Slashdot Mirror

"We're excited to double down on the findings of Ready to Code 1," says one Google program manager, "by equipping librarians with the knowledge and skills to cultivate computational thinking and coding skills in our youth." theodp writes: Citing the need to fill "500,000 current job openings in the field of computer science," the American Library Association argues in a new whitepaper that "all 115,000 of the nation's school and public libraries are crucial community partners to guarantee youth have skills essential to future employment and civic participation"... The ALA's Google-funded "Libraries Ready to Code" project has entered Phase II, which aims to "equip Master's in Library Science students to deliver coding programs through public and school libraries and foster computational thinking skills among the nation's youth."

"Libraries play a vital role in our communities, and Google is proud to build on our partnership with ALA," added Hai Hong, who leads US outreach on Google's K-12 Education team... "Given the ubiquity of technology and the half-a-million unfilled tech jobs in the country, we need to ensure that all youth understand the world around them and have the opportunity to develop the essential skills that employers -- and our nation's economy -- require."

"We're excited to double down on the findings of Ready to Code 1," says one Google program manager, "by equipping librarians with the knowledge and skills to cultivate computational thinking and coding skills in our youth." theodp writes: Citing the need to fill "500,000 current job openings in the field of computer science," the American Library Association argues in a new whitepaper that "all 115,000 of the nation's school and public libraries are crucial community partners to guarantee youth have skills essential to future employment and civic participation"... The ALA's Google-funded "Libraries Ready to Code" project has entered Phase II, which aims to "equip Master's in Library Science students to deliver coding programs through public and school libraries and foster computational thinking skills among the nation's youth."

"Libraries play a vital role in our communities, and Google is proud to build on our partnership with ALA," added Hai Hong, who leads US outreach on Google's K-12 Education team... "Given the ubiquity of technology and the half-a-million unfilled tech jobs in the country, we need to ensure that all youth understand the world around them and have the opportunity to develop the essential skills that employers -- and our nation's economy -- require."

destinyland writes "The American Library Association released this year's list of the most-frequently censored books. (Included in the top 10 are two best-selling novels — Twilight and The Hunger Games — as well as Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.) The annual list celebrates 'the freedom to read and the importance of the First Amendment,' according to the library association, highlighting 'the benefits of free and open access to information while drawing attention to the harms of censorship.' Interestingly, seven of the ten most-censored books are now available on Amazon's Kindle — more than twice as many as last year."

JimBridgerBowl writes "According to the San Jose Mercury News, The Bush administration wants access to Google's huge database of search queries submitted by users to track how often pornography is returned in results. This information would be used for Bush's appeal of the 2004 COPA law, targeted to prevent access to pornography by children. The law was struck down because it would have restricted adults access to legal pornography. Google is promising to fight the release of this information." From the article: "The Supreme Court invited the government to either come up with a less drastic version of the law or go to trial to prove that the statute does not violate the First Amendment and is the only viable way to combat child porn. As a result, government lawyers said in court papers they are developing a defense of the 1998 law based on the argument that it is far more effective than software filters in protecting children from porn."

Slashback tonight brings some corrections, clarifications, and updates to previous Slashdot stories, including the "Little Red Hoax", a follow up on the Firefly post-mortem, another episode in the Intelligent Design battle, the EU's Galileo project gets off the ground, deconstructing AOL's decision to go with Google over Microsoft, endgame for the Blackberry patent case and more. Read on for details.

A little red hoax. MyNameIsFred writes "In an earlier Slashdot story, it was reported that a student was investigated for requesting Mao's Little Red Book on inter-library loan. It appears that the story was a hoax."

Firefly franchise death greatly exaggerated. Kazzahdrane writes "Joss Whedon has spoken out against the Entertainment Weekly that claimed he has turned his back on the Firefly/Serenity franchise. From his post at Whedonesque: 'All right, now I have to jump in and set the record straight. EW is a fine rag, but they do take things out of context. Obviously when I said I had "closure", what I meant was "I hate Serenity, I hated Firefly, I think my fans are stupid and Nathan Fillion smells like turnips." But EW's always got to put some weird negative spin on it.'"

Intelligent Design tantamount to teaching religion. rcs1000 writes "After much deliberation Judge John Jones has ruled that teaching Intelligent Design is tantamount to teaching religion. The judge was pretty forthright, arguing that 'it is unconstitutional to teach Intelligent Design as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.'"

EU launches first Galileo navigation satellite. Xserv writes "The EU launched the first in the series of Galileo Navigation Satellites signifying the start of a lessening of dependency on US Military GPS Systems in Europe. The new Galileo system is touted to be much more accurate and will also be more accessible on higher latitude zones where the US GPS system is known to be less than ideal."

Why AOL chose Google over Microsoft. gambit3 writes to tell us that the Wall Street Journal has a nice article deconstructing AOL's decision to go with Google instead of Microsoft. From the article: "Two weeks ago, when Time Warner Inc. was on the cusp of signing a sweeping online deal with Microsoft Corp., a team of executives from the media company's AOL unit traveled to Microsoft's headquarters in Redmond, Wash., to make sure everything was in order. When the executives returned, they reported back to Time Warner's top deal negotiator, Olaf Olafsson, with some less-than-satisfactory findings. They had found some of Microsoft's technology to be clunky, while the contemplated joint venture with the software king contained what they thought were financial pitfalls."

Endgame in Blackberry patent case. waynegoode writes "The New York Times is reporting that a recent decision could spell the end of the NTP vs. RIM Blackberry case. The US Patent Office apparently took the unusual step of telling NTP & RIM it will likely reject all 5 of NTP's patents, meaning the basis for NTP's lawsuit and it's billion dollar claim will most likely disappear. This puts pressure on the judge to not issue an injunction against RIM but to instead delay until the USPTO gets around to actually rejecting the patents."

Katrina aftermath still making waves. An anonymous reader writes "Approximately 50 people have been indicted in relation to a scheme that drained almost $200,000 from a Red Cross fund designed to put money into the hands of Hurricane Katrina victims. From the article: 'Seventeen of the accused worked at the Red Cross claim center in Bakersfield, Calif., which handled calls from storm victims across the country and authorized cash payments to them. The others were the workers' relatives and friends, prosecutors said last week.'"

More cloning doubts emerge. LukePieStalker writes "The Boston Globe is reporting that the South Korean cloning team whose troubles have recently been chronicled here on Slashdot used "borrowed" photos in their Science journal article that "appear in the journal Molecules and Cells, in a research article by another Korean team, submitted before the Science paper". In the earlier article, the cells in the photo are described as having been created without cloning."

bsw149 writes "The head librarian of the Valparaiso Community Library in Florida was suspended after investigators found that users had viewed adult content on public computers. While the library has a policy against viewing adult material on library computers, the librarian is facing possible dismissal. Is the best enforcement policy to hold librarians personally responsible for the materials patrons' access?"

Shipud writes "The Public Library of Science journal series is expanding. After PLoS biology and PLoS Medicine we are now getting a geek's favorite: PLoS Computational Biology. Another addition is PLoS Genetics. Both are published open-access under the creative commons license. A history of open access licence publications in science can be found here."

michaelzhao writes "The ALA (American Library Association) recently published the new 100 most frequently banned books list of 2003. Of the banned books, Harry Potter was in the number 7th place in the most frequently banned. Also included were 'Where's Waldo' and 'The Giver' along with 'Goosebumps' and 'How to Eat Fried Worms.' These books were banned from various public institutions. This means that they were banned from various public libraries and public schools around the nation. (private schools, libraries, and institutions of higher learning don't count) The ALA encourages the people of the United States to fight against the book bans and read a banned book today!"

Duke Machesne writes "Citing concerns over materials being distributed to American students by the BSA, MPAA, and RIAA's evil minions, the American Library Association will begin distributing its own, more balanced material this winter. The material will deal with insignificant and oft-overlooked details like fair use. More information on Wired News."

Landaras writes "News.com is reporting that a newly-formed alliance called the Personal Technology Freedom Coalition is throwing their support and lobbying efforts behind Rep. Rick Boucher's (D-Va) Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act. Members of the Personal Technology Freedom Coalition include Intel, Sun Microsystems, Verizon, SBC, Qwest, Gateway and BellSouth. The EFF and the American Library Association are also in support."

An anonymous reader writes "Yahoo News is reporting on a new bill in Congress: '... a proposed bill that would prevent wholesale copying of school guides, news archives and other databases which do not enjoy copyright protection.'" The idea of database protection legislation has been kicking around for a long time. It's a bad idea, but it would make a lot of money for a few companies, so they keep pushing it, and no doubt will eventually get it passed.

3-State Bit asks: "Ah, the doctrine of First Sale. (Sources two, three, and especially, four). The last bastion of fair use. Or is it? In a highly insightful comment, user Kjella explained to me that I had been naive to think that First Sale would continue to exist in the world of DRM. (Of which I had pondered the ramifications here.) So Slashdot, where does the First Sale doctrine stand? Are libraries throughout the nation in jeopardy? Will they no longer carry digital media? Can a corporation, without any form of legal safeguard, really control whom I can sell my stuff to? It's enough to make you shudder."

zamiel writes "Bill Olds writes in the Hartford Courant: 'I know my librarian, and I believe she would tell me if the government were tracking my computer use at the library. Don't you agree? No way. There's a gag order. When the FBI uses a court order or a subpoena to gain access to library computers or a list of the names of people who have borrowed certain books, librarians can't tell anyone - not even other librarians or you. They face a stiff federal penalty if they do. It's unfair that librarians should be placed in such a position.'" The American Library Association has a page with advice to librarians and links to previous news stories on the subject.

Senators Wyden (D-Ore.) and Kyl (R-Ariz.) introduced the Global Internet Freedom Act earlier this month, setting aside $60 million over two years "to develop and deploy technologies to defeat Internet jamming and censorship." Of course they don't mean libraries and schools in this country -- they're talking about countries like China, as Kyl et al. explain in a National Review article a few days ago. I guess it wasn't confusing enough to (1) subsidize censorware and (2) criminalize researching it -- we also need to (3) subsidize researching it. How about forbidding American corporations from trading censorware goods or services to these "repressive governments," wouldn't that be a good start? Update: 10/30 03:37 GMT by J : Here's the Wired story from early this month on the version that was introduced in the House.

(Sen. Wyden also teamed up last month with Sen. Cox (R-Calif.) on a little bitty resolution standing up for your fair use rights before the tank parade of the DMCA.)

tiltowait writes In response to the incredulity expressed in this story about the technical prowess of libraries, I'd like to present a short essay titled "Librarians: We're Not What You Think" - read on for more. Update: 10/20 18:15 GMT by M : The author has also put up his essay on his own webpage. From the spinster librarian in It's a Wonderful Life to the crochety archivist in Attack of the Clones, librarians are often portrayed (in everything from movies, musicals, children's books, literature, science fiction, comics and cartoons to pornography - yes, pornography) as something less than noble or admirable. The perception of librarians has been a popular topic recently, with several articles focusing on the fringe-type librarians (ska, rockabilly, bellydancing, modified, bodybuilding, laughing, and lipstick). Although something of an anti-stereotype, these people illustrate the range of librarian personalities.

Many people may hold the image of a librarian as a shushing school marm who does little more than stamp and shelve books because that's all they've seen librarians do. Well think again - that's about as inaccurate as believing that Alan Greenspan is nothing more than a glorified bank teller. The job titles may change but the mission of the profession remains the same: organize information and help people find it. Libraries have been around a lot longer than the Internet, and even library technology can hold its own with the best out there. For example, Google's savvy results ranking was hardly the birth of citation analysis (next up: metadata - cough, cataloging, cough), and there are enormous library systems that also predate the Internet.

Although library geeks and technology nerds may have contrary images, in today's world the boundary between the career of the librarian and the information technologist is disappearing. Librarians today not only administer Web servers and dynamic databases to help manage large digital collections and thousands of electronic resources, they teach people how to use library systems. And just as enlightened computer engineers are advocates of noncommercial software and campaign for online rights, the library profession has a long history of staunchly defending freedom - from book burnings to the FBI's Library Awareness Program to the latest copyright battles and almost all other current issues in intellectual freedom.

Check out LISNews.com (recognize the format?) and some library blogs if you're interested in reading more about real librarians.

H310iSe writes "Listening to NPR today and caught a story on All Things Considered about how the FBI has demanded information on borrowing and browsing habits, including computer seizures, from 85 libraries since Sept. 11 (utilizing their new-found powers from the PATRIOT act). Similar stories (which don't require RealAudio) are here and here. The American Librarian Association is providing information for librarians to help deal with this, and it seems heavily tilted towards supporting individuals' rights to privacy. It seems like the Slashdot crowd could come up with a great library computer setup that would protect anonymity (I'm thinking about things like creating a RAM disk and loading the OS onto it). How about ways to enable people to borrow books anonymously without opening the door to large-scale theft? I bet if we offered a packaged, free, easy to install Safe Browsing computer or Anonymous Checkout program, libraries across the U.S. would enthusiastically embrace it." According to the articles, these checks can be made for any reason, not just for suspected terrorism. It seems that if the American people are going to protect their rights, they are going to have to do so actively. Is the idea presented above, feasible? How would you improve upon it?

Several people have submitted this news blurb about a victory in the CIPA case. If CIPA doesn't ring a bell, my earlier summary should help, or see this article from last month when the suit was heard in court. The ALA's CIPA page has more information, or read the lengthy decision. This is a rather surprising bit of good news; while the government often has great discretion in deciding how funds are spent (read my summary above for how the law worked), the judges in this case accepted the argument that requiring censoring software automatically lead to censoring things that weren't obscene, or child pornography, or "harmful to minors", and that that wasn't acceptable. I've reproduced the first part of the decision below. The government may choose to (and probably will) appeal to the Supreme Court.

Preliminary Statement

This case challenges an act of Congress that makes the use of filtering software by public libraries a condition of the receipt of federal funding. The Internet, as is well known, is a vast, interactive medium based on a decentralized network of computers around the world. Its most familiar feature is the World Wide Web (the "Web"), a network of computers known as servers that provide content to users. The Internet provides easy access to anyone who wishes to provide or distribute information to a worldwide audience; it is used by more than 143 million Americans. Indeed, much of the world's knowledge accumulated over centuries is available to Internet users almost instantly. Approximately 10% of the Americans who use the Internet access it at public libraries. And approximately 95% of all public libraries in the United States provide public access to the Internet.

While the beneficial effect of the Internet in expanding the amount of information available to its users is self-evident, its low entry barriers have also led to a perverse result - facilitation of the widespread dissemination of hardcore pornography within the easy reach not only of adults who have every right to access it (so long as it is not legally obscene or child pornography), but also of children and adolescents to whom it may be quite harmful. The volume of pornography on the Internet is huge, and the record before us demonstrates that public library patrons of all ages, many from ages 11 to 15, have regularly sought to access it in public library settings. There are more than 100,000 pornographic Web sites that can be accessed for free and without providing any registration information, and tens of thousands of Web sites contain child pornography.

Libraries have reacted to this situation by utilizing a number of means designed to insure that patrons avoid illegal (and unwanted) content while also enabling patrons to find the content they desire. Some libraries have trained patrons in how to use the Internet while avoiding illegal content, or have directed their patrons to "preferred" Web sites that librarians have reviewed. Other libraries have utilized such devices as recessing the computer monitors, installing privacy screens, and monitoring implemented by a "tap on the shoulder" of patrons perceived to be offending library policy. Still others, viewing the foregoing approaches as inadequate or uncomfortable (some librarians do not wish to confront patrons), have purchased commercially available software that blocks certain categories of material deemed by the library board as unsuitable for use in their facilities. Indeed, 7% of American public libraries use blocking software for adults. Although such programs are somewhat effective in blocking large quantities of pornography, they are blunt instruments that not only "underblock," i.e., fail to block access to substantial amounts of content that the library boards wish to exclude, but also, central to this litigation, "overblock," i.e., block access to large quantities of material that library boards do not wish to exclude and that is constitutionally protected.

Most of the libraries that use filtering software seek to block sexually explicit speech. While most libraries include in their physical collection copies of volumes such as The Joy of Sex and The Joy of Gay Sex, which contain quite explicit photographs and descriptions, filtering software blocks large quantities of other, comparable information about health and sexuality that adults and teenagers seek on the Web. One teenager testified that the Internet access in a public library was the only venue in which she could obtain information important to her about her own sexuality. Another library patron witness described using the Internet to research breast cancer and reconstructive surgery for his mother who had breast surgery. Even though some filtering programs contain exceptions for health and education, the exceptions do not solve the problem of overblocking constitutionally protected material. Moreover, as we explain below, the filtering software on which the parties presented evidence in this case overblocks not only information relating to health and sexuality that might be mistaken for pornography or erotica, but also vast numbers of Web pages and sites that could not even arguably be construed as harmful or inappropriate for adults or minors.

The Congress, sharing the concerns of many library boards, enacted the Children's Internet Protection Act ("CIPA"), Pub. L. No. 106-554, which makes the use of filters by a public library a condition of its receipt of two kinds of subsidies that are important (or even critical) to the budgets of many public libraries - grants under the Library Services and Technology Act, 20 U.S.C. 9101 et seq. ("LSTA"), and so-called "E-rate discounts" for Internet access and support under the Telecommunications Act, 47 U.S.C. 254. LSTA grant funds are awarded, inter alia, in order to: (1) assist libraries in accessing information through electronic networks, and (2) provide targeted library and information services to persons having difficulty using a library and to underserved and rural communities, including children from families with incomes below the poverty line. E-rate discounts serve the similar purpose of extending Internet access to schools and libraries in low-income communities. CIPA requires that libraries, in order to receive LSTA funds or E-rate discounts, certify that they are using a "technology protection measure" that prevents patrons from accessing "visual depictions" that are "obscene," "child pornography," or in the case of minors, "harmful to minors." 20 U.S.C. 9134(f)(1)(A) (LSTA); 47 U.S.C. 254(h)(6)(B) & (C) (E-rate).

