are "confronted with full frontal internet?"
    Assuming ultimate and final control by parents, the question is what should be the default position for unaccompanied 7, 8, 9 year olds, etc. I see two possibilities:

    1. Any unaccompanied 7 year old gets unfettered access to "full frontal internet," including banner ads of animated oral sex. If any parent has a problem with this, then the burden is on the parent to accompany his or her child to the library and monitor his or her internet access.

    2. Any unaccompanied 7 year old gets only filtered content, the filtering perhaps being based on what he or she could legally purchase at the local magazine store. If any parent has a problem with this, then the parent can come into the library with the child and obtain internet access to anything the parent deems appropriate for his or her child.

      This is analagous to the default standard society has long had for reading material for years. A 7 year old cannot legally buy a copy of Playboy, or Hustler, or walk into a porn shop and buy a copy of Bondage Babes. If you want your child (be her or she 7, 14, 16 or any other age)to have a copy of Playboy, Hustler, etc., you simply need to go buy the copy yourself.

    Now let me ask you three questions.

    First, what do you really think ought to be the rule?

    As a corollary to the first question, do we really want to adopt a rule where the burden is on the parent who does not want his seven year old to see banner ads of animated oral sex to accompany his child to the library each and every time?

    Finally, what do you think, as a matter of political reality, the rule will wind up being?

  • My dear old mum is a member of the Vancouver Public Library Board of Directors, and they are dealing with this issue as an on-going stuggle between liberation and control. They really want to use technology to help people learn and find information.

    The real world does creep into these Ivory Tower ideals, and there is a valid argument for restricting access to portions of the Web that don't exactly qualify as "enlightening". Of course, if you are a student researching the history of porn then you might have a legitimate claim that such a restriction interferes with your right to producing the best work you can, so where and how do you draw the line?

    Do you have people walking around, peeking over shoulders or flipping between monitor-feeds? Do you make people sign waivers to protect the Library from being sued by an angry parent or innocent-bystander who sees something that offends them? Do you install technology that blocks/allows sites based on some proprietary technology?

    What kind of information can I pass on to my mother and her colleagues, so that they can make the best, most informed decision possible? What resources are out there that outline successful (and disastrous) solutions to similar problems in the public domain?

    I'm sure there are plenty of libraries in the world who would LOVE to be altruisticly giving access to the public, if they could do it the "right" way.

  • The school libraries do this as well, but not to the extremes of blocking all but one app. Unfortunately people waste time checking email all day on a computer, waiting for more or reading irrelevant chatter (I used to do that), so all these organizations got the wrong impression.

    A better method, I think, is to allow these kinds of things, but to be ready to let others use the computers for more important activities, if our society wasn't too uptight to talk to strangers...
  • Left unchecked libraries can find themselves with caches full of pornography that, under many local laws, would get the owner arrested.

    As a parent I am concerned about what my child might encounter. I'd like to be involved in guiding that exploration. Should an eight-year-old have full access to violent or pornographic sites? I don't think so. It would seem to me appropriate to have heavily filtered public access for children (libraries DO have children's departments) while maintaining open access for adults and children with adults or with adult permission.

    Libraries themselves, by selecting the material they collect, routinely perform acts of censorship. I would suggest that a form of filtering on internet access for minors is appropriate as long as parents have a way of telling the library they will accept responsibility for what their child views. (And the youngster who is surfing accepts responsibility as well, I might add.)

  • The library is a place where people go to read and to research. I don't see the point in allowing email in the library. There are computer labs, internet cafes, etc for that sort of stuff. I think this is a good move to ensure the computer is avaiable for those who "need" it. (Yes, I realize many of us - including myself need email, but you know what I mean.)
  • Even filtering advocates should be appalled at the actual practices of the industry. See peacefire.org [peacefire.org] for more analysis of filtering software.

    Don't forget the wonderful censorware.org [censorware.org] site. This is what we recommend to parents. Peacefire has more of a "how dare they lock me out!" mentality.

    Censorware has a "Look what doesn't work to protect your children" mentality.

    In either case, my husband and I ended up getting a Sunday editorial spot in our local paper on the school library and censorware issue. (It doesn't carry editorials past day one, so there is no link to place here.) This is a case where the technologically literate need to do a few simple things to fight censorware.

