Slashdot Mirror
Online Rights And Real World Censorship?
Denubis asks: "I'm a firm believer in the freedom of expression, free speech, anti-censorchip, et al, and recently I've found myself walking a very fine line. I've been asked to create a list of 'blocked' keywords (and/or URLs) for a proxy server for a community 'Internet' automatic laundry. However, as an avid reader on Slashdot, I've been indoctrinated about free speech, anti-censorware, and all those wonderful topics that I quite firmly believe in. However, my ideals now get to meet the real world, and they're finding a rude awakening. As a semi-public service, we cannot allow ourselves to display porn, since a junior high school is across the street. How do I make a list of keywords that will satisfy that requirement yet allow someone to look up breast cancer research, or the recipe to chicken Parmesan? My question to Slashdot is "What happens when our ideals hit the real world?"
"How do we deal with the censorship issue ourselves, so that we can offer constructive solutions instead of ranting, raving, and otherwise having fun? On a side note, this automatic laundry (using smart-cards) is located in South Central LA, and is in a very poor area where people haven't been exposed to the Net. How do we go about quelling their fears about the Net?"
Very easy. Install a cheap surveillence camera right across the computer screen. I don't know a lot of people who would look at porn while knowing there are some stranger looking at them.
As for the camera, go through the tapes once in a while in my opinion would be sufficient. In this case if someone actually do it you can set an example by telling his/her parents. Like that amongst the kids themselves would spread the words.
Don't forget the most important thing: Have a sign next to the camera explain what it is for. The kids, despite what you might have been taught are quite reasonable and usually undestand why under-age laws are the way they are. Just don't have a camera there without telling them why. Once a kid myself, I know if I ever saw something like that I would rebel against it. But if there was a reasonable explanation behind it then I tend to follow it out of respect. Don't lose faith in that weird little thing we call human conscience.
gc
As an American, I can say with absolute certainty that we need no help being pedophiles. In fact, I would also like to suggest that the Japanese need no help being pedophiles either. I'll even go you one further and say it's a global bent. Men like young women. Art represents (but can not reflect) reality, and so often exaggerates it in outlandish ways. Don't attribute to Dawson's Creek what is better attributed to genetics. Oh and you're just jealous we don't say things like that about your pert teen breasts.
- Quit!
- You can't, stupid!
- Censorware sucks!
What's sad is that the post has only been moderated as high as 3 at this point. Says quite a bit about the moderators at large, methinks.They have some very large ( over 200 terminal) internet cafes there in London, called the "EasyEverything Cafes". There is absolutely NO privacy between displays (they're just set up on very long tables, about 3 feet between the displays.)
And they have an employee or two just walking around and looking. [ said employee is also trying to sell you drinks and snacks ] If the employee sees something objectionable, he warns you.
If you persist, your account is killed off, you lose your prepayment (it's all prepay), and you are escorted from the premises.
It works fine, no problem whatsoever. I saw no significant (i.e. intentional) pornsurfing in about a month of regular usage.
Assuming there's an attendant, do the same thing. Zero privacy, "Objectionable content will get you warned, then escorted from the premises" policy posted on the wall. And a visible, mobile attendant backed up by that formally displayed policy.
This is exactly why I think we need a new TLD just for porn site like .sex or .xxx or something like that. That way all the porn sites would use that domain and it could be blocked, while the legit sites (like for breast cancer) wouldn't have to use it. But you'd have to make sure that the porn sites are really using that domain instead of .com,.net, or .org.
Why not simply post a list of "discouraged" usage activities, and have the clerks ask someone to leave if they ignore policy. Keywords just won't work. People will find a way around any keyword scheme. At that point you are still left with the task of enforcing certain policies. The way I see it, a keyword system buys you nothing.
*applause*
While I'm not about to sit here and say I think it's a good site, or has good content, I would argue that http://www.geocities.com/ SoHo/Cafe/8781/wyldestorms2.html doesn't deserve to be blocked, despite containing lots of images, and text that I would classify as (poorly written) erotica.
----------------------------
The laundromat management says there must be censorship now. If you satisfy their requirements now, you're in a better position to educate them about censorship and its problems than if you just walk out. Surely blocking a hand-picked list of a few porn sites is better than letting someone else install CyberPatrol and reaffirm management's current ideas about filtering software?
You are not making a stand against it, nor are you doing anything that will likely bring attention to the issue.
I said nothing about not doing anything about the issue. If you agree to set up a basic filtering mechanism but voice your opinions about censorship at the same time, you can educate your boss about the issue without first getting yourself fired.
All the while the crusders for the moral right will advance their agendas further and further.
They're not doing anything drastic enough right now that a few more months will make a difference.
Social change usually doesn't happen by people quietly sriving against the system. It works by publically and willingly getting your butt kicked in the name of the cause.
Sometimes that's true. Sometimes, though, it's possible to fight for the cause without getting your butt kicked.
It ain't easy, and it ain't fun. But you have to ask yourself which is more important; you're comfy life, or the betterment of your Fellow Man? In some instances it may be teh former, but sometimes it will be the latter. The final decision is up to the individual. We already know which side of the fence the corporate oligopoly has decided upon.
We also know which voice most people are listening to. One person can make a difference - so do you want to make a difference, right here, right now, by talking to your boss about the problems with censorship, compiling statistics about the effectiveness of filtering software, etc., or do you want to run off on some grand crusade while your former boss hires some Microsoft-certified lackey fresh out of college to install CyberPatrol so the neighborhood parents won't boycott his store?
--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Just playing Devil's advocate, btw.
--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
He's holding a CyberPatrol box, and is all in favor of censoring anything that someone might object to. You're a Slashdoter advocating free speech. No difference? Explain yourself.
It does not matter whether you only censor 5% of the sites and he censors 95%.
Tell me, which of these numbers is closer to zero?
The public never hears about it and censorship becomes just a little more acceptable.
Yeah, unless you talk to people about it, and explain what the problem is. It's a lot harder to do that when you're out of a job.
--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
I'm amused I got a five for a post in which I wrote absolutely none of the text. I guess that says something about the times when I do write something...
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
so the play Oedipus isn't violent, because in it, he pokes his eyes out offstage?
whereas most pr0n wont scar kids, places like goatse.cx and the like will scar kids and adults alike.
I figure the only way to block sites is by going to them one by one and adding em to the block list. Dont quit the job because someone else might go about the job in a worse manner.
-------------------------------------------
how about:
objection: but they're all in the same room, so if an adult looks at porn the kids are going to see it.
I know some people have suggested that libraries set up a separate "adult" room containing an unfiltered connection, but the computers in the main library would be filtered
I think there is a question though, about sites like The Onion or Old Man Murray. Both have probably used words like "cunt", and I know OMM has posted at least a few nude pictures. Neither one is a porn site though, and I think there's a fine line of whether that kind of thing should be blocked. In one way, they're both profane, obscene(in a non-legal sense) and crude, and in another they're both contain very intelligent humor.
And now, filtering on "cumshot" will mean that nobody can read slashdot conversations on censorship.
The whole idea is ludicrous.
--
I noticed
--
I noticed
It's getting about time to leave everywhere
That doesn't make sense. After all, the goal of filtering is that people who don't want to watch porn shouldn't have to. Therefore, simply make the web terminals private and nobody can complain about the pictures on someone else's screen. Problem solved.
--
Our ideals are just that -- IDEALS. If we didn't want things to be that way we wouldn't call them ideals. We would call them fears. Tell the managing company that NO set of keywords will allow them to perfectly filter the internet.
If you want to keep kids off the machine: install Linux on the computers, setup a RADIUS type login/password system that logs them directly to an X console with Netscape running maximized (so no other apps can be running), have your adult customers who want to use the machines come get a ticket with a username/password combo that is good for a one-time login (add the info and expiration into radius), let them browse the web.
What happens when our ideals meet the real world? The real world learns to change.
Hal Duston
hald@sound.net
If Al Gore invented the internet, why is it named after George W. Bush?
Why not flag it, present it, ask, and log it?
When your keyword scanner comes across something suspicious, pop up a dialog that says something like "This software has detected data that might be offensive. It could be pornography, obscenity, hate speech, or blabla. Here is a sample: 'sentence or phrase where keywords were found' Do you wish to continue?
Then log the site address, the context message, the userid and the response.
At least this way you can actually educate people about what things some people consider obscene and keep track of answers in case someone gets pissed. You provide the freedom to someone to say "yes" to something like "...the tumor was found in the left breast..." while researching breast cancer.
If you get a lot of "yes" answers at a particular site, you could then "white-list" it and improve or custom fit your filter to the users.
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
No, he got the quote right.
--
* And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
Censorship is dangerous, but this question doesn't have to be a binary yes/no. Let's look again at the problem.
We used to have human mediation for things like porn vis a vis young folks -- in varying degrees, of course, and hopefully not TOO much. And hopefully without puritanical attitudes. When kids saw porn, it was usually because someone effectively said: "You're not old enough yet, but I'll look away this time."
The internet does away with that message. One could argue that an adult should actually be there 'to look the other way', but there generally won't be, and I don't think it's implied. You surf alone. Now while there's some terrific freedom in that, without any software mediation it also contains the message "We don't care".
(For example, kids anxious to see a nipple or a penis can easily hit on ten cocks cumming into the mouth of a tied-up woman on her knees in simulated (?) pain. That's the reality. Is "We don't really care one way or the other" how we want to leave it?)
So what's the answer?
I think the answer has to be, or ought to be anyway, software which maintains an adult presence without being authoritarian. The software ought to 'ALERT'. Something like: "This site has been identified as adult-only, which we feel is inappropriate for this room. You may make your own decision about this. Click here to go back, or here to proceed. If you feel this site has been misidentified, please click here." You get the idea. The message is once again "I'll look away this time, judge for yourself. I'm here and I trust you." That's healthy, I think.
Contrary to the many of the posts here, I find that commercial filtering software does a very good job of blocking porn. The problem is that it also blocks huge swaths of non-porn and hides its operation and criteria when these should be plain. It should also be transparent to administrators as to exactly which sites/words/etc are being blocked -- something untrue of all the commercial products.
So developers, can we have an open, responsible, browsing alert? Please. We don't want to censor, but in certain cases we need to show a way to be progressive adults that gets beyond the 'unfiltered' vs. 'lockdown' debate.
I don't know what the complaint is, because this is not censorship.
I think that's missing the point here, although it does suggest one of the standard cop-outs used by those who are charged with implementing someone else's censorship.
"Screw it, I'm getting paid, who cares.."
That is the point here: this person does care, so what does this particular person do when he's asked, for pay, for hire, to implement censorship that he personally doesn't agree with.
Such moral dilemmas are the stuff of which life is made.
It's a cop-out to just say, "..screw it, I'm getting paid, it's their machines, the customers can go someplace else.." although a hell of a lot of people live their lives disengaged from the consequences of what they do.
Personally, I'd make my position on the general topic known to my bosses, and then do the best damn job I could to be sure that what every tools I was given to do the job were set up as well as possible...
t_t_b
--
I think not; therefore I ain't®
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
Well, my company just blocks all of them. Looking at a white paper that happens to be hosted on geocities? "This site has been blocked in the category SEX" in about 36 point font.
LetterJ
The Glass is Too Big: My Take on Things
The fact that you can't buy a solution that actually works means that the problem is hard. There are a number of companies with significant numbers of programmers on staff, all competing in this market, and NONE of their solutions work well. They are all hype and fluff, not solid delivery.
While it is certainly possible for an individual to have a great idea and change the rules, barring some stroke of genius you simply cannot do what you want to do. You will miss bad sites and you will block good ones.
This has nothing to do with ideals. This is based purely on the fact that filtering DOES NOT WORK. It cannot be done reliably. Language is too complex. And I guarantee you that any reasonably savvy kid is going to slice right through any protections you devise.
Try posting a sign: "Don't view material through this server that is unsuitable for children under the age of X" -- you can get a statement from your management on what X should be. Bar people permanently for abusing their privileges.
You cannot solve this problem technically. You will have to do it socially.
Instead of installing a 'blocking' product, think about it the other way: don't allow access to non-approved sites. The only big thing here is creating a list of approved sites. Livingston (now Lucent) provides a list based off Yahooligans and some other stuff. You should be able to retrieve it from their ftp site somewhere.
'Nature's got a way, brothers, of scraping the bowl'
YES.
If someone is wrongfully convicted, the entire system needs to be overhauled or thrown out. The ends do NOT justify the means.
And yes, I'm fully aware of how many times the US injustice system has wrongfully convicted people because they are too poor/stupid to retain a good lawyer. My position on the future of the US justice system is therefore obvious.
OBTopic: Throw in some basic keyword filtering for the obvious ones... 'cumshot', not 'cum' and simple scoring. And make sure the displays are prominantly visible from the rest of the establishment. The greatest deterrant to viewing porn is public humiliation.
As to the 'teenagers throwing up porn sites for kicks then leaving' argument, if you're leaving these things unattended you're a moron anyway.
Even if they can't take 'em, gum or superglue on monitors makes a rather nice mess. So does soda in the vent. I think you should direct their attention to vandalism (especially in poor urban areas) then "porn". If you have good safeguards against vandalism, your porn problem sorts itself out.
--Dan
But the pesky 13-year-old who's seen his 31337 friends "hack" their way into porn sites... they'll be able to get around it. But if you make
him sign an agreement that he won't, then you can kick him off when he does.
ok, IANAL, however, i do know for certain that in the US, no one under 18 can enter into a binding contract (ok, its more like no one can attempt to enforce a binding contract on someone under 18). now that doesnt say that you cant kick a kid off cause he's violating your usage policy, but what if the parents of some of his underage friends who are also looking at the site over his shoulder find out and go looking for someone to blame? i can certainly imagine them going after the company for 'allowing' it to happen...negligence is one of those words that gets assigned easily when dealing with minors in the legal system it seems...
--Siva
Keyboard not found.
Keyboard not found.
Press F1 to continue.
yes, i think this is quite important to the question and it seems a lot of people are missing it. when you consider the freedoms that companies have to monitor and police their internal networks, i dont see where the problem lies with respect to the whole 'censorware vs freedom of speech' issue.
i recently setup a client's mailserver to silently copy every email that passed through it to a specific account so that the bosses could monitor people's usage. and iirc, they had inquired about software to block emails that were deemed non work-related.
when you think about it, its sort of similar to owning a house and being able to choose who to allow over as dinner guests...is it not?
--Siva
Keyboard not found.
Keyboard not found.
Press F1 to continue.
"We don't like the term 'beaver'. We feel that it's pejorative. We prefer to be called 'vagina squirrels'".
May 17, 2000 Dr. Fun comic.
Which is to take a branded product install it and declare victory. Every subsequent failure is 'just the vendor's fault'. What you don't want to do is take on the burden of making those decisions yourself because a) you can never make most people happy b) it will become your maintenance problem forever c) if you take on the responsibility then you also load on liability. Direct all complainants to direct their ire to some corporate suit hired to handle those kind of things. Honestly, what kind of organization would press all of the responsibility of such a hot button issue down onto the technical staff? They sound like cowards. You are there to fill a technical role not a social role so eliminate yourself from it.
> That's not censorship. It's a business policy.
I'm sorry, but that doesn't work.
Firstly, would you apply the same distinction if the business was AOL?
And secondly, censorship _is_ a business policy. The whole kids'n'porn is a small offshoot of a much wider discussion restricting the flow of information as a way of exerting control over people.
It takes a thousand different forms, from the legal intimidation McDonald's is famous for to the cheerful evasions of advertising. It may well be business policy - and it may even be defensible within the makeshift morality of the business world - but that tells us nothing at all about whether it's right or not.
I think that when considering all the options you need to look at freedom to write and freedom to roam. I think that anyone should have the right to write a document that says anything. However, like when I was a kid, my parents had the right to stop me from reading that. Same thing with big companies that want their employees not to look up porn, or a Junior High to stop their kids from looking up the same material.
My school had a policy that they protected all their internet travel. However if you found that a document could not be viewed you could inform the school's IT and they would review it and if it was suitable material that got automatically ruled out then you could view it. No big problem.
I think that protection is something that needs to be strong, just remember that freedom of speech does not mandate that someone is out there listening. I could write a great document on how dogs are the evil of the world, it does not mean that someone will read it, however do I have the right to still write it? Yes, of course I do, do parents have the right to stop their kids from reading it? Again, yes they do. And finally, does the Dog Lovers of America, Inc. have the right to stop their employees from reading it on company computers? Yet again, yes. Freedom of speech will always be limited, but it shouldn't be limited at the source.
I wasn't advocating doing nothing - I was advocating trying something other than censorware.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Yuck. Do they let individual schools/businesses choose whether they want these types of sites blocked?
For this application, though, it sounds like he would want that type of thing blocked; users downloading software and installing it on your kiosk would be pretty irritating.
My Web Page
Or, either of those could be used in a discussion on slashdot.org about censorship. :)
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
...That's one reason I'm not bothered when a city decides to make speaking against it illegal on public sidewalks. Their property, their choice. When a goverment agency mandates blocking speech on all sidewalks - well, that stinks, but I'm not sure whether it's censorship or not because arguably, the public sidewalks belong to the government...
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
All public libraries belong to the government. The government is required to allow free speech in public. Not that it always does, but that's rather offtopic. :) The government has that extra responsibility, because it has a monopoly - there are no other ways for people without computer and not in college and who work without a net connection.
They are completely different. Would you prefer we have privately owned libraries? Because that's exactly how bookstores are now. Maybe it would be better, I don't know.
It's only censorship if you are forcing it on someone. Making filtered sidewalks availiable isn't forcing anything on anyone. It's providing a service, not taking away a right. Where does the constitution promise us free sidewalks?
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
While I'm tempted to make a comment about going from no sidewalks to censored-sidewalks, I won't. :)
I don't think filtered libraries are better then no libraries. I would rather have my tax money going to other things then have it go to buy censorware. I do not agree with the 'values' promoted by censorware, and I feel the constitution is on my side. I do not have to pay to protect myself and others from what they think is immoral.
I regard people who use censorware the same way I regard protestors outside gay nightclubs. They can certainly do that if they want, but don't expect me to like them for it. And certainly don't expect me to pay for it in a government institution.
And, BTW, libraries are not 'being generous to provide the connection in the first place', although it is nice when they decide a net connection is worth X books, because to those of us who know how to use a connection can probably provide X^N amount of information, where N is a number in double digits. Libraries are supposed to provide information and entertainment. They get my money, out of my paycheck, to do that. They are not supposed to use that money to restrict information and entertainment.
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
See, this is why I feel that calling this country a 'democracy' is a bad idea, it's like calling England a 'monarchy'. In reality, we're a constitutional democracy. Without the Constitution, we're just a bunch of idiots who will end up with all unpopular people in jail. :) In fact, I'd be real happy if we couldn't ever remove some protections from the government, unless every single person in the country voted for it. I get real worried someday that 66% of the 25% of Americans who vote (Which is, assuming I can still do math, less then 17%) will get together and outlaw flag burning, or spitting on crosses, or allowing 'disreputable people' to vote, or whatever the pet peeve is this week, and it will all go downhill from there. It's really sad that 17% of the population has what is supposed to be 66% of it. I actually want us to start punishing people who don't vote. Let's give everyone who votes 100 dollars. This measure should be easy to pass. :)
P.S. I actually like libraries getting my tax money...but, hey, that is the kind of stuff we need to vote on, not banning unpopular speech. I think they're needed, just like NPR, so we actually have a source of information that non-internet people can get to that isn't controlled by a huge conglomerate. But, I'll vote one way, and you can vote the other. :)
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Um, no, this would be when we didn't have a say in whether we wanted censorship, unless enough of the entire nation vote to grant exceptions to the 1st amendment.
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
In case you don't get the irony, calling an entire group of people 'bigots' is somewhat bigoted.
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Sigh. I love how stupid people claim difference in when a culture invented something show how smart it is. Hey, guess what? Inventions are invented by individuals and the culture they are in! And the culture is decided by many, many things, not intelligence. And I've suddenly realized this is a troll.
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
But what does he do if he strongly believes that children should not be allowed to view pornographic images on the systems he's setting up? How does he stick to both ideals?
Most people wanting to view something naughty(!?) will be uncomfortable if they know their actions are visible to others.
while a good idea in theory... I used to do help desk support at my university, and while it usually wasn't a problem, there were a few guys that insisted on sitting in the computer lab (over lunch, when it gets the most use) and view some of the most sexually depraved sites out there... yes, their accounts were suspended, which stopped the problem..but perhaps the oddest thing I've had to do is go over to a very horny guy and ask what his userID is.. ick.
I post links to stuff here
You've been hired to do a job. Period. That job involves working for people who's ideals are different than your's (and mine). They want you to implement a solution that protects their ideals. Being that you are being paid to do this for them your ideals don't get to enter into it.
.02$*
If you find yourself facing a job that clashes with your ideals and you are uncertain about it don't take the job. However, if you do take the job, knowing what it entails and they are paying you you have two options:
1) Quit, citing possibly a conflict of interest. (this isn't really a lie)
2) Shut up and do the job you are being paid to do. If you are a member of the organisation that is implementing this project then you have a say, otherwise you don't. If it's a government thing, complain to your local representative.
just my
*******************************************
Don't block the word 'breast', but block 'fuck'. You'll will block the Pron, and leave the medical site.
I know this is an over simplification, but this is a discussion forum, not a soapbox for long-winded theories. I hope the gist of this comes through. It's only through an overzealous and blatently hopeless attempt to eliminate every possible objectionable site that the concept of 'protecting the children' becomes a ludicrous infringement of constitutional rights.
No it isn't, but in this day and age, most censorship is spawned from prudishness. Labeling CDs, trying to block off the internet en masse. All because some people are afraid of certain words and are afraid of sex.
There is a universe of difference between government censorship and the outright banning of pornography and parents restricting what their minor children can view.
Hmm, do you know what ageism is? While I generally agree with you, Arandir, I was a minor up until about 4 months ago (I'm now 18), and I didn't magically learn to think for myself on my birthday. I see no reason why we shouldn't be able to argue about what anyone is doing to *control* children. Just something to think about as a Libertarian. It isn't an easy thing to work out. Today's cut off ages are a legal kludge, they do amount to stomping all over my freedoms, and they don't work very well, but no one has a better system in mind. My point was that your post seemed to imply that I still don't deserve some rights, even though I am probably more mature and better informed than many ``adults''. However, you are right, there is still a universe of difference between control of children and mass censorship of the 'net.
This whole slashdot topic was about using or no using censorware in a private business. [...] Your accusal of Americans as prudes was very off topic.
Yeah and? Americans are generally really prudish, and this is what is causing this debate in the first place. We have hit one of the roots of the problem. This person isn't finding his new internet/slashdot ultra-pro-freedom morality running up against ``the real world''; he's found that it has run up against his own prudishness and that of his community and coworkers. This is where he finds out what he really believes. Does he give in to his prudish American ideals or does he find that he really believes this anti-censorship stuff and refuse to make the list and explain to everyone why. Based on the technical problems and on the morals of the issue.
Don't think for one second that America isn't prudish. I am american. I've been out of the country once -- that was last Febuary for less than a week. About the only thing that Americans have access to that isn't prudish is the 'net. The mass media has this ``habit'' of portraying the ``bad-girls'' as being open about their sexuality and the ``good-girls'' shunning sex completely. It's easy to go find this pattern. Go watch ``Practical Magic'', for example. I saw this movie the other day, and it is a great example. Sandra Bullock is a ``good girl'' and Nicole Kidman portrays her character very differently.
Now I am going to tear apart the sex-ed courses that we have in the US. They are purely about the physical aspects and the teachers are very much of the opinion that you shouldn't be having sex. But if you are a ``Bad Little Human'' and do it anyway, you should use birth control, but you are a ``bad human''. This is all but written into the curriculum. There is nothing about emotional impacts, what to expect, social aspects of it, what the hell S&M and B&D are.
In General Americans Are Prudes. Get over it. If you don't like it, make it known. I personally am very open about the subject now. *shrug* Knowledge is the key to health in this area, and good information is scarce. I got to learn that the hard way.
Jeff
This kind of web design is happening more and more, even on some big e-commerce sites. It's bad not only for Netscape users but for just about anybody who wants to or has to use some other kind of display device or browser: handhelds, wireless, people with disabilities.
In this case, Adobe GoLive is at fault, and its own home page is broken as well. Throw it out or at least complain to Adobe.
