South Carolina's On-Again, Off-Again Filtering

fuzzbomb writes: "South Carolina libraries were forced to put filters on their computers or lose half of their funding. Now they're having to remove filters from some of their computers because the law says that every library system must offer unfiltered access on up to 10% or at least one of their computers. "

$$

I hate this kind of stuff....not only is it stupid and a violation of rights and blah blah blah but WE'RE paying for it! I can think of many better things to do with all the money these people are being paid to change this back and forth......for example, my monitor is less than flat...

e-mail is being blocked?

it says that the main reason for removing the filter is for e-mail access (as the current filter blocks it).

now, correct me if I am wrong, but don't most of those that use a library computer for Internet access do *some* surfing and research but the majority use it for e-mail access? This is at least what I have noticed in my few trips to the public library.

wouldn't it make more sense to have a filter that did not block e-mail but did block the rest of the crap? According to the article one of the librarians said that the filter is the best thing for them? Why not allow e-mail but still block the other shit?

Just my worthless .02

Filters may be OK

If they're having a lot of problems with dusty conditions in South Carolina libraries, then I support filters on the computers. It could help the fans and other components last longer.

so what?

So the law was updated so that if the filters block valid research you can move to an unfiltered one.

This is what we wanted, right?

Problem of Perception

One thing I noticed while reading the Charlotte Observer articule is that they kept referring to the filters as "pornography-blocking software". They implied that the filters block porn and only porn. One of the more serious problems with filters is that they block a lot of other material as well.

Re:Problem of Perception

I don't think medical radiation is quite the same thing -- you don't have private companies with zero accountability manipulating the effects of medical radiation to push their own political agendas.

In contrast, a so-called "anti-pornography" filter can (and in many cases does) delibrately censor sites containing information that is critical of the company producing the filter (Peacefire, anyway?) or that focuses on gay rights (a non-pornographic issue that is contrary to the religious-oriented nature of some of the filter companies). This same material, if presented in book form, would most likely not be blocked.

Futhermore, there have been cases where "anti-pornography" filters have been found to block the sites of various politicians. Whether on purpose or accidental, this underscores just how drastic the results of giving carte blanche censorship power to a private company can be.

Overall, we have a hard enough time trying to define pornography in a regular, open context. To just hand this decision off to a private company with no oversight and less regulation than a corner hotdog vendor.

how to filter

Perhaps a good type of filter would warn of potentially inappropriate content before displaying a page, instead of just blocking it. A librarian (in the case of a child) or the user could simply continue by accepting that they may be faced with such content.

Perhaps with a parent's permission (or the user's own acceptance if older than 18) the filter could be disabled.

What's wrong with having the screens face a public area? In a computer room at undergrad school only the last row of machines had porn in their browser histories; people don't want to be caught viewing porn.

1 of 10?

So is the law that it is okay to see what you were looking for 1 out of 10 times or okay for us to pervert the minds of children by letting them see smut 1 out of 10 times? Does this seem to be getting highly silly to anyone else?

Tell your kid, "If you see pornography turn it off!" and turn off Java/Javascript to protect from popup lockin and just let the kids watch out for themselves. If they are really young they should have adults helping them anyway. If your kid really sees something that troubles them get off your ass and have a family discussion about the topic. A computer is not smart enough to be a good parent.

If atleast one computer...

is it atleast marked? Or do I have to guess which machine will let me look around the internet uninhibited? That'd probably worse control: it's like the watch tower in the prison scenario. It's one type of control when you know there's a watchman, but it's another when you're not sure if there's one at all.

Scared of Social Control,
F-bacher

up to 10% or at least one?

Is that supposed to say at least 10% or at least 1? Or is 10% really the maximum?

Its called supervision

"I think as adults, we have to step up and see to it that (children) are safely using the computer and that they're not going to see the filth out there," Provence said.

So why are you enlightened adults passing this duty off to some lame filter? Kids will find their way through it in about, oh, 8 nanoseconds.

If you want effectiveness, post rules and take an occasional glance at what people are doing. Ban the rule breakers for x amount of time and let the fear and chilling effect do the rest.

Filters don't work and these "responsible" adults aren't being very responsible at all.

"People who cry that it's limiting their freedoms ... I don't think they have a leg to stand on. Children under 18 aren't allowed to go to R-rated movies, so why would we allow them to go into a school or a library and see X-rated material?"