The plaintiffs, a group of libraries, library associations, library patrons, and Web site publishers, brought this suit against the United States and others alleging that CIPA is facially unconstitutional because: (1) it induces public libraries to violate their patrons' First Amendment rights contrary to the requirements of South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987); and (2) it requires libraries to relinquish their First Amendment rights as a condition on the receipt of federal funds and is therefore impermissible under the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions. In arguing that CIPA will induce public libraries to violate the First Amendment, the plaintiffs contend that given the limits of the filtering technology, CIPA's conditions effectively require libraries to impose content-based restrictions on their patrons' access to constitutionally protected speech. According to the plaintiffs, these content-based restrictions are subject to strict scrutiny under public forum doctrine, see Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 837 (1995), and are therefore permissible only if they are narrowly tailored to further a compelling state interest and no less restrictive alternatives would further that interest, see Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 874 (1997).(1) The government responds that CIPA will not induce public libraries to violate the First Amendment, since it is possible for at least some public libraries to constitutionally comply with CIPA's conditions. Even if some libraries' use of filters might violate the First Amendment, the government submits that CIPA can be facially invalidated only if it is impossible for any public library to comply with its conditions without violating the First Amendment.

Pursuant to CIPA, a three-judge Court was convened to try the issues. Pub. L. No. 106-554. Following an intensive period of discovery on an expedited schedule to allow public libraries to know whether they need to certify compliance with CIPA by July 1, 2002, to receive subsidies for the upcoming year, the Court conducted an eight-day trial at which we heard 20 witnesses, and received numerous depositions, stipulations and documents. The principal focus of the trial was on the capacity of currently available filtering software. The plaintiffs adduced substantial evidence not only that filtering programs bar access to a substantial amount of speech on the Internet that is clearly constitutionally protected for adults and minors, but also that these programs are intrinsically unable to block only illegal Internet content while simultaneously allowing access to all protected speech.

As our extensive findings of fact reflect, the plaintiffs demonstrated that thousands of Web pages containing protected speech are wrongly blocked by the four leading filtering programs, and these pages represent only a fraction of Web pages wrongly blocked by the programs. The plaintiffs' evidence explained that the problems faced by the manufacturers and vendors of filtering software are legion. The Web is extremely dynamic, with an estimated 1.5 million new pages added every day and the contents of existing Web pages changing very rapidly. The category lists maintained by the blocking programs are considered to be proprietary information, and hence are unavailable to customers or the general public for review, so that public libraries that select categories when implementing filtering software do not really know what they are blocking.

There are many reasons why filtering software suffers from extensive over- and underblocking, which we will explain below in great detail. They center on the limitations on filtering companies' ability to: (1) accurately collect Web pages that potentially fall into a blocked category (e.g., pornography); (2) review and categorize Web pages that they have collected; and (3) engage in regular re-review of Web pages that they have previously reviewed. These failures spring from constraints on the technology of automated classification systems, and the limitations inherent in human review, including error, misjudgment, and scarce resources, which we describe in detail infra at 58-74. One failure of critical importance is that the automated systems that filtering companies use to collect Web pages for classification are able to search only text, not images. This is crippling to filtering companies' ability to collect pages containing "visual depictions" that are obscene, child pornography, or harmful to minors, as CIPA requires. As will appear, we find that it is currently impossible, given the Internet's size, rate of growth, rate of change, and architecture, and given the state of the art of automated classification systems, to develop a filter that neither underblocks nor overblocks a substantial amount of speech.

The government, while acknowledging that the filtering software is imperfect, maintains that it is nonetheless quite effective, and that it successfully blocks the vast majority of the Web pages that meet filtering companies' category definitions (e.g., pornography). The government contends that no more is required. In its view, so long as the filtering software selected by the libraries screens out the bulk of the Web pages proscribed by CIPA, the libraries have made a reasonable choice which suffices, under the applicable legal principles, to pass constitutional muster in the context of a facial challenge. Central to the government's position is the analogy it advances between Internet filtering and the initial decision of a library to determine which materials to purchase for its print collection. Public libraries have finite budgets and must make choices as to whether to purchase, for example, books on gardening or books on golf. Such content-based decisions, even the plaintiffs concede, are subject to rational basis review and not a stricter form of First Amendment scrutiny. In the government's view, the fact that the Internet reverses the acquisition process and requires the libraries to, in effect, purchase the entire Internet, some of which (e.g., hardcore pornography) it does not want, should not mean that it is chargeable with censorship when it filters out offending material.

The legal context in which this extensive factual record is set is complex, implicating a number of constitutional doctrines, including the constitutional limitations on Congress's spending clause power, the unconstitutional conditions doctrine, and subsidiary to these issues, the First Amendment doctrines of prior restraint, vagueness, and overbreadth. There are a number of potential entry points into the analysis, but the most logical is the spending clause jurisprudence in which the seminal case is South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987). Dole outlines four categories of constraints on Congress's exercise of its power under the Spending Clause, but the only Dole condition disputed here is the fourth and last, i.e., whether CIPA requires libraries that receive LSTA funds or E-rate discounts to violate the constitutional rights of their patrons. As will appear, the question is not a simple one, and turns on the level of scrutiny applicable to a public library's content-based restrictions on patrons' Internet access. Whether such restrictions are subject to strict scrutiny, as plaintiffs contend, or only rational basis review, as the government contends, depends on public forum doctrine.

The government argues that, in providing Internet access, public libraries do not create a public forum, since public libraries may reserve the right to exclude certain speakers from availing themselves of the forum. Accordingly, the government contends that public libraries' restrictions on patrons' Internet access are subject only to rational basis review.

Plaintiffs respond that the government's ability to restrict speech on its own property, as in the case of restrictions on Internet access in public libraries, is not unlimited, and that the more widely the state facilitates the dissemination of private speech in a given forum, the more vulnerable the state's decision is to restrict access to speech in that forum. We agree with the plaintiffs that public libraries' content-based restrictions on their patrons' Internet access are subject to strict scrutiny. In providing even filtered Internet access, public libraries create a public forum open to any speaker around the world to communicate with library patrons via the Internet on a virtually unlimited number of topics. Where the state provides access to a "vast democratic forum[]," Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 868 (1997), open to any member of the public to speak on subjects "as diverse as human thought," id. at 870 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), the state's decision selectively to exclude from the forum speech whose content the state disfavors is subject to strict scrutiny, as such exclusions risk distorting the marketplace of ideas that the state has facilitated. Application of strict scrutiny finds further support in the extent to which public libraries' provision of Internet access uniquely promotes First Amendment values in a manner analogous to traditional public fora such as streets, sidewalks, and parks, in which content-based restrictions are always subject to strict scrutiny.

Under strict scrutiny, a public library's use of filtering software is permissible only if it is narrowly tailored to further a compelling government interest and no less restrictive alternative would serve that interest. We acknowledge that use of filtering software furthers public libraries' legitimate interests in preventing patrons from accessing visual depictions of obscenity, child pornography, or in the case of minors, material harmful to minors. Moreover, use of filters also helps prevent patrons from being unwillingly exposed to patently offensive, sexually explicit content on the Internet.

We are sympathetic to the position of the government, believing that it would be desirable if there were a means to ensure that public library patrons could share in the informational bonanza of the Internet while being insulated from materials that meet CIPA's definitions, that is, visual depictions that are obscene, child pornography, or in the case of minors, harmful to minors. Unfortunately this outcome, devoutly to be wished, is not available in this less than best of all possible worlds. No category definition used by the blocking programs is identical to the legal definitions of obscenity, child pornography, or material harmful to minors, and, at all events, filtering programs fail to block access to a substantial amount of content on the Internet that falls into the categories defined by CIPA. As will appear, we credit the testimony of plaintiffs' expert Dr. Geoffrey Nunberg that the blocking software is (at least for the foreseeable future) incapable of effectively blocking the majority of materials in the categories defined by CIPA without overblocking a substantial amount of materials. Nunberg's analysis was supported by extensive record evidence. As noted above, this inability to prevent both substantial amounts of underblocking and overblocking stems from several sources, including limitations on the technology that software filtering companies use to gather and review Web pages, limitations on resources for human review of Web pages, and the necessary error that results from human review processes.

Because the filtering software mandated by CIPA will block access to substantial amounts of constitutionally protected speech whose suppression serves no legitimate government interest, we are persuaded that a public library's use of software filters is not narrowly tailored to further any of these interests. Moreover, less restrictive alternatives exist that further the government's legitimate interest in preventing the dissemination of obscenity, child pornography, and material harmful to minors, and in preventing patrons from being unwillingly exposed to patently offensive, sexually explicit content. To prevent patrons from accessing visual depictions that are obscene and child pornography, public libraries may enforce Internet use policies that make clear to patrons that the library's Internet terminals may not be used to access illegal speech. Libraries may then impose penalties on patrons who violate these policies, ranging from a warning to notification of law enforcement, in the appropriate case. Less restrictive alternatives to filtering that further libraries' interest in preventing minors from exposure to visual depictions that are harmful to minors include requiring parental consent to or presence during unfiltered access, or restricting minors' unfiltered access to terminals within view of library staff. Finally, optional filtering, privacy screens, recessed monitors, and placement of unfiltered Internet terminals outside of sight-lines provide less restrictive alternatives for libraries to prevent patrons from being unwillingly exposed to sexually explicit content on the Internet.

In an effort to avoid the potentially fatal legal implications of the overblocking problem, the government falls back on the ability of the libraries, under CIPA's disabling provisions, see CIPA 1712 (codified at 20 U.S.C. 9134(f)(3)), CIPA 1721(b) (codified at 47 U.S.C. 254(h)(6)(D)), to unblock a site that is patently proper yet improperly blocked. The evidence reflects that libraries can and do unblock the filters when a patron so requests. But it also reflects that requiring library patrons to ask for a Web site to be unblocked will deter many patrons because they are embarrassed, or desire to protect their privacy or remain anonymous. Moreover, the unblocking may take days, and may be unavailable, especially in branch libraries, which are often less well staffed than main libraries. Accordingly, CIPA's disabling provisions do not cure the constitutional deficiencies in public libraries' use of Internet filters.

Under these circumstances we are constrained to conclude that the library plaintiffs must prevail in their contention that CIPA requires them to violate the First Amendment rights of their patrons, and accordingly is facially invalid, even under the standard urged on us by the government, which would permit us to facially invalidate CIPA only if it is impossible for a single public library to comply with CIPA's conditions without violating the First Amendment. In view of the limitations inherent in the filtering technology mandated by CIPA, any public library that adheres to CIPA's conditions will necessarily restrict patrons' access to a substantial amount of protected speech, in violation of the First Amendment. Given this conclusion, we need not reach plaintiffs' arguments that CIPA effects a prior restraint on speech and is unconstitutionally vague. Nor do we decide their cognate unconstitutional conditions theory, though for reasons explained infra at note 36, we discuss the issues raised by that claim at some length.

For these reasons, we will enter an Order declaring Sections 1712(a)(2) and 1721(b) of the Children's Internet Protection Act, codified at 20 U.S.C. 9134(f) and 47 U.S.C. 254(h)(6), respectively, to be facially invalid under the First Amendment and permanently enjoining the defendants from enforcing those provisions.

Jason Haas (haaz) sent us the transcript below of an in-depth interview he conducted with copyright critic and author Siva Vaidhyanathan. It's worth your time to read -- Vaidhyanathan makes some interesting arguments, concentrating on online consequences of current copyright laws (and bills), but with some interesting digressions. He isn't shy about the effects of laws like the CBDTPA.

Jason Haas writes: "While bad copyright laws such as the DMCA are having strong negative consequences, an even worse bill, the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act (CBDTPA), is now before Congress. The CBDTPA would have radical effects upon many of the devices that we take for granted -- including the computer you are now reading this on. Bad copyright law is among the many things that we talked about. Siva Vaidhyanathan has a thing or two to say about this. An avid defender of peer-to-peer, Siva recently debated one of the MPAA's top lawyers on copyright law. A recorded version of this will be available on the web in late May.

Furthermore, he has written Copyrights and Copywrongs: The Rise of Intellectual Property and How It Threatens Creativity, the first fully fleshed history of American copyright law ever to be put in book form. The cool thing about this book is that although it's about copyright law, you don't have to be a lawyer to understand it. Copyrights and Copywrongs covers American copyright law's origins in seventeenth century English law, tracks Mark Twain's efforts to extend copyright in the nineteenth century, and ends at the dawn of the twenty-first century with the rise of Napster and the DMCA."

Jason Haas: How are you?

Siva Vaidhyanathan : Stressed. I'm trying to finish my second book, which will likely be called "The Anarchist in the Library." Basic Books will publish it next year.

JH: That sounds like it may be of interest to Slashdotters.

SV: Probably. I lifted many of the insights from Slashdot posts. The book will be an examination of the battles between efforts to centralize information and efforts to decentralize information. It starts with peer to peer, and moves on to battles over encryption, the commercialization and regulation of science, the regulation of algorithms, and the efforts to fight terrorism using information policy. One of the most interesting stories I'm following is the role that encryption plays on both sides of these battles. Some efforts to centralize and control information rely on encryption. For example, DVDs, and some efforts to distribute and liberate information (Freenet) depend on encryption.

JH: Your book, Copyrights and Copywrongs, covers the evolution of copyright law from its origins to the late twentieth century. Where did you get the idea for this?

SV: From rap music. I grew up with rap music. But in the early 1990s I noticed the music was changing. Everyone else was paying attention to the lyrics -- the sexism and the violence and the anger. I was observing how the underlying body of samples were getting thinner, more predictable, more obvious, less playful. I had heard that there had been some copyright conflicts in 1990 and 1991. So I suspected that lawsuits had chilled playful and transgressive sampling. I was right. The courts had stolen the soul. And rap music is poorer for it. We used to get fresh, exciting, walls of sound that were a language unto themselves. By the mid-1990s, all we got were jeep beats and heavy bass.

JH: Are you dissing Ice Cube?

SV: [laughs] No! He's an O.G.! He and other artists are handcuffed by the law. From my research on rap, I got curious about the evolution of American copyright law and how it altered and got altered by the rise of different media technologies and forms of expression. So I traced the changes from the 19th century publishing industries through the rise of film and television, through blues, jazz, rock, and rap, and finally to the digital moment.

JH: The book ends just after the DMCA has gone into effect and Napster has begun its rise. What's happened since then?

SV: I knew that Napster would radically change the ways we interact with the copyright system. And I knew the DMCA would radically undermined the democratic safeguards that were built into our copyright system. But I knew that there was much more to this story. So I wrote an article for The Nation which defended Napster and peer-to-peer. I used this as the starting point for what would become the second book.

JH: In your first book, you refer to the DMCA as an example of what you call a "thick" copyright law. Can you explain the difference between "thick" copyright law and a "thin" law?

SV: I think the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) is misnamed. I don't consider it a copyright act. I consider it an anti-copyright act. Copyright is a fluid, open, democratic set of protocols. Conflicts are anticipated by Congress and mediated by courts. The DMCA wipes out the sense of balance, anticipation, and mediation, and installs a technocratic regime. In other words, code tells you whether you can use a piece of material. Under copyright, you could use a piece of material and face the consequences. The DMCA replaces the copyright system with cold, hard technology.

It takes human judgment out of the system and drains the fluidity out of what was a humanely designed and evolved system.

But getting back to thick and thin copyright.

One way to measure the thickness of a copyright law is to look at the duration of protection. If works enter the public domain before an author's life expectancy expires, then it's a thin and democratic system. If the duration of copyright protection is absurdly long and potentially indefinite, then it's way too thick.

JH: Senator Fritz Hollings' has introduced a new copyright bill to Congress, the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act. What what would it do? Is it another "thick" law?

SV: Yeah, it would be as thick as the Berlin Wall. But again, it's the extension of a technocratic control regime and a further abandonment of real copyright. All the attention this bill has received has generated an impressive movement for users' rights. People are finally waking up to the fact that their rights to make private, non-commercial use of material they buy is in danger. I think we should all thank Senator Hollings and the MPAA for sparking a revolt against copyright tyranny.

The title of the bill implies that by giving movie companies what they want, they will give us this wonderful library of streamed films, and we will finally have a reason to sign up for and pay for broadband. Paradoxically, nothing sells broadband like peer-to-peer, which is exactly what it would try to stop.

JH: CBDTPA would make a new computer ship with copy protection. What would it do to things like the iPod?

SV: The iPod would be hard to justify under the new law. But the real issue is the personal computer. The computer does three basic things: it does math, it stores data, and it copies data. A computer can't operate without those three basic functions. The law would limit these three basic functions, thereby cutting the Achilles heel of the PC. It would be just another appliance.

JH: It's that bad?

SV: Yes. If the law passes, I could send you a file that I made, but the machine would prevent you from making copies of just about anything else, including sound from web sites, video from web sites, etc. The law works completely for the benefit of big media companies that can afford to conform to the licensed encryption standards of the industry. Only the big boys could benefit from this law.

The law would only affect new stuff, so it'd be your next DVD players, your next TiVo, your next PC. The stuff you have now is going to do more and work better than any hardware that anyone could roll out after the law passes. But there's another, bigger issue. According to an early version, the bill covers not just hardware but software. Under it, you can't distribute a software package that has copy features. Furthermore, how in the world can anything released under the GPL have closed copy-protection standards embedded in it? It can't. It would make the GPL illegal, and future versions of Linux illegal. Even if Congress focused on hardware and excluded software, we all know that distinction is a matter of modular convenience and industry practice rather than a natural distinction. But nobody ever accused the U.S. Senate of understanding technology or thinking through long-term effects of tech policy.

JH: What can people do to stop this bill from passing?

SV: The first thing people should do is check out and support such organizations as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, digitalconsumer.org, and publicknowledge.org. The latter two are fairly new. And they are a sign that people are getting angry and active about these issues. I am particularly excited about publicknowledge.org, a public interest advocacy group that is coordinating and publicizing the concerns of a wide array of concerned citizens and groups.

But just as importantly, discuss this measure with your local librarians. Librarians are very active in opposing it. In 1998, very few groups actively opposed the DMCA, but librarians were at the front lines of its opposition. And once again, librarians are our best friends in this battle. And of course, the simple answer is, write members of the Senate Judiciary Community. [The American Library Association is a national organization of librarians that is active in defending freedom of information and access. The Senate Judiciary Committee can be found over here.]

If public anger doesn't stop this bill now, then we know that the corrupting power of the entertainment industries is at crisis level. The changes in copyright have not been great for our culture and our democracy. But I am optimistic that this new level of awareness and activism will make a difference.

Jason Haas retired from the computer industry in April 2001, and now juggles being a student, fatherhood, and progressive political activism.

This past year, Siva Vaidhyanathan has been an assistant professor in the School of Library and Information Studies at the University of Wisconsin, but is moving to New York University in the fall. The web page for his book, Copyrights and Copywrongs: The Rise of Intellectual Property and How It Threatens Creativity, is at NYU Press.