There is a karma cap. Last week moderation stopped changing my karma from its 100+ value. I even tested this theory and got moderated down without any change to my karma. This morning my karma was still at its 100+ value, a couple hours later it was at 50. There's no way I lost 50+ points in two hours, especially since as far as I know I've never lost karma points in meta-moderation. So I think there is a cap at 50 and at least some accounts have been truncated to that value. There may be some karma values greater than 50 and less than 100 which have not been reduced to 50, but they may be changed in the near future.
Signal 11, 11223, and friends all have karma=50 right now I imagine.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Posts can go higher than 5? Where?
I did notice my karma got truncated to 50 this morning, alas. But if posters can get moderated up more than 5 per story, that ceiling of 50 is going to start feeling a little limiting.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
I had heard from 11223 (you can judge for yourself whether that is a reliable source or not) that the reason for the cap is to stop some of the rampant karma whoring that has been going on. Theoretically a cap of 50 will mean there is less reason for people to maintain multiple accounts just to moderate themselves up.
Originally when the cap came into being, the code didn't allow moderation to change your karma if you were over the limit of 50. It didn't take into consideration accounts which were already over 50, which is why our accounts are stuck. As of today my account has been zapped back to 50, so either el Commandante has seen me discussing the fact, or else there is a systematic process of karma capping going on.
It's interesting that yours hasn't been zapped yet - maybe accounts with 50 < karma < 100 don't get adjusted back down to 50? Enjoy your unmoderatable +2 postings while you can, I guess.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
You're correct, I strayed from the topic of public access. I get kind of worked up about this issue :)
I really hope that that would be the case. I guess I have a lot less faith in the openmindedness of some segments of the population, but I would be thrilled if things worked out the way you describe.
My theory as a kid was always that if I was smart enough to outwit my folks and see or do something that they didn't think I was old enough for, then I probably was old enough. Now that I think back that wasn't the best way to gauge maturity, but really that's the way kids will act the world over.
Hopefully kids will just keep getting smarter and more disdainful of doing things just because "that's how we've always done it" - wonderful and very cool things seem to happen when the younger generation leaps ahead.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
"These Internet terminals are provided by the management for the enjoyment of our customers. Because are against censorship, no filtering or blocking software has been installed on our machines. However, many people feel very uncomfortable when certain content (e.g. pornography) is present in their environment, so we request that you restrict your web browsing to sites that are not inappropriate or offensive to your fellow customers. Thank you for helping us continue to provide a useful and pleasant experience!" -- The Management
See if asking nicely is enough to keep things in line. If that doesn't work, then worry about access controls...
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
I find that apalling.
When I ran the computer-science lab at a middle school and high school, I DID throw myself into this issue, and our school's policy that there was supervision, but no censorware.
That was the policy while I was there. Right after I left, they changed the policy. The new policy was: No internet use permitted at all (except during class for a class project).
I believe that under the new policy really harmed these kids (at least the ones without access at home... quite a few, since we many lived on campus). Not knowing how to use the internet in today's world isn't quite like being illiterate, but it's pretty darn close. I think they will perform more poorly in college, and possibly in the work world afterward.
My first choice would be supervision and no censorware (obviously... I fought HARD for that when I was there). But my second choice would be censorware... even poorly configured dumb censorware... even censorware that blocked all sites on breast cancer and all sites criticizing [fill-in-your-least-favorite-political-group-here] . This would still be better than no access.
And look at what we're talking about here... "Should this laundrymat have censored internet or none". My impression is that this laundrymat is in a neighborhood that's underserved, and where many have no internet exposure at all. Don't you think that there's a much greater good at stake here... that of allowing everyone (even those in the inner city or who don't have their own washing machines at home) to participate in the community of the net -- even if it is a censored version of the net?
PLEASE consider the ramifications.
-- Michael Chermside
It's one thing when someone wants to pass a law saying "All schools must use filtering software" or worse "All schools must use brand X filtering software" but when the head of a libary whos job it is to accually run the libary desides to add a filter thats his job and if there is a problem you have a real person to talk to. If the software dosn't work the head of the libary may also junk the software.
At core.. if the software dosn't work can you junk it? Is the software there becouse someone in charg wants it or is it there from a mandate.
Yes it's ok when someone who is accually responsable for the facility says "We want filters". It's NOT ok when someone crams a law.
Basicly the problem is if you just mandate it the filter will be a random off the shelf solution that dosn't do anything. When it's a choise made by someone accually in charg then he will go for the best posable solution.
And so while I'm not able to answer your question I can at least ease your morals. Your job is not to satisify some random mandate. It's the mandates that are evil.
This was done to protect the owner of the equipment from liability.
If the software dosn't work it WILL me removed.
If this were a mandate the software will probably not work and it won't matter.
I don't actually exist.
In the context of a library. Place the computers in a high traffic area where anyone can see the screens. Place signs informing patrons of library policy concerning computer use, and enforce the policy. People will get the idea, after all no one reads porn on a subway ?
Woe be on to them, all who rise against poor people, shall perish in a the end. Buju Banton
Back to usage policies, clearly state what types of material aren't allowed. Then, also state that access will be logged, and that users violating the first policy will be booted. State this as policy anyway, to CYA with the community. Having the policy in place may be enough ao a deterent that actually doing the logging and booting won't be neccessary.
I am not your blowing wind, I am the lightning.
I think there is no satisfactory answer to your question. The only thing which comes close is a full time monitor who has control of the mouse and keyboard at all times. However, this is rather contrary to the spirit of "surfing".
My ethical question for you is, "Why are you putting something which will almost certainly be used for porn at some point accross the street from a junior high school?" Whatever wizard solution you come up with, some kids are going to see some things which their parents wouldn't approve of. Why do we have to have internet access everywhere? Another poster compared putting internet access in schools and libraries to putting a freeway in a playground and he's got a point. Internet access is a powerful thing which requires significant responsibility, responsibility which we will hopefully instill in our children. But we had best think carefully about where and when we provide access.
I think your "Surf 'n' Wash" idea is great business idea, but it may be flawed ethically. If this bothers you, get another job. There's no shortage at this time. =)
I wholeheartedly agree that one should act on ones principles, in fact not enough of our leaders today do that. However, I would use tremendous caution when comparing this particular situation to the M. L. King protests or Mandela'a fight against the apartheid (sp?).
I do see your point that oftentimes things have to start out small, on an individual basis. We have to remember though that living on principle can be very, very painful and often takes a tremendous amount of sacrifice (King and Mandela are again great examples of that), so we must be careful to choose are battles. No war was ever won by hitting the enemy at every turn.
So I guess the question becomes, does this individual case offer enough benefits to outweigh the sacrifices?
Josh
You must remember that Rosa Parks stayed on that bus. The situation isn't an exact parrallel, but Rosa Parks changed things from the inside. As other posts have pointed out, this person needs to stay with the company, and fight for his principles from the inside. That is he only way a change will be made. And if that means losing this battle to win a greater one in the future, then I think it is the right choice.
The leaders of the bus boycott would have made no progress if the bus systems did not first learn to depend on those black riders as a source of revenue. Often, the system must be defeated from the inside.
Josh
It is better to live on one's feet than to die on one's knees.
--
RumorsDaily
What's the point of giving them internet access at all, if you're going to tell them what they can and can't look at.
Just leave some old newspapers littered around the laundromat, that'll be enough for anyone who doesn't care about having their interests chosen for them.
--
RumorsDaily
Wow. My bad, dude...you're right and I'm wrong. Thank you for your pearls of exquisite wisdom.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
You draw an incorrect analogy. Contrary to popular belief, having access to pornography in no way corrupts youth (at least at the age where they would begin to seek it). The fact that everyone - Congress, places like AFA.net, overzealous parents - seem to consider it such an evil, going to such lengths as to violate the Bill of Rights to "protect our children" from it (Remember the CDA? Children's Online Protection Acts? What jokes) only goes to show how close we are to a world that Huxley or Orwell envisioned some half a century past.
levine
FEARS about the *net*?!?! In SoCentral? Psha.
Anyway, why not just put the terminal somewhere visible to the attendant and have him/her boot the 14 years olds when the start surfing pr0n?
Or just use the filtering software... who's really gonna go to the laundromat to research breast cancer???
"What happens when our ideals hit the real world?"
Simple, you stick by them, otherwise they arn't ideals.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Can you rephrase that? Your comment was blacked out due to the words you used.
Idea: Split the monitor cable and run one out to a duplicate monitor above the user's head, high up enough so that no one passing by can read its text but so that anyone can see if the user is accessing pr0n.
I think the problem most people have with censorware, beyond free speech issues, is the seemingly arbitrary selection process.
If there were an open censorware package that let you, as the administrator, see what it wanted to block and be able to add and remove non objectionable sites.
Now, I don't like censorware, but it is needed.
Computers are very sophisticated and fast calculators. They can add numbers blazingly fast and accurate, but you try to get them to discern the meaning behind typed text or to analyze a picture to try to figure out what it is and they simply can't do it, and won't be able to for a very long time.
Hmmm... What if you had a range of colors, covering the world's various skin tones, and filtered images that contain more than a certain percent of any of those colors? Too much skin = image blocked.
--Riff
"When I smile, I have a mouth full of teeth; when I frown, I'm not even here."
Well, who needs pictures of that stuff anyway? Bah!
Seriously, though, it still beats filtering out all graphics...
--Riff
"When I smile, I have a mouth full of teeth; when I frown, I'm not even here."
He said seems futile. If you're going to nitpick, get your facts straight.
In fact, the impossibility of the task is an important part of the issue. If a goal is mandated but unattainable, those who strive to fulfill it will eventually be driven to unreasonable and draconian measures in order to meet that goal. This isn't hypothetical or academic; we've seen this already in the war on (certain) drugs. Even if I were to agree with the goal of censoring porn, it might trouble my conscience a little that the means being used to accomplish this task are ineffective and have terrible side effects.
It's not for you to decide why someone should be bothered by something, especially if you can't be bothered to keep your own reasoning straight.
--
Some keywords for the NSA in the Lord of the Rings universe: One Ring bind find Sauron quest Nazgul freedom
Actually, security theory provides us a reasonable answer to that question. If the lock presents an intruder with a significant additional delay or will alert others of her actions at the time of the break-in, it's worth it; otherwise it isn't.
It is difficult to distinguish this assertion from one that a fool would make. You assume knowledge of your opponent's thoughts and motives that you can't really support by referencing what he actually wrote. May I suggest that you use your incipient psychic powers to deduce what I think of your posturing.
--
Some keywords for the NSA in the Lord of the Rings universe: One Ring bind find Sauron quest Nazgul freedom
While reading these posts I was trying to think of a way to intelligently filter out only porn sites. I think one of the more important criteria in filtering (from my point of view) is that nothing appropriate gets filtered. So if you're willing to let a few sites slip by you might be able to create a filter list using web indexes (not search engines, but indexes where the sites are categorized). If you take yahoo, excite, etc and do an automatic search of their pron categories, you could then add all of those URL's to your blocking list. It's extremely unlikely that you will block anything that you don't mean to if you use this approrach. There will be a few sites that you miss, but they will be hard to find unless you use a search engine that happens to pull up some site that hasn't been indexed. So using some sort of system like this should prevent the casual user from finding porn while blocking nothing useful.
Personally I remember as a junior high student porn being smuggled into the boys locker room on serveral occasions. Getting the porn on the internet might be a tad easier, but nothing is going to stop your boys from be very curious and interested in sex and women.
Cait_Sith
you wanna know why we lock doors when it's so easy to break in a window?
because a burglar could almost silently open the door and take your shit and leave, whereas it makes quite a bit of noise to break a window.
besides which, nowadays, a lot of houses have alarms that go off when a window is broken, my parents' house has motion detectors.
your argument has been completely stupid and your analogies have been inane. you want to start calling people morons, i'm going to be just as rude back.
here ya go. and before i'm done, i'd like to say i highly doubt you're a chick, and if you are, you're one of those really fat, ugly bitter ones.
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
but you're misquoting and twisting the words around.. you are obviously very dim witted, so i will attempt to keep it simple :
- locks on doors deter burglars because it denies them of a way of silently, quickly, accessing a house. it is very inconvenient and ugly to put metal bars on the windows, but people in particularly high-break-in areas do this anyway. it is a matter of personal choice, and again, this is an improper analogy (as i said originally) and has been carried too far.
- censorware is completely ineffective, most anyone who sits down and wants to find porn, still can. the more broad your definition of porn, the easier it is. i never once said censorware makes people want to find porn. not everyone does, some people have it at home already, but the whole point of this topic was stopping those that sit down at the computer and want to find it, and at the same time, stopping people from finding it on accident (which almost never happens, people go looking for it and claim it was accidental when they get caught. i did this as a kid.)
you are very, very stupid, and have not understood this thread at all. at no point during this thread were your comments helpful, insightful, or relevant in any way.
please shut up.
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
i guarantee you i could find MANY holes in that software. sorry, i am sure it works well against finding porn on accident,.. but when someone sits down and actually tries to find it, i'll bet it fails. and that's what they really want to stop.
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
I know I'm replying late and you probably won't ever read this, but I will do so anyway.
I don't think that having censored internet connections in a library is any more of a violation of the first amendment than not having those internet connections in the first place. The first amendment 'guarantees' our right to say whatever we want; it does not guarantee that we will be heard.
Censored internet connections in libraries is much more of a violation of the spirit of the Library than it is a violation of the constitution.
-
-
It is possible for your mind to be so open that your brain falls out.
I can think of a couple of good reasons to lock your door despite the fact that a burglar could easily break into your house through a window:
1) Noise. Breaking a window makes noise that could wake up the resident or neighbors that will immediately call the police. Opening a door is silent.
2) Danger. There is increased risk in breaking a window to commit a crime. Glass shards could easily puncture the perpetrator's skin, leaving key DNA evidence of his crime behind.
I think both of these reasons justify the relatively easy chore of locking your doors.
-
-
It is possible for your mind to be so open that your brain falls out.
I must agree with ebbv on this one. To illustrate why, I will use an analogy of my own. If I understand ebbv's argument correctly, he is saying that putting censorware on an internet connection for the purpose of preventing people from being able to access porn or other 'offensive' material is like building prison cells with giant gaps between the bars.
Censorware is useless if people can still access porn because that is it's only purpose: preventing people from accessing porn!
Of course its uselessness does depend on the ease with which one can access the porn. If it would take a human five years to find a porn site that wasn't blocked, then it's pretty good, but then you also have to take into account the number of 'non-offensive' sites that are blocked.
I think it's a rather silly argument because who really cares what they do with their internet connection. If this were inside a library, that would be different because that would be our tax dollars in action, so we should have some say in whether or not we want censorship. This is a private business...let them do as they please. It is not unethical for them to censor their own private connection if they want, nor is it unethical for someone to help them do it. Keep in mind, this is not a library, they are being generous for providing the connection in the first place, crippled though it may be.
-
-
It is possible for your mind to be so open that your brain falls out.
Treating the internet like a library of books is like making airplanes obey the speed limits of public streets. The beauty of the internet is that it is a near instantaneous connection to virtually every piece of information in existence. Crippling a connection to the internet in the manner you suggest would be worse than just letting them look at the porn in the first place (of course, I don't see anything wrong with letting people look at porn if they want - people are too prude).
-
-
It is possible for your mind to be so open that your brain falls out.
Simple technical solution don't solve complex social problems. You can't just block access by using certain keywords.
You would block Mr. Burkhard Sporn from Essex too.
--- If OS were buildings, then the first woodpecker to come around would erase 95 % of civilization.
just have a simple click thru EULA/ terms of use style license as the user logs into the terminal and make sure your legal ass is covered. business should only care about CYA policies anyway. as long as you dont get sued who the hell cares ?
For those of you who can afford internet access, that is an easy way to justify Censorship... Not everybody in the U.S.A. has a phone line (or computer for that matter) to connect to the internet. If the Library is your only means to access and the government says to block access. That is Censorship!
I am all for a library that offers computers with and without censored access. It then could require a minor's guardian signiture to allow them access to the uncensored internet.
Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
That's my 0.2 pesos
true :)
like I almost managed to say in my post, it isn't a good idea cos the general public will be far more censorious than pretty much any other option.
~ppppppppö
I was just thinking about implementing something like this myself. Instead of using a partially correct system, where the user can just keep trying until the filter lets some porn through, we have a system where the user won't even try, because there's a chance they'll draw attention to themselves! :)
Michael Gentili
- He's just some guy, you know?
> You'll notice there aren't many handbooks on how to raise a child...
WTF? Yes there are. Go to amazon and take a look.
Ryan
Right. So all those kids watching the Fox Kids Network don't know anything about commercialism? I think it is even more dangerous to block any influence from our children. We are supposed to raise our children with OUR morals in spite of the outside world, not blocked from the outside world. Your own anti-commercialism stance is probably a reflection of your own disgust while watching TV or looking around online, whatever. Your stance was formed by exposure, not shelter.
You suggest that the slightest exposure to any commercialism will trap our children in a never ending subservience to it. Wrong. That is why we teach values. And if you haven't checked, porn is very commercial.
Require all users to sign up and get a username/password. Before assigning a username/password to anyone require that they or their parents (if they are under 18) sign a form accepting your non-responsibility for web content.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
----
That said, it would probably also help to put the terminals in a position where the contents of the screen are prominently visible to other patrons of said laundromat. Public embarassment can be a reasonably good deterrent.
A few months ago there was an unfortunate incident in a Toronto public library branch when a web surfer refused to stop surfing for naughty stuff, and actually became violent about it. This was a mighty bizarre situation, of course, but it's not really true that public embarassment is an effective deterrent. Believe it or not, there are people with the gall to surf for pr0n with kids around.
I would suggest just using flexible censorware which permits you to exempt certain sites at the request of users.
If one has a program that examines the text of an HTML document, it should be relatively easy to figure out if a particular document is a porn site page or simply using certain words in a more 'acceptable' manner.
possibly offensive words following
Looking at a random sample of porn pages, you'd find that the majority of them have many words or phrases such as 'xxx', 'tit', 'f*ck', 'cum', 'barely legal', 'dick', etc. They don't say 'breast', 'penis', 'intercourse', etc. (except perhaps in the meta-tags, which can be filtered out).
Would it be so hard to have some sort of filter that just doesn't display pages containing a large proportion of these "hardcore" words & phrases? How many 'legitimate' sites would this block? Not many, I'd wager.
Sponge
True, stopping someone from viewing porn if they want to won't make them more moral. The point is to protect a child from seeing it accidentally, (for example, someone leaving it on the screen as a prank as was pointed out earlier).
I don't agree with the head-in-the-sand philosophy Americans have towards protecting minors from sex, but premature exposure to sexuality can be harmful. The best defense is to raise kids so that they are open-minded and capable of dealing with something unexpected like that, but we can hardly place our faith in the quality of American parenting.
"If you look 'round the table and can't tell who the sucker is, it's you." -- Quiz Show
Meta-moderating can knock you down some, perhaps it was that?
--
Put large scrolling LED sign above each terminal that displays the current URL. Scan for words like "playboy" or "sex" and highlight them.
--
Sorry, but "peer pressure" alone won't stop people. A company I used to work for put a couple of web terminals in at the bookstore next door. They were in a very public place and were near the main traffic lanes in the store (it's a large Books-A-Million). There were a few people (some were fairly young, but the worst offenders were generally middle aged or older men) who seemed to delight in coming in, finding some porn site that wasn't in the filter list and leaving it up and changing the background to some image from that site. (Yes, NT was used as the OS) The bookstore finally asked the owner of the company to remove the terminals because of these individuals (there were one or two "repeat" offenders). All we were trying to block was porn btw. Aside from that it is very difficult to filter out all sites - many of them aren't "filter friendly". You *might* look into using Squid and SquidGuard - I'm not sure how effective it is, but I believe it's at least as effective as most of the commercial products. :> I don't remember what we were using but it didn't work all that well.
ObTagLine: The more you run over the 'possum, the flatter it gets.
This is a Laundromat, simply restrict access to sites which are about laundry.
Risque laundry sites should be available only to adults.
Note, the above is just meant to be silly, there are two reasons why someone would want an Internet terminal in a laundromat:
1. To entertain bored customers.
2. To allow bored customers to get other chores out of the way (banking, checking stocks, ordering books, etc.) while they wait for their laundry to be done.
Block _all_ sites, pick entertaining or useful sites and allow them. Try to keep your allowed site list up to date on banks, credit cards, etc. (Entertainment is less important, try to get sponsors.)
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
I think he meant that his most important priority is that innocent people not be punished, even if that means that less guilty people will be caught. (i.e. he wouldn't mind as much if not every guilty person was caught) That's a pretty reasonable position, imho. I agree though, that saying that if a single person is wrongfully convicted, the system should be thrown out, is a bit silly. The only way to guarantee that is to have no criminal justice system at all, and that's obviously not an option.
I believe that the smart card scheme would work.
1) Have all users/customers register to use the computers. In the registration, include an AUP and a liability clause.
2) After their registration, they get assigned a member number. The member number would be encoded on a cool looking smart card.
3) With the smart card you could do either of two things. A) Simply use the card to allow Internet access. B) Also use the card for a form of payment (i.e. you got their CC at registration, right?).
This seems like the only practical solution for your unique problem.
Don't write it.
-- Ken Kinder ken@_nospam_kenkinder.com http://kenkinder.com/
blocking by scanning for HREF tags? that would be a small feat
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
...there's no more obligation to censor/filter material for minors than a magazine store that happens to sell copies of Playboy and Penthouse.
As it happens, there are many places in the real (USofA) world where magazine and other stores ARE required to filter adult magazines. By placing them in bags that opaque all but the magazine title and price.
It caused an outrage when the law was first introduced (long before the internet), but, over time, people have gotten used to it and life goes on.
You seem to be asking one question and giving a specific example of another.
The question you ask is what to do when our ideals conflict with the real world. In that case, if you value your ideals highly enough, you quit your job. Consider the ACM Code of Ethics as an example. If you cannot uphold its ideals, you should, ethically, discontinue your job. The same goes here. If you cannot consionably do this (i.e., the very concept of a filter is wrong in your sight) then don't do the job!
The question you seem to be asking by your example is how to design this filter so that it doesn't violate your standards of censorship (i.e., porn is not allowed, but anything else, in general, is). I am not well equipped to answer this question, though I would suggest you consider designs that function on the basis of individual site / page rejection, rather than some sort of content heuristic. In general, the former seem to be much better than the latter, though they depend on a great deal of input into determining excluded sites.
There existed at least one such service, CrossingGuard, which seems now to have been discontinued. I cannot speak to its effectiveness, however, so I'm willing to be shouted down on this one point. :-)
Only if you do not consider the noble beaver to be an animal. Beavers consistently and often radically change their environments from wooded areas with streams to ponds and sometimes even lakes.
You have been given an impossible task. There is absolutely no chance in hell that you will be able to block even .001% of the pr0n/objectionable sites out there.
I disagree, and I think the solution is not to block sites you think may be objectionable, but block everything and then allow access to sites. A previous poster hit it on the head when (s)he came up with the suggestion of a user based submission system. I do agree, however, that censorware developed by J. Random Company in the middle of some bible-belt is not a solution at all, especially given the various issues surrounding them, like lack of published blacklists, lack of ability to 'correct' mistaken blacklistings, etc.
An even better solution would be the mandatory, ot atleast universally volunteer, rating of web pages. If everybody were required to have a 'rating' on their sites like the movies/TV, then filtering could be done on the rating. But this leads to the problem of what's rated how in what country. The US for example gives movies with nudity and scenes suggesting sex will get a higher rating than movies there people are getting blown to bits in jet fighters, while the oppose it true for rating boards in Canada (and Europe I believe :)
IMHO, the best way to deal with the problem is through agreements and public shaming. "Hey! You on terminal 5! Please stop viewing the gay hamster porn!" or some sort of public display of the URL's being viewed (not the content, just the URL's) in big bold letters above the workstation, then see how many people visit "www.playboy.com/just_for_the_articles.html"
TrIaX - For the best in pulse weaponry.It's that there is now way to come up with a set of keywords that blocks all the bad stuff, while letting the innocuous stuff go through. My favorite personal example, which happened to me, was when I was looking at the weather forecast on Intellicast through a SurfWatch filter. I wanted to see the map of Ohio on the satellite image, but it was blocked. The reason? The form output had a string that went something like "&country=us&map=OH". Seems harmless, except for the prohibition against the word "s&m" appearing in a URL.
Pretty much you have to resign yourself to only allowing a whitelist of sites to display, and having an actual human update it with know harmless sites. Does anyone know of a high-quality whitelist that's maintained by reasonable people? That's something that might be well-suited to pasting on top of a trust network like Advogato, and could be maintained in a distributed environment.
Walt
I AM insightful. You are not. These are facts. Get used to them, live with them.