    1. Write letters to the editor of all local papers. Include facts. Hammer on the facts. Hammer on pages that do get banned, and pages that slip through. censorware.org's review [censorware.org] of bess contains excellent ammunition.
    2. When discussing censorware with the community, make sure your language and affect are similar to that of a Baptist Sunday School teacher. Show deep concern, explain that these things don't work, express dismay at this abrogation of parental and community responsibility, and do it without frothing at the mouth.
    3. Do not use ad hominem arguments. (What would you expect coming from an ignorant slob like that?) Instead, be the voice of sweet reason and responsibility. Explain the wonders that can no longer be seen. Blocks flesh tones? No more Sistine Chapel Ceiling [wayne.edu]. Uses keywords? No more Testicular cancer. Uses algorithms? No more information on the Brotherhood of Flagellants [newadvent.org]. If all else fails, use
    4. Indignation. How dare anyone decide what your child gets to see? Who appointed them the ultimate decider of your child's upbringing? What standards shall be used?
    5. Bring up community standards. Communities are changing so rapidly that the demographic standards obscenity have changed. In many cultures, the pictures of astronauts in shorts at NASA is offensive to modesty. In other cultures, the human body is something to be celebrated. Shall I assume that the female breast is taboo, as in Baptist Illinois, or shall I be like the folk on Pago Pago and forbid the display of female thighs, and the discussion of bodily function between father and son?
    6. Finally, if necessary, in public debate, ask how much time they spend watching TV with children, reading the books their children read, and providing other outlets. Remind the audience that the Internet has never been a substitute for parenting. Remind the audience of the evils of using the public library as a babysitter. If parents do not trust their own children, have them watch their children, rather than forcing us to do it for them.
    Laughter is always your best weapon. Use it well.
  • I worked in a public library last summer, and one of our biggest problems was not about content, but rather seating, and number of workstations available. Prohibiting time-consuming activities like chat and e-mail or restricting them to off peak times allows others to use the facility.
  • I may be only a young lad of 19, but I have over three years of employment background with the public library system in Nova Scotia, Canada, first as a book shelver, and more recently as a web developer/sysadmin/techie.

    The Canadian Library Association's stand on Intellectual Freedom states:

    It is the responsibility of libraries to guarantee and facilitate access to all expressions of knowledge and intellectual activity, including those which some elements of society may consider to be unconventional, unpopular or unacceptable. To this end, libraries shall acquire and make available the widest variety of materials. [The full policy, if you're interested, is accessible from here [library.ns.ca].]

    A problem I recall being mentioned earlier (NZ, IIRC?) is that of limited bandwidth. Two of the three branch libraries within the system in which I work have a 56K Frame Relay connection; one, as part of a pilot project, just switched to ADSL.

    So, while some libraries don't explicitly censor pages, sometimes network availability or simple slowness of machines prevents some pages from being displayed correctly.

    One way I've seen this handled is through the use of a disclaimer. Its quite lengthy, so I leave its reading [library.ns.ca] as an exercise to the reader.

  • Re:The library isn't for email anyway (Score:3)

    by Jeremy Erwin ( 2054 ) on Friday September 22, 2000 @06:43PM (#760833) Journal
    I find email to be a most useful library tool. I've often used librarycatalogs that will email the results of a search to a user specified address. This feature is inavaluable when collating a electronic bibliography for BibTex, or for collating interlibrary loan lists.

    Often, I've kept certain notes in my email account, so that I might be able to refer back to them if neccesary. I don't always have all my notebooks with me.

    It's also useful to be able to correspond with other researchers-- some material cannot be transmitted accurately via telephone.

    Of course, the WWW has subsumed some of these functions-- but how are you supposed to update a web page without telnet access?

  • Regulation.. (Score:3)

    by bokane ( 36382 ) on Friday September 22, 2000 @12:48PM (#760834) Homepage Journal
    OK - I worked managing the computers at a library for two years, so I speak from experience here:

    Yes. You really, really do need some kind of usage policy. My library had a no-email policy, which I never enforced, but I think that certain of the policies were perfectly reasonable.

    The "no porn" one, for example. You'd be really amazed by how many middle-aged men come into the library and look up porn, on a public computer, in full view, in the middle of the day, and then actually get _indignant_ when you ask them to leave. Kiddies are just as into it, but they're mostly (in my experience at least) just doing it on a dare or whatever.

    There are other ones that aren't quite as obvious, too. The afterschool crowds at my library were really staggering, and since a lot of the kids needed to use the computers for reports, we had do have a policy to give them preference over kiddies who wanted to check out Pokemon and DragonballZ sites.

    Certainly, some policies aren't reasonable (ie "no email, no Deja"), but a lot of them are. Don't get into some kind of knee-jerk reaction about how bad it is for libraries to regulate the use of their computers. Think it through before you post.

  • Uh, hi, I'd like the PERVERT key (Score:3)

    by john@iastate.edu ( 113202 ) on Friday September 22, 2000 @12:57PM (#760835) Homepage
    Exactly how many people are going to do that?

    I have a 7 year old, our library has no filtering software -- bully for them!

    First of all, unlike some people, I'm not just ditching my kid at the library, I'm sitting next to him.