The House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet held a hearing in my home town yesterday: "Chatting On-Line: A Dangerous Proposition for Children." Six witnesses came to Kalamazoo, Michigan and described the perils of on-line chat to Rep. Fred Upton (R-Michigan) and Rep. Charles Bass (R-New Hampshire). The most surprising and welcome news of the afternoon was that, despite the alarmist title, there was not a panicked call for additional legislation.

The hearing launched with Congressman Upton touting his internet record -- notably the .kids domain, now .kids.us. Personally, I like the idea of .kids.us, though some disagree.

The witnesses were Katie Tarbox, who in 1995, at age 13, had been inadequately briefed on the "rules of the net" and disasterously agreed to meet a child predator she'd chatted with online; two local law enforcement personnel, John Karraker and Jim Gregart; Ruben Rodriguez, the Director of the Exploited Child Unit for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children; Caroline Curtin, the Director of Children's Policy for AOL; and Kathleen Tucker, the Director of Curriculum Development for I-Safe America.

Everyone was concerned about keeping children safe online. It goes without saying that this is a desirable goal, as long as it's done in accordance with the Constitution and doesn't interfere with everyone else's legal use of the internet.

The problem is a serious one. Real kids are being lured into dangerous relationships over the internet; charges were filed in one more case here in Kalamazoo County just last week.

The preferred pickup method for child molesters nowadays is the internet: chat, instant-messaging, and email. The old tricks of "would you like some candy?" and "your parents were in an accident, I'll drive you to the hospital" -- those are yesterday's news. Kids growing up now need to be aware of different dangers, ones involving formation of long-term relationships, questions about online identity, and trust.

I wasn't able to find any reliable statistics on how often children are victimized using the internet. The best numbers I found were from a phone survey of 1,501 children, ages 10 to 17, who used the internet regularly. Of them, 19% had "received an unwanted sexual solicitation" (imprecisely defined) but only 3% had been solicited with "attempts or requests for offline contact" or actual offline contact.

And precisely 0 of the 1,501 children said they had been sexually contacted or assaulted due to online solicitations. This seems significant to me, given that 21% of all children -- statistically, hundreds of the children in the phone survey -- are sexually abused (by some definition of the term) before age 18. Unfortunately, 0 is not a number that extrapolates well to estimate how many of the United States's 70 million children will be physically victimized with help from the internet. But if I understand the numbers, it seems the internet is not the most likely source of danger.

A study called JOVIS is in the works and should provide some concrete numbers. According to Mr. Rodriguez, we can expect data from it in four to five months.

In any case, the message our lawmakers heard yesterday was not that we need more laws.

All six witnesses said, using almost the same words, that there is no substitute for parental involvement. Three called for more money and training for law enforcement, to give existing laws teeth. It sounds like law enforcement, especially at the state and local level, is still coming up to speed on this issue. And Ms. Curtin, for AOL, emphasized that ISPs were already taking steps, and suggested patience to allow them to develop an industry standard.

The testimony and discussion was so removed from proposing new legislation, in fact, that Rep. Bass seemed a little bored and annoyed. He had to remind everyone twice that he and his colleague were lawmakers: "As a member of Congress, I would like to hear what recommendations you have for what we might do -- I haven't heard anything about that so far. ... If I could reiterate: we make policy. This is a very interesting problem, but precisely what suggestions would you have for us as policymakers? If you could draft the bill, what would it say?"

Proposals were hesitant. Our local prosecutor suggested mandated inclusion of a CD with every new computer sale, which would explain how to keep children safe online. I'm not sure why existing explanations (here's one) are insufficient; why not just link? And Kathleen Tucker of I-Safe suggested standardizing on "digital certificates," client-side certs issued by an authority which confirms your identity using proof ranging from photo ID up to DNA (!) -- thus allowing children to verify that screen name BritneyRulez333 does not actually belong to a 45-year-old man.

That excepted, Ms. Tucker's testimony was refreshingly sound. She squarely faced the problem of child predators, and quoted Judith Krug of the American Library Association's Office of Intellectual Freedom: children "need to be taught the skills to cope in the virtual world just as they are taught skills to cope in the physical world."

Parents aren't there to watch over kids every minute. Just as they learn to cross the street without holding an adult's hand, so they need to learn how to wander the internet safely. "The value of empowering our children, through education," she concluded, "with the knowledge and critical-thinking skills that they need to be able to independently assess the every-day situations they will encounter while online cannot be overstressed... Education and empowerment are key."

In my opinion, that's exactly right.

But I wonder how effectively government will be able to help alleviate the problem. Knowledge is key, but kids are, as usual, embracing and understanding change, while bored Congressmen sit behind tables and listen to prepared speeches. Last week, I contacted three students, ages 14 to 17, and asked them about their experiences chatting online.

What they thought, and what they reported their friends thought, was pretty savvy. They understand the dangers, are well aware of the internet's advantages, and know how to stay safe. One student reported:

If kids know not to give out their personal information, and what could happen if they do, then there is really no danger. I would feel like I was missing out on a lot if I didn't have the opportunities to communicate online. It gives me a chance to stay in touch with my current friends, make new friends, meet interesting people, and find a group where I feel like I belong.

Another student reported:

I chat to other people almost every night, or whenever I get the chance to. I do not see chatting on-line as being dangerous, or otherwise harmful. Sure you always hear those stories about 12 year old girls chatting with 45 year old men, but I see online chatting as a way for people with similar interests to discuss and debate interesting topics. ...I strongly believe that if you chat online with people that you do not know personally, you should figure out what this person is really like, and if you can trust them or not.

Finally, I traded several emails with one girl who had chatted online extensively for years, and has met in person "at least 10 or so" other kids whom she first found on AOL -- including a meeting with some boys from another state.

This might seem like a recipe for disaster. But, not only was her protocol for establishing trust detailed and thorough -- paranoid even -- but she readily explained to me her reasoning for each step along the way. She's a poster child for "education and empowerment." And I doubt she's unique:

How did I know to be careful about creeps on the internet? It would be hard not to know nowadays. With an Oprah special about it practically every week, and news documentaries and polls, the facts are pretty much right out there for you. It's like taking candy from a stranger, it's common sense I guess... The types who would fall prey to an online creep would just as easily be a victim to a creep in real life... If the topic of internet chat comes up in school, teachers will almost always preach about safety and weirdos and such. So pretty much the topic of internet safety is inescapable -- it just depends on how well you listen to it.

I hope that's true for every young person.

Ben Edelman writes: "In the context of the ACLU's pending challenge to the Children's Internet Protection Act (PDF), I recently prepared a list of some 6000+ web sites that, by and large, fail to meet the category definitions of popular Internet filtering programs yet are blocked by at least one such program. This topic may be old hat, but my work is new: I have prepared an unusually large list of sites (including police departments, libraries, home-schooling sites, candidates for political office, and on and on), and I have retested these sites over a period of several months."

argentus was one of many to write in regarding the Children's Internet Protection Act, challenged today in Philadelphia. Read the ACLU and American Library Association press releases, or perhaps the complaint filed by the ALA or complaint filed by the ACLU. Here's a story about the case, but there's a bit more information below.

In a nutshell: a few years ago, Congress got the bright idea that libraries and schools ought to have internet connections and computers. You may be aware that for many years, there has been a tax levied on telephone service which goes to the "universal service" fund - this money is supposed to be used to fund telephone service in remote areas of the United States, to ensure that all U.S. citizens have access to a telephone. Alaska is a major beneficiary.

The universal service fund was the natural place to tap to provide funds for discounted internet access to libraries and schools, and it was. Under the new programs, schools and libraries could receives funds to purchase computers and ongoing discounts on internet access charges. The new program was called "E-Rate", and about $5.5 billion has been spent so far, and up to $2.25 billion may be spent each year. My phone bill says that I am being taxed $0.43/month/line for universal service - I'm not certain if this is constant across the United States or not. You can check your local school or library to see if they are receiving funding here.

However, the Federal Government giveth and the Federal Government taketh away. For several years running, conservatives in Congress attempted to add language which would require recipients of this funding to censor their internet access. So, internet=GOOD, uncensored internet=BAD. Senator John McCain spearheaded the drive to impose internet censorship in any institution which accepted the funds or discounts. In December 2000, the language was added to the 2001 omnibus spending bill, which was ten inches thick when Congress finally voted to approve it - thick enough that no one on earth could claim to know what actually was in the spending bill and what was not.

Although there were attempts to make the bill apply only to terminals used by minors, the final bill applies to all terminals used by anyone. The institutions receiving funding are required to block access to (at a minimum) obscene materal, child pornography, and material harmful to minors (when minors are using the terminals). Given the technical limitations of the software, it's impossible for blocking to be limited to those areas listed. Some schools and libraries will choose to reject the funding and find some other way to budget for internet access. Some will accept the funding and the conditions. Talk to your library and find out.

And here we are. The plaintiffs -- libraries and library associations, library patrons, and people who publish content likely to be blocked -- are asserting that Congress has violated several Constitutional rights with the passage of this law. Read the last few pages of either complaint for an explicit listing of their claims. These are hard claims to make - the court system has often upheld Congress' power to put conditions on funding, since after all, the libraries do have the option of declining the funds - perhaps eliminating their internet access - and in that case, they wouldn't be bound by the law's requirement to censor their internet access. Funding for the interstate highway system has been tied to a national speed limit and to a national drinking age, for example.

In other words, this legal challenge is no slam dunk. This is more like a shot from half court with Michael Jordan in your face. The remedy with the greatest chance of success is pushing Congress to reverse itself and make the E-rate funds restriction-free.

argentus was one of many to write in regarding the Children's Internet Protection Act, challenged today in Philadelphia. Read the ACLU and American Library Association press releases, or perhaps the complaint filed by the ALA or complaint filed by the ACLU. Here's a story about the case, but there's a bit more information below.

In a nutshell: a few years ago, Congress got the bright idea that libraries and schools ought to have internet connections and computers. You may be aware that for many years, there has been a tax levied on telephone service which goes to the "universal service" fund - this money is supposed to be used to fund telephone service in remote areas of the United States, to ensure that all U.S. citizens have access to a telephone. Alaska is a major beneficiary.

The universal service fund was the natural place to tap to provide funds for discounted internet access to libraries and schools, and it was. Under the new programs, schools and libraries could receives funds to purchase computers and ongoing discounts on internet access charges. The new program was called "E-Rate", and about $5.5 billion has been spent so far, and up to $2.25 billion may be spent each year. My phone bill says that I am being taxed $0.43/month/line for universal service - I'm not certain if this is constant across the United States or not. You can check your local school or library to see if they are receiving funding here.

However, the Federal Government giveth and the Federal Government taketh away. For several years running, conservatives in Congress attempted to add language which would require recipients of this funding to censor their internet access. So, internet=GOOD, uncensored internet=BAD. Senator John McCain spearheaded the drive to impose internet censorship in any institution which accepted the funds or discounts. In December 2000, the language was added to the 2001 omnibus spending bill, which was ten inches thick when Congress finally voted to approve it - thick enough that no one on earth could claim to know what actually was in the spending bill and what was not.

Although there were attempts to make the bill apply only to terminals used by minors, the final bill applies to all terminals used by anyone. The institutions receiving funding are required to block access to (at a minimum) obscene materal, child pornography, and material harmful to minors (when minors are using the terminals). Given the technical limitations of the software, it's impossible for blocking to be limited to those areas listed. Some schools and libraries will choose to reject the funding and find some other way to budget for internet access. Some will accept the funding and the conditions. Talk to your library and find out.

And here we are. The plaintiffs -- libraries and library associations, library patrons, and people who publish content likely to be blocked -- are asserting that Congress has violated several Constitutional rights with the passage of this law. Read the last few pages of either complaint for an explicit listing of their claims. These are hard claims to make - the court system has often upheld Congress' power to put conditions on funding, since after all, the libraries do have the option of declining the funds - perhaps eliminating their internet access - and in that case, they wouldn't be bound by the law's requirement to censor their internet access. Funding for the interstate highway system has been tied to a national speed limit and to a national drinking age, for example.

In other words, this legal challenge is no slam dunk. This is more like a shot from half court with Michael Jordan in your face. The remedy with the greatest chance of success is pushing Congress to reverse itself and make the E-rate funds restriction-free.

argentus was one of many to write in regarding the Children's Internet Protection Act, challenged today in Philadelphia. Read the ACLU and American Library Association press releases, or perhaps the complaint filed by the ALA or complaint filed by the ACLU. Here's a story about the case, but there's a bit more information below.

In a nutshell: a few years ago, Congress got the bright idea that libraries and schools ought to have internet connections and computers. You may be aware that for many years, there has been a tax levied on telephone service which goes to the "universal service" fund - this money is supposed to be used to fund telephone service in remote areas of the United States, to ensure that all U.S. citizens have access to a telephone. Alaska is a major beneficiary.

The universal service fund was the natural place to tap to provide funds for discounted internet access to libraries and schools, and it was. Under the new programs, schools and libraries could receives funds to purchase computers and ongoing discounts on internet access charges. The new program was called "E-Rate", and about $5.5 billion has been spent so far, and up to $2.25 billion may be spent each year. My phone bill says that I am being taxed $0.43/month/line for universal service - I'm not certain if this is constant across the United States or not. You can check your local school or library to see if they are receiving funding here.

However, the Federal Government giveth and the Federal Government taketh away. For several years running, conservatives in Congress attempted to add language which would require recipients of this funding to censor their internet access. So, internet=GOOD, uncensored internet=BAD. Senator John McCain spearheaded the drive to impose internet censorship in any institution which accepted the funds or discounts. In December 2000, the language was added to the 2001 omnibus spending bill, which was ten inches thick when Congress finally voted to approve it - thick enough that no one on earth could claim to know what actually was in the spending bill and what was not.

Although there were attempts to make the bill apply only to terminals used by minors, the final bill applies to all terminals used by anyone. The institutions receiving funding are required to block access to (at a minimum) obscene materal, child pornography, and material harmful to minors (when minors are using the terminals). Given the technical limitations of the software, it's impossible for blocking to be limited to those areas listed. Some schools and libraries will choose to reject the funding and find some other way to budget for internet access. Some will accept the funding and the conditions. Talk to your library and find out.

And here we are. The plaintiffs -- libraries and library associations, library patrons, and people who publish content likely to be blocked -- are asserting that Congress has violated several Constitutional rights with the passage of this law. Read the last few pages of either complaint for an explicit listing of their claims. These are hard claims to make - the court system has often upheld Congress' power to put conditions on funding, since after all, the libraries do have the option of declining the funds - perhaps eliminating their internet access - and in that case, they wouldn't be bound by the law's requirement to censor their internet access. Funding for the interstate highway system has been tied to a national speed limit and to a national drinking age, for example.

In other words, this legal challenge is no slam dunk. This is more like a shot from half court with Michael Jordan in your face. The remedy with the greatest chance of success is pushing Congress to reverse itself and make the E-rate funds restriction-free.

Last Saturday a comment was posted here by an anonymous reader that contained text that was copyrighted by the Church of Scientology. They have since followed the DMCA and demanded that we remove the comment. While Slashdot is an open forum and we encourage free discussion and sharing of ideas, our lawyers have advised us that, considering all the details of this case, the comment should come down. Read on to understand what this means.

This is the first time since we instituted our moderation system that a comment has had to be removed because of its content, and believe me nobody is more broken hearted about it than me. It's a bad precedent, and a blow for the freedom of speech that we all share in this forum. But this simply doesn't look like a case we can win. Our lawyers tell us that it appears to be a violation of Copyright law, and under the terms of the DMCA, we must remove it. Else we risk legal action that would at best be expensive, and potentially cause Slashdot to go down temporarily or even permanently. At the worst, court orders could jeporadize your privacy, and we would be helpless to stop it.

We need to choose our battles and this isn't one we want to have. We want Slashdot to be a forum where you can say what's in your heart, but we simply can't defend an anonymous poster who violates copyright law. Keep that in mind when you post in both this discussion, and in others in the future. Post your ideas. Post your thoughts. And most of all, post your links. We need to play by the rules or it's game over.

Now there is the matter of this specific comment. It contained a text called "OT III", part of what is known as the Fishman Affidavit. This text is Copyrighted by the Church of Scientology. In compliance with the DMCA, we are removing it from Slashdot. In its place we are putting non-copyrighted text: Links to websites about the church of Scientology, as well as links to how you can contact your congressman about the DMCA. Thanks a lot to Jamie for putting this together.

First of all, we would like to point out that the text of OT III is available at many other places on the web. To many to list here in fact. Instead, try a Google search on "OT III" and "Fishman", which as of this writing (March 2001) returns over 250 pages. A broader search on AltaVista returns over 2,000 webpages.

Operating in the jurisdiction of the Dutch courts, Karin Spaink's Fishman Affidavit webpage has fended off two lawsuits from Scientology, one in 1996 and one in 1999. The latter suit, according to the page, is still being appealed. >From the link listed just above, you can click through to the Fishman Affidavit, which contains links to not only to an annotated copy of OT III, but to the documents on the other OT levels as well, number one through the disputed number eight.

If you would like a plain English explanation of OT III, see OT III Rewritten For Beginners, by Jon Atack. Its author is a former Scientologist who himself completed level OT III. The webpage contains nothing copyrighted by a Scientology organization. It is an explanation of what OT III says and what that means, along with commentary by the author. Jon Atack is also the author of A Piece of Blue Sky, which is a history of Scientology from before its founding to after L. Ron Hubbard's death. At the above link, you can either purchase it, or read it in its entirety online.

If you are interested in Scientology, you will want to visit Operation Clambake, at xenu.net. It seems to be the most important central resource for information on the organization.

You may also want to visit the Lisa McPherson Memorial Page, which claims that "Lisa died needlessly at the hands of Scientology." Her case is truly a tragic one and she deserves to be remembered. The site has a great deal of information on her death. Related is The Lisa McPherson Trust, which has not only information about Lisa, but a very large archive of interviews, court transcripts, news reports, testimonials, and videos about Scientology.

Here's a Slashdot story last year on eBay removing auctions for e-meters based on the Church of Scientology DMCA copyright allegations, which is odd because Copyright law doesn't cover a physical device.

If there's anything else about Scientology you want to know, you will want to see AltReligionScientology.org, which contains a huge list of links to all the sites I don't have room to list here.