After I finished ROFL, I just HAD to congratulate you on the excellent response to the Anonymous Blowhard. :-)
"I will gladly pay you today, sir, and eat up
Sacred cows make the best burgers.
"What happens when our ideals hit the real world?"
It makes a loud thud.
-toup
This "Ask" just really pisses me off. /. and it's comments to understand that censorship is bad, he is an idiot and an easily persuaded one at that. And then the first time he is presented with a minor test, he buckles.
If it took this guy reading
Pathetic.
When my morals hit the real world I stand by my morals. It's been a pretty easy rule to follow. Now, I am a little more Nazi about my morals than most people, but it's how I can look at myself in the mirror.
In this case I would agree with a previous poster. Either have the internet or don't.
If this is for a paying job and you disagree with it, yet are still implementing it, then you are a whore, plain and simple. I can't believe there aren't other computer jobs out there.
If you think censorship is right, then here is a list:
Shit, fuck, cunt, cock, pussy, tits.
"I hope little jr. high schoolers never have to be exposed to these words."
Go live in fucking DisneyLand.
- I like pudding.
To discourage the use of censorwares, I put the word "porn, xxx, fuck" on every one of my page in white and size 1.
Perhaps everyone should do the same?
I would have moderated this as (Funny), rather than (Insightful). But since someone took your suggestion seriously, I'll respond seriously.
The problem with your suggestion is that you're not addressing the fundamental issue of what constitutes "lewd stuff". If there was a program monitoring viewers' internet activity, waiting to "blow the whistle" if it detected porn, and could sucessfully identify porn or other objectionable material as such, it could just as easily block access to that content, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Of course, maybe having the "PORN ALERT!!!" siren go off when someone is looking for breast cancer information is better than preventing the person from accessing the information altogether. But I bet he or she won't learn very much with all the bright light and noise, not to mention the funny looks from other patrons.
My old school tried this. IMHO, it's absolutely terrible. EVERYONE hated it. The librarian, teachers, students all could not stand it. It was like everytime you got on the internet you got blocked to at LEAST one site that shouldn't have been blocked(usually more than that though). Then you'd tell the librarian, she would tell the sysadmin, and finally if you are lucky the sysadmin ads it to the allow list. It's really a pain. I suppose after a few years it would be working much better, but there will usually be someone around monitoring internet access in a school. At my old school half the computers were wasted because they would only let you use the ones facing the librarians desk! Finally I just have to say this: It really is not that big of a deal if some little kids get to see some porno. I can guarantee that almost everyone(especially guys) got to see porno on more than one occasion before he(or she) turned 18.
I like the idea of a sandbox but how about using non-private circumstance as a deterent - keep all the computers/monitors located so that people walking by can see the monitors through a window? Most people wanting to view something naughty(!?) will be uncomfortable if they know their actions are visible to others.
90% of the wealth is in 2% of the pockets. Bummer to be in the majority.
Nah, many find the extremist views of Slashdot and the foul language (not to mention penis birds and naked/petrified people) to be very objectionable. This just brings back the original question, how do you figure out what is a bad site?
Oh great, now you're gonna invade my privacy, is that it? Logging access to all sites? Seeing if I'm looking for Penis Mightiers or Breast Cancer info?
That is a very common-sense idea. After all, it IS a LAUNDROMAT. Maybe set up 5 filtered, 5 not, or perhaps your login to the proxy (or smart card, whatever), auto-checks if you're an adult or child, and turns on/off filtering accordingly. Anyone under 18, after all, has no rights.
look at your target audience
This is absolutely right. You are working for a company, not a school or a library. It's great that you are all for free speech, but the issue is a lot different when you run a private, for-profit business.
When the government, using taxpayer money to provide internet service to the people, decides that there are some things that citizens shouldn't see, I have a problem with that. But when a business offers a service, it's a different story. When I use a service like yours, if sites I want to see are blocked, I'll complain to the management. If that doesn't work, I'll take my business elsewhere.
You have to do what is right for your bussiness and your customers. If they want freewheeling access to some borderline stuff, than let 'em have it. If they don't use that stuff, and are concerned about the kids in the neighborhood, install some OTS blocking software. Listen to your customers and do what they want.
Don't forget that Friday is Hawaiian shirt day.
You bring up a good point. Most of what we consider questionable material is context dependant. Making a decision tree (or fuzzy associative memory, or neural network...) to decide on p0rn and non-p0rn pulls in too much "common sense." We base our understanding of content off of the words and images around it. The general case of parsing a page to determine whether it is "offensive" or not is currently impossible (This is assuming you were given a clear definition of "offensive."
Pictures are in a similar boat. The difference between a clinical picture of breasts, buttocks, penises, and vaginas compared to p0rn is very small from the point of view of filtering algorithms.
In the end, your managers may end up putting a market censoreware package on there (which I don't condone) and putting a legal warning in clear view.
The only alternative is to get the US to grow up... Unlikely.
-RB
"One man can change the world with a bullet in the right place."
- Mick Travis, "If..."
There's no way to do it. The only way to make it actually work is to have the computer derive the actual meaning of whatever piece of content. Can such a thing be done? Yes. Uncle Sam is doing it on a daily basis. But it requires huge supercomputers and is still very "iffy". It will be years before it is practical on an ISP basis (if ever).
sexual crime is as much of or more of a problem than crack to me.
Rape is an assault, child abuse is an assault etc...
crack is crack. if you wanna get F'ed up on crack thats fine, at least you're doing it to yourself.
I don't condone crack, or violent sex, or a lot of things, but discounting sex as a problem is showing a blindness. Parents have the right to keep porn away from children. It's proven that more sexual contact at younger ages cerates more sex offenders and more emotional problems.
Porn is usually sick and in poor taste. Don't compare us to Europe where anything goes. Just because they are doing it doesn't make it right.
Fook
The price we pay for immortality... is death. Narnia The Great Fall
What I like is the idea of providing smart access logs. Instead of filtering out sites altogether, scan the sites and flag possible offenders to the parents. I'm not sure how this would fit into your particular smart card scheme, but I've long wondered why this isn't a commercially availiable solution for library and home access.
I'm also a big believer in letting these parents define their own filters or get filters from groups they agree with. If they side with the fundamentalist christian right, let them use a filter that flags whatever they want, just let me define/apply my own standards.
Check out
http://www.actis-technology.com
Software which identifies classes of information via individual files.
Let's keep our perspective here. This company owns the building, machines, connection and the "good business". The could choose to keep all the machines off the net, it is theirs to do as they see fit. This business is providing a additional "service" with as much freedom as they choose to give. If people do not like the restrictions, they can go somewhere else.
Now for the tough part. We have an industry whose goal is to prevent people from preventing them from breaking the law. Re-mapping URLs, changing keys, and basically attempting to circumvent software someone purchased for the purpose of prevention makes this a tough wall to stay behind.
Any software you put in will be flawed to one degree or another. My guess is that the owners will not be that concerned that testicular exams are excluded with the porn. Surf for that stuff elsewhere. In addition, since you are unlikely to be able to control what minors see, you may be open to other problems if you let someone display porn to a minor. (I could see someone arguing that you provided the material that was displayed, you are not an ISP here)
"It really is not that big of a deal if some little kids get to see some porno. I can guarantee that almost everyone(especially guys) got to see porno on more than one occasion before he(or she) turned 18."
Um, I hate to have to remind you of this, but just because a lot of people (even most) experience something, does not mean there is no negative effect.
For instance, I bet that all the people living in and around the Chernobyl area for a certain time period were exposed to unhealthy amounts of radiation. But, since they all were exposed, it's not a big deal right?
" I guarantee that just blocking sites containing the words "sex," "breast," and so on will remove over 50% of the objectionable sites.[...]The PROBLEM is that filtering sites this way will also remove unobjectionable sites as well. We have the same problem on slashdot when the "lameness filter" blocks legitimate posts."
//probably a porn site
//maybe breast cancer research
I've always wondered why filters don't do a multiple and to block by keyword.
Example:(in javascript because I don't know perl)-:
if (((strMETA.indexof("sex")!=-1) && (strMETA.indexof("fuck")!=-1)) || ((strMETA.indexof("sex")!=-1) && (strMETA.indexof("breast")!=-1))){
site.Block();
}else{
site.Allow();
}
censorship is a form of noise, which actively seeks to drown out content with silence - Crash Culligan
An alternative solution would have been to let players choose to have the offensive names remapped to non-offensive names for their e-mails only. The offending player could name his planet A**h***, but any other player who wanted to could ask that it be remapped to a non-offensive term (e.g. Norfolk).
Of course, you would have to rewrite the code for the program so that it would do the appropriate (player specific) translation on incoming and outgoing messages. More work, but no arbitrarily imposed censorship: each player gets to choose whether they see the original (offensive but funny) names in all their glory or the tame substitutes.
Don't see how to extend this to the filtering issue posed in this thread, though.
umm..no. the metatags contain all these keywords in text format so you can find them using search engines.
In a first time ever event, a Slashdotter openly admitted that typical Slashdot ideals clash with the real world.
Addlepated - punk & metal
What I suggest is that you link the internet-access to your washing machines, that is: you can't have access if you don't have clothes in one of the machines. This way you can prevent kids to come to your laundry just to surf to porn sites.
-8<--
I am also against censorship but you have an immposible task. I looked at the comercial software out there a little bit and one of the down falls is they try and block key words and what not. A different approach is Apples (?) KidSafe. I can't remember if Apple developed or is just partnering with KidSafe but they take the approach of not blocking but allowing only "approved" sights. This would limit the amount of sites your customers could view but it might also help keep the school kids from surfing porn.
Realistically the request is unsupportable. It is fundamentally impossible to only block "inappropriate" content based on keywords. This is even assuming you can agree on what material is appropriate or inappropriate.
The english language is suitably flexible that pretty much any word you can think of (yes, even "fuck") can be used appropriately in the right context. Therefor, anything that attempts to classify content on keywords without context will be doomed to failure.
Given your real world needs, however, I would recommend a filtering system that gives you complete disclosure and control over what sites are blocked. I also suggest you set up a feedback mechanism (preferably web based and easy to use) that allows people to request changes to the blocking list (both adding and deleting).
Unfortunately, I am only familiar with the issue enough to know that there are such filtering services available, not to know specifically who they are.
It's worth noting that a visit to www.peacefire.org is a good way to find out which services you *shouldn't* use.
Unbreakable toys can be used to break other toys.
From my son's children's book (The own and the pussycat):
"Oh lovely pussy, oh pussy my love,
what a beautiful pussy you are."
And yes, I do have trouble keeping a strait face when I'm reading that to him.
Unbreakable toys can be used to break other toys.
This is difficult to define. What if you're a page quoting another page in order to describe how purient the content is?
What if it's a court transcript?
Not only that, but describing context is notoriously difficult to do with the english language. It's rare than just a couple word matches. For a simple example, think of the word "pussy". What word combinations should you disallow given that this is both a word for a part of the female anatomy and can also mean a common feline?
"Wet pussy" (could be a cat that just came in from the rain)
"Hot pussy" (could need a haircut for the summer - talking about a cat you perverts!)
etc.
Without some sort of intelligence monitoring the filtering (that pretty much rules out all censors), it's very difficult to program in any sort of meaningful filtering.
Unbreakable toys can be used to break other toys.
The whole idea seems to be, we could get sued if someone underage sees porn. However, by running blocking software, you have legally demonstrated that you can censor, thus, you set your self up for a lawsuit for the time that the software doesn't work. By not running software (that doesn't work), and sticking by social engineer and acceptable use policies, you use things that are effective, and legally viable.
Plenty of stores install mirrors and fake cameras to discourge bad behavior. It's a good thing, as long as it's not in private changing rooms. If you install filtering, you also have a sort of cameras, but that monitoring can not tell between private email and porn. A situation could arise that because you had these logs, you should have seen that junior was going to some twisted sites, and that you should have seen this and acted, and because you didn't act on it, you're responsible
The law also can quite easily handle contract and policies. Set up a acceptable use policy, and follow it and make users follow it. Have penaties built in to the contract. Thus, when trouble comes, you have nothing to hide, and you've done due dilligence.
The last thing we need is for filtering to become popular. If lawmakers or judges see it work in one case, they make the rest of the other situations that don't work, comply with their technologicaly clueless whims.
Today it's porn, tomorrow they'll want you to filter for liabel. If they see filtering work on "dirty" talk and pictures, the next step is they will want negative reviews of corporations, organizations and governments filtered. At that point, the promise of the internet will have died.
The point is, the internet was built by people who wanted to promote free speech. No solution will fully work, but it isn't very often that the courts are technologically reasonable. If a court sees that you offer a filtered service, and that filter fails, they will find you liabel. Where as, if you place the burden of socially acceptable behavior on the user per contract, the courts would dismiss the case.
Democrats and Republicans only disagree about how to enslave you
You need to educate the world on how things work. People need to realize that irregardless of what Reverend Bob says about sex being evil and corrupting young minds, little Johnny won't be harmed by looking at pics of people having anal sex on the internet.
Either that or explain to them all the downsides and futility.
And if worst comes to worse, refuse and resist. Make them fire you for not compromising your ideals. You won't be the first geek that this has happened to, nor will you be the last. Don't be afraid to make a stand.
And if all else fails, just give them printouts of Katz's blubbering on the subject, and they will likely become apathetic to the whole damned thing.
...but just how much is up to you. If you want to keep the job, you'll have to compromise. How much you choose to compromise is your choice :)
--
mikej
Ideology breeds Hypocrisy. Just how much is up to you.
That's what my high school has, and it works perfectly, even though we have 3 different computer labs, lazy and frequently absent admins, and hormone-crazed teenagers. The admin simply told everyone that looking at pornography will be strictly punished - it's pretty obvious that it's not worth the risk.
YES.
If someone is wrongfully convicted, the entire system needs to be overhauled or thrown out. The ends do NOT justify the means.
And yes, I'm fully aware of how many times the US injustice system has wrongfully convicted people because they are too poor/stupid to retain a good lawyer. My position on the future of the US justice system is therefore obvious.
This has to be one of the most uninformed things I have ever heard said. I hate to break the news to you, but there is absolutely nothing on the planet that is 100% reliable. You are always settling for as good as you can get. To say that anything that is not 100% perfect should be thrown out is to say we should throw out everything. What would your solution be to the US justice system, since it is so obviously flawed? What is the "perfect" system, whereas everyone will be caught, and not a single person will be jailed?
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
I totally agree; I think the only real solution is to involve a human on an ongoing basis.
Note that to do this, you'll need to buy blocking software that allows you to edit the block list. I believe NetNanny is one such.
If you have only a dozen or so computers, just keep a list of "inappropriate" hosts and update the computers' HOSTS files every so often by hand or via a script. Point them to a special web server that displays a message like "THIS SITE IS INAPROPRIATE. YOU CANNOT VIEW IT HERE" for all requests. Update the file with offending hosts as you catch kids looking at them.
After this becomes too much of a hassle, go to management and tell them how much of a burden being a censor is on the tech staff and that there really is no software solution that will prevent kids from getting pr0n AND allow access to legitimate sites at the same time. It's not your job to be a parent. Who in their right mind would want a corporation parenting their kids anyway?
"You done taken a wrong turn."
-Bill McKinney, in Deliverance
Since he owns/runs a private business, obviously he decides. Freedom of speech is not violated when you restrict how private property is used. AOL, for example, is perfectly legal in restricting racist comments on their discussion groups.
Are you the project leader, or a lackey? If you're not the leader, then make the person who *is* the leader sit down and peruse peacefire.org.
If you *are* the leader, do a feasibility study of blocking software. Peacefire.org should be a good resource, but it won't hurt to do your own research--find examples of both legitimate topics being blocked, and of "obscene" material *not* being blocked. Tell them point blank, "this is a bad idea" and present your study to show *why* it is a bad idea.
If they press to continue the project, leave. The project is doomed to failure, so you probably won't want your name on it anyway. Suggest alternate solutions, such as close-captioned TV monitoring of the workstation screens, or using library card numbers as login/passwords so individual accounts can be suspended on a case-by-case basis.
There are better solutions than blocking software.
Nathan
I've been indoctrinated about free speech, anti-censorware, and all those wonderful topics that I quite firmly believe in. (em added)
Interesting choice of words . . .
I'll leave you to talk amongst yourselves.
--
Whom does Larry Wall quote in
What kind of moron thinks that a kid seeing a titty will be the cause of anything?
The current Slashdot moderation system is made by gay communists!
There is no escape from the preconceptions, and even the enlightened are forced to view the world through the eyes of man.
It would not be possible to follow your process without my preconceptions, because even if I analyze each situation on its own merits (something I would encourage everyone to do) I must still come to a conclusion. To come to any moral conclusion I must make certain suppositions that I may never be able to prove as an absolute. So instead I am forced to rely on my limited knowledge and experience
(be I a twenty-year-old or an eighty-year-old) to make the best decision I can, and live with the consequences.
Would you say the pro-life groups are wrong to kill doctors because of their ideals? How did you come to that conclusion? The answer is they follow what they think is right, and we follow what we think is right. In truth we may all be wrong, but it is all we have.
Yes, dogma is an evil, but its evil lies not in the belief but rather in the faith that the belief is an absolute were there are no absolutes. It closes the mind to gaining any additional knowledge, and stunts the mental growth of the individual (and sometime of the masses). This does not mean that we should not stand by our beliefs, but rather that we should be open to listening to and sharing with those of other beliefs as a way of enhancing and challenging our own beliefs. It is in this openness that both sides can grow, and perhaps find a common ground.
That is my only real point of advice here. Take the time to think about what you believe and how you want to proceed. When you have decided on a course of action accept the consequences of your decision, and know that you have done what you truly believed was that right thing to do. If you can do that, then you are probably in better shape than many here.
My comment was intended to be humorous and to make a point, but I don't think I made myself very clear. You're absolutely right, letting minors see "SANTA CLAUS DOES NOT EXIST" would be completely legal. But I think a lot of the time, a major determining factor is public opinion as well as law (although the two are related).
A lot of people are offended by porn, and some are not, but it's illegal to show porn to minors. You seem to be offended by my comment (unless I misinterpreted your comment), as would a lot of other people (that was the point). Thankfully my comment is legal for minors to see. :-) So where do we draw the line? What determines what's legal
to show to children? Or, what should
determine it? That's a question about the
law itself, rather than about how to deal with
the law, which was what this story was originally dealing
with.
Or worse,
Think of the millions of little kids that would be scarred for life by those shocking words! I think we need to do something about that!
Make sure make sure you say that you are violating someone's civil rights by not allowing them to view pr0n from your business's equipment.
"By God, I won't stand for it! Save the wide open beavers! Nuke the jr highers!"
> As a semi-public service, we cannot
> allow ourselves to display porn, since a junior high school is across the
> street.
Why? I fail to see how one relates to the other?
> How do I make a list of keywords that will satisfy that requirement
> yet allow someone to look up breast cancer research, or the recipe to
> chicken Parmesan? My question to Slashdot is "What happens when
> our ideals hit the real world?"
I don't know about 'ours' but when my "ideas hit the real world",
men lose power, governments fall, and blissful anarchy forces people to
deal with each other on a basis of mutiual respect.
> "How do we deal with the censorship issue ourselves, so that we can
> offer constructive solutions instead of ranting, raving, and otherwise
> having fun?
Have resolve, and refuse to do it. I can get three figures an hour for
my time. I've not made quite a lot of $$$$ because I've choosen a path
in my life commanded by MORALITY instead of GREED.
Quite a few times have I refused to do any type of work that conflicts
with my beliefs. Needless to say I refuse to do any work for the government
AT ALL. (Not that I would actually pass security clearance anyway. : > )
Ok, i have an idea.. we'll get a bunch of people to form a censorware company that specializes in the categorization of sites such as .. 1. nudity protrayed with provocative intent 2. racial hatred 3. sites which attempt to defame our intent and company .. oh wait .. most censorware companies tried that already ..
Thus filtering out sites about Barney, but leaving in sites about "Hot asian women"?
--Arcum
Add some explicit instructions on how to search for topics with 'inappropriate' words that may have been filtered, and explain the reasons why certain words are being filtered. I'm not sure how one would actually create this semi-filtered list, though. Just a thought...
Actually, embarrassment doesn't do jack to keep people from looking up porn. I work at an ISP that also runs a storefront with internet access by the hour (inetarena.com).
Even though we expressly forbid people to look at porn in the store, they always do... in the window, while sitting next to little kids, and oblivious to the crowds gathering outside the window (seriously!)
"Stupid people suck."
Squid proxy's got an amazingly simple way to do this right now. There are two maintained sites that are listed below in the update script. These are community generated lists with blocked and unblocked lists. For example, if you have a URL with the word documentation, the porn filter will block it as it contains "cum." So, all you have to do is add "documentation" to the unblock text file and make sure it gets parsed before the blocked file. This results in "documentation" being passed through but instances of "cum" get blocked.
Anyway, these lists are constantly being maintained by the community to keep up with sites and fixing URL's that get blocked incorrectly.
The next step might be analyzing other URL's with potentially inappropriate content. We use webalizer. You can track the top URL's visited and see if they are appropriate for your sensibilities. If not, just add 'em to your block file. Simple, and there is no interaction with the users. Get a bunch of hits on some obscure porn or warez site that any 13 year old is bound to find, you notice it and in the time it takes that same 13 year old to get his rocks off, you've blocked the site.
With Squid, you can throw up a nice polite error message when a person hits a blocked URL. Chances are, if it's porn, he won't ask for help from the administrator. If it's a URL that's blocked unfairly, it's a simple matter of just adding the blocked URL to the unblocked filter and the problem is resolved.
Let's not forget that it's us the administrators that run the show here. If a site is legitimate and a person can't get to important information it's up to a human to resolve it. Last I checked we still ran the show. As easy as it is to forget, people are actually reasonable and any adequately educated librarian is going to understand the difference between a 35 year old woman looking for information on breast cancer and a 13 year old (no offense to 13 year olds... it's just that I was 13 once) with a smirk on his face saying he needs to find information on breast cancer for his mom...yeah, his mom... with a snickering entourage behind him.
Anyway, if you want porn, or warez, or hate groups get your own computer and ISP and have at it... it's a free world... as in speech not beer.
#set the execute bit on this file and run it as a cron job weekly or monthly.#create a custom blocked and unblocked file so it doesn't get overwritten
#by updates
#get the file
lynx -dump http://www.ineparnet.com.br/orso/noporn.txt >
lynx -dump http://www.ineparnet.com.br/orso/porn.txt >
lynx -dump http://www.hklc.com/squidblock/datafiles/squidblo
# cd into the directory and untar it.
cd
tar xvfz squidblock.gz
# remove any you dont want
#eg.
#rm
#cat
#cat
#restart squid
#- debian version
#/etc/init.d/squid restart
#- redhat version
Toddlers are the stormtroopers of the Lord of Entropy.
One TV censoring scheme that someone tried out managed to make "Dick Van Dyke" get masked "Jerk Van Gay". If you wanna protect your kids from something you must participate, currently computers lack the parenting skills neccessary to serve as a babysitter or other child care service.
If you think education is expensive, you should try ignorance -- Derek Bok, president of Harvard
Ok.. Been a while since I was a kid. I'm not saying this will be perfect, either. However, there are words that parents don't want their kids to see anyway. If you block that (maybe even personalize the blocking), you'll be giving it your best shot.
Stop the brainwash
Well - I advice you take out whatever contains words like (for demonstrative purposes) &cunt&, &slut&, &large rod&, &purple monster&. Leave in words like &breast&, &penis&, & vagina& and such. You can't block it all, but you can give it a fair shot without trampling all over clean content.
Unfortunately, you'll need to check all incoming traffic for this if you want to be remotely effective. Set up a proxy that looks through what they access. Set up a firewall that only allows the proxy to come through.
However, I'm pretty sure you'll find legitimate content blocked if you log all blocked content (you should).
Stop the brainwash
Actually, that's not analagous. We have lots of ways to get online, other than through a library. We have college networks, internet connections at work, private isps, and companies like AOL and Compuserve, not to mention BBS's.
:) The government has that extra responsibility, because it has a monopoly - there are no other ways to walk around.
All sidewalks belong to the government. The government is required to allow free speech in public. Not that it always does, but that's rather offtopic.
They are completely different. Would you prefer we have privately owned streets and sidewalks, ala Snow Crash? Because that's exactly how isps are now. Maybe it would be better, I don't know.
It's only censorship if you are forcing it on someone. Making filtered internet connections availiable at the library isn't forcing anything on anyone. It's providing a service, not taking away a right. Where does the constitution promise us free web access?