    Second, I suspect his interest in something like that would be just about equal to his interest in a treatise on quantum chromodynamics.

  • Re:covering (their) asses. (Score:3)

    by Doomdark ( 136619 ) on Friday September 22, 2000 @12:25PM (#760836) Homepage Journal
    Yeah, it really seems libraries are covering the butts... and boobs and all that, I guess. What a waste.

  • covering their asses. (Score:3)

    by photozz ( 168291 ) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [zzotohp]> on Friday September 22, 2000 @12:12PM (#760837) Homepage
    What the Library is doing is covering their butts in case some kid gets in there and catches sight of something he shoulden't. I can understand it, to a point. The best answer right now may be a key type system that allows adults to turn off the filters when they need to, but leaves them for the kids. If the kids are smart 'nuf to bypass the filters, they are probly old 'nuf to know better, and thus not need them.

  • Other side of the coin... (Score:3)

    by Scytle ( 177442 ) on Friday September 22, 2000 @01:17PM (#760838)
    It seems excessive but speaking as someone who formally worked at a libarary for large university I can see the reason for this. We also ended up having to ban email & chat room use. What happened was that we brought in all these computers to help people in research & such but a small group of people ended up monopolizing them for hours so they could hang out in X-Rated chat rooms and do their email. Anybody who wanted to actually look up information for a paper or research project was out of luck.

    Scytle

  • cost of the net (Score:3)

    by jesterzog ( 189797 ) on Friday September 22, 2000 @12:25PM (#760839) Journal

    I'm not sure what it's like in Europe, but one thing that becomes a lot more relevant as soon as you leave the US is the traffic cost of the net.

    The vast majority of info is hosted in the US, which is why even at my university [vuw.ac.nz] we have only very restricted access outside New Zealand, unless we're really nice to the sysadmins. If you want a better connection you have to pay extra for it, and the cost is usually traffic based.

    At the library down the road from here the net is freely available (when it works), but it's not cheap for the city to pay for. I can completely understand why they want to restrict people from using services that are going to cause people to hang around and use what they probably don't need. If people want better access there are lots of cybercafe's up and down the road.

    Email seems a bit over the top though.


    ===

  • The entire question (Score:4)

    by Obiwan Kenobi ( 32807 ) <(evan) (at) (misterorange.com)> on Friday September 22, 2000 @12:18PM (#760840) Homepage
    Due to the lack of proofreading, here is the entire question:

    Recently I was in the North East of England for a quick visit. When the time came for me to depart Londonwards I needed to look up a train timetable so wandered in to my local library for a quick lookup on the net. The AUP document I was required to sign was so authoritarian as to be unbelievable. As well as the usual clauses about porn and virii it forbade the use of chatrooms and - get this: EMAIL. To add to this, they had set up the machines so that the only app that could be run was Internet Explorer. They also had blocking software that blocked evil, depraved sites like oh, deja.com [deja.com]. I think this is not acceptable in a service that is funded out of (partly) taxpayers pockets is so over-regulated as to be utterly useless. Are other libraries in the UK taking a similar line? Does anyone else know more about this, or is this just an individual council going overboard?" A few libraries in the US are moving to this kind of system as well. It's a tricky situation, and it was inevitable that we were going to have this kind of conflict when accessing the Internet through publicly funded outlets. Are there better ways to handle this situation?

  • blocked e-mail (Score:4)

    by Lxy ( 80823 ) on Friday September 22, 2000 @12:18PM (#760841) Journal
    There is a legit use for blocking e-mail. Not so much for security or privacy sake (although I can see some kid e-mailing threat letters to members of congresss and stuff). After managing a high school network, I discovered how addicted teenagers get to e-mail. Before we had all the logistics of student e-mail set up, we had simple net access. They were used pretty heavily, but usually there wasn't a waiting line unless a class needed to use it for some research project. When the day came that we let the students freely e-mail anybody on their school accounts, things got out of control. People were constantly e-mailing EACH OTHER (even if they were sitting right next to each other) and basically turned it into a form of high-tech note passing. Lines were wrapping around the computer lab by others anxious to check their e-mail. That and after every class there was always a barrage of teenage girls who needed to write 2-page letters to their boyfriends. Eight times a day. I think the restriction on e-mail has a valid concern, but there are better ways of doing it. It looks like they wanted to keep the internet station for sole research purposes, which makes sense from a certain standpoint. I think they could have found a better way to manage it, if this was their intent.

    "You'll die up there son, just like I did!" - Abe Simpson

  • Blocking software is arbitrary and abusive (Score:4)

    by mooredav ( 101800 ) on Friday September 22, 2000 @12:55PM (#760842)

    First of all, I don't think that porn needs to be blocked. Perhaps some sites may cause real harm (internet gambling?), but the damage done by porn is theoretical and unproven. Do the obscure "benefits" of blocking justify the cost of purchasing, deploying, and maintaining the software?