The DMCA is actually five separate modifications to copyright law. Its Title I is known for providing legal protection for "technological measures" (typically encryption) which prevent copying; this is the part that empowered the MPAA to sue over DeCSS, to name the best-known example.

That's not the part that concerns us here; Title II is its other major modification of copyright law and that's what we're dealing with. Title II created 17 U.S.C. Section 512, and we're specifically looking at our liability under paragraphs (c)(1)(A), which says we have to act "expeditiously to remove or disable access to the [infringing] material." Here's the U.S. Copyright Office's 18-page summary of the DMCA as a whole. If 18 pages is too long for you, here's the American Library Association's much quicker summary

Here's a list of resources on the DMCA, including the DMCA itself in PDF format. The EFF page on the DCMA seems to relate mostly to Title I, the anti-encryption-circumvention portion, but it's too good not to mention anyway.

Don't know who your Congressperson or Senators are? That's OK, now's as good a time as any to learn. Finding your Senators is easy, just go to Senate.gov. To find your Representative, you just need your zip code. You can use the form on the website to write them if you're lazy, but if you want your message to have more impact, print it out and send it in a real envelope. Anything's better than nothing, though.

When you write, you'll want to write something they'll read. Here are the ACLU's tips for writing to your Congressperson or Senators.

Carl Kadie has returned his responses to our interview questions. He covers a wide array of topics regarding computers and academic freedom - my guess is that this interview will answer about 5% of all questions submitted to Ask Slashdot. :)

With Power comes responsibility... (Score:5, Interesting)
by Zachary DeAquila on 02-14-01 02:41 PM EST (#28)

What responsibilities do universiies incur when they have such overbroad AUPs and reserve such powers for themselves? What if, in their browsing through my data, they delete or destroy important information (thesis data or papers or somesuch)? Are they liable for it? What if they 'leak' damaging data either unknowingly or through misunderstanding? Can they be held responsible?

I'm afraid that I know the answers to all these questions and am even more afraid of those answers. So what can be done about it beyond the standard SSH and PGP rhetoric ? Is there a way to make them take responsibility for these actions, preferably a heavy enough responsibility to discourage them from wanting to take these actions in the first place?

Let me start with disclaimers. I'm not a lawyer. The legal matters I discuss are merely my understanding of the law, not real legal advice. Also, I speak for myself, not for the Electronic Frontier Foundation or my employer. For more on these issues look at the Computers and Academic Freedom Archive.

As a practical matter, no rule, regulation, or liability could ever compensate you for something like lost thesis data. Hopefully, the terror you feel just thinking about losing something irreplaceable will motivate you to make multiple backups.

For privacy, however, federal law does offer some protections. The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act applies to any U.S. school, even high schools, both public and private, that accepts federal money. This is the law that stops schools from announcing your social security number and grades to the world. Schools that disclose personally identifiable information, beyond directory information, can lose their federal funding. Schools generally take this law very seriously. The only common problem is school staff who need to be educated about the law.

Another useful law is the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. This is the law that stops AOL from disclosing your grandma's email. It can also be reasonably interpreted as stopping universities from disclosing student email. It may also protect staff email.

Finally, public universities have obligations beyond federal law. As a government institution, they are bound by the federal constitution and their state constitution. A U.S. government task force says that [Email] monitoring [of government employees] of actual communications and communicators may impinge on the Constitutional rights of freedom of speech (1st Amendment), against unreasonable search and seizure (4th Amendment), and against self-incrimination (5th amendment), as well as on the right to privacy, specifically as set forth in both the Privacy Act and the ECPA. Students are presumably protected at least as much.


University policy (Score:5, Interesting)
by Pacer on 02-14-01 02:43 PM EST (#31)

I lived for two years in University residence and, frankly, my college didn't seem to have much respect for the privacy of students in any regard: all mail came through University-owned mailboxes, and packages had to be picked up at the dormitory desk, staffed by hall RAs -- students with a significant disciplinary function. All telephone service went through the university switchboard. Your room could be searched, by university staff or by police, without your permission and without any sort of warrant. Most tenant rights were violated (for instance, eviction with two weeks' notice any time of year), and now the university informs students' parents of on-campus alcohol or disciplinary violations (these are adults whose academic transcripts cannot be released to parents without a signed waiver).

It is not any surprise to me that fascist user agreements are in place concerning electronic media in light of the general control-oriented attitude of many universities towards their on-campus student populations. Perhaps the problem runs deeper than simple technophobia?

I'm optimistic about the trend. I once looked up the student regulations for my school from 1904 to present. (I've since graduated). Students were once literally treated as children. Now the policies generally respect students as scholars with academic freedom. Academic freedom (which includes freedom of expression, privacy, and due process) for students is guaranteed in the student code of many schools. It is advocated by dozen of important academic organizations. I believe academic freedom principles can be straight forwardly applied to computers and networks. For example, here is what our Draft Statement on Computers and Academic Freedom says about privacy:

"Privacy Principle: Personal files on university's computers (for example, files in a user's home directory) should have the same privacy protection as personal files in university-assigned space in an office, lab, or dormitory (for example, files in a graduate student's desk). Private communications via computer should have the same protections as private communications via telephone."

So, all is wonderful everywhere except for a few aberrations that your free ACLU lawyer can quickly take care of, right? Sadly, no. The struggle for civil liberties and academic freedom never ends. As you suggest, some in authority will always try to assert more and more control. They may never have heard the idea that students should have academic freedom. They may not realize public universities in the U.S. are constrained by the U.S. constitution. They may erroneously believe that federal law doesn't apply if you make students sign a waiver.

So what can you do? Organize and fight! It won't be easy. You'll never win completely. But, you'll likely find friends and allies everywhere from student to faculty to staff. You may find your most important allies among the computer services staff. Many computer staff folks see themselves as true professionals with a professional responsibility to what's morally and legally right, not just what the boss thinks is expedient.

If you are in high school looking at colleges, please read their student code and computer rules before you decide. This will be part of your contract with the university. If you decide not to attend a school because of bad policies, tell them and tell the world.


Linux acceptability (Score:5, Interesting)
by dwbryson on 02-14-01 02:45 PM EST (#42)

Carl- I have fought a battle at my college over Linux being on the network. I told the UTS( Univeristy Technology Services ) that I was a big advocate of Linux and was starting up a Linux User Group on campus. But first I wanted their approval. They swiftly told me that, "You can absolutly not encourage the use of Linux on OUR network, and you should be lucky that we don't ban it on campus." I was completely uphauled by this, and so promptly turned around and tried to get as many people interested as I could in Linux. And eventually started my own LUG. Do they have a right to tell me what OS I can use on their network? They of course support windows, and allow Mac's, but flat out tell me I can't have linux on their network. Do you have any suggestions on what rights I as a user have?

Let me break this into two questions. First, can a university department ban clubs or speech because it doesn't like what they advocate? Generally not. At most schools, the student code protects freedom of speech. At public universities, student speech is also protected by the 1^st amendment. To take one example, the U. of Illinois has student organizations ranging from the International Socialists to the College Republicans. Linux really shouldn't be a problem.

Second, can a University Technology Services group ban a program/OS from the Network? The difficulty is that while it might be legitimate to ban, say, a packet sniffer, it shouldn't be legitimate to stop Scientology students who want to filter their own Internet access on their own PC. How do we distinguish these cases? Legally, at state schools you could try to make a 1^st amendment argument. You could also use freedom of information requests (if applicable) to see if a rule was made for legitimate reasons. These legal battles, however, would be expensive and uncertain.

More effective than a legal approach is a good policy approach. How is good policy made? By getting everyone (students, faculty, and staff) involved in making decisions. And, if that doesn't work, by protesting and publicizing bad decisions. Here is what the Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students says about students and policy making:

"As constituents of the academic community, students should be free, individually and collectively, to express their views on issues of institutional policy and on matters of general interest to the student body. The student body should have clearly defined means to participate in the formulation and application of institutional policy affecting academic and student affairs. The role of the student government and both its general and specific responsibilities should be made explicit, and the actions of the student government within the areas of its jurisdiction should be reviewed only through orderly and prescribed procedures."

Legal Recourse? (Score:5, Interesting)
by CU-Ballistic (rogersj@SPAMSUCKSclemson.edu) on 02-14-01 02:46 PM EST (#45)

I attend a rather well-known University in the South. Of course, they have the requisite "we own you and your data" policy. They state in very explicit terms that they have the right, at any time, to search and confiscate my computer, hard drives, and other media. They say that they also have the right to monitor network traffic, and disable any account which is exhibiting "unusual or excessive" activity. This all seems incredibly arbitrary to me, and worries me very much. My question to you is: Do I have any legal recourse? My main quarrel is that as a first-year student, I am forced to live on campus, and many classes require work to be submitted electronically. Since I am unable to "opt-out" of their heavy-handed policy, do I have any legal recourse if I were to encounter a search-and-seizure situation with the Administration here?

I think I found policy in question. It has both good points and bad points. The good is that it provides for due process via the university's regular channels. Also, it lays out proscribed behavior pretty clearly. Now, to the bad:

• It doesn't say how the policy was formulated and under what authority. Were students involved? Did the university senate give approval? Was there a committee? As far as we can tell from the policy itself, it could be the work of one person without any input from the university community.
• The policy contradicts itself on privacy. It tries to use magic words to make federal law and constitutional requirements disappear. It says: "Students have no expectation of privacy when utilizing university computing resources, even if the use is for personal purposes." The policy for staff says the same thing: "Employees have no expectation of privacy ..." but a few lines before that it correctly acknowledges that "[...] Federal and State statutes protect the privacy of much of the information available on University computer systems." As a general rules, a policy should not contradict itself. (I wonder if researchers are really prohibited from storing human subject and other sensitive data on these computers?) [Editorial note: Federal laws concerning research on human subjects requires that data about such studies be stored securely, with a number of explicit security requirements. If Clemson faculty have no expectation of privacy when using Clemson computers, Clemson is breaking those laws if it conducts any research on human subjects (which it does) and stores the data on Clemson machines.]
• Finally, the policy conflates invading-policy-because-of-an-emergency and invading-it-to-gather-evidence-of-wrong-doing. Any public university and any university that respects academic freedom should distinguish these cases. Here is how the Joint Statement puts it:
  
  "Except under extreme emergency circumstances, premises occupied by students and the personal possessions of students should not be searched unless appropriate authorization has been obtained. For premises such as residence halls controlled by the institution, an appropriate and responsible authority should be designated to whom application should be made before a search is conducted. The application should specify the reasons for he search and the objects or information sought. The student should be present, if possible, during the search. For premises not controlled by the institution, the ordinary requirements for lawful search should be followed."

Finding Balance? (Score:5, Informative)
by PapaZit on 02-14-01 03:59 PM EST (#161)

Here's a shot from "the other side."

I work in Computing Services for a tech-oriented private university. Our usage policies aren't as bad as some, but they definitely give us broad priviledges. We've been through many, many proposed revisions that keep being killed by some combination of faculty, staff or lawyers. The basic problems:

There doesn't seem to be a concise legal way to say "Don't be an asshole and don't break the law," which is all we really want.

It's occasionally necessary for staff to look at private information for technical reasons (reconstructing mail spool after disk crashed, making sure the nifty new backup program actually worked, etc.). We have a huge infrastructure, and if we had to stop and check every time we might accidentally see something, we'd never get anything done unless we made our staff size much larger. We don't have the budget to do that.

Occasionally, the sysadmins will find something really bad during the course of routine work. "Spending a long time in federal prison" kind of bad. We try to keep these sort of events quiet to avoid publicity for the user in case it's not their fault (someone cracked their account, etc). We don't want our users on the evening news, but this'll happen with most "notify lots of people before doing anything" plans.

There are two opposing viewpoints that are both vocal in our community. One says "privacy over all" while the other says "learning and sharing over all". We have quite a few people who make their home directories publicly readable as a sort of protest against the "privacy freaks" (their words). Finding a policy that makes both happy is very difficult.

In light of these constraints (financial and social), how do we give more rights to our users without seriously impeding our ability to do our jobs?

First, I commend you for taking your professional responsibilities seriously. As you know, incidental and emergency exposure of information is a fact of life. Your computers likely contain everything from medical information, to love letters, to evidence of criminal activity. After much debate at the U. of Illinois, with input from all of campus, the University adopted a policy that says in part:

"Network and system administrators are expected to treat the contents of electronic files as private and confidential. Any inspection of electronic files, and any action based upon such inspection, will be governed by all applicable U. S. and Illinois laws and by University policies."

Other schools also respect the privacy of email and files. You can see examples here. For some general tips on making good policy, look here.


I am violating my school's policy by posting this. (Score:4, Interesting)
by SkyIce (dangelo(a)ntplx.net) on 02-14-01 03:47 PM EST (#144)

Take a look at my school's AUP at http://www.exeter.edu/publications/ebook/datavoice video.html . Some interesting quotes:

"No pseudonymous or anonymous messages may be sent. Students should be careful not to give out personal information over the Internet."

"Accessing the accounts and files of others is prohibited."

"Students may be held accountable for their actions while off-campus and thus for messages posted from off-campus accounts."

Academy network resources, including all telephone and data lines, are the property of the Academy. The Academy will, to the extent possible, respect privacy of all account holders on the network. However, the Academy is responsible for investigating possible violations of and enforcing all Academy rules governing the network. Academy network users should, therefore, keep in mind that the Academy reserves the right to access any information stored or transmitted over the network.

But nowhere in it does it mention the search of a personal computer. Somehow, last week, on mere suspicion, my and three other kids' computers were seized and held for a few days while the network administrator attempted to track down the source of network troubles. He ultimately failed, but in the process noticed that I was using a different IP address and hostname other than the one I had been assigned. The case was sent to the discipline committee under "Theft of IP address" and I am now on probation for eight weeks. My dorm room's port was activated "with restrictions" yesterday, and they now want me to e-mail them a list of every program I want to download so that they can verify it. Was this even legal? What can I do to stop something like this from happening in the future?

As a student in a private high school that likely doesn't take any government money, you have few legal protections. As long as they follow their own rules, they can do almost anything they want. Sorry.

Again, I strongly encourage you to read the student code and computer policies of any colleges you are looking at. You'll find critiques of several dozen policies Computers and Academic Freedom Policy Archive. (Hopefully, most of the bad policies in the archive have since been improved.)


Colleges vs Corporations (Score:3, Interesting)
by Chris Brewer (chrisbrewer@paradise.net.nzSPAMBEGONE(TM)) on 02-14-01 02:44 PM EST (#39)

In your opinion, is there any difference between what a student does on the campus network using college owned computers and an employee using the corporate network using the company's computers with regard to who owns the data?

In the U.S., there is a world of difference between employees and students. (I don't know about the law in New Zealand). The work employees do on company equipment generally belongs to the company. Moreover, at work Americans have little privacy protection. (The ACLU has a project on workplace civil liberties.)

Students, on the other hand, are customers of the university, not its agents or employees. Although your grandmother might store a document on AOL's computers, that does not give AOL ownership of the document's copyright. Likewise, while you might research a paper in the University library and store it on a University computer, they gain no ownership rights.


WPI's Acceptible Use Policy (Score:3, Interesting)
by Saint Nobody on 02-14-01 02:50 PM EST (#55)

Personally, i think that WPI has a pretty good AUP, (which is not to say i haven't had problems with netops regarding a few violations, only one of which i was actually responsible for.) it doesn't say that they can read our email personal files and other miscellany, and it requires us not to go poking around.

However, it doesn't say that they can't.

how do you feel about policies like that? It doesn't guarantee our privacy, but it doesn't infringe on it either. Is lack of a guarantee an implicit infringement?

The Joint Statement says that academic freedom "requires" policies that clearly define possible offenses and that are enforced though fair due-process procedures. As you point out, WPI, a private technical institute, leaves a lot unsaid in its computer policy especially about policy enforcement. Are such vague policies OK because we can trust the wisdom of the university staff to do what's right? As much as I respect the professionalism of many computer staff folks, we can't know that the good ones will always be there. To be safe, we must capture some wisdom in policy.

So, what could go wrong? Imagine this nightmare: The WPI computer organization decides to ignore the Institute's regular judicial system with its system of check and balances. The computer org decides to impose punishments on students itself. It guarantees no notice of charges, no hearing, and no appeal procedure.

How likely is this nightmare? IT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED!

Read another WPI policy, the Residential AUP Policy. This policy reminds me of a line from Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland: "No, no," said the Queen: "The sentence first -- the verdict afterwards." Except they don't even bother with the verdict.


Is it because of lawyers? (Score:3, Interesting)
by Wariac on 02-14-01 03:06 PM EST (#83)

Do you think that Schools do this in practice, or is this just a CYA (cover your ass) scenario in case a student does something stupid/illegal. It seems to me in this lawsuit-happy world full of sleazy lawyers that this could be the only way that Schools (or anyone) can avoid being sued into bankruptcy.

In a nutshell, Do the schools implement these policies on thier own accord, or are they usualy done at the request of thier insurer?

Because students are customers of a school and not employees/agents schools generally aren't responsible for their actions. So, if it's not insurers who ask for bad policies where to they come from? It often works like this:

• A student does something obnoxious, but not against any written rules.
• The student is investigated and punished.
• The department that punished the student creates very broad and very vague rules to justify, after the fact, the procedure and punishment already imposed. (For example, see the case of the NCSA.)
• The new policy is run by University legal counsel. Legal counsel checks that it doesn't make any promises or guarantees to students. Counsel doesn't think to check for consistency with other policies or Constitutional requirements.
• Some students, faculty, or staff members finally get to read the policy. Using email, web sites, netnews, newspaper stories, and sometimes even demonstrations on on the Quad/Green, they educate themselves and the University community about legal and academic standards. Everyone starts to see the problems in the first policy.
• A committee is formed of students, faculty, staff, and librarians. They work for a while and create a much better policy.
• The new policy is adopted by the University and replaces the old. (For example, the UIUC privacy policy that grew out of the NCSA policy.)
• Everyone lives happily ever after. (Until the next time a student does something obnoxious but not against any written rules.)

How do you handle bandwidth issues? (Score:2, Interesting)
by Shook (shook@iname.com) on 02-14-01 10:34 PM EST (#261)

I go to a fairly devout Christian U., that has very aggressive censor ware against sex, porn, illegal activities, but that isn't the focus of my question. Unlike many schools, my U. did nothing to block Napster use, and I always found this a little surprising.