DavidTC, I have to admit I don't understand what you are saying. I realize you are mocking me, telling my my opinion is ridiculus. What I don't understand is what do you believe?
I've gone to your user info page, and I've read everything you've said in this discussion. You mock people, and never give any detail about what you believe. You speak in short paragraphs that are easy to misunderstand.
I believe that for a library to go from no-internet-connection to a censored-internet-connection is an improvement. Yes, it'd be far better if it was uncensored, but it's better than nothing. The library is being generous to provide the connection in the first place.
Because the internet connection at the library doesn't belong to the goverment, it belongs to the people of the United States. It's our tax money, we should control what happens to it. We don't believe in censorship, so our tax money shouldn't support it. I see your point, and I gotta think you're right.
:) But despite my deep love for public libraries, I gotta admit it might be better if they didn't exist. Then we can pay for whatever we choose to. Some of my best times were spent in little, hole-in-the-wall, used bookstores.
:)"
:)
I guess it all boils down to the trouble with taxes, doesn't it? The goverment is supposed to take a small cut of money from everyone, and see that money gets put into the public good. The problem is, the money gets put into whatever causes are popular with the vocal minorities, not towards the public good.
I like your analogy about bookstores. The problem is, there are people who actually want censorware installed on net connections. It's their tax money, too. Do we simply assume that we're right and they're wrong so the goverment should listen to us? Isn't it their country, too, and they should get what they want, as long as there's more of them than there are of us? FWIW, I agree, the Constitution is on your side, but I despair of the goverment actually following it anymore.
Bookstores, huh? Interesting... suppose there were 3 bookstores in town. One provided unfiltered internet connections. Another provided filtered internet connections. Another just put the money towards more books. I'd visit libraries 1&3, personally. We could control where our money went, and this whole issue of what the goverment does with our taxes would be a non-problem. Trouble with that idea is, what about poor people who can't afford books? Well, the local Barnes & Noble lets me sit around in a chair for hours, sampling their books, in the hope that I'll find something I just gotta have. Any wise bookstore would let people read like that, because those people, if their situation improves, will be their best customers.
Yeah, sidewalks are probably best built by goverments.
"Libraries are supposed to provide information and entertainment. They get my money, out of my paycheck, to do that. They are not supposed to use that money to restrict information and entertainment."
I now agree with you. As long as public libraries exist, they should not be censoring anything. If any internet connection they have must be filtered, they should put the money towards books, instead. Filtered internet is worse than no internet.
"While I'm tempted to make a comment about going from no sidewalks to censored-sidewalks, I won't.
Thanks for the serious reply.
Okay, I gotta start previewing... libries 1&3? I meant bookstores 1&3.
Yes, there's a difference. The reason is, people still have a choice - they can get their internet service from someone else.
The other reason is that Chebucto Freenet is doing this out of their own free will. They are not being bullied by corporate lawyers/extortioners, patent protection rackets, large multinational copyright-holding industries or the local orwellian goverment.
There is plenty of censorship going on in the world, but this is not censorship. Unless someone from Chebucto Freenet would care to correct me?
IMHO, that is a much better idea. Having whatever is being viewed clearly visible to others is often quite a deterrent, especially when it comes to pr0n sites and the like. Especially when it comes to Junior High males, who will probably be held in mortal fear by the thought that the girl they've got a crush on could find out if they started viewing bad sites.
-RickHunter
>>The reason you seegovernments, big business, the >>wealthy, the powerful, and elite having problems >>with porn is that they have a hard time using it >>to control you(well, that's not totally true, >>but mostly, I think). Violence in the news, on >>the other hand is a very effective tool for them >>to get their way (which is usually to fill their >>pocketbooks), by teaching the public their own >>filtered view of reality. You can't influance people with p0rn? Sex is used all the time by marketing departments. When is the last time you have seen a Coke add with blood and guts? Now when was the last time you have seen a Coke add with breasts?
It should be known that no blocking software will be 100% anyway. Anything is bound to offend at least someone and determined individual can find a way to bypass blocking software. Why must you be limited to a single key word producing a block? Why not have two lists (call them major and minor) "breast" would be in the minor list and only be blocked if a keyword from the major list was also on the page. Other keywords in the minor catigory might include "breast", "adult", "nude", "naked", "nudity", "flash", "spread", "lingerie", "panties", "lick", "sex", "excited", "hardcore" that sort of thing. Because these words alone might not indicate Words in the major catigory might include "cunt", "fuck", "cum", "slut", "dildo", and so on. And any keyword system should be a backup to self imposed advisories, such as RSACi. Check RSACi ratings first then fall back on the keywords if the page is not rated.
There is absolutely and unequivocally no way that filtering a site according to the words it uses is going to do anyone any good. Here's why:
To begin with, lots of porn sites use no text whatsoever on their main pages--they have each page layed out using GIFs with text on them. Why would they do this? To avoid getting filtered for containing offensive text, of course. Yes, lots of sites use meta tags to attract the search engines--but increasingly they use pages off the main page for that, and have their main pages mostly image-based. Porn site operators aren't idiots, they know how to avoid being filtered.
Secondly, filtering for "harsh" words would also filter out too much signal, not just the noise. For example, what words do you want to filter? Filtering "pussy" will make lots of cat-lover sites off-limits, along with some personal homepages and message boards where "pussy" is used to refer to cats instead of cunts. It'll also block out literature--and yes, there is plenty--which uses the word. Hell, half the classic beat poetry, and some novels I read in 9th grade like *One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest*, would be blocked for using that word.
How about the word *fuck*? It's used in practically every other sentence these days, even by junior high kids, and in lots and lots of literature, so that would block far too much legitimate content to even be considered. What about "cock"? A rooster is a cock, so we'd better forget about accessing agricultural sites, stories about farming, and lots of literature that takes place in rural settings. Versions of "Old McDonald had a farm" would be blocked. "Cock" is also a verb, as in "I cock my head to the right just in time to see Jessie running away." So no, blocking "cock" would be bad.
How about "cum"? I hope no one who ever uses the terminal tries to go someplace with a Latin motto on the page, because "cum" is a common Latin word meaning "with". It's also used in fairly common expressions, like "cum grano salis"--"with a grain of salt." Among erudite people, that expression is more common than saying it in English. And they still teach Latin as an elective in public schools, you know. So blocking "cum" would eliminate a whole lot of good sites, good literature, and any sites that deal with Latin.
What else is there? Leaving those words in would leave a number of sexually oriented sites accessible, and taking them out would render hundreds of thousands of pages of discussion, literature, criticism, commentary, and generally useful and innocuous stuff inaccessible. Quite simply, you cannot effectively filter based on words alone--if you wanted to write complex software to filter based on semantics, then it could be done, but dumb filtering would work terribly and block half the non-porn pages on the Net. Useful sites about educating about sexuality, like www.allaboutsex.org--which every teenager should read, to learn more about the sexual changes they're experiencing--would be rendered mostly inaccessible.
And where would that leave us? Not very well off, since as I said the smart porn site operators have for some time been implementing sites which get around word filtering by laying out the pages as sets of interlocking GIFs with pornographic language and images on them. Plus, there are plenty of non-business porn sites on the Net, operated by people who don't use explicit language. I myself have a section on my homepage with explicit pictures and videos of me having kinky sex with some cute college girls, and if I had a link to my homepage in my Slashdot profile, anyone who reads Slashdot could stumble on it with two clickc and no filtering software would catch it. There are fifty billion ways to find porn on the Net, and kids are smart enough to figure them out just like they always find out where Dad hides his skinmags or adult flicks.
Filtering by words only hurts by blocking useful sites and giving a false sense of security. It's time Americans just stopped being the most prudish and backwards society this side of Bhaghdad, and started taking the responsibility of teaching their kids about sex instead of vainly attempting to keep them from discovering what their bodies start telling them about themselves at adolescence. Yes, there's lots of unhealthy sexuality on the net that I wouldn't want my kids exposed to at an early age. But do you know the best way to keep them from looking at that stuff? It's by having honest discussions with them about adolescence, life, sex, and the difference between sex with love and sex without it, and the difference between healthy sexuality and destructive sexuality. If parents aren't willing to do that, they shouldn't be parents, and you have no responsibility to filter through software what parents should be filtering by education. Censorship "for the good of the children" is no better than cesorship for any other reason. Nazis and NetNannys are two sides of the same coin; it's the parent's responsibility to supervise the child, to raise the child, to teach the child the difference between constructive and destructive sexuality, not to try half-assedly to reduce the Net to their own narrow ideology and belief and morality.
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, *The Annals*
Of course, you might have to relocate a bit further away from that Jr. High. But relocating is easier to do (properly) than Internet content censoring.
Oedipus is violent. It is not pornography. O.R. pokes his eyes out because he realizes how deeply he has sinned, and feels he needs to be punished. He pokes his eyes out and is forced out of kingship and out of town, to wander around. Thus, it supplies a moral lesson and the violence is justified, and not inhuman -- we can understand it, rather than just revel in it. (In other words, lots of classic works aren't violent and raunchy, but are not pornography. :)
The real meaning of pornography includes any kinds of de-humanizing activity. So, for example, the Texas Chainsaw Massacre would be classified as pornography, because it portrays out-of-control inhuman activities and does nothing to make the viewer feel sickened; whereas Psycho would not, because it plays on the viewer's mind to come up with imagery. Gratuitous sex can also be pornography, but some portrayals of sexual intercourse can be artistic, or something other than pornography, as long as they put it in perspective, and don't revel in the nastiness just for the sake of it.
If this can be done without undue problems (and really, unless you're guaranteeing graphic access you shouldn't have many) then it's a simple matter to monitor disk and printer access a little and voila, a relatively pr0n-free internet service without the need for a filter.
Simply, "community censorship" will work in this case. If I wanted to look at some pr0n, I would try to be private about it. Especally if there are consequences for unauthorized use of a service.
So, you just need to tell people when they use the 'net stations there the following:
Do not look at pornographic materials, or materials that other community members may object to. If a staff member or another service user reports that your usage of the Internet offends him/her, and our staff decides as a whole that the violation was serious, consequences may follow.
Wouldn't that solve your problems?
|/usr/games/fortune
Well, a problem here is that "penis" could be used on an article on testicular cancer.
Howerver, "cock" wouldn't be found there, but rather on sites referring to male chickens.
And what about a discussion on censorship? This article on slashdot is interesting (some parts of it, anyway), but would probably not be allowed by your score scheme.
And, then there's of course the general page on genital dysfunction/disease that would probably reach -30.
Eek.
Good luck, but I don't think this is quite the solution.
|/usr/games/fortune
I would say that in a public library-type setting, this is not censorware's biggest purpose. The purpose is not to completely block anything someone might find objectionable, but to absolve the institution from lawsuits.
Unlike keywork based systems this system evaluates content on a variety of factors like what the host sites content is all about its parent sites conente, what all the subsequent sites content is all about etc.
Sure there is - www.rulespace.com - makes technology that does just what your talking about.
One thing your forgetting is that computers are designed to compute - we often forget that these things can do a lot if we put our minds to it and just design better software. I'll agree with you that its not 100% accurate, but, I think its a lot more accurate then most censor software out there.
You should read up on the rulespace system (www.rulespace.com) - I think you'll agree it doesn't quite work the same way as most filtering systems do. This system doesn't just allow for filtering, but also allows you to catagorize web sites intelligently, not just on meta tags alone.
The biggest reason why you probably haven't seen this in use in ISP's or Schools is because our primary client is currently big corperations. Sometime next year one of America's biggest ISPs will switch over to our system - then you'll get a chance to see it in action.
http://www.internetwk.com/NplusI/nplusi050900-6.ht ml
Thats why you use solutions that don't just rely on keyword blocking - like the system from rulespace (www.rulespace.com) - which is intelligent. For instance it considers the host site, content on the rest of the site, key words and various other systems for determining wether or not (on the fly btw...) the age group selected should be able to view the page. For instance if you have a breast cancer research page - and its hosted off the American Medicle Association it will in fact recognize that fact and let you view the page.
I think what you can do is severely limeted to what kind of employee oversight there is of the computers that you are providing access from.
If you have enought people working there (unlikely in a laundromat) then you can get away with little or no blocking of content. The employees simply must regularly look over each of the terminals that are being used (or maybe just the ones being used by kids, if thats what the liability is about). If anyone is viewing improper matreial (as determined by the management), they should be asked to stop viewing it, and if they will not, they should be kicked off the computer.
If you have sombody working there, but don't have enough people to implement that kind of labor intensive oversight, you could go for a more strict keyword blocking system, but one that could be overridden by the administrator at the request of any customer who could explain why their request was reasonable. This is one place you would probably have problems with commercial blocking software, as they tend not to allow this kind of customization.
The last option that I see, if your employer will not have any human oversight of the terminals, is to do your best at making a fair keyword list that will prevent the high school students from finding porn too easily. This is surely not going to be effective, but it will be enough to keep you from getting sued (hopefully) and will keep the management happy.
There's not really a perfect solution. Morality and social acceptability are too complex concepts to be captured in a simple program. Maybe with a hell of a lot of AI, high quality censorware could be implemented, but I think such AI could be better used on educating kids about sex (oh and other trivial topics too...). Maybe the in the future these problems will find solutions, but not anytime soon. Do the best you can, and don't sweat the impossible.
Steve
The point system is a great idea, especially for filtering out pr0n as they put it. I used to do searches for articles about sexuality on AltaVista, and turn up so much porn I couldn't actually get to any real information. You wouldn't believe how much of the porn got filtered out by adding:
AND NOT ("swollen pussy lips" OR "throbbing penis" OR "throbbing manhood" OR "hot slut" OR "nude pics")
Once again we have a case of induced morality - where social norms of one group of people interfere with our rights of acquiring knowledge, speech and individual development as a life form. Our brief existance (as individuals) is hampered with twisted (should I say distorted) perceptions of morality and decency, and we're once again subjected to a form of brain washing. Throughout my youth, as a social being learning about social rules, I was intimidated by a prudent society. Certain teachings about religion, morality, patriotism, nobility etc amongst other purposes mainly served to protect the ruling elite - the armed band of thugs terrorising society, imposing their will (with punishment of death) and establishing nation/states, or religious indoctrination. I was taught to hate my neighbours (they where our enemy), despice people of a different race, automatically assume that the person with a different religion is out to kill me, pornography is not good etc etc etc. I was fortunate to move to a less prudent society in my youth, where issues like religion, race, social norms etc where very relaxed (you can actually see full scale pornographic material on public access TV, and magazines in news-stands, which where incidently located by bus stops, advertised pornography to all passers by, including kids). When you're subjected to this material, it suddenly doesn't become an issue or immoral - and if you watch any foreign movie (French, Italian, Yugoslav etc) you'll see virtually everything. These societies are not prudent, and as such allow an individual to explore various aspects of our psychie. Without ignorance we become better people, and with censorship we promote ignorance - mainly to preserve the current establishment. So, in my mind, cencorship is another form of dictatorship - as a biological entity, I am not bound by this stupid norms society imposes, and we should structure a society which will allow each individual to explore every tangent that they may be interested in. Exploration doesn't neccesitate physical abuse.
Revolution = Evolution
The thing to do is very simple. Place the screens so they face away from windows, put a sign on the door that indicates that the internet is in use inside, and that's it. If kids come in and see stuff, it's their parents' problem for letting them go in.
He was talking about making a keyword list, was he not? I doubt DeCSS would be on that list.. but regardless. (Maybe it would. Who knows.) So you go to the laundry place, and are shocked to see that you can't buy something that they have decided you shouldn't use their bandwidth for. Explain to me how this is such a horrible thing. You are using their bandwidth and hardware, correct? They administer it, own it, and have all the powers and rights of ownership over it, correct? So what am I missing here?
In his particular case I don't think that's relevant. And like I said.. I don't think it's such a horrible oppressive thing that the laundry place tell you what you can and cannot do with their hardware, software, bandwidth, and time. There are a million and one places you could buy your DeCSS t-shirt. What do you do when you go into a gas station looking for a loaf of bread, and they don't have one? You go to a grocery store.Yeah, there's a reas "issue" here. But I think that opposing filtering software simply because you're for free speech is silly. The place is open to the public, and it is entirely within their rights to do what they want with their resources. Denying them any control over their own resources would seem to me to be a real breach of rights.
The streets shall flow with the blood of the Guberminky.
Smart/responsible/politically correct/whatever use of anything -- particularly technology -- is soley up to the user. It is impossible to fully protect people from themselves unless you get rid of any potential harm. In other words, you can't let people use the Internet and be totally sure that they won't be accessing any objectionable material. For an extreme example, look at nuclear weapons. There are tons and tons of safeguards designed to prevent their misuse (those who think any use is a misuse will just have to bear with me). Many of the safeguards are technological, but weapons are made to be used by people, and in the end the final safeguards must be people too. If those people decide to misuse a nuclear warhead, there isn't much that can stop them. The only way to be totally sure that this wouldn't happen is to get rid of the weapons entirely.
In my opinion, smart use of something so advanced and complex like the Internet really depends on a fantastic level of intellectual development. I'm not talking modern ideas of genius or anything here. But as you can see from the things that are most popular on the American section of the Internet (read: porn), a pretty big chunk of our population doesn't measure up. We're not interested in expanding our world view; we're interested in convenience and titilation.
You can't take people who want to look at porn, put them on the internet, and expect it not to happen without fundamentally crippling the technology. People will only use the Internet in an intelligent manner if they want to. So there's a pretty simple choice: if your potential users are responsible enough, install computers, and if they aren't, don't. (It seems to me this is a pretty old problem. The ancient Greek legends about humans obtaining fire tell the same basic story.)
Blocking the word "breast" is a probably a bad idea.. Too many nonpr0n uses of that word... But I did a quick test and if you filter out "cunt, tits, and fuck" you will get rid of the ten sex sites I tested.
I admit it was a quick test, but so far so good.
Not everyone deserves a 320i
Try this. Block all the 'nasty' words. Then, put huge signs up explaining that for standard decency, certain sites are blocked based on the criteria of having certain words or phrases in them. The list of words is available to anybody over the age of 16/18/12/whatever. The signs would then point out, in even bigger words, that if somebody is trying to get to a 'legitimate' site and is being blocked, they can come talk to you, and you'll fix things as required. That way, it doesn't matter that 'Breast Cancer Homesite' is being accidently blocked until such time as somebody actually needs to look at it.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
"There must surely be a way to tap this without exposing the users to harmful influences. "
I think the point is that they are not harmful. Information cant harm you. And if you are harmed by a side-effect of freedom of information, then theres a wider issue that needs attention. Putting a plaster on a ruptured main artery may look better than nothing in court, but not in a hospital.
When your ideals clash with the "real world," and you are a firm believer in them, then tell the "real world" where to go. Seriously, why is censorship necessary? Give me a good, solid, non-refutable reason for censorship. People get new ideas because the real world isn't all it's cracked up to be. Someone had the idea for censorship, they pushed it, now we have the idea that censorship is bad, so we push for an end to it. Why should you keep junior high students from looking at pornography? Give me a solid reason. Some cry about morals and values, others that it damages the youth. Please show me this list of morals and how this could hurt them, and the reason that we should uphold this almighty list. Please show me how young people are harmed by lack of censorship. Explain why we must keep minors from seeing, knowing, and doing the things adults do. If something is really that bad that it must be kept secret from minors, why are adults allowed to do it in the first place? Where did society get the idea that children must be kept innocent (ignorant) as long as possible? How can a world that pushes forced ignorace as a priority ever prosper?
Frag 'em all...
So when they look at the pron (in a public place) they can't stop... thank god for window.open :)
They will definately panic and people will notice.... people tend to be afraid of being caught lookin at pron.
BUSTED! No more porn for you when javascript is enabled!
Ever need an online dictionary?
and a little extra to make the threat bigger (put this in the conditions of use/AUP) : if an attendant notices someone browsing pr0n, they shut down all terminals for, say, 5 minutes, and let all the other users know who was to blame for the outage. peer pressure should do the rest...
| Ceci n'est pas une pipe.
Why not install text mode blockers like lynx ? That would prevent everything except the "dirty stories" type of porn.
I think that the question shouldn't be: Why was little Johnny allowed to look at porn? but instead: Why was he looking at porn in the first place?
"Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know."
-- Ernest Hemingway
IANAP, and this isn't about the whole speech issue (which I agree with), but is there a way to say this word by itself is bad, but if it is preceeded or followed by this word it's ok? Correct me please if I'm wrong.
There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.
One thing many people don't think about is the difference between government (public) and private censorship. In my book, the government does not and should not have the right to censor in most instances. On this topic I am like you, Denubis. Our First Amendment rights are foremost, and without them, this country would fall quickly into inescapible tyranny.
:)
On the other hand, we have the freedom to assemble, and within those assemblies, I beleive those groups should be allowed to govern as they see fit, even if it includes censorship. If we have been given the rights by our government, we should have the freedom to give them up by freely joining an organization, if that organization has certain rules.
For example, if you join a religion, and that religon requires you are not allowed to say the word "Tarzan"... Then if you really want to be able to say the word Tarzan, you shouldn't have joined that religion. Just so long as you are never forced to join the organization or are never allowed to leave, this is all fair.
This kind of thing happens in the real world all the time. In Girl Scouts, we had this little motto thing we all said at the beginning of class, and had rules governing how we ran meetings. All religons have dictates of behavior. Companies have rules and things you are not allowed to say or do.
And again, this is fair, because we can always disassociate ourselves from the organization. If government were to impose such rules, however, we would not be able to disassociate without defecting, and the rules would likely be enforced through terrible means. And that's not our government's job.
So in your case, someone owns a laundromat. That is their own private organization. As such, they are allowed to make any rules they want. They can say you can't use the washers unless you pay a $150 setup fee. Or you had to jump on one foot the whole time you're there. No one would go if they did that, but they have that freedom. That's why it's fair for them to have that freedom, because people can choose to go to a differnt laundromat, or not wash, or rent/buy a washer, etc.
I think it's a wonderful idea, putting computers in a laundromat. They're doing a wonderful service to the community, and at the same time, they're attracting customers.
Since they're their computers on their property, providing something they don't have to provide, I think it's perfectly fine and dandy that they put filters on the computers. To me, as a parent, it actually adds value to the whole system, knowing that my 5 yr old child won't catch a glimpse of sweaty skin, fur, chains, and all other combinations available out there, as he's looking over someone's shoulder. It gives me more freedom as a parent (in a public place where I have less control of my surroundings), so that I can feel safe bringing my child there, and knowing then that I can teach him about sex the way I feel is best.
Moving on, I noticed some other people making this comment, and I'll add my vote to it. Words like fuck, cum, and slut don't tend to find their way into sites about breast cancer or chicken recipies. I think blocking those types of words will block most porn sites while allowing freedom to other sites quite nicely.
As for quelling fears, that one's difficult given the situation. It depends on if you'll have an attendant there who is technically knowledgable, or if you will just have the computers sitting there. That would be the best way, have someone there who can teach newbies how to use the system, and answer their questions. If someone has an irrational fear, that's where you get it, when they ask.
If its in an inner-city area, you might be able to find some kids in the neighborhood who maybe are a bit on the geeky side, or at least would like to be if given the chance. They would be more than happy to work min. wage, to guide people on the internet. Something like this would benefit everyone.
Great idea, Denubis. Tell whoever thought it up
The technique employed would be to flash up a warning screen if you tried to access a 'bad' site and provide some sort of simple explanation as to why (i.e. pornography, hate site, etc.) On this page was a link to appeal this decision. Based on the argument made, access might be re-opened up or not. In a borderline case, a temporary username/password on a separate proxy would be granted for some period of time so that person could gain access.
It sounds like you will need more of an instantaneous response so there might be some issues you'd need to work out with this scenario, but it worked pretty good.
-- A computer without COBOL and Fortran is like a piece of chocolate cake without ketchup and mustard
>This is ridiculous. I produce fake evidence that
:)
>you are a child pornographer. You are charged
>with a sex offense. Information just harmed you.
Libel laws cover this, and have done so for ages in all sorts of mediums.
>My child sees racist propaganda on
>stormfront.org. Despite my best efforts to talk
>with him about this and why it's wrong, how do I
>know that it hasn't permanently affected him?
>Information just harmed him.
Ahem, you know that the Internet is not the only source of racist propaganda. In fact, racism existed long before the Internet did and thrived quite well. So tell me, what makes racist propaganda on a website so much more potent than racist propaganda propagated by his/her peers?