This suggests that 18 and overs should be able to disable filters which is and never will be the case. Most people I see in the library are over 18 anyways.

Re:Its called supervision

I agree completely, and this is exactly the route my local library took. Three years ago when they first installed Internet access, the problem arose that children were accessing porn via the libraries computers. Did they filter? Did they restrict access? Did they prohibit the Internet altogether?

No. First they instituted the Internet Card. It's like a library card, but for Internet access. You have to agree to several rules to get the card (including no porn), and then it must be inserted into the machine during each use. The beauty of the card is that the parents of minor children must sign for their access INSIDE the library, and must also agree to a few things...including acceptance of the fact that they know about the objectionable materials on the internet and are allowing them on anyway. This eliminates the libraries liability and reduces pressure on them to filter. The second step was to RELOCATE the computers to the middle of the library. The public computers are in two large circles in the center of the main room, where you can be assured ZERO privacy (the keyboard trays were recessed to prevent people from peeking your passwords as you typed them in.) The third and final step to eliminate porn from the library was to scrap the paltry 14" monitors originally supplied by Compaq and replace them with shiny new 21" screens...which are BIG and EASILY VIEWABLE from behind.

Today, there is no longer a problem with porn in our libraries public computers. Anyone dumb enough to open up xxxsluts.com on one of their computers would be spotted within minutes, and they are usually reported to the librarian immediately. Wthout the user even being aware that he's being investigated, the librarian can then verify what sites that computer has viewed via a special proxy monitoring package and establish exactly what was being looked at. If the librarian determines that the user was in fact trolling for porn, then his card can be instantly suspended for 7, 30, or 90 days, depending on whether he's done it before (subsequent offenses result in a five year access loss).

And there you have it. The perfect way to eliminate porn in libraries without filters! And before anyone tries to argue it's effectiveness, let me point out that it's worked perfectly. A few people were nailed within a few weeks of the new systems implementation, but after those instances the reports of porn viewing dropped SHARPLY. They now average one suspension a month, and those tend to be new users who didn't expect rigid enforcement. Parents love it because their kids are safe from viewing porn and extremist hate sites, students love it because they don't have to deal with annoying filters blocking their access when they try to do their biology homework, and computer geeks love it because they get to stare at those beautiful 21" screens whenever they go to the library. Everyones happy :-)

Let me get that straight

The South Carolina law says every library system must offer unfiltered Internet access on up to 10 percent, or at least one, of its public computers.

Assuming that the "or" in the law is logically an "and", it is illegal for a library to have <=9 computers because if 1 or more is unfiltered, it contradicts the "10 percent rule", and if 0 is unfiltered, it contradicts the "at least one" rule.

Of course, if the "or" is logically an "or", then a library can have 100% unfiltered and the legality boolean reads: (false || true) == true.

I think that Logic101 should be a required course in the study program of lawmakers.

Not so bad

Actually, I hate to admit it, but this isn't all that unreasonable. If it were up to me, there'd be no filters on library computers, but this isn't an unreasonable compromise -- though I'd like it more like 50-50.

more needed!

this is good. what we need is better filters .. but that's a far fetched dream .. so til then those ppl whose research involves subjects that can confuse the filter can use the 10% of the computer .. though i feel it should be more.

Eh?

"Pornographic smut anywhere is undesirable, but in the local library where our children visit, is intolerable."

All other forms of smut are just fine, in fact, we encourage non-pornographic forms of smut. Ok, sorry.

But not to waste your time, I'll add my .02, whatever they may be worth in this filtered society. What good do we think we're doing with all this filtering? Do we really think our kids will be better off if we disallow some forms of thoughts, or various undesirable themes of thought? Last time I checked, it was pretty damn impossible to keep 14 year old boys from thinking about naked women all the time. I can understand how it's gross if people are in the library all the time looking at pr0n, but can't the librarian get the gist (no pun intended) of it and call the cops? What if part of one person's job was to casually walk past the computers and make sure they were being used constructively?

Ok, I know that's impossible. It raises all sorts of ethical questions blah blah blah. Including, "Is /. constructive use of a computer?"

These questions will plague us.

who decides !!

who decides what's appropriate and whats not. you just can go on blocking everything just cuz it had the "s" word in it. this is a step in the right direction .. but 10% isn't enough ..

As a South Carolina resident...