When we came back from X-Mas break, Napster was blocked. People moaned and groaned, but it turns out it wasn't even our school's call (though they might have had a say in it) Our school gets its access from a state-wide government-run ISP for educational institutions, and the ISP decided to block Napster, Gnutella, and probably others.

Rather than copyright issues, they cited bandwidth problems. Although, I miss my Napster, I find this hard to argue with. (Theoretically) the network is for educaitonal purposes, and my average dorm-connection speed has doubled since Napster was blocked. But this could easily become a slippery slope, what is to keep them from blocking things like FTP, or Real Audio, both of which I have used for research, but can present bandwidth problems.

How would you suggest balancing to need to reserve bandwidth for serious school-related purposes, and still provide a useful Internet service?

Ten years ago, some schools thought it necessary to ban all games from their computers and networks. (Here is a critique of one such policy.) Now the computer game industry is as big as the movie industry. And, just as you can take film classes in college, so you can take computer game classes. This illustrates the wisdom of a tenet of academic freedom: no authority knows everything that will be important in the future. Therefore, every professor and every student should be free to examine and discuss all questions of interest to them. Schools should do their best to accommodate these explorations. Peer-to-peer systems could be the next big thing. It sounds like the students and professors in your state won't be part of it.

Could there ever be a legitimate reason to ban ALL recreational use of the network? Sure, just as I can imagine a college so resource-poor that it banned all recreational reading in the library, I can imagine a college so resource-poor that it banned all recreational network use. But I won't want to attend such a school.

But, how should needs be balanced when resources require it? I advocate following the model of librarians. They are experts at selecting books based on professional standards and respect for intellectual freedom.

In closing, let me list some resources and ask for some possible help:

• American Civil Liberties Union
• Electronic Frontier Foundation, civil liberties group which works to protect privacy, free expression, and access to new media sources.
• The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a nonprofit educational foundation devoted to free speech, individual liberty, religious freedom, the rights of conscience, legal equality, due process, and academic freedom on our nation's campuses.
• Peacefire, a nonprofit organization representing the interests of people under 18 in the debate over freedom of speech on the Internet. Peacefire focuses mostly on censorware (Internet content filtering software) in libraries and schools.
• Student Press Law Center, a nonprofit organization provides legal advice to media students and educators on issues related to freedom of the press. Includes advice and news.
• American Association of University Professors, focuses on issues of academic freedom and tenure and campus governance by faculty. Details its programs and policies.
• American Library Association - Office for Intellectual Freedom

Finally, if you go to the Computers and Academic Freedom Archive, my web site, you'll notice it has not been updated for a while. With a job, a family, and new interests, I haven't given the site and issue the attention it deserves. I'd love to get ideas and/or proposals from folks on how to get the Computers and Academic Freedom Project restarted. Thanks.

Carl Kadie
kadie@eff.org
p.s. I'll be on vacation from the 4th to the 11th.

Liza writes: "The FCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rule-Making today, implementing the mandatory filtering requirements for schools and libraries. People should know that this applies to all schools and libraries that receive "E-Rate" discounts for Internet access, Internet service, or internal connections." More of Ms. Kessler's comments below; but you'll want to see the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking first. The ALA's guide to the law has some good information. For nearly every U.S. reader: this law will affect your local library. Go talk to them. Get involved.

"The law in question (CIPA) requires filters to be used whenever *anyone* is using the computer, although adults with "bona fide" research needs may request that they be disabled. Minors may not use unfiltered computers with Internet access, even if a parent gives permission or a teacher deems the site to be wrongly filtered.

"The FCC is seeking comment on how to go about implementing this requirement, and it is on the FAST TRACK. Comments have to be made in the next 15 days! For anyone interested in participating, the FCC makes it easy.

"How to Submit a Comment to the FCC: The FCC provides a number of ways for members of the public to comment on proceedings. The easiest is their web-based form.

"The Internet filtering proceeding docket number, which you must include in any comment to the FCC, is: 96-45."

Liza writes: "The FCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rule-Making today, implementing the mandatory filtering requirements for schools and libraries. People should know that this applies to all schools and libraries that receive "E-Rate" discounts for Internet access, Internet service, or internal connections." More of Ms. Kessler's comments below; but you'll want to see the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking first. The ALA's guide to the law has some good information. For nearly every U.S. reader: this law will affect your local library. Go talk to them. Get involved.

"The law in question (CIPA) requires filters to be used whenever *anyone* is using the computer, although adults with "bona fide" research needs may request that they be disabled. Minors may not use unfiltered computers with Internet access, even if a parent gives permission or a teacher deems the site to be wrongly filtered.

"The FCC is seeking comment on how to go about implementing this requirement, and it is on the FAST TRACK. Comments have to be made in the next 15 days! For anyone interested in participating, the FCC makes it easy.

"How to Submit a Comment to the FCC: The FCC provides a number of ways for members of the public to comment on proceedings. The easiest is their web-based form.

"The Internet filtering proceeding docket number, which you must include in any comment to the FCC, is: 96-45."

Liza writes: "The FCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rule-Making today, implementing the mandatory filtering requirements for schools and libraries. People should know that this applies to all schools and libraries that receive "E-Rate" discounts for Internet access, Internet service, or internal connections." More of Ms. Kessler's comments below; but you'll want to see the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking first. The ALA's guide to the law has some good information. For nearly every U.S. reader: this law will affect your local library. Go talk to them. Get involved.

"The law in question (CIPA) requires filters to be used whenever *anyone* is using the computer, although adults with "bona fide" research needs may request that they be disabled. Minors may not use unfiltered computers with Internet access, even if a parent gives permission or a teacher deems the site to be wrongly filtered.

"The FCC is seeking comment on how to go about implementing this requirement, and it is on the FAST TRACK. Comments have to be made in the next 15 days! For anyone interested in participating, the FCC makes it easy.

"How to Submit a Comment to the FCC: The FCC provides a number of ways for members of the public to comment on proceedings. The easiest is their web-based form.

"The Internet filtering proceeding docket number, which you must include in any comment to the FCC, is: 96-45."

JasonMaggini writes: "ZDNet reports the American Library Association is planning to sue over the new federal law that is putting Web filters on public school and library computers. Great article title, too: 'Filter THIS!'"

eon(36.0) / Kathryn Aegis writes: "The Digital Freedom Network today announces the winners of its Foil the Filters Contest. To illustrate the unreliability and political slant of censorware, the DFN asked Netizens to ply the filters with innocuous words, names, or search requests to see what gets blocked. This week is Banned Books Week, so read something naughty today."

If you're looking for a political issue that will advance freedom, support the growth and innovation of technology, support younger geeks (and adults) who depend on libraries for access to the Net and Web, and also strike a blow against the Luddites who dominate Congress and media, there's a great cause for you: your local library needs some help. Enlightened educators and librarians are seeking help in blocking imminent federal legislation that would require the installation of filtering software on all school and library computers connected to the Net.

This provision ought to be called "The Local Net Censorship Act" -- and it's close to becoming law. Lawmakers in both the House and the Senate approved a final version late last week, agreeing on a compromise approach containing elements of separate plans passed in the two chambers earlier this year. It would require all schools and libraries to install filtering software regulating the content available to any computers purchased with Federal money, blocking child pornography, obscenity and materials deemed harmful to minors. Schools and libraries would also be required to develop Net use policies that address minors' online access to "inappropriate" materials.

Much of the tech culture was asleep at the switch when the Digital Millennium Copyright Act was passed, giving corporations unprecedented control of American intellectual property, and is now paying for its apathy. This law could increase liability for schools and libraries, give local politicians and religious crazies a significant new weapon to ban access in public institutions to material they consider offensive or inappropriate.

Representatives are already lining up to lengthen the list of sites and subjects considered "inappropriate." Sen. John McCain of Arizona is pushing his own filtering provision in the Senate, where an amendment by Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania has just added the further requirement that communities be able to provide input about blocking other "inappropriate" Web sites that mention bomb-making, drugs or other topics.

As most of the people reading this know, blocking and filtering programs are arbitrary and wildly ineffective. While savvy users can easily bypass them, these filters hide from most users vast amounts of legitimate information along with so-called "offensive" content. This law is a license for every political interest group to keep subjects they don't like out of local libraries and schools. The victims would be kids with nowhere but libraries to go for Net access. Most filtering programs are censorship technology, pure and simple, but at the same time less effective than simple adult or parental supervision. They are not justified by any meaningful statistics regarding children and the Internet -- perhaps because there really aren't any.

Instead of tying the hands of educators and librarians, government should be doing everything possible to ensure that as many kids as possible have free access to the Net and the Web, because it will be vital to their social, educational and economic opportunities. Laws like this demonstrate how profoundly and dangerously ignorant of technology most of our elected leaders are, and how vulnerable to their ignorance the tech culture is.

The National Education Association is fighting the law -- the still nameless legislation is attached to legislation funding the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education departments. The American Library Association is in on the fight, too, since the bill would for the first time force public libraries to follow the same access policies as schools. But hardly anyone in Congress will dare defend "pornography" and "offensive" material.

"For a library, it's a different ball game," a spokeswoman for the ALA told The New York Times. "If you have to filter any machine a child may use, in a library, you'd have to filter every computer. It disregards age-appropriate levels." This means older children, teenagers and adults would be arbitrarily censored by any local community that didn't like a particular kind of Web site or subject matter, from abortion information to anything resembling sexual imagery. And kids in schools would be subject to even more controlled than they already are.

Libraries -- and local communities -- already have the freedom to establish controls ranging from increased supervision to some kinds of filtering if they wish. Most libraries and schools also have the ability to block sites if they are deemed dangerous and offensive. There is absolutely no reason for Congress to make censorship technology universal and required by law. The federal provision would further complicate Net access issues for libraries, since their environments are less controlled than a public school. Libraries are open to all ages, including adults -- who have a First Amendment right to access a broader range of materials on the Net than the proposed congressional filtering arrangement would allow. Libraries also fear that the law would expose libraries to a wave of new lawsuits demanding they filter -- in accordance with federal law -- any site that could be considered "inappropriate" or "offensive" by any elements of any local community. Passage of this law would force local libraries to radically increase filtering of the Net.

Most of us don't need to go to the library for Net access, but millions of people -- mostly kids -- do. They are entitled to some kinds of First Amendment protection as well as we are. This is a dangerous law, one which injects federal moral guardians directly into the issue of Net access. History tell us this is an awful idea. If you're in the mood to contact your local congressman or woman, this is a great reason to do it. For further information, you can also contact the National Education Association and the American Library Association.

Note: If you're looking for factual evidence to help bolster your arguments against the encroachment of filters, jamie also suggests checking out The Censorware Project, Peacefire and the GLAAD report on filter discrimination.

InfoMonk writes: "I attended a library conference over the weekend. Tim O'Reilly spoke at a presentation on Open Source Software for libraries. After the conference I asked him about the long running interest in O'Reilly putting out BSD publications. He confirmed that two projects are currently in development, the expected BSD in a Nutshell and another book whose subject is not yet clear. This is very good news of course, to BSD hackers who are slightly tired of the press coverage that Linux has been given in the past year."

If you're a regular Slashdot reader, you've heard about UCITA by now. You have probably also gathered that many prominent spokespeople for the open source and free software communities, most notably Richard Stallman, don't like it. UCITA already passed in Virginia, but the governor hasn't yet signed it into law. Here in Maryland, where I live, UCITA is still under consideration. I'm working hard to block it, and I'm not alone. But this story is not as much about Virginia and Maryland as it is about the way UCITA is being "sold" to state legislatures all over the U.S. and how you can work effectively in your state to keep it from becoming the Law of the Land.

Let's start with Virginia. There, UCITA has been passed by the Legislature and is awaiting signature by Governor Jim Gilmore. But all is not yet lost. Skip Lockwood of 4cite.org says, "It is very important that the Governor, the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate all hear from dissatisfied consumers. Virginia has really put the 'horse before the cart' with the passage of this law. Call, e-mail and fax so that legislators know what a mistake they have made." And UCITA isn't scheduled to go into force in Virginia until next year, so there may be time to undo the damage. It's worth a try, certainly, even though UCITA is backed heavily both by Microsoft and Virginia's own "star" online business, AOL.

In Maryland, UCITA is is by no means a done deal. As House Bill #19 and Senate Bill #142, it is still being considered by legislative committees. This means UCITA could conceivably still be stopped in Maryland even before it came to a vote, although the forces working to push it through are both mighty and well-financed. One state senator told me this was the first time he'd ever seen actual lobbyists from Microsoft, in person, in Annapolis (Maryland's state capital). Many highly-paid "local" lobbyists are also cruising the legislative halls, busily telling the politicians why UCITA is a must-pass piece of legislation.

But apparently the lobbyists and their masters never told Maryland legislators exactly what UCITA was all about. I called the offices of all 13 members of the House of Delegates who are co-sponsoring Maryland UCITA, House Bill 19, and not one of them or any of their staff members to whom I spoke could tell me honestly that they had read the whole thing. All most of them seem to have read was this synopsis:

Adopting the Maryland Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act; establishing provisions of law applicable to agreements to create, modify, transfer, or distribute computer software, computer data and databases, Internet and online information, and computer information and products; establishing provisions of law applicable to licensing of computer information; etc.

But the bill goes just a little bit beyond this. If you have time (it's about 85 printed pages), here's the entire UCITA text.

Quite a difference, eh? If you actually read all the way through the document, you now know more than most of the Maryland legislators who are tasked with deciding whether or not it should be made into law.

The way things work here in Maryland - and in many other states - is that the heaviest political leaders call lesser politicians to whose campaigns they have donated or for whom they have done other favors and say, "I'm sending you a bill I want passed." If the lesser politician knows what's good for him or her, he or she salutes and follows orders, especially on somthing like UCITA, which is not an issue most ordinary citizens either understand or care about.

In my opinion, the single most politically powerful elected official in the State of Maryland is Casper R. Taylor, Jr., speaker of the House of Delegates. He consistently has one of the largest campaign fund "war chests" in the state and freely shares lucre from it with other legislators who support him. Mr. Taylor has personally assured me that the large sums of money he solicits - and gets - from assorted industry groups and other big donors do not influence his votes or buy his support. (I did not laugh out loud when he said this only because I am a professional journalist and have developed the ability to listen to almost any kind of outrageous statement without showing emotion. Please don't try this at home.)

Wherever you live in the U.S. (or almost anywhere else) there is a primary power broker like Taylor, and it is this person upon whom the Microsofts and AOLs and the Business Software Alliance and the rest of the big-money crowd will concentrate their efforts (and lavish funds). But don't think that people like Taylor are evil. They usually aren't, down deep inside, and if they get enough reasonable citizen input that opposes the lobbyists' desires, they can often be persuaded to do the right thing.

Guys like Casper Taylor actually like hearing from citizens; if they weren't basically gregarious and outgoing they wouldn't have gone into politics in the first place. If you don't believe me, give Casper a friendly call. His office phone number is 410-841-3800. If you don't live in Maryland, consider this a practice call for the UCITA fight that is likely to take place in your state sometime in the next year or two.

There are several things to bear in mind when calling a politician to express your opinion. The first is that yelling and acting nutsy gets you nowhere. Be sane and have *real reasons* handy for your opinion - and no, "because Richard Stallman doesn't like it" is not a good reason, because RMS is not widely-known in political circles. You need facts like the ones on this page. The second is to make sure you don't just say "UCITA." You need to refer to the correct bill number, in this case House Bill 19. Even if you speak to the lowest of Casper's underlings, and they only give you the chance to say, "I just want to ask Speaker Taylor to please withdraw his support for House Bill 19 because it is bad for consumers and will inhibit open source software development," you have done a good and valuable thing. A hundred brief calls can be worth more than $1000 in Microsoft lobbying money even if you feel like you haven't done much or that you were barely listened to.

Note that I mention phone calls, not e-mail. Politicians are generally more receptive to calls than to e-mails. They also like faxes (Taylor's fax number is 410-841-1138), but e-mail is still valid, as long as you only send one or two polite ones to each elected official you want to reach. (If you want to use Casper for a practice e-mail, send it to casper_taylor@house.state.md.us.)

So we've contacted the most powerful guy. Fine. But there are other leaders who should also hear from you. In Maryland, in this case, some of the most important are Governor Parris Glendening, Senate President Mike Miller (to whom you should mention Senate Bill 142, not House Bill 19), and Comptroller William Donald Schaefer. All of them have complete contact information on their Web pages, as do almost all public officials everywhere.

If you live in Maryland, besides these people, you'll want to contact the representatives from your district. Find them here. If you live in another state and want to find out if UCITA is about to become a burning issue there, check this page. And, no matter where you live in the U.S., here's a list of state and local government Web sites that can not only help you fight UCITA, but help you find out what your elected officials are up to in general, and who to contact if you have a beef or want to get something done.

Dealing with politics and politicians can often make you feel like you're pushing into a wall of warm fuzz, especially if you spend most of your time dealing with machine-style logic where each specific cause has a specific effect. And I don't know about you, but reading the lawyer jargon in which most proposed laws are written gives me a headache.

But if you and I and a bunch of other people don't take the trouble to go through this headache over UCITA and other legislative actions that directly affect our lives and livings, rest assured that Microsoft and the other companies and industry groups on "the other side" will keep slogging along, making sure their views get heard as loudly and strongly and often as possible.

And when your legislators hear from the industry groups and lobbyists over and over, and hear nothing from you, they will not only pass UCITA and other laws you don't like, but they'll be perfectly justified when they smugly say, afterwards, "Almost everyone I heard from about this matter was in favor of it!"

You think your community is conservative? Holland, Michigan, home of the Slashdot Geek Compound, is a conservative community. "Y2K," according to yard signs on my way to last night's library meeting, stands for "Yes 2 King Jesus." Supposedly the city has gone to every Republican presidential candidate but one (Abraham Lincoln). Now the American Family Association has brought mandatory library censorware to a vote on Feb.22, and the measure's opponents have a tough six weeks ahead of them. This is the first time the battle over library filters has come near my community, and my first close look at the grass roots of a First Amendment struggle. Click for more.

The conservative community isn't the only reason that the AFA has chosen the Holland area, in my home state, to be one of its important fronts in the library blocking-software war.

There is an unusual law in the city of Holland that allows any measure to be brought to a ballot vote by petition. This is good in that it brings democracy directly to the people. Unfortunately, if a couple thousand people signed a petition demanding that the mayor must part Lake Michigan or forfeit his salary, that issue would go on the ballot. Democracy doesn't always make sense.