(rant
'(Hmm, maybe you should accompany your child everywhere so that there isn't a chance of any suggestion of a controvertial issue reaching his/her innocent(ha!) ears. Let's keep this child in a state of perpetual childhood, not being able to form opinions because of ignorance. I'd rather have my children face the real world, not the imaginary construct of some sick senator's fantasies. Reality is harsh; discrimination abounds and trying to deny it exists is fruitless.
You must arm yourself against it, not with fallacies distributed by a misguided pedagogue, but with skepticism, cynicism, independence and individualism, a knowledge of the facts, self-confidence, the ability to reason logically and to think creatively.
Instead of wasting your time trying to protect and prevent for your child, spend it teaching them the above concepts, and your efforts will be rewarded by an independent thinking person (if there is any hope at all). If you object to your children being independent thinking persons, then you have other issues.))
>Such as the fact that the dissemination of this
>information causes such side effects. Information
>always has side effects.
Lets list a few side effects:
New ideas, inventions, genius, stimulation, knowledge, pleasure, happiness, etc..
Perhaps a few bad ones as well:
criminal behaviour (can be led to), sadness, disgust, anger, misdirection, libel, etc..
I don't know about you but I wouldn't ever sacrifice what is in the first list just because of what is in the second list.
>And a banana is bluer than a skunk, but only if
>there's no beer in Italy.
I'm afraid I'm not an authority to speak on the blueness of skunks or the availability of beer in Italy nor do I see your point in it....
Maybe its humor?
Of course, it is a good point that you raise that information is harmful. But by no means is it an excuse to censor it. It is one thing to post wrong information and be called a liar. It yet another thing to post wrong information and be censored (or worse).
Those who do not know the past are doomed to reimplement it, poorly.
Would you encourage your child to read http://kids.stormfront.org/? If they did, I'd want to know so I could at help them parse it, and realize that their new favorite game shouldn't become White Power Doom, and if it does, I want to know about it.
I certainly wouldn't encourage it. The funny thing about that site is that the only people visiting kids.stormfront.com are the media and people that *don't* agree with the content. Kids are not coming from all over the place to check it out and then suddently become racists.
You certainly can monitor what your children read/view on the internet--I think that I would setup monitoring if I had kids that were on the Internet. But I wouldn't set up filtering. But unlike other parents, I would be technically able to do it, and do it correctly.
Love the sig.
-k
These kids are at the age where they can be responsible for their own actions, and where seeing pr0n probably will not scar them for life.
I have been wondering for a while what the big deal is about kids seening porn, etc. Its a theoretical question that nobody seems to ever ask. Does a child seeing a porn site or even *gasp* a racially insensitive website going to be affected at all by it?
Correct me if I am wrong but if a kid is old enough to actually go out looking for porn, they are old enough to handle it, right? Or at least they are old enough to where they will find alternative means, correct?
More obviously if a child (I'm using this term loosley) is looking for a 'racist' website aren't they old enough to be able to parse the information and make their own decisions?
And I don't buy this whole 'on accident' bit. What was the site for that "oops I was surfing for Chocolate Chip Cookies and ended up on Porn" rebuttal/contest?
I guess I don't believe that as a minor that you don't have the same rights as an Adult. I leave that up to the parents, not the government. Its a free speech issue as well as child rights. Jon Katz wrote an excellent article about, oh, 3-4 years ago in Wired on the subject of why children should have the same rights as adults. Wish I still had it.
-k
But your point about the racist site made me think. KidBut your point about the racist site made me think. Kids below a pretty serious age (18? 22?) are still forming opinions about how they relate to others, and being exposed to hate liteature (or Christianity for that matter) has a much more significant effect on them. You will notice that Christians know to prey on younger kids--even up through college. s below a pretty serious age (18? 22?) are still forming opinions about how they relate to others, and being exposed to hate liteature (or Christianity for that matter) has a much more significant effect on them. You will notice that Christians know to prey on younger kids--even up through college.
I agree with you 100%. However, I guess I am asking (or asserting) that it isn't really anyones responsibility (except perhaps the parents if they so choose) to filter or protect a young mind from such information. It opens a big can of worms and leverages the whole system towards one idealogy. Sure racism is unpopular, even ugly, but who are we to judge? If the internet were thriving 20-30 years ago (perhaps today) there probably would be an outcry to filter sexual education related web sites due to their unpopularity. Is that a good thing? What 'mainstream' views are going to be unpopular or popular in the future? I've got a couple good examples of why I don't think unpopular speech should be blocked: japanese internment camps and the red scare. The only reason people were able to block and limit certain people's civil rights is because a) it was popular or somewhat acceptable and b) there were methods in place that allowed it to happen.
Finally, (This will probably get me a -1) I am getting REALLY tired of the typical assumption that "Parents Know Best". 90% of the time, if a kid is screwed up, it's because of the parents, and I can't remember the last time that a parent spent even a year educating themselves for the most significant task of their lives. The assumption is, aparently, having the ability to pump out children magically makes you an automatic expert.
Good point, and again, I agree. However, ultimately it is the repsonsibility of the parent, regardless of how suited they are for the job. Or at least it is not the responsibility of the government.
-k
The nieghborhood I grew up in wasn't particularly affluent, and I can't think of a single person there who would pay for internet access while they do laundry. I would pick a different location. If you won't do that, at least offer them a way to earn credits, such as banners or something. NOBODY will pay you even a buck an hour if South Central LA is as poor as I hear it is.
Eh...
The problem with any of these approaches is that whatever rating system you use, someone needs to make a subjective decision about what words to use and how to rate them. Personally, I think your suggestion that "penis" is a "worse" word than "breast" is hilarious. Where would you put bum, ass, vagina, nipple? In what way can you possible quantify the relative goodness of these words? Where does someone learn that "penis" is a bad word? That frightens me! Trying to give a positive rating to words to somehow determine the context will be next to impossible. The list would be massive. If almost every word in the English language gets a good rating, (to say nothing about foreign tongues (can I say "tongues" or is it a negative word too?)) they will drown out whatever negative meaning you find on most pages. You have to stand back and ask yourself if you don't like censoring devices because the technical approach is flawed or because you fundamentally see censorship as a bad thing. It greatly weakens the argument to say that I'm against censorship because all those blocker programs block breast cancer sites. Be for or against censorship because of what it is! Whatever you do, don't try to use technology to justify an amoral position. You have to live with your conscience, not us.
there is nothing you can do. What if they goto an URL like this: "www.acmecorp.com/~mystuff/1234.jpg" abd then walk away, leaving a porno picture for the next user to view.
Notice that there are no keywords for you to filter out.
You are going to be able to stop a horney teenage male from seeing porn on the internet for about a billionth of a second, and I don't care what tool you use to try and filter it out.
A better policy would be to have booths where the user can be seen, but not what they are viewing, and to reset the computer to some sort of default between users. And to only allow your customers who are doing laundry to use the kiosks.
-- Never make a general statement.
OMG whahaha Cute.....
Isn't 'reasonable man' something of an oxymoron. Says something that man is the only animal who consistently adapts the world to himself.
The problem is that I don't think he has any middle ground. They are right next to Jr High School. The choices seem to boil down to:
1. Find some sort of censoring solution (I would lean toward staff monitoring. Even a dumb person is generally smarter than even a smart piece of software).
2. Have no internet access.
3. Have uncensored access and run... down walk. to court the first time something happens. (and soemthing will happen. Either an overhormoned kid is going to risk all and get caught on a porn site, or an overhormoned adult is going to surf porn and be seen by a kid. Even if everyone is perfectly angelic, some over protective parent is going to just object on principle.)
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
Although perhaps constantly updating the URL list would provide a nice extended contact for your company :-)
In any case, you've accepted an impossible task. Based on the efforts of commercial censorware developers, it seems that we do not currently have the ability to design software intelligent enough to block sites that are more pornographic than informational and not block sites that are more informational than pornographic.
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution clearly states that Congress Shall Make No Law .... This rather large detail is almost always overlooked by the /. readership. They see all censorship as evil, corrupt and illegal, which it is not.
A private business or an individual is perfectly within their rights to censor anything and everything they want.
This is no library people, and if this fool wants to remain gainfully employed he'll explain the difficulties of filtering, but he'll also put the filters in place!
"Laugh and the world laughs with you. Cry and I'll give you somethin' to cry about!"
If you've truly been an avid reader of Slashdot, then you should already know the answer to this question.
Impossible.
No software, no hardcoded block list will prevent all pr0n from being viewed. And, in addition, if you implement any of that software or put up a proxy filter block list, you'll block innocent sites unfairly. My advice? Make your decision - take a stand, tell your bosses what they ask is impossible, that if someone wants to see pr0n on the 'net, they will no matter what sort of blocks exist. Your other option is to do what you're told, be a whore, cripple the connection, and naughty stuff will STILL get through.
Selective allowance will not work in a school setting. Access to only msn.com, aol.com, etc. won't help very much when a kid is doing a report. This is because there is no way an admin can keep up with even a small portion of the internet. The best way to keep porn out of schools is just to keep a supervisor in computer lab so a human being makes the judgement call on what is appropriate.
Make them surf with lynx, no images = no porn.
...don't work. And I don't see the point in it. Let the kids cope with the real world, or don't let 'em use internet at all.
:)
Default deny policy for the web is not practical, and default-allow policy don't work. I recently was at a lan party where almost all ports was blocked except for 80. So I just tunneled all trafic trough another server (trough port 80). You can tunnel stuff trough anything that can transfer information. Heck, you can even tunnel trough ICMP or email... Even kids who don't have years of computer experience, can easily use a web based proxy, or something similar...
And, why porn? I don't see what the fuck is so wrong with children seeing people making love to eachother. I mean, hey, I bet it's much better than 50% of the bullshit they see on tv, like people killing eachother, or them brainwashing children's programs.
The thing children need to learn before they even should be allowed to touch a computer with internet, is to always think about what they see and read, and not swallow all of it.
Censorship is about lies, and if we let the lies continue to pass on, the human-race is doomed. Oh wait... it already is (though free software do give me a slight piece of hope...
Karsten N. Strand - "...but what a console!"
Well, if it was made that easy, then the people who make censorware would all be out of a job.
-------------------------------------------------
I bent my wookie
The dehumanization of other people is learned behavior, which is what truly enables violence.
As a healthy and responsible porn consumer, it irks me that you should make this foolish conclusion.
-------------------------------------------------
I bent my wookie
I assume you're the sysadmin for this place. That drops you into the role of implimentor. Someone with policy-making authority (the owner, the MIS manager, etc.) made a decision about what she wants done, and it seems that your job is to do it. I wouldn't have any moral issues about evil proxy settings if that is what was told to do. If I was the policy maker ...
The problem is what has already been discussed numerous times here on Slashdot: That by installing filters, you also limit speech outside the bounds of the respective ISP's terms of use. The First Amendmend is touched when laws require the ISP to install such filters. I presume that
"As a semi-public service, we cannot allow ourselves to display porn, since a junior high school is across the street."
refers to a law (local, state or federal) that prohibits the display of pornography within a certain radius of schools, kindergardens etc. We have similar laws concerning prostitution in Germany.
Now, if the law requires to install filters in Internet access near schools, this is most certainly a First Amendment issue.
--
If active resistance not an option for you, create a pseudo-working list that contains rare and specific phrases, demonstrate it with one or two carefully selected sites, and if someone tells you that it doesn't work, point them to Peacefire.
--
There's also a more practical reason that teenage characters are portrayed by older actors. The labor laws are stricter for minors. They're allowed to work fewer hours and they're required to have a tutor on the set since they're not in school.
Not necessarily. I can be in a public place (like an airplane), and still work on highly confidential projects.
I've thought about the issue some more after some replies regarding logging, and I believe there are a few valid points:
Logging is an invasion of privacy. Even with a prominent notice, it would still be a deterrent to visit sites that are perfectly okay, but just of a sensitive, personal, nature. (STDs, etc, etc.)
In the same way, having the screens be prominently visible is more or less akin to logging, only with a constantly shifting audience of 'log viewers,' and a shorter 'log length.'
From that point of view, having the screens be easily visible by others would entain the same type of invasion of privacy as logging, with the same results: deterring people away from legitimate information that happens to be highly personal.
All that said, I think it comes down to this: it's a given that no technological solution will solve the problem of internet filtering well, and even the ones that might be worth considering (like logging) do so at the considerable penalty of stripping away privacy.
I'll leave your point about underage minors having access to adult material, since that's your opinion, but I will say that not all places put magazines behind the counter out of reach of children (I know for a fact that many 7-11s do not), and that (obviously) not all adult magazines are bagged. I was talking about a legal obligation in that case.
Now, as for blocking: in this case, IMHO, the damage done by blocking sites is far greater than that of just letting the internet through unfiltered. Unfiltered internet gives the possibility of accessing sites containing material of highly questionable taste, while filtered internet denies certain access to sites containing perfectly legitimate public material.
Visit Peacefire for details of why filtering is a very bad idea(tm).
We don't stop prosecuting crimes because we believe the possibility of an innocent being deemed guilty to be low. Very low, in fact. At least, we like to believe that. Based on that belief, we decided that the good that came of prosecuting far outweighted any bad. With internet filtering, IMHO, the rewards and the problems are not nearly so clear.
Lastly: this is a private business, and the owner does indeed have the right to filter and block the internet access any way he likes. I was responding, however, to the angle that the original quesation contained, regarding how to deal with the problem, since the laundromat is a semi-public facility.
Hrmm... let's see here. (1) Women are the vast majority of people in laudromats. (2) Women are also the vast majority of people that get breast cancer. I'm willing to be more than you obviously think would like to research it there. Especially in a poor community where this and the library may be their only access to the Net.
Refrag
I have a website. It's about Macs.
Refrag
I have a website. It's about Macs.
Porn isn't at all the most damaging content on the internet. In case you people screaming "OH WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" have forgotten, almost every kid has seen a pair of boobs, early in life. And they might have seen some pubic area too, even earlier in life. How will seeing a pair of breasts hurt some kid? Ask yourself again, how will being lied to and censored by your parents hurt some kid?
If I want to see violence on the internet, I'll go to a major international news site.
If I want to build bombs, I have a host of them I could go to. Most censorware doesn't block bomb building information.
If I want to view info on how to make GHB or meth I can go to a host of sites. See above for censorware info.
If I want to break the censorware, I can go to peacefire.org, censorware.org, or any other place that mirrors such info.
Quit censoring you idiot. If you're using smartcards then look at the logs and ban the accounts viewing hardcorexxxmegababes.com. Don't make everyone suffer. Remember that freedom of speech means nothing if you cannot hear it.
Kris
botboy60@hotmail.com
Nerdnetwork.net
Kris
botboy60@hotmail.com
Nerdnetwork.net
We're talking about a laundromat. Nothing noble has ever happened in a laundromat. Stop quoting Camus and making wild comparisons to great moments of integrity throughout history
It's like being a little pregnant, if you don't stand by your ideals in the small, you don't in the large. If you don't stand by your ideals when its small, you don't have ideals.
I live in a country which has generally proven that no harm comes to humans by watching nudity.(rather the opposite)
What they want him to do is wrong - some have the cognitive abilities to see that, some do not. If the guy chooses to say no to "the man" then good for him - if he can't muster the fortitude then he has ample company, most humans choose the path of least resistance. Avert the eyes and sleep fitfully - many can do that. Humans are such a resilient species...
--
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
How about requiring users to login and then publishing page request logs per user? This would make it as if user were browsing in a public place where everyone could see their screen. People will modify their behavior for the same reasons they mostly conform to social etiquette in public. You just have to make it clear that you expect their browsing behavior to abide by 'public' traditional social rules when using your systems.
When I worked for Butte College, I put up a packet sniffer on the the lab's. It watched for key words, and alerted me via audio. Then with back orfice I would watch and record what they were doing. If they were breaking the rules. I would get my boss and point it out. Where this became a problem, my co workers found out what I was doing and triggering those key words for the fun of it.
-Sid
Too many people sell out.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
You've gotten to what I think is a critical issue here - liability risk management for the business. Risk management is what the business owner is all about here.
I don't see this as a 1st amendment issue - it's not about the government, or a publicly funded entity (school, library) preventing free exchange of ideas. It's about a shop owner who is worried that material that might violate community standards may appear in his store, especially since he's located right across from a junior high school.
The debate as to whether this is an appropriate concern is irrelevant - it's the owner's business, and the owner makes the rules.
The bad press created by kids seeing porn because no steps were taken to prevent it, so close to their school, would cause bad things to happen to his business. And that's before the legal trouble started.
My suggestion, and I'm not sure it's a good one, would be to install very tight censorware on the machines. Make it no secret. And then put up disclaimers everywhere, saying nothing is perfect. "Inappropriate material" (whatever that means) may get through. Material that's okay might be blocked. Give the attendant on duty the ability to override the block, upon request - should help with the "false positive" problem.
The owner is making a good-faith effort to do whatever he thinks is right; you might not agree with the conclusions he reached, but it's his store, his legal liability, his reputation in the community on the line here. It's therefore the owner's call as to what to do.
And if you refuse, there are plenty of people out there who would be glad to do it. If it's against your morals, feel free to walk away. He's free to do what he must; you're free not to do anything repugnant to your own ideals.
Ain't freedom great?
Is stopping everyone from seeing images because some them might view porn really any more moral than (for example) stopping everyone on the internet from using file sharing because some files might be pirated?
The concept of illegal plants and animals is obnoxious and ridiculous.
I'd rather be lucky than good.
The solution is flawed. If I want to get the latest pictures from the Hubble Telescope, which is a perfectly legitimate use, I would be denied.
There are some words which you can add to the list that, you can be absolutely sure, will only appear in inappropriate content. I don't think any examples are necessary for this point.
In addition, a physical sign in the establishment pointing out that some web sites will be blocked, but not all, and there is the potential for misuse.
A clearly stated Terms Of Use sign as well: "No illicit or illegal content, or you'll be removed."
Separate logins with separate rulesets; one for over 18 (or 16 or 21 or whatever your threshold is). Employees can enforce this one with probably not too much difficulty.
OR, don't censor anything at all. Just post a terms of use sign and keep an eye on things.
Your post says that you will be using a cashless payment system and a 'smart card'. How are these cards distributed? If they are distributed by your company wouldn't it be simple enough to simply restrict the sale of these cards to adults? If these same cards are used to run the laundry machines this might pose a problem, but this shifts the responsibility to where it should be, on the parents. If a child is viewing the internet at the laundromat using a smart card, then they must have gotten it from an adult. If the adult gave it to them they have given the children permission to surf as they see fit, you can even reinforce that as part of the signup process. If the child took it without permission, well then seeing porn is the least of their problems.
Yeah, but most of the textual smut on the internet has horribly bad spelling and grammar. Do you really want to teach them such bad examples?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Given past Geeks in Space episodes, get a log of all the sites Pater has visited and block those :)
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
Look into Elron's Internet Manager. It has lists of words that have to happen so many times, and then how many of those get hit. The have info on their website. Easy way to explain it, blocks the way that search engines work, based on keywords. The key is DYNAMIC blocking! Neil
Four points:
1) If I remember correctly there is no such classification as "race" in biology. As I remember it, it is Kingdom/Phylum/Class/Order/Family/Genus/Species. Race is a sociological concept. Ethnic group may be a better term; however, even that is imprecise when you factor in environment (urban poor vs suburban non-poor vs rural poor vs.....)
2)From what I remember of Cognitive Development the differences in standardized test scores between groups has more to do with cultural and economic factors then anything else. In tests that are considered culturally non-biased, the bell curve flattens out.
3)Again, as I remember, the statistical methodologies in "The Bell Curve" were flawed.
4)The "ghastly and pitiful state of humanity" found by explorers were tribes living on the coast. Again, environment played a large role in this as those tribes were most likey to have been enslaved, brutalized, and inbred (long before the Europeans got there). Interior to the coast line, there were highly developed societies (as the British learned when they tangled with the Zulu tribe). While it is true that the infrastructure was not at the level of European cities, that may have more to do with environment then anything else.
between the greater and lesser infinities sleep the dreams undreamt
So you think a media convert is worse off than a p0rn addict? Have you any idea what p0rn does to a person's interpersonal relationships? For example: as a general rule, it's good for a man to be faithful to his wife. (Anyone that contradicts this is lying to himself - and don't argue with me about this one. The disintegration of the family is the worst illness of our times - children do much better with two parents, and it's statistically proven.)
How does this man remain faithful to his wife if he's thinking about the breasts of every woman he talks to?
Please, rethink your priorities.
Be nice to your friends. If it weren't for them, you'd be a complete stranger.
Okay, really interesting question for y'all:
;)
I've got a kid (one so far, probably more later) who is going to be surfing the web in a few years. I'd like to let her surf, but I don't trust a kid (even my own, as good as she is) any farther than I can throw her. I have a Linux firewall running IP masquerade, and I know how to dump all web access to a file and examine it in a cron job for offensive language like you describe and alert me if it finds any - not block it. (The kid lives in my house you know - she's not going anywhere, and I can talk to her the next day.) I don't look at p0rn and I don't participate in practices usually considered to be perverse, so I have no idea what the words could be. Where would I get a nice list?
Granted, I probably won't enjoy reading it, but I may need it in the future...
Seriously, though, could someone point me in the right place?
Be nice to your friends. If it weren't for them, you'd be a complete stranger.
My children will know very well what's private and what's not. For the most part, they'll have privacy. If things get out of hand, nothing is private for a minor. (Notice it works like that in the justice system for adults, too? Nice model, I think.)
Be nice to your friends. If it weren't for them, you'd be a complete stranger.
Just setup your proxy to monitor for any questionable content, then, simply deploy someone to bounce this individual off of the system, then get some rubber gloves, and clean up?
Why does this have to be an "all-or-nothing" issue? Do you really believe the internet is pointless, and America is a police state, if people in a public laundromat aren't allowed to view Kobi Tai in compromising positions?
Obviously, questions like "How much does it block" and "How far can this be taken" are valid, and need to be dealt with. At the same time, however, you cannot expect every person to deal with a powerful tool like the internet in a responsible manner.
Kids are as much a victim of human nature as adults are: if you put them on a computer and tell them not to look for smut, they'll eventually go looking for it anyway, if only to see why you said that in the first place. You could make the argument, I suppose, that seeing smut really isn't harming a child. I'm not a child psychologist (nor do I play one on TV), so I won't comment on that. The fact remains, however, that the vast majority of society WOULD see that as harmful to a child: they'd also see it as offensive if displayed openly in a public place (that doesn't have a 2 drink minimum, anyway).
So, should we simply pull internet terminals from all public places? Of course not: why deprive people of an otherwise useful tool simply because a portion of the information is offensive to some. But there has to be some kinds of safeguards in place. And don't get me wrong: I'm not advocating the general installation of CyberPatrol or anything. All current forms of browser blocking are woefully inadequate for a multitude of reasons. But we do need some sort of system.
On the gripping hand, quitting your job and publicaly stating your reasons can often do far more to change attitudes than simply quietly working within the system.
The message may be lost, however, if there's another sysadmin standing right behind you, copy of CyberPatrol in hand, screaming "Let me take care of this problem!". A sysadmin who has absolutely no problem blocking 95% of the sites out there, if it means he has the inside track on the next big networking job the school board contracts out on.
Morals and $.25 buys you a pack of gum. It also doesn't solve the problem. The children's parents aren't going to accept free, unmonitored access on school workstations, no matter how much you talk to them about censorship, free speech, and illegal blocking. All they care about is that Dick and Jane can't get to "that smutty stuff on the Internet". Better to have someone in the process who believes in free speech and such, than someone who's just going to give them what they want, no questions asked.
Newsgroups are easier to filter than web pages. They don't change as much, they're better categorized (even with crossposting) and you can completely and thoroughly block them by restricting access to servers that don't carry the ones you don't want. Doing so you'll block all but a tiny fraction of the porn out there (people posting porn, mostly ads, to non-porn, completely irrelevant groups and binary groups).
Consequently, there's not much for anyone to be concerned with there.
Sign me up!
What kid do you know that isn't already infected with the BUY BUY BUY syndrome? Have you seen cartoons lately? They exist with the sole purpose of getting kids to whine enough to their parents so that they will buy them this toy so they will shut up and be happy for a minute or two.
Heck, try going to a department store or the mall during Christmas.
Or even take a look at school teaching materials. How many learning materials use commercial cartoon characters? Do you think they are there just to make the learning more enjoyable? Well, they are somewhat, but don't fool yourself into thinking that's the only reason they are there.
that the porn industry is part of the media too. Those free porno sites are there with the intent of getting people to buy stuff as well. And porn is just as addictive for some people.