I can assure you our state is a little messed up sometimes. Catch this:

The state of South Carolina for years uses one-time funds for multiple years projects (not the brightest bulbs). This year the one time money didn't come in, and the state had a budget shortfall of $800M. The state decides to account for this shortfall they will cut funding to all state programs...except education...except colleges, because apparently colleges don't count as education. Tuition for instate residents at Clemson University [clemson.edu] just went up 40% this year [clemson.edu] to make up for the "we won't cut education, except for those rich colleges" decision. This is increasing ironic as last year Clemson University [clemson.edu] was named "Time Magazine's Public College of the Year" [clemson.edu] and this year we won a couple more awards. [clemson.edu] Apparently, in South Carolina, if you college wins a national award, you cut their funding. After all, we wouldn't want people to think South Carolina actually has GOOD schools! (I for the record do not mind the tuition increase. I personally support it as I feel the college had no choice. I fault the State, not the school.)

It does not suprise me in the slightest that South Carolina is having a little trouble figuring out what the law with regard to filtering should be. At least they made a decision here that tends more to the libertarian side.

in my Highschool

We had filtering software for anything accessed... the filtering software wouldn't let me go to site on a topic I was researching for English class it happened to be cyber terrorism and someone else was reporting on the Wiccian (sp?) values and beliefs which was also filtered out and in all the times we were allowed to go to the library during the school hrs to work on it we had to sit around and do nothing because every thing was blocked, pages on the DOJ web site were being blocked because of what it mentioned... and we could still hit whitehouse.com and many other porn site, when myself and friend tried using a proxy and web forwarding pages we both were taken to the main office for trying to bypass the web filtering software

Yea this is going to fix the problems

WTF?

What would be so freaking difficult about having a "Children's Section" in your library? If you're under 18 you use the filtered/monitored computer(s) near the librarian's desk. Keep the other computers in the reference area where they are supposed to be. I live in a small rural town that uses this system, and this isn't even an issue for us.

Jaysyn

Government funded internet cafes...

I am very much a libertarian when it comes to these issues. It is not the right, role, or responsibility of government to permit or restrict your personal internet access within their institutions.

There are BETTER DESERVING issues that need public funding instead of damned internet access within the libraries.

Dump the internet access within the libraries. Take that money and pay down the national debt, feed some hungry people... do SOMETHING constructive.

Why censor it at all?

State Attorney General Charlie Condon says that "Pornographic smut anywhere is undesirable, but in the local library where our children visit, is intolerable."

I have to ask, why? I can't understand why people are so keen to stop their children seeing things. When they finally get to see what it is they've been blocked from it'll obviously hold more interest for them, being completely new. Blocking things can only be successful if every single instance of that thing is blocked, which is impossible. If you remove pornography from the Internet, then the kids can see see it on TV. Block it from TV, and they'll see it in some magazine one of their friends at school smuggled in.

It's a losing battle, and it would be far better to just leave the Internet unfiltered and foster a spirit of family discussion in the home. If the kid sees something like hate propaganda, it's going to have a lot more effect on him if it's a totally new idea. Let them see everything, so that they know to spot the gunk when they see it.

One day they're going to see it, they might as well be prepared for it.

The Solution is Obvious...

Take look at this project:

www.squidguard.org/ [squidguard.org]

I will have to be honest and say that I have yet to implemt this, but geeze, a small amount of Googling can save much turmoil...

net filtering

I recently visited the library in my area (in MD, USA) and to my surprise, whatever net filtering software they are using blocks Slashdot! I couldn't believe it, that's ridiculous. It also blocked a bunch of other sites that really shouldn't have been blocked.

Fortuneately, only half of the computers there have filtering software installed, the other half are unfiltered and have privacy screens on them. I sure hope it stays that way. IMO, that's a pretty sane way to work a public library, unfortuneately, the filtering software could use a lot of work...

should be filtered

I see some comments saying this is impinging on personal liberty.

I agree that over 18's should be able to look at everything they want (including drinking alcahol). But the thing is, it's in a PUBLIC PLACE. What if some 10 year old walked passed your terminal at the library and saw your favorite donkey pron site?

unpopular opinion

I'm probably going to get flamed here, but I don't really have a big problem with filtering in public libraries.

Remember that we're talking about libraries that are funded with public money. That means money that comes from taxpayers.

I, a taxpayer, should be allowed to exert unilateral control over which public programs are candidates to receive my portion of the tax pie. If I'm an ignorant baboon and I demand that none of my money be used to view bomb making instructions, then I should be allowed to do that. And if I demand that none of my money should go to pro-DMCA biased studies, then I should be able to do that as well.