You may have seen press about the Republication presidential candidates campaigning in our fair state. This is because our governor pushed the primary ahead this year, so that we are now one of the first states to cast a ballot for the nominees. Registered Republicans will be going to the polls on Feb.22 to decide which candidate they like best.

Registered Democrats don't get to vote on GOP candidates and largely don't care. But in the city of Holland, thanks to a last-minute petition drive spearheaded by the AFA, there will be one additional issue on the ballot: mandatory blocking software in the city library.

Ironically, the surrounding townships help pay for the same library, but because the petition-to-ballot law applies only in the city, they won't be voting on how their money will be spent.

Holland Republicans, already at the polls to nominate a candidate, will merely have to check one more box. Holland Democrats, assuming for the sake of argument that they exist, will first have to learn that they can vote on Feb.22, and then take the trouble to drive down to the polls for the sole purpose of, as the AFA will surely characterize it, forcing children to look at pornography.

Not that it's quite that simple - the issue surely doesn't break precisely across party lines - but: Ouch! Putting the issue on the ballot on the same day as the Republican primary was a brilliant strategic move. If this is what local politics are all about, maybe I'm glad I haven't gotten involved before.

But if last night's meeting at the library is any indicator, it's not over yet.

The meeting was sponsored by Families for Internet Access, a small Holland group working to oppose library blocking software. Roughly 200 people showed up in the basement of the library to discuss the issue, including at least three Slashdot readers. The large majority were clearly opposed to filters. Luckily, the minority was vocal enough that at least some of their views could be heard, so it wasn't too one-sided.

Don Wildmon, president of the Tupelo, Mississippi-based AFA, says "a community's taxpayers own the local library," and it's going to be interesting to see if that's true. The Holland library has had few problems with inappropriate material to date. The computers in the children's section are not on the net. The internet terminals in the adult section are clustered closely in a well-lit area; patron sessions are limited to 30minutes once per day, and library staff walk through the area frequently to enforce this rule. Even with access restricted to brief sessions, there is almost always a line waiting to use the next computer.

In the four years they've offered internet access, there have been a total of six incidents where a patron had to be removed for causing a disturbance. Of these, only one involved viewing of inappropriate material (it was unclear whether or not this was pornography). To put this in perspective, there were 26,000 patrons who used the internet last year alone.

It seems a bustling, crowded public area in a public library, in front of a big window facing a busy street, is not an environment where people commonly go to look at porn. Imagine that. As one of last night's presenters said, "there is an effective filter in place already, and that is the good people of Holland." It seems clear that censorware is a solution in search of a problem - at least in this community.

But the AFA knows how to look for a problem. The pamphlet that they circulate on library "safety" suggests some ways to determine whether a library has "come under the influence of the American Library Association." The "citizen activist" is urged to "use these helps to learn if your library is a community friend or foe":

"Inquire if your library ... celebrates ALA's 'Banned Books Week.'"

"Search for classic scholarly books. A healthy selection should be available. Suggested titles... Principia Mathematica by Sir Issac Newton." [sic]

"On your library's computer, go to www.yahoo.com or any of the popular Internet search engines. In the search field enter the following: XXX,hardcore,nude"

Are those really the best ways to determine whether a library has a problem with pornography?

Incidentally, I've not gotten confirmation, but the rumor is that the local AFA will be recommending SurfWatch as their filter of choice. In which case, that last suggestion is an interesting one. I purchased and installed SurfWatch on my home computer this weekend, and it blocks me from accessing Yahoo. I still can't figure that out, considering the company that sells it partners with Yahoo.

The AFA has also been claiming support from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). But at Monday night's meeting, he said he can't specifically support the local initiative because he doesn't know what it's all about. In fact, when the AFA's position was described to him, he interrupted to ask what "AFA" stood for.

In the end, it may not matter whether the problem of inappropriate library material exists or is manufactured. The AFA also recommends that its activists "take [their] concerns through the library chain of command," but in Holland, they refused to meet with the library and went straight to the ballot instead. The voters will decide whether censorware gets installed, and the public's chance to learn about the issues may be limited at best.

In the next six weeks I hope to get a "view from the trenches" of Holland's First Amendment struggle, and to bring it to Slashdot. I'll make no bones about the position I take on the issue. I'll try to focus less on why blocking software is a bad idea in libraries - I'll leave it to other websites to explain that - and more on how the memeticwarfare ^[*] is being conducted. I'll be reading all your comments. Check the YRO section, too, for updates not quite important enough for the Slashdot homepage.

Because this month, mandatory library censorware is a hot topic in Holland. Next month, it may be in my home town. And the month after that - yours.

Our interview guests this week are American Jim Tyre and Australian Irene Graham. Both are long-time, well-known online free speech and anti-censorware activists; links from Monday's call for questions can tell you all about them. Anyway, here are their answers to your questions. They'll tell you everything you ever wanted to know about censorware and why it's not a good thing. There are also a lot of good tips about online and political activism in general contained in their answers; you may want to read this to pick up on those even if censorware and free speech aren't your personal "hot button" issues. (mucho more below)

1) Censorship: problem or symptom?
by Signal 11
I believe censorship is a result of various groups / countries wanting to protect their cultural identity (which includes their social taboos). The second thing I want to put forward is the fact that the internet is a culture-neutral medium - it breaks down the traditional geographical barriers that seperate us from other countries. Witness cultural exchange programs, founded under the premise that communication == exchange of ideas. That generally promotes a "blending effect" (for lack of a better description) between cultures.

My question is simple: in light of this, attacking censorware is only attacking the symptom, not the cause. What solutions do you believe are reasonable for accomodating the concerns of these groups? Going one step further, should they be accomodated?

Jim:
You're correct that censorware is only a symptom there is a reason why, for example, every year librarians and others "celebrate" Banned Books Week but I'm not certain that I agree with the premise that the Internet is a culture-neutral medium, particularly in the context of a censorship discussion.

To some cultures, whether national or here in the U.S., every advance in technology has been a threat. Planes, trains and automobiles have changed many cultures, and so has or will the Internet. In many nations, the Internet itself is a threat, which is why some try to keep it out completely, or to allow it only under highly controlled circumstances. A content-free Internet would be culturally neutral, but an Internet which includes hundreds of sites about The Satanic Verses can hardly be considered neutral to many in Tehran or Islamabad.

In the context of the Internet, any attempt to accommodate a particular group is fraught with danger. (Some) parents were concerned with what their kids might be exposed to, so censorware was developed for home use. But the moralists were not satisfied, so laws like the CDA were enacted. When it was struck down, in part because censorware was touted as a less restrictive alternative, legislators pounced and introduced legislation (still pending) requiring the use of censorware in certain schools and libraries, not just for children, but for adults as well. And of course, as discussed in YRO, there are renewed multinational efforts to revitalize and impose PICS.

History has shown that it is a fundamental mistake to believe that censors can be accommodated. If one wants to preserve a cultural identity, the way to do it is to inculcate the positive values of that identity, not to pretend that other cultures do not exist.

2) What can we do?
by Ex-NT-User
It seems the majority of governments that are instituting censorship legislation are doing this "behind their populations backs". And certainly without majority support of the people they govern over. Mailing/calling our representatives doesn't seem to help much since they just blow us off for special interest groups.

So what can we as individuals do prevent this? What other avenues can we take?

Irene:
I think one of the problems is that many politicians see the people on the Net as being a special interest group, so which special interest group should they listen to? Some politicians, for example, claim that people on the Net don't care about protecting children - you'd think no-one on the Net had kids if you didn't know better.

The problem of changing such perceptions is exacerbated by the tendency of people on the Net to do anything they can by email and not being willing to devote a little time to understanding the political processes involved.

So there's not just a question of what individuals can do, but what they shouldn't do. Here's some examples to explain what I mean from the recent anti-censorship campaign in Australia...

Some people set up email lists to automatically send the same message to all Australian politicians - it sounded like a great idea and heaps of well-intentioned people used these. The problem was, apparently, that many people sent rude, abusive emails. This is not the way to get one's point across and encourages the view that people on the Net are different from "ordinary" people. At the same time, the politicians who were already opposing the Bill received messages abusing them. Unfortunately, this encourages them to say "why bother?" - why shouldn't they support the pro-censorship lobby who quite likely aren't rude and say thank you?

During the campaign here, I rang the offices of my "representatives" who happened to be members of the opposition party just to say thanks for opposing the Bill. The staffers who answered the phone practically fell over themselves thanking me for bothering to call - they were so, so tired of the abusive emails and calls from people who hadn't even bothered to check what their policy was.

At one stage in the campaign here, it was reported that filter rules had been added to the Parliamentary email system, to give politicians the option of filtering anything about the Net censorship Bill into a separate folder. They were receiving too much email, which was interfering, apparently, with their ability to find email on other topics.

Another issue is that computers make it arguably too easy to just copy and paste texts that the cyber-liberties groups issue as suggestions, or that someone else has written. Standard texts are generally given little credence by politicians - they see it as just part of a campaign, too easy, from someone who doesn't care enough to bother writing their own views.

As well, there's the problem that many people don't even know what's going on. They don't read the newspapers regularly, certainly not the IT sections, and in Australia the TV news didn't mention the Bill until -after- the Senate approved it. Talk to people "in the streets" and you're likely to find even though they're not on the Net yet, they comprehend well enough to know the proposed legislation is silly, but hadn't heard about it. The spam problem has also made it quite difficult to get alerts out to a large portion of the Net community - those who don't subscribe to anti-censorshiop news/mail lists but who would be horrified to know what's happening in the halls of Parliaments.

So I think there's probably more don'ts than dos:

• discourage people from bulk emailing politicians,
• Discourage use of standard texts - and spend time writing in your own words,
• write snail mail or send faxes or phone up - in that order - don't email,
• ask for an opportunity to meet to discuss the matter - you've more chance of succeeding with this if your letter makes clear that you can provide useful information and are capable of rational, not emotional, discussion,
• find out what your representatives' views are before you contact them, or ask, or say something like "if you believe .... then....", don't assume what they know or think,
  
• respond to government inquiries, Senate Committee inquiries and the like. Don't leave this just to organisations and don't just write saying basically "I agree with [insert cyber-liberties group name]'s submission". Regrettably, this immediately marks you as just part of a "special interest" group,
• send thank you letters, or call to say thanks, when appropriate,
• talk to people off the Net about the Net - this is really important in terms of offsetting the power of the traditional media and the scare stories they love to distribute,
• write to newspaper/magazine editors etc when you see Net scare stories, and also write to them about why sensible stories are relegated to IT section (this happens in Australia more often than not, where they're mostly only seen by the already converted),
• read up on how to lobby politicians - there are books about this as well as Net resources such as:

Aust: http://www.zeta.org.au/~aldis/lobby.html
USA: http://www.neosoft.com/vtw/cda-lobby.html

Another idea is the "Adopt a Politician" efforts that have been undertaken in some areas. Individuals offer to help a politician learn about a particular Net issue - or the Net in general - before the next round of silly legislation hits their desk. Of course, not all politicians want to learn, but some do.

And:

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead.

3) Free speech in other countries
by /
As more countries' citizens get exposed to the internet and to the ideas of unbridled free expression, do you see further local pushes to enshrine free-speech protections in their charters or constitutions? Or do you see technology being harnessed to keep the masses in check as it has or millennia?

Irene:
I'd like to think the former, but I fear the latter's more likely.

Speaking from an Australian perspective, I think mere access to the Net has changed a lot of peoples' views about the supposed merits of censorship. When people see the potential for being jailed for saying something on a mailing list that they can say without fear off-line, what censorship is suddenly looks entirely different. No longer is it something that only applies to film distributors, publishers and the like.

Knowledge that people in other countries aren't subject to the same level of censorship can certainly encourage and bolster opposition to it. We had a case, http://rene.efa.org.au/censor/rabelais.html, in Australia recently where the student editors of a university journal were prosecuted for publishing an article called "The Art of Shoplifting". The judge said something like "nowhere in the world" would they be allowed to publish it. Someone on the Net knew that wasn't correct and drew relevant information to the defence team's attention which helped in their decision to appeal. Although they lost the appeal, a lot of attention was drawn to the case, surprisingly even in the traditional media - it seemed everyone was opposed to the prosecution. Eventually the prosecution dropped the charges. The law's still in place, but maybe the politicians etc who called for the students' scalps so to speak will think twice in future. I think the Net made a difference in this case in several ways - easier access to relevant information and knowledgeable people overseas and as a medium for communicating what was happening.

In short, it's becoming much more difficult for governments to justify their policies by saying "nowhere in the world" etc because ordinary individuals can more easily find out it isn't true. Not only that, they can read about, and discuss, why other countries have different policies and make up their own minds about what's best.

That is, of course, frightening to governments, so there's undoubtedly a severe risk of "technology being harnessed to keep the masses in check as it has for millennia". Many people saying no to censorship is the only thing that's even likely to stop it happening.

The question is, who'll win the race? Censorware developers claiming to have the "perfect" censorware seeking government contracts and/or industry contracts "encouraged" by government? Or increasing numbers of people on the Net getting informed and deciding to make their views known to politicians?

The "Internet industry's" reaction to government demands for censorship can also present problems as we're seeing in Australia right now. Government enacts legislation saying ISPs must block sites on government demand or face large fines. The Internet Industry Association (IIA) comes up with a way around the technical problems for them, that will make their life easier. IIA represents 60 of the some 700 ISPs in Australia but their recently approved Code of Practice for ISPs is now effectively law applicable to all ISPs.

The IIA Code requires that ISPs "provide for use, at a charge determined by the ISP, an Approved Filter" to each customer. So we're going to have users paying for censorware whether they want it or not. The IIA says that some ISPs will provide it for free, but the censorware vendors obviously won't give it to ISPs free. Even if the ISPs don't charge for it separately, they'll include the cost in Net access fees. There's no requirement for ISPs to offer users their choice of censorware, or provide any warnings as to the shortcomings of the filter, yet IIA claims this forced provision of censorware "empowers" the user.

Although users don't have to install or use the censorware, there's several potential censorship problems and I'll mention just one here.

ISPs complain about "clueless" requests for technical help from users. I've no doubt they do get such calls and that they take up a lot of their time. But what will happen when they start getting calls from those people who want to install the censorware (I assume there'll be some) but who have problems doing so? It will be an extremely undesirable outcome of the law if the ISPs incorporate censorware in their registration process/disk so it's automatically installed on a user's computers with the defaults set to block=on. Many people won't want to use censorware and a lot of these programs are very difficult to uninstall. Will ISPs themselves know how to do that, or give any sort of priority to customers trying to get rid of something the government requires the ISPs to provide? Will the censorware block access to the few (if any) web pages around that explain how to remove it? This scenario may not happen, but it's certainly possible some ISPs could do this. As it is, many people don't know the questions they should ask before opening an account with an ISP and this Code seems likely to make the problem worse for unknowledgeable people.

The Australian government has, for the moment anyway, dropped its requirement that ISPs block overseas content at the server level, probably because of a combination of massive public opposition and the industry etc pointing out that it's not "technically and commercially feasible" at present. Some of the censorware vendors tell the government it is and/or soon will be. Government mandated provision of censorware to every Australian Internet user will certainly place a great deal of extra money in the pockets of censorware suppliers - money that may well be used for developing censorware more suitable for installation on ISPs servers or backbones. I don't think the threat of censorship facilitated by technology is over in Australia yet, it may just be on hold. The Code of Practice ISPs have to comply with by law can be changed quite easily.

So, looking at the Australian experience for example, it's difficult to say whether access to the Net will lead to further local pushes to enshrine free-speech protections in law, or whether technology will be harnessed to keep the masses in check. There are numerous governments far more repressive than Australia's and technology being harnessed is obviously more of a threat in countries that don't claim to be democratic. One thing I am sure of is that anyone who promotes the development of censorware as a means of staving of government censorship either has rocks in their head, or doesn't know how repressive some governments can be. If you build tools that facilitate censorship, some governments will use them.

4) A proposal
by dclydew
It is obvious that "censorware" is a fatally flawed tool. Using technical solutions for social issues doesn't work. However, it's also clear that many parents don't want a T-1 full of porn available to their child every Monday through Friday. So I'd like feedback on the following proposal:

In areas where minors have access to public internet services (school/libraries), they would be given an account. This account would be accessible via a smart "library" card. The account is identified by account# only. These account#'s are logged along with sites that are visited by minor. At the request of a parent/gaurdian, a report can be generated so that they can determine if their child is acting within the acceptable boundaries set by the family unit. No one else would be permitted to use this reporting tool. This takes censorship out of the hands of everyone except the people legally responsible for the minor.

I belive that this approach removes all unnecessary layers of argument and leaves us with one question:

Should anyone (parents/gaurdians included) have the right to control what their child sees/hears/views for entertainment/etc. ?

This question obviously has a precedence: Children under 18 are not permitted to purchase pornography, tobacco, etc. However, a parent could permit their child to have such things. Perhaps by purchasing the items for the minor.

Please give me your thoughts....

Jim:
To be honest, my first thought is Orwell's 1984, or perhaps even some of David Brin's writings. You've just made it legal for the government to keep tabs on every Internet site visited by every minor, so long as the minor is using a government machine (public schools and libraries are a part of the government). Those who know me know that I'm not ultra-paranoid about government, but giving this much data to the government frightens me. I recognize that your intent is that the data only be made available to the parent or legal guardian, but can you think of a meaningful guarantee that it can't be misused? As I write this, I can't. (I suppose a script could be written which would automatically encrypt the data only to the parent's PGP public key or similar, but I'm thinking in terms of what would work for the vast majority, not just a fairly small minority.)

Now suppose, hypothetically, that rock-solid guarantees could be made. Where, and how, do you draw the age line? The actual age of majority differs somewhat among the states, but let's assume it is 18. Should a 17 year old be scrutinized as closely as a 9 year old? What if the 9 year old is particularly mature, the 17 year old particularly immature? And by the way, some states grant far more independent rights to minors than do most states or the federal government. For example, in California and Florida, a first trimester pregnant 14 year old has exactly the same right to an abortion as does a first trimester pregnant 30 year old no parental consent or judicial approval is required. (The U.S. Constitution sets minimum standards for individual rights; the states can not drop below the federal minimums, but they can, and some do, recognize more rights as a matter of independent state law.) If a 14 year old California girl has a right to an abortion without parental consent, would you give the parent access to the log of abortion-related web sites the girl has visited?