As did I, redneck [i]big guts[/i] sheesh, don't they teach reeding up north anymor? Yes, this is entirely tongue in cheek (not those cheeks dammit!). I'm a redneck, I'm not a bigot, I don't even own a dodge (although I do have three cinder blocks). Also, you shouldn't confuse redneck with white trash (it's okay when Jeff Foxworthy does, cuz he's a redneck too). And yes, I realize I didn't post anonymously this time.
I think he was inferring that accusing all rednecks of being bigots is a bigotted remark. Or maybe you were merely being droll. Guess I missed it, my bad.
Oh, great, so I get to put up with Mrs. Ultra-Conservative-Christan's aversion to naked bodies? Frankly, I really don't give a shit if little old ladies can't handle seeing body parts that every normal person on the planet has.
Set the stations up to be private, and don't allow unsupervised children without a release from their parents.
It sounds nice but what will happen if someone invent the "thumbnails". A web page fill with really small pictures (around 5k) that represent people(s) having sexual intercourse. This would be pretty useful for fast download and still be able to see the porn. Who knows? I may finally cashout a little on this one.
I always been disappointed with get rich quick scams, but I know I will get rich, quick, with this scam! [homer]
No!!!! Currently at my school we've got selective access as well as surfwatch installed. It has been incredibly painful and entirely impossible to surf the net. Sure, you can request a site but it can take several days for approval. By then your projects already been marked and handed back. I just gave up with that and began doing all my research at home. As well Surfwatch has been incredibly annoying to deal with with some essays. I had to do one on Confucianism and it blocked virtually every single site. Why in the world would something like this need to be blocked? I just pity the poor people without home net access
Face it.. Your going to get roasted one way or another by the radical groups at the end of the spectrum. The best option is to make a list and take exceptions on a case by case basis. You will never find a way to make the whole world happy, the best you can do is the best you can do.
Dirty Pirate Hooker
"i can't imagine a teen going to a laundro-mat for entertainment
Hmmmm.... Maytag...laundry soap....dryer sheets....change machine....Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Dirty Pirate Hooker
I think the idea of the project was to allow disavantaged people to access the internet. The type of system you sujest seems far more restrictive an anoying than the inefective filtering systems in place now. How could the users sujest sites if they are not allowed to freely browse in the first place? Many sites also work as a portal, a page apears within a page. could these be handled? If anyone has seen my ten foot pole, I have something I don't want to touch.
Dirty Pirate Hooker
IANA-technogeek, but I'm surprised that there is no way to set up a new top level domain say ".sex" and then use the domain name registry system to enforce a segregation of all the porn sites into this domain. Violators could have their domain names dropped from the top level domain-name servers or treat them like spammers and use a blacklist. ISPs could then collectively banish violators. Once segregated, filtering becomes trivial.
It's only censorship when it's government-imposed, and when there is no alternative way to access the information. The US government, for example, censors child pornography; it's illegal to posses it or make it. THAT is censorship, and even in the US, a certain amount of censorship is accepted.
But a private group that blocks porn sites from its employees is not practicing censorship. Likewise, a community group that decides what to allow certain things on their network is not practicing censorship. When it's done voluntarily by the citizens, it's called "having taste."
And the First Ammendment does not require private parties to lack taste. That would be a restiction on freedom, and a rather severe one at that. The First Ammendment does greatly restrict the government's power to impose its will, thankfully, but it does not restrict private citizens.
It's not like you would be saying "we believe nobody should have the right to look at pornography" by blocking access to certain sites, just be upfront about it. Since minors have access to the machines, certain sites are blocked. I think any reasonable minded person would respect that.
If someone wants to check out www.sluttypants.com, then they are free to do so.... elsewhere.
Certainly some legit sites will get filtered out but this is something you just have to work with as best you can. (How many people will be doing breast cancer research in a laundromat?)
- Toby
I do not know how hard/tedious this would be. I also do not know how broadly you need the net access to be.
That out of the way...
Can you, instead of 'censoring out' the 'bad' stuff, set up a way to only allow access to allowed sites. I am thinking about Apple's 'KidSafe' service. Apparently they have a list oa 'approved' sites that can be accessed. If a site is not on the list, you can not get there.
I was just thinking that you can add to the list of approved sites ad the need arises, and as the use increases, you may find your work getting MORE accurate and useful as people keep recommending 'clean' sites and they get added.
It is rather harder to do the opposite and keep track of the latest pr0n sties.
As I said,
Just a thoght.
Tom
Reality does not happen until you analyze the dots. -Don DeLillo (Underworld)
Actually, they also block sites that schools don't want for their students; for example, you can't get to the "Download AOL Instant Messenger Now!" page.
I don't think we're defining "pedophile" correctly.
A man who is attracted to 14, 15, 16 year old girls is "normal". It's normal human sexuality to start being attracted to girls, well, pretty much as soon as they start menstruating and growing breasts. 200 years ago, it was expected that a 14-year-old girl get married (usually to an older man) and start having kids.
A pedophile is someone attracted to prepubescent children. Nine-year-olds, five-year-olds, two-year-olds. This sort of attraction doesn't have, as far as I know, a biological purpose. It's something weird that happens to a person's psychology. Whether it's a genetic or environmental condition, I'm not sure, but I'm pretty sure it's not "choice". I've known some pedophiles, and most of them also had ADD, manic depression, major depression, OCD, or any combination of the four.
For Disney to portray 20-year-olds as 15-year-olds with bare midriffs isn't a perversion of nature. They've just realized they can make money by showing us images that appeal to our normal, biological sexuality.
"Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he deems himself your master."
i also live in indianapolis (and actually i just followed the mayor around with a camera today for my tv show) and bart peterson is a real asshole.. just to let everyone else know, our mayor passed a city ordinance saying that any violent video game could not be displayed in a place accessible to anyone under 18. another bullshit ordinance he is working on is a replacement for the state curfew law that was just removed for being unconstitutional. it makes me sick when politicians fight against the bill of rights to get something done. well anyway, since i had the chance, i let him hear some of my libertarian views...
Umm... try again. 16-year-olds are legal in 34 states of the Union. Not to mention considerably more liberal laws in much of the world.
here's some details for you
my sig's at the bottom of the page.
Here's what you do: hire another employee, preferably a nice conservative retiree. Position the employee to have full view of all computer monitors (use mirrors and cameras as necessary. Give this employee a ruler, wet noodle, wooden cane, or some other non-lethal weapon. Instruct employee to hit underage customers over the head when they view porn. Problem solved.
not beeing any sort of software engineer I may not see the full picture but it would seem to me that blocking the language used by porn sights would be the answer i.e. a breast cancer site wont have referance to tits and a male health site wont have a referance to cock. Conversly I have not yet seen a porn site that refers to breasts or penii. Anyway if the little buggers find a way to get to porn after that, they're going to get it no matter what you do.
Why don't the headlines ever read 'Psychic wins lottery'
I seem to recall having this same conversation a few weeks ago over a wise-crack I made about Canadians... multiple replies came in from Canadians who thought it was pretty damn funny, along with a few comments from whiners like you who are just way too sensitive.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Although I have never meet any personally, I'm sure there are seven or eight rednecks out there that are not bigotted white trash. They might even wear socks and would refrain from leaving an old Dodge on cinder blocks in the front lawn.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
If they did set something like this up at the library, I would hate to be the librarian who has to squeegee the CRT monitors in the "adult" room at the end of the day.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
(Dry wit is so lost on the /. crowd sometimes.)
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Hey morons! I was deliberately making a bigotted comment by calling white southerners bigots. Some of us (mostly among those of us with an education) find this kind of humor amusing.
Next time, I will be sure to include a dick joke or two so some of the humor will be directed to your sort of attention span.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Niven & Pournelle, The Mote in God's Eye, yes? Please reply - these things drive me mad...
nal 11
- Do you block access to certain phone numbers from the pay phones in the laundromat?
- Do you prevent people from saying or discussing certain topics in the laundromat?
- Do you monitor what reading materials people bring into the laundromat? Can people bring objectionable material into laundromat? If so, who decides what is objectionable?
If you do any/all of these things, go ahead and block, filter, and screen away. Otherwise, look at this as just another channel and let people do what they will. If someone challenges you and fighting it matters enough, you should have no trouble setting up a legal defense fund and getting First Amendment expertise. Somebody has to sit at the front of the bus. Good luck.Someday a Slashdot ID of 177180 will mean something.
Besides blocking legitimate images, such as Hubble photographs (as another user noted), it will prevent users from visiting many, many sites with "dynamic" content. I've found several pages that contain absolutely no real text; nearly all the copy present was displayed in a GIF image.
Think of all the sites with javascript that change navigational GIF images to "ON" or "OFF" whenever you click or do a mouseover. Most of the sites that rely on flashy techniques-- and I hesitate to use the word "flashy," as now it's pretty much standard fare-- are designed by developers with no time or interest in providing friendly "ALT" tags for every image or menu.
Accessibility has become more of a luxury.
I had this same discussion with my sister, and illustrated by reviewing the source code of a site of her choosing: Lane Bryant
It appeared that, if she browsed it with a text-based browser, she could see the title bar... and that was it. Images are integral to the web now, like it or not.
There is never any reason to block porn from children. Sex is natural. It happens. Some (myself included) would even go as far as arguing that it's a good thing.
But won't a child's mind be corrupted by such lewd displays?
no more than it may be corruped by repressive right-wing fundamentalist ideology.
But aren't we encouraging the explotative porn industry by allowing children access to these materials?
It is true that the porn industry is rather explotative of women (and some animals, I suppose), but then - so is the textile industry, and no one seems to suggest that we walk around naked since workers' wages are low and they get no social benefits...
But children arent ready for exploring sexuality until they're 18/21/married/in jail with a muscular cell-mate/whatever.
Yeah, right. It's parents who are not ready... ready to admit their children can't live up to some medieval angelic catholic ideal of purity and chastity.
But won't the violence inherent in some pornographic content cause children to commit violent acts?
1. Oh, you mean like joining the U.S. army and bombing Serbia back to the stone age? (or in my case: joining the Israeli army and gunning down Palestinians in the occupied territories)
2. The cause of most violent crimes is the downtrodden perpetrator's being too poor to care about the well-being of others.
3. There's far more voilence in the evening news than in 2 naked people tying each other up with leather straps while moaning and panting.
Just tell the laundromat people that after careful studies, you have deduced that the blocked keyword list should be empty.
I do not wish to remove from my present prison to a prison a little larger. I wish to break all prisons. -R.W. Emerson
Riigghhtt
I love vegetarians - some of my favorite foods are vegetarians.
Your post (while funny) smacks of irony that you probably didn't even understand yourself. (Now I'll be the one to get marked troll!)
Bite my yammer.
My point precisely.
Bite my yammer.
Is this your own company, or are you a hired gun? If you are a paid schmo like the rest of us, I would bet that your employer is more interested in your technical skills than your ideals. That's their right; they hired you to do the work *they* want done.
If you don't like it, hit the road, Jack. There are plenty of good jobs out there, and lots of cool projects that don't have anything to do with censorware.
It turns out that sex occurs quite often in url encoded sites, especially dejanews. All of a sudden I couldn't get access to deja and it took one heck of alot of effort to get security to apply some more intelligent patterns (which I was happy to supply them with).
My thoughts on proxy filters is this, why not support a passive proxy instead of a proactive one. Logging can be much more effective than blocking but I guess that would support freedom of speech at the sake of personal privacy. It's a slippery slope...
-- Good judgement comes with experience. -- Experience comes with bad judgement.
-legolas
i've looked at love from both sides now. from win and lose, and still somehow...
I do not have any good advise to offer. This issue is not cut & dried. I had to deal with the same thing a few years back, enabling internet access for a local college.
.binaries groups - an easy decision. The college's policy ruled out *.sex. Ended up going for five, Comp., News., Rec., Misc., IEEE., and alt.sysadmin.recovery for me.
In that case I had to decide which news-groups to carry. Our lack of bandwidth ruled out the
In those days we were not running any kind of www proxy. The powers decided that the students had to sign an AUP before Internet access was granted. Part of the form said that there will be no viewing of P0rn. If this was violated, I had to pull the student's internet access and refer the person to the Dean. Always hated having to do this.
I guess the bottom line is that the college was paying my salary so they got their policys enforced. I do agree that viewing P0rn in a public lab is a bad thing (even though every student was > 18) but I did have a hard time justifying, to myself, the lack of a full newsfeed (except the binary groups). This issue still causes me a great deal of confusion. I am so glad I don't sysadmin for that place anymore.
-- Spammers: My E-mail server is in California. Consider yourself warned.
You should be very careful and thoughtful about the wordlist (as is obvious). But to be sure I would write a program that would allow you to allow access to unnescisarily blocked sites through the use of a password, which would be controlled by some sort of attendant.
Rather than try to block porn sites (which is basically an impossible task -- as many others have posted), just post a notice that "the terminals are in a publics place and shouldn't be used to look at things that would offend other patrons." If they fail to play by the rules, post thier name on a public list. You might also implement a fine system for anybody who draws complaints about what they are looking at.
An engineer who ran for Congress. http://herbrobinson.us
Also, the relative content might be a clue on the the content of the piece.
A porn site has lots of pictures, and some text. The text will be sexual in nature, describing actions and attributes. Thus catch words will be in higher concentration, then that of a site which has a study on effects of pornography. The study may have the same words, but the relationship between those words and other words, will be smaller. Plus the study may have far fewer graphics than a porn site.
Although harder to navigate, porn sites in other languages, can be deemed ok by filtering.
One easy thing to do is to use social pressure. Have the terminal screens open to the public (nobody has their back to a wall while using the internet.) Have users know that porn and stuff is off limits, and allow custodians to bar anyone reading porn. The people finding porn by mistake can quickly click out, and those who linger, loose use of the machine.
Erudicated porn sites...
Inserting, I mean interesting.
How much access to the entire span of web sites should be measured against an acceptable rate of failure to prevent browsing of porn. There are two ultimate approaches - 1) allow all sites/URLs except those you have indexed (either yourself or a ready-made index. 2) principle of least privilege. block all sites/URLs except those you've deemed necessary.
2) is a real hassle - an administrative nightmare. but the chances of porn popping up are near zero.
1) isn't so bad because there are already lists of sites with 'bad' content, so you have a baseline - but this still requires maintenance and is not fail-proof. Pron will be seen by the kiddies occasionally. No, I don't know where to find such a pron filter index off the top of my head, but they exist.
With parenting, there is no One True Way. There is no 'Doing this will give your child this' set of instructions, except from someone's percieved idea, and I'm sorry, those don't always fit the situation. This is what I refered to with there being no handbooks on how to raise a child.
Have one kid, you probably screwed it up. Have two kids, the second may come out better than the first. It's a trial and error thing for most parents, because they don't take heed of other people saying this is the best way. Who knows the best way? Noone. Some may have ideas, but every kid is different, meaning each rearing process must be different.
Ya, parent's make mistakes, and often times, parent's don't care. THOSE are the parents that I think are being refered to. Ones that view their child as a chore rather than a cherished posession. They view it as work, not as something fun to do. Those are the parents that SHOULDN'T BE PARENTS, because they don't have the desire, the drive, nor the attitude to raise a child to function well in society. They just don't care.
Just make sure the concept of "appropriateness" is well defined beforehand.
our normal, biological sexuality.
That's a very dangerous statement to wave around in most of the United States. Where law draws the line on sexuality betwen child and adult is 18 in most places, but biologically, it could easily be negotiable. I've always wondered why it differs from state to state, and what the discussions are like that surround the issue.
I also wonder if these discussions will eventually land us all in jail when the GOP seizes power of all three branches of government.
---
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
The best solution will eventually be to give the porn sites their own TLD (e.g., .adult instead of .com), and heavily penalize them for stepping outside of their designated "channel". This will make it trivial to filter out all sites ending with ".adult" and pretty much render censorware irrelevant.
Given that blocking software is ostensibly meant to block sexually explicit sites, my point still stands. In cases where a public library or other public access site is required to monitor the use of the Internet, the filtering of a TLD will make the use of censorware unnecessary, and still leave legitimate channels of information open. This is what the topic was about in the first place: control of public access, not private parental control. Perhaps I should have been more specific.
As far as parents using censorware? There will always be those parents and other adults who will abuse the software with the intent to deprive kids of legitimate sources of information. This doesn't really bother me too much. In an age where we are inundated with information, anybody who really wants to know the truth will find a way. Short of welding your kids into a steel cage I don't see how you can stop them. Hell, for that matter, you pretty much described my parents - fundamentalist Christians who would seize and destroy any reading material (this was long before the Internet) that they felt violated their closely-held beliefs. It was painful to bear, but it never stopped me from obtaining and reading whatever I pleased, just as censorware will never really stop kids from viewing whatever they please on the Internet. The points of access are far too numerous for a parent to reasonably expect to control, without resorting to the use of the above-mentioned steel cage.
The best content filter is the human mind.
It is the only one that is necessary and the only one that should be used... Preferably, the human mind of the user. Who are you to tell anyone what they can/should/can't/shouldn't be looking at?
If you must, you can monitor usage and have staff members intervene when someone is viewing an "inappropriate" site. At least in this case, if we're to be policed, it's by other human minds, and not dumb technology.
Stand firm.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Why do you expect customers to pay you for limited Internet access? When you say "display pornography", do you include written material? Do you include maxim.com? What about hate speech on the web? Bomb making web sites?
Anyone who has read any serious analysis of censorware should know it is completely ineffective. Using it in a site where customers pay for your service will only result in their going elsewhere. If the nearby junior high school's parents' fears are a legitimate business concern, then you should relocate.
One possible solution might be to have a policy that customers may not disturb or offend other customers. Then your problem boils down to a slightly stickier version of the problem all cafe owners face.
Or you could install filtering, not announce it, and cross your fingers. That's a real-world approach that often works, sadly enough.
Let make some routines search on really broad stuff, completely irrelevent to pr0n.
s &hc=2&hs=640
s =185
I need to check the Yellow pages, lets search for them!
Keyword: Yellow Pages
http://google.yahoo.com/bin/query?p=Yellow+Page
Rank #11 we get The hun Yellow pages a really huge pr0n site.
Lets try to find the adventure game Rama!
Keyword: Rama
http://google.yahoo.com/bin/query?p=rama&hc=2&h
Rank #2 Link-o-rama is another big pr0n site.
I think we get the idea here. It is really unfortunate, but thats the way it is.
wiZd0m
More importantly one this happens a few times no one will look up porn any more, so monitoring has a far more effective success rate than blocking.
In this particular situation only three people were pulled up before the problem ceased to exist.
If I had used blocking then students would take this a challenge so try and try till they get through, which they eventually will.
Steven Murdoch.
web: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/sjm217/
Don't list all the sites they can't get access to...just list the sites they CAN get access to. I know this is REALLY clunky. but it would work. All of the .edu and .gov sites should be ok. Then probably most of the .org sites. If you really want to keep them from getting at porn or other obscene material, make SURE you ban all chat rooms.
Aze
You are only young once, but you can stay immature indefinitely.
> and also sites that are incorrectly blocked.
agree completely! Our college tried to install a content filter first on porn, then MP3 sites, Napster and the like...
When people started using anonymizer to access these sites, they blocked anonymizer.com
rewebber.com was next and now many other redirect sites and proxies have become popular with the users. (and some are getting blocked, but never all...)
I suppose you could try and keep a system like this tight, but then what do you do to Google and their cache???
I don't think there is a way to stop undesired content being accessible from the internet short of having a positive list of allowed sites, which does seriously undermine the usefulness of net access.
The problem with keeping and checking logs or having the terminals in public view is that people might not like to look up information about breast cancer or STDs when they know they're being looked at... (Same reason teenagers would not buy contraceptives in the local drug-store in a small town). I certainly don't like the idea of someone looking at what I'm reading.
When you call me ugly, you are name-calling. When I call you stupid, I prove it by quoting you.
then, you would agree that the deterent that porn-filtering software provides is also useful? See? That's how you stay on a thread. And, btw, you left out other reasons based on both game and legal theory.
You assume knowledge of your opponent's thoughts and motives that you can't really support by referencing what he actually wrote. May I suggest that you use your incipient psychic powers to deduce what I think of your posturing.
ah, you're just a blowhard, and one who's just plain wrong. Go back and read the thread: I only started calling people stupid after I spent time quoting and refuting them and they just repeated the same arguments over again. You on the other hand completely lost track of the matter under discussion and never discussed your incredibly perceptive theories about filtering.
how to have a discussion, 101: if his meaning hinged on your interpretation, he could simply have clarified it with a post. he didn't. So to jump in later with a nitpick seems ... well, futile.
It's not for you to decide why someone should be bothered by something, especially if you can't be bothered to keep your own reasoning straight.
Aren't you jumping in here and attempting to pass judgement on what should and should not bother me, and thereby failing to keep your own reasoning straight all within the confines of one sentence? You truly are not as smart as you think you are.
If you want to get all philosophical, much CS research goes into getting computers to do human-like things like recognizing pictures, and deriving meaning from text. If those are futile causes, then so is porn-filtering. If you don't think they are futile, then shut up. The rest of your hand-wringing is self-serving, smacking of the wishful thinking of one who wants porn to be readily available. Yes, that's a perfectly valid position, I've no problem with it, but it taints your arguments about efficacy.
Dear Lord, deliver me and Slashdot from the hordes of morons.
I think you meant to say, "where the derivative of the utility function is zero"
so many people consider so many different things obscene that it's really impossible to do this kind of thing, and that's the real issue.
That's not the real issue. It's the real truth that it's impossible to do perfectly, or to please everyone, but you go too far when you conclude that therefore nothing can be done. As a very loose analogy, it is incredibly easy to break into virtually any suburban house by busting a window. Yet, people still put locks on the doors, because it both sends the message "that's against the rules" and it does deter some number of people.
obviously you're just set in the opinion that 'censorware serves a purpose' and you can't see outside of that. so there's no sense in this discussion.
Oh yeah, like this statement applies to me more than it applies to you. You are set in an opinion on one end of the spectrum ("futile") while I am in the moderate middle, believing that filters work as well as they work.
but you give yourself away at the end. You are against censorship, but you try to use the argument that filters don't work to undermine them. But if they really don't work, and you are against them, why do you care? They wouldn't do any good anyway. I think you care about them because you are afraid that they work.
BTW, I have not taken a position on the question of censorship, publicly financed or privately. I just get annoyed at shallow arguments with a hidden agenda.
This could create some interesting games :
Gather a couple of friends and dare them to view dirtier and dirtier sites.
The first to ring the alarm loses.
Randomly clicking links might work too.
"Public humiliation" Russian roulette anyone ?
You could use a more client-side approach if your surf-terminals are running on Windows. There are many tools like NetNanny or similar.
scan the javascript and ban anything that loads up a window on close/change page, or more than say.. 2 windows on load.. (have to leave some on-loads for those silly tripod member's pages :P)..
that should probably get a good number of the porn sites:) (not to mention most of the warez sites)..
of course it wont kill the major ones (playboy, etc) that bankroll themselves, but itll stop all those annoying overly-banner-ad-imbued sites :P..
The only way I see being able to block porn-type sites is blocking certain ones. There is no way of doing it without censoring suitable material. Even if you think you have one, it will only be a matter of time before someone finds a way of getting around it. Blocking sites like http://www.whitehouse.com which kids could goto accidentally would be the best solution. Protect them from accidentally coming onto it. If they want to see porn, most likely what ever you do, they'll find a way of getting to it. The good news is that most kids are too embarrassed to goto a site like that.
Either way it's next to impossible to accomplish.
The problem seems to be with trying to pre-censor the connection. What if instead the workstations were to warn that all internet traffic is monitored and then have accountability for each workstation by login id. Then have the firewall track all the requested URLS. Then if someone is found to be using the connection to look up porn (using the I know it when I see it logic) they can be banned or warned or whatever. If the expected behavior is clearly outlined and the fact that what you use the internet for could be reported back to the parents that should cut down on a lot of the problems.
I got the statistic mainly from personal observation, and a paper read at Church 2 Sundays ago. Not the most reliable sources I know, but statistics are statistics and can be easily manupliated by anyone.
Nick
Yes, we are talking about childred as young as 12 or 13. And, 12 is the average reported age then males begin to be sexually active in the U.S. whereas the age for girls is 13. If they are sexually active I doubt looking at pr0n is going to scar them, but rather it might give them some new and different ideas. Yes, this might be shocking to those of you in who have been living in the real world for some time, but as a 17 year old this is the absoulte truth. People have sex eariler then age 12 too, and they don't completly understand it (due to our prudish sex education in this country), but it happens more then you might like to think...
Nick
11 year old porn? Big hair, neon panties, and mirror balls no thanks mister...