Of course, implementing such a system would be a bookkeeping nightmare. So then we get the all or nothing solution that is so popular in the US' version of a democracy: if enough people raise a stink about something, then no one's tax money is spent to do that thing.

Fine. Better that than forcing me to pay for something that I'm opposed to. All that means is that as different groups scream and fight about different funding programs, more and more programs get cut. And as more programs get cut, there's more room for the government to lower my taxes. Sounds like a win-win situation to me.

The real problem here isn't that we have filtering in public libraries. The problem is that we don't have enough private organizations operating libraries for the public. Let them charge a monthly fee for the library card and go from there. These baboons who demand filtering in the libraries probably don't use the libraries anyway, and therefore they'd have no influence on whether or not a privately run library would have filtering.

Of course, there are certain problems that a privately run library would have that public libraries wouldn't. And that's why we need both. Go to the private library for almost everything, but go to the public library when you need to read something that's critical of the corporation running the private library.

And there's the possibility that a cowardly management team in the private library would follow suit with the public library's filtering. But if they did that they'd be particularly dumb: if the public library is all filtered, then a private library that doesn't filter would have exclusive access to that portion of the market that wants unfiltered information. Talk about a revenue boon! Alas, cowardly managers are pretty common.

Censorware MUST ban privacy, anonymity sites

Let's see if it's safe for me to go back to Slashdot ...

Readers may be interested in my anticensorware [sethf.com] reports on the above topic, particularly

• http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/loophole.php - BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE (censorware vs. privacy & anonymity) [sethf.com]
• http://sethf.com/anticensorware/smartfilter/greate stevils.php - SmartFilter's Greatest Evils - censorware & privacy/anonymity [sethf.com]

Censorware MUST ban privacy, anonymity, even language-translation sites, because these represent a possible escape from the control of censorware.

See also, by Peacefire [peacefire.org], http://peacefire.org/babelfish/ - BabelFish blocked by censorware [peacefire.org]

I'm going to be releasing much more anticensorware work in the near future, but it's not clear if it'll be accepted for consideration on Slashdot. This is in part due to the still-active issue of What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com], and the acrimony between myself and Slashdot editor Michael Sims. I'm trying to see if there is a way to work around that editorial abuse, but frankly I'm a programmer, not a diplomat.

-- Seth Finkelstein [sethf.com]

X terminals will rule the day, then

Teh requirement of 10% or at least one computer to offer unfiltered access will do away with filters nicely.

Set up only one Linux server, that works as display manager for the whole library. Let all workstations be X terminals. No more filtering.
Plus library will save a bundle and half worth of HW and software licenses.

Filters are useless...

Filtering any type of content will, at best, filter a larger percentage of acceptable content than the stuff it's supposed to filter. We see this time and time again.

Besides -- who the hell goes to the library to look at pr0n? I can't see how filtering legitimate medical-related sites and such really does anything more than hurt the situation. If there existed a filter that could do the right thing 95% of the time, I might agree, but as far as I know, no filtering system is even close to 50% right...

Again, though, the (hopefully) very small percentage of people who use public computers to look at pr0n and other such things, compared to the large amount of users who'd have legitimate content blocked, really makes these things pointless.

And then, to decide that making 10% of the PCs unfiltered -- doesn't that just defeat the purpose? One looking for pr0n can switch to another computer just as easily as someone who was un-fairly denied content... so again, it's just a waste of (taxpayer's) money.

Library in Dublin, California

They came up with a simple solution to the requirement that they install filtering software on the computers. When you fire up the browser it asks if you want filtered or unfiltered access. Meets the legal requirements and doesn't interfere with internet access (the law doesn't say anything about requiring people to use it, just that it must be installed on the computer).

For the hell of it, I checked a few non-porn sites to see if they were blocked. Slashdot wasn't, but Peacefire was.

Filtering the Internet is kinda like book banning

I don't think that children should have unrestricted access to the Internet, and I don't think that the purpose
of library computers is so that people can access pornography. However, I don't think that it's the
governments place to say what information I have access to either. I have seen many books in the library
that I would not want small children to have access to because they have unsuitable content. However,
should we ban the Catcher in the Rye, Tropic of Cancer, or the Bible.

Should we restrict people from viewing any literature that has opinions that are contrary to the governments
views.

Why not just require a parent to sit with the child and monitor their online sessions. Wouldn't a responsible
parent do that anyway.