    With that in mind, I hope that none of the current batch of crapware gets proliferated in any more libraries. They frequently block good sites because of poor AI and because of the inherent difficulty in the decision-making task.

    Let's look at three main methods of blocking to see why they don't work:

    • An Access Control List
      Human operators simply cannot filter all of the sites (despite censorware claims to the contrary). Either censorware has to miss much of the content that they deem "offensive", or they must filter using some automated procedure. The result is that many censorware products blacklist sites based on an algorithm without any human supervision. The algorithms are typically keyword matches (in one example, the presence of the word "couples" in the URL blocked out a harmless photo of Al Gore and Tipper).
    • Keyword filtering
      This frequent technique has less intelligence than plankton. They do not use state-of-the-art AI algorithms to parse language. Their methods are crude and arbitrary. However, that doesn't stop vendors from making exhorbitant claims about their intelligence, as if a real nanny was protecting childeren while they surf.
    • Image processing
      My experience with computer vision and pattern recognition suggests that cutting-edge technology is nowhere near distinguishing between pr0n and non-pr0n. How can you tell an innocent dance from a vile sex scene? How do even count the number of people in the photograph? One vendor claims to be able to interpret images (by counting the flesh-tones) to decide whether they are pornographic. Of course, all independent reviews of the software reveal it their algorithm to be complete arbitrary (they can only block 30% of pr0n by blocking 30% of the internet). Mostly, it just blocked people's faces.

    In summary, censorware is not much more than cheap introductory-level AI with a lot of marketing hype. Why would we install this crap at the risk of undermining parental authority? Kids will not learn to respect authority by being forced to swallow such stupid and arbitrary protectionist measures.

    Furthermore, the whole system reeks of abuse caused by deliberate blocking. Athiest, feminist, and gay newsgroups are frequently targeted. Sites that criticize censorship are often targetted. Remember when CyberSitter threaten to block out all sites on Peacefire's ISP unless the ISP yanked Peacefire's site (for criticizing CyberSitter and showing how lame it was)? Access control lists and blocking algorithms are kept secret, presumably to prevent the competition from improving their filtering product. However, I think that they must disguise their poor algorithms and abusive practices.

    Even filtering advocates should be appalled at the actual practices of the industry. See peacefire.org [peacefire.org] for more analysis of filtering software.

    So please don't let your solution include a blocking filter.

  • The question is really about public access (Score:5)

    by Argyle ( 25623 ) on Friday September 22, 2000 @12:20PM (#760843) Homepage Journal
    The reality is that the net is full of stuff some people shouldn't see. My daughters, 2 & 4, are already on the net playing games at zoogdisney.com, mamamedia.com, etc. I really don't think it's for them to see porn. I'm not a prude but banner ads of animated oral sex is too much for children. Currently, my wife or I are with them while on the computer. As they get older, they get censorware on their computer. Once they can haxx0r it out of their box, they are free to surf where they please.

    There is a place for censorship, but not for adults.

    A simple solution to the problem is a hardware key that is issued to adults at the library desk. If your ID says your over 18, you get the dongle that tells the computer to let you see what you want on the terminal. If you are underage, you get censorship. Sorry but that's the breaks.

    Yes, I know the 'nannie' software strips out stuff like breast cancer research. But at 7 years old, should my children be confronted with full frontal internet? I think not.

    Adults on the other hand, should always have free access to any and all information on the net at a publicly funded terminal.
    -----

  • Re:censorship (Score:5)

    by Yardley ( 135408 ) on Friday September 22, 2000 @12:54PM (#760844) Homepage
    If there's a national organization of Librarians, they need to get on top of this ASAP.

    There is and they are completely against censorship of this or any nature.

    The Library Bill of Rights [ala.org], created by the The American Library Association [ala.org], states:

    The American Library Association affirms that all libraries are forums for information and ideas, and that the following basic policies should guide their services.

    I. Books and other library resources should be provided for the interest, information, and enlightenment of all people of the community the library serves. Materials should not be excluded because of the origin, background, or views of those contributing to their creation.

    II. Libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view on current and historical issues. Materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval.

    III. Libraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and enlightenment.

    IV. Libraries should cooperate with all persons and groups concerned with resisting abridgment of free expression and free access to ideas.

    V. A person's right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views.

    VI. Libraries which make exhibit spaces and meeting rooms available to the public they serve should make such facilities available on an equitable basis, regardless of the beliefs or affiliations of individuals or groups requesting their use.

    --

Slashdot Top Deals

HELP!!!! I'm being held prisoner in /usr/games/lib!

Close