Then one gets to discrimination based on medium. In most public libraries, an unattended 15 year old can pull any book he or she wants off the shelves and read it cover to cover without the parent ever knowing. Should the rules be different if the text of that same book happens to be on the Internet?

Parents have the right, perhaps even the duty, to raise their children as best they can, to try to instill in them a moral code, whatever that code might be. If the parents choose to home school, that is their right, but if the parents let their children go out into the world, as most do, they do so knowing full well that their children will see/hear/read/do things which the parents will never know about, hoping that the children's upbringing will serve them well. Why should exposure to the Internet be different from everything else to which the minor is exposed?

Incidentally, proposals like yours have been considered and rejected both by pro-censorship types and by anti-censorship types. The pros don't want anyone, and particularly not minors, to have access to certain kinds of information. The antis don't want government assisting restrictive parents. What the so-called silent majority would say is anyone's guess.

5) Rhetoric of anti-censorship
by H3lldr0p
What arguments have you used to try and persuade people that censorware is not an acceptable answer to whatever problem they are currently having with the world at large?

I ask for two reasons. I have been a fan of Bradbury for some time and will always suggest that everybody needs to read _Fahrenheit 451_, but I have also recently read Ken Burke's "Rhetoric of Hitler's 'Battle.'" He argues therein that _Mein Kamf_ should not be censored on the grounds that history might repeat itself if we are unaware of what has gone on before.

Jim:
As a preliminary note, I am not familiar with Burke's work, but absolutely I oppose censoring Mein Kampf, or any other work I find extremely distasteful. And I say this as a Jewish person who had a number of ancestors exterminated in the Holocaust.

What works? One thing I've learned in more than twenty years as a lawyer is that you have to tailor your approach, consistent with that which is verifiably true, to your intended audience, while (hopefully) adding in something new and unexpected. For example, in our early reports, we at The Censorware Project stressed what we sometimes call collateral damage or overblocking -- wrongful bans of innocuous and valuable sites. This emphasis worked fabulously in our early reports, such as our first report on X-Stop in October 1997. Not only did the usual suspects take notice, but groups such as Filtering Facts and Family Friendly Libraries, which previously had specifically endorsed X-Stop, abandoned it like rats fleeing a sinking ship.

But while the point remains as valid today as it was then, more people have heard it before and say, in effect, "tell me something new." So in our most recent report on Bess, done about five months ago, we did exactly that, in part because a major focus of Bess is schools instead of public libraries.

In K-12 schools, you would think that the primary focus would be on blocking hard core sex sites, so we opened some eyes when we reported, based on our tests of real proxies actually in use in a number of schools, that Bess did not block HardCoreSex.com, as well as lots of other porn sites, most of which were not new - and we did not spend a great deal of time searching extensively for unblocked porn sites. In other words, while showing plenty of examples of the usual overblocking, we added in the new (for our reports) element of meaningful underblocking, a more attention-getting point to those who don't care about overblocking, because "It's for the children."

Not coincidentally, our Bess report was released on the day of the IPO of N2H2, Inc., the company which makes Bess. The stock price plummeted on the first day, and continued to do so for a good long while after, though it has since rallied. Whether there was a cause and effect is an exercise I will leave to market analysts and Slashdot readers.

One point which has to be emphasized, particularly if addressing a new product: there is no magic bullet, nor will there be absent a quantum leap in artificial intelligence technology. Each new product, and even each new release of an existing product, comes to the market with an almost teflon-like quality, magically cleansed of the foibles of its predecessors, because so many want to believe that censorware can do what the vendors claim it can do. It isn't so.

6) How much is too much?
by zantispam
I for one dislike censorship in all of it's forms. However, does government demand it?

Let me explain a bit...

Ok, here in the US, we have a right to free speech. Conversely, we have no right to be heard. What this means is that it's theoretically ok for me to say "I think that Clinton is a green donkey!". It also means that no one has to hear what I just said. Whether it be a function of censorship, or just because most people think I'm nuts, my view has not been heard. Nowhere am I guaranteed this right.

The problem with this is that it makes censorchip `legal', in a way. The [insert favorite agency to pick on here] can choose not to grant my right to be heard, and that's (unjustly, IMHO) ok.

My question is: Does government, in any form, require censorship to function? Put another way, do we necessarily have to give up our right to be heard by choosing to live in any type of society? Put a third way, is the right to be heard equal to the right to privacy (unlawful search and siezure).

Jim:
An important distinction needs to be made here, and that is where you want to be heard. If you want me to hear you while I am in my private home, you can't barge into my home, uninvited, in order to make sure that I hear you. Similarly, if a parent chooses to use censorware on their home computer in an attempt to protect or isolate a child, you can't force your Internet speech onto that home computer.

But while "censorship" can be used with a broader meaning, your reference to a favorite agency leads me to believe that you are talking about censorship by the government. If that is the case, then your premise is largely incorrect. There is a substantial body of case law dealing with so-called public forums, and their offshoot, limited public forums. There are exceptions to every rule (I did say that I'm a lawyer, didn't I?), but generally speaking, if the government makes available a public forum, it can not deny your right to be heard based on the content of your speech, so long as the speech itself is not unlawful (shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is the usual example). A public library is not constitutionally required to offer any Internet connections at all, but if it does provide access, it cannot discriminate based on the desirability of the speech, particularly with adult listeners. As a private citizen, I can decide that I only want to "hear" comments on slashdot which are scored 3 or better, but the government cannot decide that for me.

Of course, while I may have a right to have my lawful Internet speech heard in a wired library, this does not mean that I have a right to equal time with cnn.com. If their site gets more views than mine, c'est la vie.

You might be able to tell that I've been struggling a bit with your question, and it just occurred why - you really aren't talking about censorship at all if, at long last, I'm getting the question. In the narrow sense, it is censorship if the government prevents or deters me from speaking or you from hearing me. In a broader sense, it is censorship if any third person (or software imposed by a third person) prevents or deters me from speaking or you from hearing me. But it is not censorship at all, using any common meaning of the word, if I decide, of my own volition, that I simply do not want to hear what you have to say. Contrary to what at least one person has written, censorware opponents do not want to force anyone to read that which they do not want to read. Sorting information, deciding what is important to us, what is not, is something we do constantly, on and off of the Internet.

That is entirely different from someone else, and particularly the government, blocking you from information which you do want to read.

7) censorship, apathy, and the general population
by Requiem
How can we attempt to show the general population that censorship is not a good thing? It seems that people accept the spoonfed excuse of "it's for your own good"; how can we get people to think critically about the situation and come to their own conclusions?

Irene:
I'm not at all sure that people do accept "it's for your own good". In my experience, people in favour of censorship are usually worried about the effect seeing or knowing something will have on _other_ people. They're usually quite confident of their own ability to critically analyse information and decide for themselves whether or not it's a good idea to act on it, and of their own ability to control their own children (usually anyway). It's what other people, or other people's children, will do that worries them.

Try reversing that - saying to such people that _other_ people approve of censorship because they're worried about that person's inability to cope with information and you could have quite an interesting conversation. This won't work with everyone, but it will make some people start to think about their assumptions.

The American Library Association's site contains some useful information about motivations for censorship and tactics.

One thing that can make people start to question the merits of censorship is to make them aware of what's censored. The problem with censorship is most people have no idea - they never see what's censored - so they assume it's really really bad stuff (whatever that is in their view).

The banning of the shoplifting article I mentioned earlier was quite useful in this regard in Australia. Although it was banned in print, someone put it on the Web. A lot of people who read it couldn't believe there were laws that could put people in jail for distributing it - they saw it as intended humour, satire (not the best literary work but all the same). The law was made to look more ridiculous when one of the judges included the whole article in his decision upholding the ban on it. The Court decision, including the article, was published on the Web.

The Net's very helpful in this regard. When, say, a film's banned or cut, one can usually find a detailed review of it, or people overseas talking about in newsgroups or wherever. Governments' claims that banning is necessary to protect society etc. sound very silly when it's known that the film was released uncut in numerous other countries and there's no reports of any harm being caused.

It only takes a few examples of what's banned outright, or cut from films, to make some people start questioning their previous certainty that "government knows best."

With regard to the people who believe studies have proven that viewing something causes violence or whatever, about the only thing you can do is to learn about the research and studies for yourself so you can speak knowledgeably and argue about it if necessary. A section of my web site contains useful information and links in this regard.

8) Legal question.
by Weezul
Frequently censorware seems to target anti-censorship (sites/people) as much as they target porn (this was especially a problem in Australia). What can be done about this?

Are there laws in the U.S. or Australia that would allow people who censor anti-censorship sites to be sued?

Irene:
I don't know of any Australian anti-censorship sites targeted by censorware. If you have details I'd be interested in hearing about it.

In Australia, it's doubtful such sites/people would have much redress other than defamation, and proof of damage would be difficult. Same applies to ordinary user sites. A business blocked by censorware could consider an action for defamation, or deceptive business practices under the Trade Practices Act.

Jim:
Targeting anti-censorship sites is a problem here in the U.S. as well (Irene has answered about Australia). The Censorware Project, Peacefire and The Ethical Spectacle are among many anti-censorship sites which have been banned at various times by the censorware makers. (Interestingly, pro-censorware/censorship sites such as Filtering Facts and The American Family Association have been blacklisted as well.)

There is no specific law which would allow the owner of a blocked anti-censorship site to sue the censorware maker. Censorship, in the legal sense, involves state action, but there is no state action involved in the mere fact that a censorware vendor has added an anti-censorship site to its blacklist. However, there are at least three instances in which the owner of a wrongfully blocked site might be able to sue a censorware vendor or user.

First, if the censorware is being used in a public institution such as a public library, the site owner may well have standing to sue the institution for blocking the constitutionally protected speech at the site. In the Loudoun County, Virginia Public Library lawsuit, the action was commenced by library patrons, but the ACLU intervened on behalf of content providers whose sites were blocked in the library. The Library Board tried to argue that the providers had no standing to intervene, but the Court disagreed.

Second, one needs to look at the blocking category being used to block the site. The ACLU, for example, has been blocked by some vendors under the category "activist" or similar. Certainly I don't condone such blacklisting, but the categorization is factually correct. On the other hand, suppose that the site is miscategorized by the censorware vendor as a porn site instead of an activist one. (If you think that is ludicrous, read a mini-essay I wrote earlier this year.) Some have posited that the censorware vendor might be liable for libel. I would not bring such an action I defend those sued for libel, regardless of whether I agree with their particular speech but I do expect that the owner of some site wrongfully blocked as a porn site will test the waters.

Third, under either federal law or the laws of various states, there may be a claim for consumer fraud or false and misleading advertising if the vendor bans sites under incorrect categories. Most of the vendors have wonderful sounding statements on their sites about how carefully they make their lists and check them twice, but virtually every serious investigation of censorware has shown such statements to be utterly false. In some states, a remedy under this theory may be available only to customers who purchased the censorware in reliance on the false representations, but in other states, such as mine (California), virtually any member of the public could bring such an action.

----------

Next week we have *two* interviews to celebrate the year's end: First, L0pht Heavy Industries, with answers Friday. And in a separate "bonus" interview post Monday we'll be collecting questions for Jon "Maddog" Hall about Linux in the next century; Jon's answers will run Saturday (for obvious symbolic reasons). Enjoy!

Our interview guests this week are American Jim Tyre and Australian Irene Graham. Both are long-time, well-known online free speech and anti-censorware activists; links from Monday's call for questions can tell you all about them. Anyway, here are their answers to your questions. They'll tell you everything you ever wanted to know about censorware and why it's not a good thing. There are also a lot of good tips about online and political activism in general contained in their answers; you may want to read this to pick up on those even if censorware and free speech aren't your personal "hot button" issues. (mucho more below)

1) Censorship: problem or symptom?
by Signal 11
I believe censorship is a result of various groups / countries wanting to protect their cultural identity (which includes their social taboos). The second thing I want to put forward is the fact that the internet is a culture-neutral medium - it breaks down the traditional geographical barriers that seperate us from other countries. Witness cultural exchange programs, founded under the premise that communication == exchange of ideas. That generally promotes a "blending effect" (for lack of a better description) between cultures.

My question is simple: in light of this, attacking censorware is only attacking the symptom, not the cause. What solutions do you believe are reasonable for accomodating the concerns of these groups? Going one step further, should they be accomodated?

Jim:
You're correct that censorware is only a symptom there is a reason why, for example, every year librarians and others "celebrate" Banned Books Week but I'm not certain that I agree with the premise that the Internet is a culture-neutral medium, particularly in the context of a censorship discussion.

To some cultures, whether national or here in the U.S., every advance in technology has been a threat. Planes, trains and automobiles have changed many cultures, and so has or will the Internet. In many nations, the Internet itself is a threat, which is why some try to keep it out completely, or to allow it only under highly controlled circumstances. A content-free Internet would be culturally neutral, but an Internet which includes hundreds of sites about The Satanic Verses can hardly be considered neutral to many in Tehran or Islamabad.

In the context of the Internet, any attempt to accommodate a particular group is fraught with danger. (Some) parents were concerned with what their kids might be exposed to, so censorware was developed for home use. But the moralists were not satisfied, so laws like the CDA were enacted. When it was struck down, in part because censorware was touted as a less restrictive alternative, legislators pounced and introduced legislation (still pending) requiring the use of censorware in certain schools and libraries, not just for children, but for adults as well. And of course, as discussed in YRO, there are renewed multinational efforts to revitalize and impose PICS.

History has shown that it is a fundamental mistake to believe that censors can be accommodated. If one wants to preserve a cultural identity, the way to do it is to inculcate the positive values of that identity, not to pretend that other cultures do not exist.

2) What can we do?
by Ex-NT-User
It seems the majority of governments that are instituting censorship legislation are doing this "behind their populations backs". And certainly without majority support of the people they govern over. Mailing/calling our representatives doesn't seem to help much since they just blow us off for special interest groups.

So what can we as individuals do prevent this? What other avenues can we take?

Irene:
I think one of the problems is that many politicians see the people on the Net as being a special interest group, so which special interest group should they listen to? Some politicians, for example, claim that people on the Net don't care about protecting children - you'd think no-one on the Net had kids if you didn't know better.

The problem of changing such perceptions is exacerbated by the tendency of people on the Net to do anything they can by email and not being willing to devote a little time to understanding the political processes involved.

So there's not just a question of what individuals can do, but what they shouldn't do. Here's some examples to explain what I mean from the recent anti-censorship campaign in Australia...

Some people set up email lists to automatically send the same message to all Australian politicians - it sounded like a great idea and heaps of well-intentioned people used these. The problem was, apparently, that many people sent rude, abusive emails. This is not the way to get one's point across and encourages the view that people on the Net are different from "ordinary" people. At the same time, the politicians who were already opposing the Bill received messages abusing them. Unfortunately, this encourages them to say "why bother?" - why shouldn't they support the pro-censorship lobby who quite likely aren't rude and say thank you?

During the campaign here, I rang the offices of my "representatives" who happened to be members of the opposition party just to say thanks for opposing the Bill. The staffers who answered the phone practically fell over themselves thanking me for bothering to call - they were so, so tired of the abusive emails and calls from people who hadn't even bothered to check what their policy was.

At one stage in the campaign here, it was reported that filter rules had been added to the Parliamentary email system, to give politicians the option of filtering anything about the Net censorship Bill into a separate folder. They were receiving too much email, which was interfering, apparently, with their ability to find email on other topics.

Another issue is that computers make it arguably too easy to just copy and paste texts that the cyber-liberties groups issue as suggestions, or that someone else has written. Standard texts are generally given little credence by politicians - they see it as just part of a campaign, too easy, from someone who doesn't care enough to bother writing their own views.

As well, there's the problem that many people don't even know what's going on. They don't read the newspapers regularly, certainly not the IT sections, and in Australia the TV news didn't mention the Bill until -after- the Senate approved it. Talk to people "in the streets" and you're likely to find even though they're not on the Net yet, they comprehend well enough to know the proposed legislation is silly, but hadn't heard about it. The spam problem has also made it quite difficult to get alerts out to a large portion of the Net community - those who don't subscribe to anti-censorshiop news/mail lists but who would be horrified to know what's happening in the halls of Parliaments.

So I think there's probably more don'ts than dos:

• discourage people from bulk emailing politicians,
• Discourage use of standard texts - and spend time writing in your own words,
• write snail mail or send faxes or phone up - in that order - don't email,
• ask for an opportunity to meet to discuss the matter - you've more chance of succeeding with this if your letter makes clear that you can provide useful information and are capable of rational, not emotional, discussion,
• find out what your representatives' views are before you contact them, or ask, or say something like "if you believe .... then....", don't assume what they know or think,
  
• respond to government inquiries, Senate Committee inquiries and the like. Don't leave this just to organisations and don't just write saying basically "I agree with [insert cyber-liberties group name]'s submission". Regrettably, this immediately marks you as just part of a "special interest" group,
• send thank you letters, or call to say thanks, when appropriate,
• talk to people off the Net about the Net - this is really important in terms of offsetting the power of the traditional media and the scare stories they love to distribute,
• write to newspaper/magazine editors etc when you see Net scare stories, and also write to them about why sensible stories are relegated to IT section (this happens in Australia more often than not, where they're mostly only seen by the already converted),
• read up on how to lobby politicians - there are books about this as well as Net resources such as:

Aust: http://www.zeta.org.au/~aldis/lobby.html
USA: http://www.neosoft.com/vtw/cda-lobby.html

Another idea is the "Adopt a Politician" efforts that have been undertaken in some areas. Individuals offer to help a politician learn about a particular Net issue - or the Net in general - before the next round of silly legislation hits their desk. Of course, not all politicians want to learn, but some do.

And:

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead.

3) Free speech in other countries
by /
As more countries' citizens get exposed to the internet and to the ideas of unbridled free expression, do you see further local pushes to enshrine free-speech protections in their charters or constitutions? Or do you see technology being harnessed to keep the masses in check as it has or millennia?

Irene:
I'd like to think the former, but I fear the latter's more likely.

Speaking from an Australian perspective, I think mere access to the Net has changed a lot of peoples' views about the supposed merits of censorship. When people see the potential for being jailed for saying something on a mailing list that they can say without fear off-line, what censorship is suddenly looks entirely different. No longer is it something that only applies to film distributors, publishers and the like.