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
I garantee you the junior high school kids across the street know plenty of what the porn industry could teach them already... and where they don't, they could definitely use the education. They'll be giving eachother oral sex whether or not the big bad internet shows them how to do it, and a little open communication could go a long way towards dispelling all the stupid myths and fears that get people so hung up later on. We wouldn't have all these stigmas in our society if we didn't see catering to them as a necessary fact of life in the "real world".
Then again, I'll still be here pontificating like a fundamentalist ass if you quit your job and get replaced by someone who just slaps on NetNanny or some equally inane solution. So compromise if you must, but please please don't give up on finding some way to push the boundry. A lot of us are suffocating in here.
So its true -- people really do buy porn from the airport book stores.
-A. Aria
The pluses were it was easy to install and administer, it gave pretty good reports, and it worked well from an HR perspective. Minuses included sometimes buggy software, reports that didn't always run, and price. It does run with Microsoft Proxy Server as well.
I think a solution like this can be helpful, because they maintain the URL database for you. I'm not saying that this is the greatest solution in the world (I realize that the number of registered domain names will constantly expand past anyone's ability to catagorize them.), but I think it could work. If you could combine a url database with a method for sending blocked url's to an administrator for review, I think it will get close to what you want. This way, you could disallow access to things that might be legitimate (like the breast cancer example), and then grant access when it comes up.
Still, with a plan, you only get the best you can imagine. I'd always hoped for something better than that. -CP
For those who understand the nudist lifestyle, you know that it is very much a family-oriented non-sexual environment. However due to the extensive use of the words nude and naked in the pornography industry, we nudists are inappropriately lumped together with these sites by search engines and directories. This creates confusion of our lifestyle for those researching it online, but it also means that "safe" search engines and web services tend to block legitimate, legal nudist sites that happen to contain the words nude, naked, etc. Please keep this in mind when trying to provide a blocking or filtering service, since they usually obscure our window to the public.
It's interesting to see the different attitudes about sex in different cultures. In some places in Europe, for example, it's completely legal and accepted for a child to buy pornography from a street vendor.
The problem is, America has an irrational dichotomy about sexuality. On one hand, America is fascinated by sex, behaving like a 14 year old boy on the subject. On the other, sex is still seen, albeit implicitly, as something 'naughty', something dirty to be hidden from the public eye because it is 'inappropriate'.
I think America needs to grow up. I think it's time to ask ourselves, why is sex a taboo topic when it comes to children? For that matter, why is it taboo for anybody? What exactly are we afraid of?
Let's say, for example, that there are no controls on the web browsing in the laundrimat. Middle school kids will come in and look up pornography. Fine. What harm is that to anyone? Will the students be transformed into sex-crazed lunatics as a result of seeing, most likely, a few sets of heaving breasts?
I place the fault of this absurd American attitude squarely on the shoulders of parents who over-shelter their children. It is true that kids need to be protected from harm, but I think the best protection is understanding. I think we should explain 'The Birds and the Bees' to children as young as possible, so that, when the time comes, they will be more comfortable with the changes going on in their bodies, and more likely to be able to handle sexuality more maturely.
Of course, no son of mine is going to look at that perverted, disgusting nonsense! Excuse me for ending this early, but there's a good movie on one of the Nipplevision channels.
Back off, man. I'm a scientist.
No actual filtering, but you could use security cameras to post pictures of people who have been viewing inapproprate material to a bulletin board in the store. There are several methods of detecting these people, but store staff would have to decide when it was intentional (repeat offenders, etc.). But really... who would want to be known as "one of the laundromat p0rn-boys"
-ictatha
"There was trouble in the forest..." - RUSH
"... the advance of civilization is nothing but an exercise in the limiting of privacy" - Janov Pelorat
Entirely true. The genie is very much out of the bottle. I remember I used to access the net at the NYPL, and there were invariably pictures of sweaty naked men left over on the machine when I got to the terminal.
But why would that be? In this case, I think that ideals win out, and the "real world" quits the field. Consider the real question here: will the in/availability of pr0n really have any effect on teenage sexuality? Really? I pity them either way.
If your troubles are legal in nature, have people show ID or get parental permission. Otherwise there is no compromise on this issue.If you believe that information can be dangerous, then by all means, censor. But don't stop with pr0n. Neo nazis. Black Israelites. Anarchists. IRS.gov. Bomb makers. Gun advocates. Barbie. CNN.
If humankind can know good from evil, teach it. If they cannot, then who would presume?
Zarathustra is like a great wind. Beware of spitting against that wind.
Kill, Tux, kill!
rather than try to find keywords, which will never work, limit users to a set of sites. This is very limiting...but that's what you want. All .gov, .mil, .edu sites are probably safe.
Besides as you said these are very none tech types so they won't know the difference. And if someone has a site added have a moderated procedure to do so.
Laundromat guy: Yeah, right this way. Here you go, surf all you want. Oh, by the way, please don't view all the images of hot naked ladies in various sexual poses. Thanks.
Junior high school kids: uh, okay...
Yes, and while we're at it, let's gather a bunch of hungry wolves around a pile of bloody meat and tell them to stayyy.... good boys...
Face it, giving people access to the internet and then trying to arbitrarily block out certain sites is an idea that is doomed to fail. Censorware and blocking software is nowhere near 100% effective and probably never will be. If you are that concerned about pr0n, I suggest you set up a local network with copies of popular web sites and just let them browse locally. This will allow them to become familiar with the basic concepts of the internet without exposing yourself to irate parents and such.
--
www.scorbett.ca
what my school did.
They set up a proxy that would block
most of the crap that they would not
want you to be looking at in the school Library.
When a blocked site came up,
it asks for an administrator password.
The person call the admin over,
admin enters the password.
And, if the site is not something that they
would want anyone to know they are looking at
moral objection would keep them from calling
the admin over.
of course, the admin can also decide if the content
is cool with the computer use contract they make you sign.
anyway, it seems to work, (until someone keylogs) and there are no problems as long as someone doesnt find out the password.
and if your a good admin, you change those regularly anyway.
Besides, this breaks the usefulness of the net in a major way. No diagrams, no figures, no pictures? Relatively useless.
We just couldnt allow our children to look at the porn that is ONLY appropriate for us adults. So porn is out. And everyone knows that violence in the media is the single cause for all real violence these days so no violent material. There are always thoses sites that teach you how to make bombs, none of those. And if we let use napster at school they wont use the computer for anything else, so no mp3 related sites. We wouldnt want our children using dirty words so no sites with profanity. Ooops, I just banned /. My, that was just a little to easy....
"Cornflakes are not the innocent critters they seem"- Sterling Morrison
Only allow access to approved sites. Block everyone, except those on your approval list. This way you don't have to worry about new sites, as no one will be able to get to them.
As for what do you do when your morals meet the demands of business? Stand by your morals (it has cost me jobs in the past, but at least I can live with myself).
Don't let Mapplethorpe (or any other artist regarding their own work, for that matter) hear you saying his work doesn't have any effect.
>
No relation to Happy Monkey
In this particular case, blocking all porn without taking out 90% of the net is pretty much impossible, and you should make that emphatically clear. If they want to censor, they'd best be prepared for the consequences. You can't argue against the censorship directly, but you can demonstrate how much of a pain in the ass it is :)
"I live in a world of make-believe, with faeries and leprechauns and tiny little frogs with funny hats."
Post a sign that says people are responsable for their children and responsable for what they look at and that the business has no control over what people view. If people took responsability for themselves and their children this wouldn't be an issue
if you don't want kids and sheltered adults from finding porn 'on accident' *cough* then the simple solution is don't give them net access.
/very/ inconvenient, but is implimented in some libraries/schools is to have a librarian or other staff member assist all internet access, or do it themselves, and then print out the relevant info. this is really a silly way of doing it, though.
What about the vast business and educational opportunities that the web presents? There must surely be a way to tap this without exposing the users to harmful influences.
This is the problem that's been facing China (as in the People's Republic), where I live, and I think they've handled it nicely; managing to block most shady sites. They do, of course, also block a few places like the New York Times, but you win some, you lose some. And I don't see the NYT as that big a loss, personally.
there is no form of blocking, automatic nor manual that is foolproof. if you go with automatic, either you end up blocking things you'd rather have available, or you miss some of the porn.
Go for automatic. If something important enough was wrongfully blocked, somebody will bring it to your attention so you can put it on a manual "allow" list.
for manual, you just simply can't keep up with all the porn sites.
Use automatic.
the only 'possible' solution, which is
Come to think of it, this might even be better than blocking: why don't you just make it clear that staff members will be conducting random spot checks on library patrons? One getting busted every now and again would serve to keep people in line. ("Kill the rooster to frighten the monkey," and all that.)
That would probably work much better than any blocking system, and wouldn't be such a drain on staff resources.
This post has been moderated as funny (and rightly so), but it's actually not a bad idea.
It'd be pretty easy to write a CGI script that replaced all objectionable words with "(censored)" and blocked or replaced all images on sites that contained censored words. It seems to me that it would be pretty effective at stopping all and only objectionable content. Images aren't essential to most websites (and ALT tags are pretty effective for the exceptions--use Lynx for an hour or two if you don't believe me), so if the wrong ones got blocked, it's not a big deal. Wrongly censored content, such as "(censored) cancer is a disease that affects 10 million women nationwide", would still be intelligible, while rightly censored content, like "He (censored) her (censored) with the (censored) (censored) (censored)", is rendered more or less unintelligible, or at least mostly harmless. If you can decipher it, then you don't really need to be "protected" from it in the first place.
The original Howling Frog is a fictional character and has no UID.
Maybe it's just me, but does anyone else see this as not really being an issue of censorship?
It's not like this guy is going to go door-to-door shutting down goatpr0n servers to stop the junior high kiddies from looking at it - he's going to make a little tiny snip that makes it so his customers can't get off at the laundromat.
A lot of people have been saying he should stick to his guns as 'a matter of principle', regardless of technical issues - even if he had a perfect filter, they say, that could stop 100% of pr0n and 0% of legitimate contact, it's a 'freedom of speech' issue.
Last time I checked, private citizens and companies had the right of free speech, but they also have to right to ignore goatse.cx excercising THEIR free speech.
No one is being 'censored' here. Goatse.cx is still free to post all the pictures they want.
rk
The first amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Strictly speaking, free speech only applies to enforcement, or lack thereof by the federal government. If a company, group of people, or individual person desire to limit speech within their private domains, that is their perogative. It may not be beneficial for their goals, but they can do it. The poster is working at a company that wants to provide pay-per-use internet service to consumers. Limiting their access to information is not "censorship" or "evil". They are not forcing all people to use their limited services nor lobbying congress to enact speech-limiting laws. They are just providing a particularly scoped service to people. If people like the service and cost, they will make money. If not, then they will lose money. Again, what's the problem?
ShoutingMan.com
Even better, a threat that the computers are monitered (make up something about how you log all the sites that are visited). I can't imagine any deterrent that would work better than the combination of shame and the "certainty" of getting caught.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
It is by spending ourselves that we become rich.
If people hadn't tried to change the world human history would nto have changed very much in 3,000,000 odd years of evolution.
In fact in eastern philosophy animal instincts are the lowest forms of thinking but man is the only creature with true enlightment.
Animals do not have any sufficiently logical reason to advance any form of civilization. The closests things are maybe schools of dolphins or tribes of apes and they really don't keep written reccords or anything.
The world is adaptable and changeable in some form.
What would have happened to the inventor of the PC if he/she thought that it was easier not to change the world than to change it? I guess as profesdsor frink would say computers would be 10 times larger and only the 5 richest kings of Europe would have them now I guess.
Respond to s
A beaver is instinctually given a set of abilities from it's genetic structure and it's parents.
Basically it needs a home and because it has seen others build and maintain log dams and the like and because it feels "right" to do they do such.
What differentitates man is that he can do something that perhaps he wasn't originally thinking about or that he "feels" is initially correct.
For example I can spend my life living in the wilds of Afghanistan or Africa but because of my ability to reason my reasoning will essentially work for survival say in New York or Bejing. The ability of man to adapt aprart from DNA is pure biology is what makes him supreme throughout the land. Other creatures do not live they simply live long enough to reprouduce and then oftentimes they die rather rapidly after that. Not a happy life at all. Also self awareness isn't something that most animals you can name. Being sentient is a quality that is what allows for true world change.
Respond to s
Use a web of trust to validate sites that are in fact basically porn free. Make this a distributed effort and have it coordinated via multiple trusted parties for information.
Then you can take something like wget or lynx and crawl those sites for the basic data that people need for reports or other stuff regularly (say every week). Other stuff like email serivices could be prvided via known spam blocking parties (if you really don't like the *interesting* spam getting in).
Another thing would be to perhaps take a realtime network sniffer and take all url streams you come accross. Then get one of those nifty little LCD projectors and have it project the workstation number of what each prson is seeing and have it on the wall in a central location. Billy will be a little less likely looking at http://www.straponlesbians.com if he is going to have that broadcast on the wall.
Respond to s
In ecconomic theory there is a point of diminishing returns or essence the derivitive of the utility function.
If you were to totally censor a connection then it would appear very literally useless and few people would use it but it would be secure. However if it's left wide open teenage libidio would make sure that porn would be found and a number might leave thus loosing utility for many.
As many posters have said public embarassment is perhaps one of the best ways to keep rifraf inline and follow the rules.
I think that censoring anything is bad in and of itself. What should be made clear is the purpose of the computer facility in question. People really need to have a good idea of the purpose of things when they get into them.
Kind of like a Church now I don't really go to church but I would thing that in all (almost all) churches a copy of Hustler wouldn't exactly be seen as good reading material for the place.
Also at a baseball game reading War and Peace is out of place. Peer pressure is a good thing so take it to the logical extreme.
Respond to s
Either way you get screwed
Respond to s
I remember looking at what Bess was filtering at my local highschool a number of years ago and the arrogant bastards had filtered all of *.geocities.com* and all sorts of other free homepage sites.
Along with blocking the regular porn their justification for this was that on their homepage as I recall that if you have a free homepage you can use it for vulgar, profane, or pornographic speech. Naturally I got quite irritated at this. It seemed that you have to have money for you opinions to be worth a damn.
Now I personally know of a few means of screwing over proxies and filters. For one foreign language sites or sites that use non arabic derived characters (like Polish, Russian, etc) were easily able to get through. I remember getting a few jollies looking at some Polish porn site through the filter. Then there was the time that I was able to take the anonymizer proxy base url and use it to get to Playboy.com. That was damn funny.
The point is that when the shitty proxy went up I immediately began to think up ways to bypass it almost from the beginning. When you say that you are filtering anything it becomes like your mother not to look at those girlie magazanes because they are bad. What is usually the first thing that Billy does? He goes for the first porn mag he can find because it's automatically evil.
Oh and images aren't constrained to graphics pixels. Ascii art renderers such as aview can take your busty broad and convert her into letters of the ascii character set. Then with a good enough computer (any modern machine with plenty of ram will work) you can make a large dump of the image and then cut it into many pieces vertically and horizontally and make billboard size porn from this and a good laserprinter (black and white works best).
Respond to s
Or use one of those nice little broadcast utilities like netware has and flafsh a little massage box like Billy is looking at porn. Works for me
Respond to s
That's where people really fall flat. For example if you say out of the 4,000 people who I have met in Alabama 300 of them are rednecks or something liek that.
Remember sterotypes are in fact the improper application of statistics on a population without proper attribution of source or relative strength of the sample.
Respond to s
I have been around slashdot lerking on slashdot for some time never heard of it.
Respond to s
This reminds me of the "witch trials" of Salem, Massachusetts in the early 17th century. People accusing others of heineous crimes (being a witch) and people got screwed for it.
There is nothing stopping me from calling Rob Malda or William Jefferson Clinton a sex offender. But what you can be sure of is that unlike 1619 people are smarter than that. You are innocent until *proven* guilty for any crime under the sun.
It is impossible to prevent the senario you described if people instantly react. However the is a standard of reason that prevents such things.
Respond to s
They also have pokemon?? Coincidence?? I think not ;)
But seriously pedophiles really should be given some good porn and let them scuttle off to wack off to it than let them bugger another kid. Represed sexual drive and all that good Freudian stuff.
PS. How exactly are the Nielson ratings calculated? How do ratings actually work?
Respond to s
Throughout my childhood I was raised in a lower middle class family in America. In general we couldn't just buy any fool thing off the TV and so I eventually figured out I didn't need that junk and I think am a better person for it.
I can now not be tempted when some stupid pop-up banner ad or slashdot ad decides to sell me another piece of junk I don't need again for the 18th time.
Also notice the loss of effectiveness that banner ads are having and you get the general jist of it.
Respond to s
In some cultures budity isn't really seen as that bad.
What I think gradually happens is that once the shock of seeing a woman naked wares off you start to notice more of the things that mentally and socially makes her a woman instead of just the physical.
Sure I can sit all day looking at women at the train station or a bus stop, or hell even the pristine library and think about various sexual encounters with them but that gets boring really, really, really fast.
If I am married I think more of the person who I married than the body.
Respond to s
Hell yeah access to alt.sex.stories, and alt.sex.stories.moderated and others. And massive archives if my regular news server fucks up. Actually you can get really juicy stuff off deja if you look.
Respond to s
Whatever happened to community standards? Make the PCs fairly visible, and perhaps tied to the machines so people can be alerted when their wash is finished, or something.
Pr0n is all fine and dandy, but it is inappropriate to view in public, methinks. If we keep relying on censorware and such to enforce community standards, what is the point of a community in the first place? Make it a sales point of the system:
"Surf'n'wash is a public center. We are who we are because of the community that uses are machines and frequents our business. Please do not use these machines for inappropriate uses."
Make it a burden on the people who frequent; they should be shocked and dismayed, you are only offering a service, not trying to scandalize the community
The nick is a joke! Really!
GPL Deconstructed
Yes! Whatever happened to community standards and such? Public shame and propriety should be the standards, and not a computer conscience. Pr0n is good and all, but still, this is a public location!
Though this being a laundromat means there's always some danger, what with all the nylons, panties, bras, and underwear floating around ^^
The nick is a joke! Really!
GPL Deconstructed
Live, librarian-type monitoring is the only effective way to allow students to access the interesting and stimulating parts of the internet, without them getting too interested or stimulated.
"..don't you eat that yellow snow."
Sure, so you can soil your skivvies and launder them at the same convienant shop.
"..don't you eat that yellow snow."
Pr0n is the expression of our twisted, puritanical problems with s3x. When we get over the problem, the pr0n will go away. (Remember, Ja invented s3x, and I for one think it was some of Ja's best work.)
"..don't you eat that yellow snow."
Instead of selective denial, the best you can do is selective allowance.
Nice theory but impossible in practice. Unless we are talking about 5 year old kids who would be happy just looking at disney and a few other sites. After that age they want to explore for themselves. How many sites can you allow through selective allowance? 10,000? More?
The WWW is excellent for children to explore and learn things and this shouldn't be restricted by selective allowance. It is just too limiting.It removes the whole possiblity of researching new ideas. The only information that you will find will be the information that someone else has already put aside for you.
I think schools should log children's activity to show which types of sites the children have gone to. Children would then be deterred from going to Porn sites etc. knowing that teachers, parents, librarians or whoever, might find out.
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10);'
How do you reconcile this with free-expression views? Simple: with a school across the street, you don't want to be liable for any damage that the business may suffer if they get shut down by the morality police. When you have to balance free expression and being on the receiving end of the legal bureaucracy's 14-inch chubby, the choice should be obvious.
There's a time and place to take a stand to make a point; IMHO, this is not even close to the best time or place to do so.
--
www.kitchengeek.com -- Nosh for
How do you reconcile this with free-expression views? Simple: with a school across the street, you don't want to be liable for any damage that the business may suffer if they get shut down by the morality police. When you have to balance free expression and being on the receiving end of the legal bureaucracy's 14-inch chubby, the choice should be obvious.
There's a time and place to take a stand to make a point; IMHO, this is not even close to the best time or place to do so.
--
www.kitchengeek.com -- Nosh for
Provide a card to adults which will allow unfettered access. All non-carded use should be assumed to be by a child, and will allow access to a limited, pre-defined set of domains like yahoo.com, cnn.com, slashdot.org, disney.com, olsentwins.com, etc...
While this has promise, you're missing two central issues. IF you install such a card system, you have 1) sheltered adults and 2) Children who need to find reserach that may border on what normal filters would 'filter out'. You have adults of the Bible-beating Anti-Porn People (BAPP) who are ardently against anything even depicting a bare arm, and you give them an adult card, well then, shoot, adequate blocking isn't in place. BAPP is pissed and life is hell for the poor guy who was supposed to set the thing up.
2) INqusitive junior has to do a report on sexual reproduction of llamas. Now, he doesn't get the card because, well he's a minor (duh). He types in 'Sexual reproduction of llamas' in yahoo and gets one of the clever browser remarks about looking at naughty bits. Hrm.
HOw do we solve this with such arbitrary methods?
Unless we had a method to control for these extremes, cards would be a bitch for everyone involved...
DA
Witty quotes suck.
1 Troll 4:12
Ignorence is blis.
Don't let anyone look down on you because you are a 1337 h4x0r, but set an example for the lusers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity.
Ignorence is blis.
Any content based filtering (blacklist, whitelist, whatever) will limit access to useful (non-pornographic) information. Maybe a better solution would be to have the users police themselves. For example, get the email addresses and names of the parents of all users under 18. Log all usage and design software that will automatically send an email list of all domains visited during each session to the parental email address. The parents can then look through the hyperlinks, see if they object to anything the child is viewing, and then deal with the problem as they see fit. Kids don't get porn, no information is censored, and parents know exactly what their children are using the net for. Adam Larson
You suck-diddly-uck flanders
I think pedants call it "learning."
If I wanted to censor porn by keyword, then here's what I would do.
Allow words like "breast" that have frequent proper uses (for example, scientifically in a biology lesson).
Target the slang forms of words that are typically used in offensive material, such as "boobs" and "cunt".
Overblocking every occurence of "breast" is not necessary since most sites that actually cause harm (theoretical but unproven harm) would probably include the latter, nastier type.
The facts:
-It is highly inefficent to provide manual censorship [a manually created list and/or personal chaperones]
-It is highly objectionable to provide automatic censorship [too many non offensive sites will be blocked. also, definin offensive is tricky]
-Many leaders, authorities, and citizens demand censorship for varying degrees of people at varying levels.
The solutions:
-If a parent wishes their child[ren] not to see 'anughty' things, they must surpervise them, as it is unreasonable to expect someone else to enforce their opinions.
-An adult who does not wish to see 'naughty' things make elect to turn them off, ignore them, or simply leave, as it is unreasonable for them to expect others to enforce their opinions.
-[a long shot] People must learn to get over the shock, horror, and dismay at seeing another person nude and/or in mid coitus.
-={(Astynax)}=-
-={(Astynax)}=-
"Darkness beyond Twilight"
With the nature of the internet, it will never be possible to block everytghing, even if they introduce the .xxx domain. Therefore it is the responsibility of Public Web Acess administrators to keep people from accessing that material that most people, as well as laws, deem innapropriate for the Younger user.
The 'net is a haven for perverts and other degenerates of society. Remember that...
-- this
Q: How do you stop people from reading the latest issue of Swank in the laundromat?
A: You don't. People just don't read Swank in laundromats.
Q: How do you stop people from looking at pornography in a public laundromat?
A: You gotta be pretty desperate to be loading up porn in full view of other people in a laundromat.
Here's a novel approach: Put up a sign that politely asks users to be courteous of others around them. Ask parents to keep an eye on their children. Don't assume that there is going to be a problem. Give people a chance to do the right thing; they might just surprise you.
-------------
The truth is out th- oh, wait, here it is...
Porn is not allowed on xoom geocites(yahoo) an the like, and is always gotten rid of promptly.
What about artistic Nudity? It's very hard to draw the line between that and porn. Also the problem isn't the actual nudity, it's the poses. go to www.renderotic.com and you'll see what i mean. much of the stuff there is easily classified as non-pornagrapic nudity. Some bitch holding her pussy open for you to see is obisualy porn, but a photo of a nude sunbather isn't pron.