Porn, anyone?

Not only are filters ineffective against porn, but the focus on porn misses the point. Most censorers are idiots when it comes to email, chat, newsgroups, etc., for which there are many ways to get access.

Hooray!

In a statement, Condon said, "Pornographic smut anywhere is undesirable, but in the local library where our children visit, is intolerable."

<sarcasm> I, for one, applaud this action. Jesus knows (*making sign of cross*) these smut-peddlers need to stop using public libraries as their personal peep-shows. We've all walked by the terminals and seen one of these sickos stroking himself while looking at the latest Anna Kournikova faked pics. </sarcasm>

Condon sounds as in touch with reality as that senile old fuck Jesse Helms is.

-Legion

SC Laws

SC Laws don't necessarily make sense, but the intent of the law is to make sure that at least one computer in every library has free, unfiltered internet access, regardless of the stuff you can get to.

But there are other issues here as well. South Carolina has implemented a statewide network backbone that all of the K-12 public schools, libraries and distance education centers can connect to, free of charge, that's right, unmetered high-availability, high-speed access to the internet. Some of this is made possible by a federal program called E-rate (http://www.sl.universalservice.org [universalservice.org]) that pays a certain percentage of the cost of technology expenses for connections to the internet etc.

This FEDERAL program has guidelines and restrictions that require protection for children using the stuff the FEDGOV pays for, (http://www.sl.universalservice.org/reference/CIPA .asp [universalservice.org]), or you don't get your "financial assistance."

This may be the reason that this law was enacted.

Anyone ever see those commercials with that goofy Matthew Lesko and all the government money available that you don't know about? This is one of those plans.

Of course this isn't the first time...

That a South Carolina institution has tried to block access to certain internet sites [funphone.com]

People think that filtering works

I'm surprised not everyone here realizes this. Listen up, fellow Slashdotters: the average person thinks that filtering software works. Shocking, isn't it?!!?

Why are all of you geeks are so surprised when non-geeks have a misconception about technology? If everyone knew as much about technology as we did, then everyone would be a geek!

The way you fix this is not by posting on Slashdot. Instead, you should be educating your neighbors and your elected officials. Write them letters or talk to them. Tell them in plain language that the filters are not effective.

SC...bleh

I'm sorry, but SC is simply one of those States you do not want to stay in. Drive through, dont have sex in it, don't surf the net in the library, and don't try to buy beer after 7.

Re:the big picture

step 1. Stand up from that evil, malicious computer in your public library of deception and hatred.

step 2. Walk over to the other side of the library... you know, where those funny rectangular objects are all stacked together with the funny pieces of paper stuck between them.

step 3. Read as much sexually explicit material as you want. Read as much racially ignited material as you want. Child? You can still read it. Pervert? Go right on ahead, read away.

step 4. Realize that the medium does not change the standard. "Books with sex pictures and flag burnings are ok, but sex pictures and racists on the internet are not acceptable!"

step 5. Enjoy Canada. I'm sure you'll fit in quite nicely.

Re:The corps control consumers- case closed.

This is so silly. If you want an unfiltered internet connection, pay for it yourself and use it with your own computer. When one lets the state own something, the state has a right to control it- just as you have a right to control your own connection.

Try this [zdnet.com]. The state doesn't run that. Do those users have control over their connections just because they pay a monthly fee to a private entity? If you point to the DMCA as gov't interference in the marketplace, I refer you to the private bodies that bought and paid for that piece of legislation. Appeals to the "free market" will be referred back to the geographic monopolies many broadband providers enjoy because they won't open their pipes to competition. Besides, the filtering software and associated maintenance and administration is an added burden on taxpayer funds. Unfiltered access is cheaper, so why not let the filtering advocates pay monthly fees to ISPs, buy their own filtering software, and spare the rest of us the added cost?


Letting government run things is always an inferior alternative to private ownership 99% of the time. I wish leftists were mentally capable of digesting this fact.

always != 99% of the time. I wish right-wingers were mentally capable of simple logic.

Re:The state controls what it owns- case closed.

Exactly, the State is not just the party that is in power, it is ALL its citisens.
So, that same state should not take decisions about what is good or bad for those citisen, they can surely do it for themself.

Public money is being spend, that means no single interrest group should have overriding influence.

And those that are using these public facilities are typically those that dont have private access, so demanding they pay for their own is plain silly, following that type of arguments you should close down all public services.