Knowledge that people in other countries aren't subject to the same level of censorship can certainly encourage and bolster opposition to it. We had a case, http://rene.efa.org.au/censor/rabelais.html, in Australia recently where the student editors of a university journal were prosecuted for publishing an article called "The Art of Shoplifting". The judge said something like "nowhere in the world" would they be allowed to publish it. Someone on the Net knew that wasn't correct and drew relevant information to the defence team's attention which helped in their decision to appeal. Although they lost the appeal, a lot of attention was drawn to the case, surprisingly even in the traditional media - it seemed everyone was opposed to the prosecution. Eventually the prosecution dropped the charges. The law's still in place, but maybe the politicians etc who called for the students' scalps so to speak will think twice in future. I think the Net made a difference in this case in several ways - easier access to relevant information and knowledgeable people overseas and as a medium for communicating what was happening.

In short, it's becoming much more difficult for governments to justify their policies by saying "nowhere in the world" etc because ordinary individuals can more easily find out it isn't true. Not only that, they can read about, and discuss, why other countries have different policies and make up their own minds about what's best.

That is, of course, frightening to governments, so there's undoubtedly a severe risk of "technology being harnessed to keep the masses in check as it has for millennia". Many people saying no to censorship is the only thing that's even likely to stop it happening.

The question is, who'll win the race? Censorware developers claiming to have the "perfect" censorware seeking government contracts and/or industry contracts "encouraged" by government? Or increasing numbers of people on the Net getting informed and deciding to make their views known to politicians?

The "Internet industry's" reaction to government demands for censorship can also present problems as we're seeing in Australia right now. Government enacts legislation saying ISPs must block sites on government demand or face large fines. The Internet Industry Association (IIA) comes up with a way around the technical problems for them, that will make their life easier. IIA represents 60 of the some 700 ISPs in Australia but their recently approved Code of Practice for ISPs is now effectively law applicable to all ISPs.

The IIA Code requires that ISPs "provide for use, at a charge determined by the ISP, an Approved Filter" to each customer. So we're going to have users paying for censorware whether they want it or not. The IIA says that some ISPs will provide it for free, but the censorware vendors obviously won't give it to ISPs free. Even if the ISPs don't charge for it separately, they'll include the cost in Net access fees. There's no requirement for ISPs to offer users their choice of censorware, or provide any warnings as to the shortcomings of the filter, yet IIA claims this forced provision of censorware "empowers" the user.

Although users don't have to install or use the censorware, there's several potential censorship problems and I'll mention just one here.

ISPs complain about "clueless" requests for technical help from users. I've no doubt they do get such calls and that they take up a lot of their time. But what will happen when they start getting calls from those people who want to install the censorware (I assume there'll be some) but who have problems doing so? It will be an extremely undesirable outcome of the law if the ISPs incorporate censorware in their registration process/disk so it's automatically installed on a user's computers with the defaults set to block=on. Many people won't want to use censorware and a lot of these programs are very difficult to uninstall. Will ISPs themselves know how to do that, or give any sort of priority to customers trying to get rid of something the government requires the ISPs to provide? Will the censorware block access to the few (if any) web pages around that explain how to remove it? This scenario may not happen, but it's certainly possible some ISPs could do this. As it is, many people don't know the questions they should ask before opening an account with an ISP and this Code seems likely to make the problem worse for unknowledgeable people.

The Australian government has, for the moment anyway, dropped its requirement that ISPs block overseas content at the server level, probably because of a combination of massive public opposition and the industry etc pointing out that it's not "technically and commercially feasible" at present. Some of the censorware vendors tell the government it is and/or soon will be. Government mandated provision of censorware to every Australian Internet user will certainly place a great deal of extra money in the pockets of censorware suppliers - money that may well be used for developing censorware more suitable for installation on ISPs servers or backbones. I don't think the threat of censorship facilitated by technology is over in Australia yet, it may just be on hold. The Code of Practice ISPs have to comply with by law can be changed quite easily.

So, looking at the Australian experience for example, it's difficult to say whether access to the Net will lead to further local pushes to enshrine free-speech protections in law, or whether technology will be harnessed to keep the masses in check. There are numerous governments far more repressive than Australia's and technology being harnessed is obviously more of a threat in countries that don't claim to be democratic. One thing I am sure of is that anyone who promotes the development of censorware as a means of staving of government censorship either has rocks in their head, or doesn't know how repressive some governments can be. If you build tools that facilitate censorship, some governments will use them.

4) A proposal
by dclydew
It is obvious that "censorware" is a fatally flawed tool. Using technical solutions for social issues doesn't work. However, it's also clear that many parents don't want a T-1 full of porn available to their child every Monday through Friday. So I'd like feedback on the following proposal:

In areas where minors have access to public internet services (school/libraries), they would be given an account. This account would be accessible via a smart "library" card. The account is identified by account# only. These account#'s are logged along with sites that are visited by minor. At the request of a parent/gaurdian, a report can be generated so that they can determine if their child is acting within the acceptable boundaries set by the family unit. No one else would be permitted to use this reporting tool. This takes censorship out of the hands of everyone except the people legally responsible for the minor.

I belive that this approach removes all unnecessary layers of argument and leaves us with one question:

Should anyone (parents/gaurdians included) have the right to control what their child sees/hears/views for entertainment/etc. ?

This question obviously has a precedence: Children under 18 are not permitted to purchase pornography, tobacco, etc. However, a parent could permit their child to have such things. Perhaps by purchasing the items for the minor.

Please give me your thoughts....

Jim:
To be honest, my first thought is Orwell's 1984, or perhaps even some of David Brin's writings. You've just made it legal for the government to keep tabs on every Internet site visited by every minor, so long as the minor is using a government machine (public schools and libraries are a part of the government). Those who know me know that I'm not ultra-paranoid about government, but giving this much data to the government frightens me. I recognize that your intent is that the data only be made available to the parent or legal guardian, but can you think of a meaningful guarantee that it can't be misused? As I write this, I can't. (I suppose a script could be written which would automatically encrypt the data only to the parent's PGP public key or similar, but I'm thinking in terms of what would work for the vast majority, not just a fairly small minority.)

Now suppose, hypothetically, that rock-solid guarantees could be made. Where, and how, do you draw the age line? The actual age of majority differs somewhat among the states, but let's assume it is 18. Should a 17 year old be scrutinized as closely as a 9 year old? What if the 9 year old is particularly mature, the 17 year old particularly immature? And by the way, some states grant far more independent rights to minors than do most states or the federal government. For example, in California and Florida, a first trimester pregnant 14 year old has exactly the same right to an abortion as does a first trimester pregnant 30 year old no parental consent or judicial approval is required. (The U.S. Constitution sets minimum standards for individual rights; the states can not drop below the federal minimums, but they can, and some do, recognize more rights as a matter of independent state law.) If a 14 year old California girl has a right to an abortion without parental consent, would you give the parent access to the log of abortion-related web sites the girl has visited?

Then one gets to discrimination based on medium. In most public libraries, an unattended 15 year old can pull any book he or she wants off the shelves and read it cover to cover without the parent ever knowing. Should the rules be different if the text of that same book happens to be on the Internet?

Parents have the right, perhaps even the duty, to raise their children as best they can, to try to instill in them a moral code, whatever that code might be. If the parents choose to home school, that is their right, but if the parents let their children go out into the world, as most do, they do so knowing full well that their children will see/hear/read/do things which the parents will never know about, hoping that the children's upbringing will serve them well. Why should exposure to the Internet be different from everything else to which the minor is exposed?

Incidentally, proposals like yours have been considered and rejected both by pro-censorship types and by anti-censorship types. The pros don't want anyone, and particularly not minors, to have access to certain kinds of information. The antis don't want government assisting restrictive parents. What the so-called silent majority would say is anyone's guess.

5) Rhetoric of anti-censorship
by H3lldr0p
What arguments have you used to try and persuade people that censorware is not an acceptable answer to whatever problem they are currently having with the world at large?

I ask for two reasons. I have been a fan of Bradbury for some time and will always suggest that everybody needs to read _Fahrenheit 451_, but I have also recently read Ken Burke's "Rhetoric of Hitler's 'Battle.'" He argues therein that _Mein Kamf_ should not be censored on the grounds that history might repeat itself if we are unaware of what has gone on before.

Jim:
As a preliminary note, I am not familiar with Burke's work, but absolutely I oppose censoring Mein Kampf, or any other work I find extremely distasteful. And I say this as a Jewish person who had a number of ancestors exterminated in the Holocaust.

What works? One thing I've learned in more than twenty years as a lawyer is that you have to tailor your approach, consistent with that which is verifiably true, to your intended audience, while (hopefully) adding in something new and unexpected. For example, in our early reports, we at The Censorware Project stressed what we sometimes call collateral damage or overblocking -- wrongful bans of innocuous and valuable sites. This emphasis worked fabulously in our early reports, such as our first report on X-Stop in October 1997. Not only did the usual suspects take notice, but groups such as Filtering Facts and Family Friendly Libraries, which previously had specifically endorsed X-Stop, abandoned it like rats fleeing a sinking ship.

But while the point remains as valid today as it was then, more people have heard it before and say, in effect, "tell me something new." So in our most recent report on Bess, done about five months ago, we did exactly that, in part because a major focus of Bess is schools instead of public libraries.

In K-12 schools, you would think that the primary focus would be on blocking hard core sex sites, so we opened some eyes when we reported, based on our tests of real proxies actually in use in a number of schools, that Bess did not block HardCoreSex.com, as well as lots of other porn sites, most of which were not new - and we did not spend a great deal of time searching extensively for unblocked porn sites. In other words, while showing plenty of examples of the usual overblocking, we added in the new (for our reports) element of meaningful underblocking, a more attention-getting point to those who don't care about overblocking, because "It's for the children."

Not coincidentally, our Bess report was released on the day of the IPO of N2H2, Inc., the company which makes Bess. The stock price plummeted on the first day, and continued to do so for a good long while after, though it has since rallied. Whether there was a cause and effect is an exercise I will leave to market analysts and Slashdot readers.

One point which has to be emphasized, particularly if addressing a new product: there is no magic bullet, nor will there be absent a quantum leap in artificial intelligence technology. Each new product, and even each new release of an existing product, comes to the market with an almost teflon-like quality, magically cleansed of the foibles of its predecessors, because so many want to believe that censorware can do what the vendors claim it can do. It isn't so.

6) How much is too much?
by zantispam
I for one dislike censorship in all of it's forms. However, does government demand it?

Let me explain a bit...

Ok, here in the US, we have a right to free speech. Conversely, we have no right to be heard. What this means is that it's theoretically ok for me to say "I think that Clinton is a green donkey!". It also means that no one has to hear what I just said. Whether it be a function of censorship, or just because most people think I'm nuts, my view has not been heard. Nowhere am I guaranteed this right.

The problem with this is that it makes censorchip `legal', in a way. The [insert favorite agency to pick on here] can choose not to grant my right to be heard, and that's (unjustly, IMHO) ok.

My question is: Does government, in any form, require censorship to function? Put another way, do we necessarily have to give up our right to be heard by choosing to live in any type of society? Put a third way, is the right to be heard equal to the right to privacy (unlawful search and siezure).

Jim:
An important distinction needs to be made here, and that is where you want to be heard. If you want me to hear you while I am in my private home, you can't barge into my home, uninvited, in order to make sure that I hear you. Similarly, if a parent chooses to use censorware on their home computer in an attempt to protect or isolate a child, you can't force your Internet speech onto that home computer.

But while "censorship" can be used with a broader meaning, your reference to a favorite agency leads me to believe that you are talking about censorship by the government. If that is the case, then your premise is largely incorrect. There is a substantial body of case law dealing with so-called public forums, and their offshoot, limited public forums. There are exceptions to every rule (I did say that I'm a lawyer, didn't I?), but generally speaking, if the government makes available a public forum, it can not deny your right to be heard based on the content of your speech, so long as the speech itself is not unlawful (shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is the usual example). A public library is not constitutionally required to offer any Internet connections at all, but if it does provide access, it cannot discriminate based on the desirability of the speech, particularly with adult listeners. As a private citizen, I can decide that I only want to "hear" comments on slashdot which are scored 3 or better, but the government cannot decide that for me.

Of course, while I may have a right to have my lawful Internet speech heard in a wired library, this does not mean that I have a right to equal time with cnn.com. If their site gets more views than mine, c'est la vie.

You might be able to tell that I've been struggling a bit with your question, and it just occurred why - you really aren't talking about censorship at all if, at long last, I'm getting the question. In the narrow sense, it is censorship if the government prevents or deters me from speaking or you from hearing me. In a broader sense, it is censorship if any third person (or software imposed by a third person) prevents or deters me from speaking or you from hearing me. But it is not censorship at all, using any common meaning of the word, if I decide, of my own volition, that I simply do not want to hear what you have to say. Contrary to what at least one person has written, censorware opponents do not want to force anyone to read that which they do not want to read. Sorting information, deciding what is important to us, what is not, is something we do constantly, on and off of the Internet.

That is entirely different from someone else, and particularly the government, blocking you from information which you do want to read.

7) censorship, apathy, and the general population
by Requiem
How can we attempt to show the general population that censorship is not a good thing? It seems that people accept the spoonfed excuse of "it's for your own good"; how can we get people to think critically about the situation and come to their own conclusions?

Irene:
I'm not at all sure that people do accept "it's for your own good". In my experience, people in favour of censorship are usually worried about the effect seeing or knowing something will have on _other_ people. They're usually quite confident of their own ability to critically analyse information and decide for themselves whether or not it's a good idea to act on it, and of their own ability to control their own children (usually anyway). It's what other people, or other people's children, will do that worries them.

Try reversing that - saying to such people that _other_ people approve of censorship because they're worried about that person's inability to cope with information and you could have quite an interesting conversation. This won't work with everyone, but it will make some people start to think about their assumptions.

The American Library Association's site contains some useful information about motivations for censorship and tactics.

One thing that can make people start to question the merits of censorship is to make them aware of what's censored. The problem with censorship is most people have no idea - they never see what's censored - so they assume it's really really bad stuff (whatever that is in their view).

The banning of the shoplifting article I mentioned earlier was quite useful in this regard in Australia. Although it was banned in print, someone put it on the Web. A lot of people who read it couldn't believe there were laws that could put people in jail for distributing it - they saw it as intended humour, satire (not the best literary work but all the same). The law was made to look more ridiculous when one of the judges included the whole article in his decision upholding the ban on it. The Court decision, including the article, was published on the Web.

The Net's very helpful in this regard. When, say, a film's banned or cut, one can usually find a detailed review of it, or people overseas talking about in newsgroups or wherever. Governments' claims that banning is necessary to protect society etc. sound very silly when it's known that the film was released uncut in numerous other countries and there's no reports of any harm being caused.

It only takes a few examples of what's banned outright, or cut from films, to make some people start questioning their previous certainty that "government knows best."

With regard to the people who believe studies have proven that viewing something causes violence or whatever, about the only thing you can do is to learn about the research and studies for yourself so you can speak knowledgeably and argue about it if necessary. A section of my web site contains useful information and links in this regard.

8) Legal question.
by Weezul
Frequently censorware seems to target anti-censorship (sites/people) as much as they target porn (this was especially a problem in Australia). What can be done about this?

Are there laws in the U.S. or Australia that would allow people who censor anti-censorship sites to be sued?

Irene:
I don't know of any Australian anti-censorship sites targeted by censorware. If you have details I'd be interested in hearing about it.

In Australia, it's doubtful such sites/people would have much redress other than defamation, and proof of damage would be difficult. Same applies to ordinary user sites. A business blocked by censorware could consider an action for defamation, or deceptive business practices under the Trade Practices Act.

Jim:
Targeting anti-censorship sites is a problem here in the U.S. as well (Irene has answered about Australia). The Censorware Project, Peacefire and The Ethical Spectacle are among many anti-censorship sites which have been banned at various times by the censorware makers. (Interestingly, pro-censorware/censorship sites such as Filtering Facts and The American Family Association have been blacklisted as well.)

There is no specific law which would allow the owner of a blocked anti-censorship site to sue the censorware maker. Censorship, in the legal sense, involves state action, but there is no state action involved in the mere fact that a censorware vendor has added an anti-censorship site to its blacklist. However, there are at least three instances in which the owner of a wrongfully blocked site might be able to sue a censorware vendor or user.

First, if the censorware is being used in a public institution such as a public library, the site owner may well have standing to sue the institution for blocking the constitutionally protected speech at the site. In the Loudoun County, Virginia Public Library lawsuit, the action was commenced by library patrons, but the ACLU intervened on behalf of content providers whose sites were blocked in the library. The Library Board tried to argue that the providers had no standing to intervene, but the Court disagreed.

Second, one needs to look at the blocking category being used to block the site. The ACLU, for example, has been blocked by some vendors under the category "activist" or similar. Certainly I don't condone such blacklisting, but the categorization is factually correct. On the other hand, suppose that the site is miscategorized by the censorware vendor as a porn site instead of an activist one. (If you think that is ludicrous, read a mini-essay I wrote earlier this year.) Some have posited that the censorware vendor might be liable for libel. I would not bring such an action I defend those sued for libel, regardless of whether I agree with their particular speech but I do expect that the owner of some site wrongfully blocked as a porn site will test the waters.

Third, under either federal law or the laws of various states, there may be a claim for consumer fraud or false and misleading advertising if the vendor bans sites under incorrect categories. Most of the vendors have wonderful sounding statements on their sites about how carefully they make their lists and check them twice, but virtually every serious investigation of censorware has shown such statements to be utterly false. In some states, a remedy under this theory may be available only to customers who purchased the censorware in reliance on the false representations, but in other states, such as mine (California), virtually any member of the public could bring such an action.

----------

Next week we have *two* interviews to celebrate the year's end: First, L0pht Heavy Industries, with answers Friday. And in a separate "bonus" interview post Monday we'll be collecting questions for Jon "Maddog" Hall about Linux in the next century; Jon's answers will run Saturday (for obvious symbolic reasons). Enjoy!

The philanthropic Markle Foundation has announced it will help fund the cash-strapped ICANN. But it's not stopping there. The election campaign for the second half of ICANN's Board of Directors is just beginning, and Markle intends to find "a legitimate way for individuals" - as opposed to corporate interests - "to vote and create an authority they can trust." Five respected organizations are joining the effort, including the CDT, the ALA, and Common Cause. (If you're new to the subject, check out Common Cause's Why You Should Care About ICANN.)