To censor the content that people can access from this network is to give people a false sense of what the internet is. In a sense, you are giving them your version of the Internet, at least as far as what you think people in your community should and should not see. Fact is, porn is part of the Internet. It's a part of life, as is all the other "undesirable" content out there. So, I think the answer is to censor none of it, rather, discourage unwanted Internet activity at your site by allowing access for specific reasons only. For example, if you wanted the students to figure out a complex engineering problem, give them access to the net for limited periods of time to accomplish that. Can you guarantee that they will not look at other sites? Nope. But, neither can you stop them from hearing about sex on the school bus or in the school hallways, nor from looking at someone's father's Playboy. However, if you were to give them unrestricted access to the machines, along with no agenda, then you are asking for trouble. I'm not saying that I think kids should be allowed to view pornography, just that they should be aware that it exists on the net. Make a rule that anyone caught with this type of content on the machine will lose Internet privelidges for a specified period of time. I think the kids would rather have some access on the "honor system" than no access. After all, everyone knows that porn on the net is strictly for the workplace, and has no legitimate place in our schools... :)
You are going to have to take a more positive approach. Listen, it is not censorship. Every library does not have every book ever published. Librarians are selective and try to be as fair as possible. Your must take the same approach, by blocking all access and then only adding URLs that have been reviewed and approved. The key is having a fair and representative board of reviewers that reflect the morals and interests of your community. You will also need a forum and process for allowing constituents to protest and appeal decisions. Pornography is not for children. Period. { If Pornography is not for children Then we must protect them from it Else We will be uphappy with the society that results End If }
You say that as if the internet is the only vechial in which this type of content is carried. Do you realize that there are more TVs in the us than there are telephones.
Children and adults alike are bombarded by this corprate "buy buy buy" culture. TV, Raido, Billboards, stores, friends, even the schools promote this when a big sponsor makes a donation. I remember my high school passing out Nike flyers all the time because they made a contrubiution.
The only realy way to keep children from being totally controlled by such things if by active supervision. You cannot rely on V-Chips and Proxies to raise them for you. If you are not willing to raise them with values and to make them understand what all the stuff thrown at them really is then you may not be taking your full responbility as a parent.
The only real, contol, proxy, or vchip is your own mind and spirt.
Manitcor
"Don't mess with him, he taunts the happy fun ball."
Good thing they're relative uncommon in cgi scripts, huh!
Yes, your name is Steve Richards, and you live in China. I'm sure.
It seems we have a new breed of human evolution now: the whink (the white chink for those who aren't very intelligent). And I thought we saw the end of cultural crossing with wiggers =|
Help me through college please!
Actually, I think any well educated person becomes racist. For our entire LIVES we're told that we're different. And know what? We are.Our bone structures, brain mass, odors, shape, size are DIFFERENT for each race. For instance, a white person and an oriental have distinctively different bone structures, and the brain mass of an average African is 3/4's that of a caucasian European. It's unrational to think that we're only different with our skin colors. Do you believe that we all evolved in the same exact way and our skin colors are just freak occurences? Each race grew up in specific habitats that made them evolve to adapt to specific problems and settings in their habitats. Do you seriously believe that someone in the jungles of South America would evolve the same as someone in the Himilayas?
These issues were addressed in two excellent books: The Bell Curve (I don't know who it was written by, but it came out of Harvard) and Race By John Baker (a professeur at Oxford). The Bell Curve did an intricate study on the break up of IQ based on race, and the differences were quite substancial. Native Americans had an average of 75, blacks were averaged at about 85, caucasians at 110, and asians at 120. Baker on the other hand, concludes that skin color is only a minor difference between races compared to other, more fundamental biological differences. Baker reviews others' writings on race, including idealists who insist the races are equal (examples: St. Paul and Jean Jacques Rousseau) and realists who know races are not equal (examples: Count de Gobineau and Francis Galton). Four chapters center on what the earliest European explorers found in Africa. They uncovered a ghastly and pitiful state of humanity. Technology was very crude, no wheel of any kind could be found, and the plentiful stone was not used as a building material. No Negrid could count beyond three. They had no word for the number four or any higher number. To Baker, a biologist, it is patently obvious. Races differ.
And to me, it is also painfully obvious: races DIFFER. I know this might be labelled as flamebait, but it's what I think is true, and I believe any rational person would agree. I don't agree with other "racists" who believe that Jews and blacks should all be murdered because they're different, but I do have enough logic to conclude that we're all different. If you're teaching your kids that everyone's equal, well, you're making your kids as painfully ignorant as you are.
Help me through college please!
erm, yes, but would these same JH kids look at nekkid ppl when potentially surrounded by their mothers? It hasn't been too long since I was in junior high, and neither I nor anyone I knew would have looked at porn in plain view of any laundromat users.
Lemurific!
I think you two are using different definitions of sexually active. The males of the age of 12 statistic is derived from a different definition of sexually activity than the one that gave the answer of 17.
[20:36] wwwdot/.dotorg
Besides, you can't censor things by definition, unless you are a government. If my students want to mess around on the internet they can go home and do it.
Of course all filtering systems are shit - home made ones are as good as any - but the logs do help us keep track of which kiddies are misbehaving.
I would check with the school and see what THEY do to filter their content. Chances are they may have computers connected to the internet, and it's possible they have filters or at least policies regarding their use. If it's good enough for them, it might be good enough for you, since it is minors you are worried about.
You ought to keep in mind that it's the combination of the buy-buy culture of the western free market and defense spending that is responsible for the bulk of the internet and high technolgy today. Even the public research universities get a substantial amount of research and equipment dollars from companies. You may have moral issues with today's materialistic culture, but you benifit from it a lot, including the ability to have a forum such as this.
Why not use some monitoring software to give a rough guess of who might be a potential abuser of your system? Maybe you could then follow that up with some more intensive look at which sites this user is frequenting? If the user is really into breast cancer (for example), then you wouldn't need to take action.
Just thought that I would let you know that your $0.02 worth made a lot of sense to me. I have had to pick my battles often and am finding that the older I get and the more money that I acquire, the more tenacious I am in sticking to my IDEALS.
Regards,
Ron
Why should everybody else be doing the parent's jobs? Parents should actually enforce a rule once in a while and tell their kids no.
Oh dear, I said it, no.
Parents today need to get a clue and start parenting. If they would talk to their children about what's "right" and "wrong" then we wouldn't have half the problems we do. Children these days are raised by technology. Television (especially the news) does't rear children.
[ ]
The problem you've got is that your got your beliefs mixed up. At home in the privacy of your home and with your own children this is the time to use your beliefs but in public that a no. You have to look at public net access as a product not as a right. If people want to see porn they can go home but in public Internet terminals should be restricted. You have to take the place of a guardian. You would not let a child watch hardcore porn on a TV but if that Childs parents let them at home that's up to them it's the same with the net.
Be honest, if your going to go ahead and do this, your 'beliefs' are in reality 'things which you consider to be a good idea.' Say that to yourself. A belief would have you refuse or quit, and you're not going to do that. Having accepted that fact, do what you must. Perhaps someday you will find something in which it is worth believing.
Actually 75% of females, and 73% of males have no had sex at age 15, and the average age of the first sexual experience is approximately 17 years, according to mangrove and terry's work, available at http://www.childtrends.org/r_ac.cfm.
Please check the stats before you post them.
----------------------------
Would you encourage your child to read http://kids.stormfront.org/? If they did, I'd want to know so I could at help them parse it, and realize that their new favorite game shouldn't become White Power Doom, and if it does, I want to know about it.
----------------------------
If someone here knew a good way to do it, they could make a pretty penny selling their solution themselves, or to one of the big name censorware companies. They haven't so far, and I think that tells you something.
The industry has tried URL lists, keywords, heck, even picture recognizition, and none of them have solved the problem to everyone's satisfaction (despited what their marketing departments will tell you).
My suggestion is to take a low-tech approach:
- Don't allow anyone under the age of 18 on the computers. Period. This will make some people mad, but I suspect not very many of your customers fall into this category.
- Put the computer in a very visible location. There is still enough of a social taboo against pornography that you can use the subtle threat of "getting caught" as a deterrent.
- State your usage policy clearly on the wall. If an employee catches someone using the system inappropriately, kick them off, revoke their account, etc.
- Scare people with a warning that "for the security of our customers" all internet usage is logged. Whether or not you actually do that is irrelevant. Again, the suspicion of being caught will work wonders.
I think this will be more successful in the long run than trying to do the impossible.In Mionnesota (and probably other states) it is illegal to view pornographcis images. Just put print out a copy of the relavent law, and in large print hang some signs "Warning, we will provide evidence to law enforcement." (Make sure you provide the evidence when you find it!)
The advantage is you don't block anything accidently. If someone wants to take a chance, that is their problem. If they think they are going to a legitmate sight and "accidently" end up at the wrong one, let the courts sort it out. (Whitehouse.com comes to mind as a potentialy accident). If you are researching breast cancer, tell that to the judge.
Just remember to make the signs big so that nobody can claim they weren't warned. And it wouldn't hurt to face the monitors towards the donut shop so cops can see it...
Remember too, most people want their porn in private. I don't know anyone who doesn't know one prude that they wouldn't want to know about their porn habbits. A public place is therefore not someplace people will be looking for porn, just go the last step to scare them away.
Sorry about the missing spaces -- they were necessary to fit the subject line into Slashdot's 50-character subject-line limit.
-----
The real meaning of the GNU GPL:
The real meaning of the GNU GPL:
"The Source will be with you... Always."
Well, you could bounce the problem to somebody already dealing with it by taking the internet feed from Mayberry.com or similar pre-filtered ISP. And IMHO, there is nothing wrong with this whatsoever as long as you make it clear to people using the service that this is a "G"-rated version of the internet. A Laundromat is not the place for unbridalled free speech; That is what the library and the university are for. When I consume television, I choose providers that have what I want. If I wanted T&A, I would choose Showtime. If I were to have a TV in the laundromat, however, it would be tuned to WGN or WTBS since T&A would unsuitable for that venue.
Dog is my co-pilot.
>If you want to give junior high kids "internet :)
>access", you know they'll go through trying every
>single porn site until they hit one that beats >your filters
Completely true. And they're smart enough to disable Java to avoid pop-ups, too. I've worked at a public access center before.
And let's not forget that the web is not the entirety of the Internet. Don't forget that there's a few orders of magnitude more porn through newsgroups than on the web, and it's far, far easier to find. Web filters don't block any of that.
There's your solution: Do whatever you're bosses want you to do, but feel safe in the fact that Usenet, email, and FTP will remain open to those users willing to take the time to use them.
i just wanted to point out another reason why keyword filtering is utterly pointless. this example comes from yesterday's quickies section. as long as the net is around and people have an interest in programming, there will be sites like l33t surfer. this site uses a CGI to reformat all the printed text on a page into "l33t speak," thus nullifying any attempts to block certain words. here is a live example to prove my point:
WARNING: the following are actual links to a real live porn site. if you are offended by graphic nudity or are underage, dont click on them. i hereby disclaim any responsibility for the consequences of following the links.
before and after filtering through the l33t surfer.
as you can see, all of the naughty words (and all the non-naughty ones as well) are pretty unreadable, but the pictures are still there. any links you subsequently follow from that page are also filtered by the CGI. observant folks will notice that the META tags used by search engines arent touched by the l33t surfer's CGI program, but im sure it would be a trivial modification to make them unreadable as well.
my point is, as long as someone can sit down and search out a filtering site like this one (babelfish anyone? try filtering porn in bad translations of several languages), keyword filtering will be futile.
--Siva
Keyboard not found.
Keyboard not found.
Press F1 to continue.
None of the posts i've seen here so far really deal with the original question. It's a good one, so i'll paraphrase it: How can you provide adults with the tools that liberate them without those tools falling into hands too young to hold them yet?
There are three main kinds of answer coming out here: social, technical and ideological.
The social ones are most interesting, to me at least. They go something like, 'build your space so that normal social pressures move people away from the behaviour you don't want to encourage'. Which is smart, but defeats the object.
apart from the getting people to choose your particular laundry object.
Let's say someone is trying to work out whether they're gay or not. Or they want to become a muslim, or find out whether their kid is disabled or not or what technically constitutes impotence. or any of a hundred other things that you or i would use the net to find out about and probably wouldn't want people looking over our shoulder while we did it.
it's too easy to think of censorship only in terms of blocks and cuts: by denying people their privacy you are censoring their access to anything that might be poorly tolerated within their community.
if there's a point, then isn't it to broaden and propagate this rich access to information, make it more than the playground of the rich and technical minority? the best thing about the net is that it's inherently agnostic about everything, and to my mind the point of the anti-censorship debate - in its practical form - is to keep it that way, despite the deep unease it creates in people whose interests are served by restricting access to information. Which is just about anybody who's trying to persuade you to buy, use or believe in something.
(which brings up a question i've always wanted to ask here: what's the point of circumventing technical barriers to freedom of information, if you don't also address the economic barriers?)
so my answer to the question is that you should instead think about the access to information that you want to create, work out how you're going to do that and only then consider what you will need to exclude in order not to get closed down, and whether you can still do the thing you wanted to do.
I used to work as a sysadmin for a university library, and we wondered about this issue for the public web access terminals we were setting up.
The librarians were a lot less concerned than we were. They told us to just leave the access completely open, and if it became a problem, we'd address the problem at that time. We were a little surprised, but were happy to not deal with the technical and ethical issues.
The librarians were right. The machines were in well-trafficked areas, usually with reference librarians nearby, and we received no reports of any problems. I'm sure some people went and viewed porn on them a few times, but if so, then the simple shoulder-tap by a librarian sufficed to handle it.
The simple fact is that most people would rather view porn privately, and porn mags are cheaper and higher-quality than paying for online access to view porn in a public place, and people who are determined to make a scene have far better ways to do so than by using an public-access terminal.
You don't bar people from bringing in magazines just because someone could bring in a hardcore mag and show it to someone's nine-year-old, do you? No; you don't expect them to do that, and if you do, you tell them to buzz off. Same goes here.
Just put the terminals out there. Avoid dark corners, try to have them facing a staff person, but don't be too paranoid about it. Post the usage policies, and specifically point them out to new users, so they have no excuse for violating them. Address problems as they arise, but not sooner.
The one thing you might want to do is make sure that the browser restarts after 5-10 minutes of idle time. The main reason for this is to avoid user confusion -- if an inexperienced user walks up to a web browser and it's showing the ESPN homepage, for instance, they will often get the impression that all the terminal can do is browse ESPN's site. (Besides, you want to have a branded homepage with good links, and you want the user to see your page and your links, not ESPN's.) But it also has the side effect of ensuring that if someone has been browsing unsuitable sites, the next user won't see them on the screen and complain.
Alan
What I'd do:
(1) start with a fairly simple solution. Something that covers the "reasonable attempt to block obscene content" hurdle and will go a little way toward staving off lawsuits.
(2) Log (anonymously -- you don't care who's accessing what) every page accessed and every page blocked.
(3) Once a week, review, say 200 each of the blocked and viewed pages. There will probably be relatively few blocked pages, anyway.
(4) If your basic rules failed on one of those pages -- a false positive or false negative -- revise your rules. Then check which of the logged pages would move across the Line Of Truth and keep tweaking the rules until you're happy.
(5) Lather, rinse, repeat.
No static solution will ever match perfectly; a responsible administrator should update the rules to adapt to new trends and to correct lingering bugs. Adapt, adapt, adapt.
--G
Amen to that, brother!
I've been asked to do similar things for the school district I work for, but thus far I have been able to stall and put it off; fortunately, it's not presently a big issue where I am.
When it gets to be, then I'll quit. Yeah, it'll suck, but it's not like I'm being asked to pick up an M-16 and go to the front lines. If your ideals are so weak that they'll fold in the face of financial hardship, why bother having ideals at all? You have to ask yourself, "If I'm willing to sell out freedom of expression in exchange for a consulting fee, what will else will I sell out, and how cheaply?"
The previous poster who suggested that refusal to compromise would lead to a miserable existence is mistaken in this instance. There are plenty of jobs available that don't involve censorship. Pick one, and sleep well.
--
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
http://www.bess.net/
before we ended up dropping the project. They offer a service where you filter Internet access to only connect to their proxy, then you set up your Web browser to use it. They worry about finding inappropriate sites, which is a full-time job for several people. They have contacts in case you catch them allowing something they shouldn't be, or blocking something they shouldn't be.
Apart from not having to maintain a list of blocked sites, the nice thing about using a service is that the user can't just uninstall Net-Nanny from the PC to get around the restrictions; the restrictions are implemented on a router they do not have access to.
I also haven't heard any stories of N2H2 blocking sites critical of them, or blocking sites that contain anything other than obscene material, although I haven't actively looked.
When I played with them, I was able to find sites that weren't on their list, but it was hard, and they may have gotten better since then.
My Web Page
I wasn't advocating doing nothing - I was advocating trying something other than censorware.
What else could attempt to keep children out of porn sites? Supervising their access is the only option I can think of, and that's going to be more expensive than censorware. I suppose you could put up signs stating that children aren't allowed to access porn, but depending on local laws, that might not be good enough.
by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
it has been quite adequately demonstrated that censorware can't and won't work.
I agree, but as a company that's providing public unsupervised internet access, you have to show that you're at least making an effort to protect underaged children from smut. That's why they put those plastic boards in front of the nudie mags at 7-11.
By not doing anything, you open yourself to a wide range of frivolous, sefl-serving lawsuits.
by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
Could it be possible to have a program intercept HTML before it hits the browser? Have the program parse though the HTML and see if meets a set of conditions for it to be censored?
For example, a simple parse of the code for porn sites not only have offensive language in them, but also have images with names like "cumshot1.jpg". A condition for to be blocked could be 5 consored words in 10, and images with blocked words. This was, even a site that may have "fuck" in it(like this thread) would go though. While "fuck my tits with hard cock" would be blocked.
Maybe you could even take this idea a step further. Have the program re-script the web page. Be helpful in web searches. Have rules set up to what Yahoo!, Google, etc. search results HTML looks like, can have it filter out results based on the same set of rules. Then you can search for "breast cancer" and not get 50 porn sites as the top matches.
Just an idea......
No it wouldn't - there are plenty of people who are really unhappy about kids discovering alternate viewpoints on religion, health, sexuality, and so forth. None of those things are necessarily sexually explicit or obscene, but they are adult topics - they make adults uncomfortable and there are plenty of adults who are dead set on passing on their closed mindsets to children.
There would be one benefit - moving porn into its own TLD would force people to admit that it isn't really the sex on the Internet that bothers them, it's the openness and the freedom. Once the public has to admit that it's been living in the dark ages, maybe some attitudes will start changing.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
I was in a similar though less serious situation. I run a multi-player play-by-email wargame. On average 20 orso people participate in a game. It's set in a galaxy. Players own planets and ships and have to conquer other planets. Players can name their planets. One of the players proceeded to name all his planets after slang terms for intercourse as well as genitals (some very funny and ingenious ones :). Other players started to complain about this. I asked him to rename his planets but felt quite bad about it, as I feel strongly about free speech. This was however ruing the game for all the other players.
I guess one of the important things is to clearly mention that you are filtering/censoring information. Hidden censorship is the most evil form of censorship... if it is clearly mentioned
people could still find other sources of information.
First off, what you are doing is impossible. Block all the words you want, you are still not going to stop it. Can you read Japanese? Neither can I, but I bet I will be able to go into your business and bring up a couple of hundred Japanese porn sites within 5 minutes.
Second off, don't sell out. You already know censorship is bad. Your "real world" thing boils down to this: "I have a job and I want to sell out so I can make butt loads of cash." That is all fine and good, but I really hope you are thinking long and hard about what you are doing here.
My solution to this "wash-n-surf" thing? Don't do it. You can't censor the net. It is already doomed to failure based on your criteria.
"What I said is thet you're advocating censorship due to your own prudishness."
I am not advocating censorship! Let's get our definitions in order. I do not advocate the blocking or filtering of websites on your computer, or anyone else private computer. I have in the past advocated supervision for computers publically accessible by children, but supervision of children is a far different thing than denial or blockage.
And I am not a prude. I find the "yucky" stuff like coprophilia to be indeed yucky. And I find leathers, whips and handcuffs to be strange and not at all titillating. This is not prudishness (look it up). I mentioned some types of sexual behavior because many parents would find it objectionable to expose their children to it. Perhaps these parents are indeed prudish. Perhaps they're overly protective. So what? It is not a crime to be prudish.
"it's your responsibility as a parent to set out boundaries for your youngster and teach him/her not to cross them"
No one is arguing against this...
"not my responsibility as someone who wants to provide a free Net terminal in my laundromat/restaurant/bookstore/whatever, to make sure I dumb down my Net access just for your kids."
I am not saying it is your responsibility. You can do whatever you want within your own private sphere, including your private laundromat. That's not the point. The original poster seemed to think that it might be somewhat prudent to filter the net access since *his* laundromat was so close to a school. If he does decide to restrict net access, and you don't like it, the solution is simple: don't patronize his establishment!
"Use whatever you want in private, I don't care."
Last I checked, the vast majority of Laundromats in the United States were private. I am absolutely confident that the one mentioned is private. I am belaboring this point because I am seeing exactly the same emotional outrage against this private use of filterware as I saw a few months ago when it was in reference to public libraries. The equal levels of outrage make me think that some people are unaware of the differences between public and private.
">What possibly right do you have to pick and choose who is fit to be a parent?...
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America gives me that right.
Perhaps I am parsing the English language wrong. Please excuse the following mini-rant if I misunderstood you. You may have the right to hold an opinion on the topic, express it in speech, press or other medium, and even hold public assemblies for the purpose of getting your views adopted as law, but you do not have the right to deny parentage to anyone! Certainly you have the right to advocate tyranny, because that's what you're doing.
Now that I think about, I am certain that I misparsed your previous statement simply because it is so outrageous.
"Libertarian my ass--I'm a libertarian, and you're too narrow minded to see the forest for the trees."
Libertarianism is about the non-initiation of force. Censorware and internet filtering software does not initiate force. It is not coercive. Neither does the use of it in laundromats consitute coercion. In fact, the use of filterware in public libraries does not initiate force either, only the collection of taxes to support them does.
A laundromat that installs filtering software does not infringe on your rights any more than a liquor store that decides not to carry adult magazines does.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
"While I generally agree with you, Arandir, I was a minor up until about 4 months ago (I'm now 18), and I didn't magically learn to think for myself on my birthday."
:-) I remember turning 18. I had a sixteen year old girlfriend. One day prior I didn't have a care in the world. One day later and it became painfully clear to me that I could go to jail if her dad got pissed at me.
Unfortunately, the law says that you are a minor until the 18th anniversary of your birth, regardless of whether you were born premature or not
However stupid this law is, it also has the stupid corollary that parents have the legal responsibility for their minor children, no matter how mature they may be (or how immature they may be after turning 18).
"Today's cut off ages are a legal kludge, they do amount to stomping all over my freedoms, and they don't work very well, but no one has a better system in mind."
The law being what it is, a line has to be drawn somewhere. Personally, I am of the opinion that when a child decides he or she is mature, they move out of the home, get a job, and support themselves. Other societies in the past have worked this way, and from all accounts, were relatively successful at it.
"Americans are generally really prudish, and this is what is causing this debate in the first place."
Prudish? Not really. Look up the word. You'll find adjectives like "excessive" and "extreme" in reference to an attitude. Sexually uptight and/or repressed? Absolutely! America isn't perfect, but then again, neither is any nation. Other nations may not have our problems in the area of sexuality, but they have just as much or maybe more bad juju in other areas.
I first visited Europe when I was 16. I was immediately struck by the abundance of nudity in advertising. I thought it strange, and then being in the throes of adolescent hormonal overflows, I thought it both repugnant and fascinating. But at the same time I witnessed other European behaviors that were just as repressive as this American "prudishness".
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
"What happens when our ideals hit the real world?"
The first thing you need to do is figure out what your ideals really are. And get your definitions in order. All too often we go through life with half-baked ideals and fuzzy definitions, and when we discover that reality is rock-solid and not subject to our perceptions, then it will be us that have to bend.
I seriously doubt that your ideal on censorship is your right to expose other people's children to pornography. Ideal hits reality and reality wins again. Despite what those in the ivory towers (or slashdot pits) say, there is indeed pornography on the net and it is easy to access and parents can't watch over their children 25 hours a day. So figure out what your ideal really is.
And maybe you need to get your definition of "censorship" in order. We would all agree that government institutions have no right to censor. And we probably all agree that parents do have the right to limit their children's access to certain materials. But you need to figure out where to draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable censorship. If a liquor store owner can go to jail for selling Hustler to a minor, then you too have the possibility of landing in the same cell by selling a minor pornographic access.
I'm not sure what "Surfnwash" does, or how it will operate. But I think your real question is not "what happens when our ideals hit the real world?" but rather "what competent blocking software or mechanisms are available?"
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
"What happens when our ideals hit the real world?"
Well, they see what's actually going on, they run back to your cortex for the autopsy.
-- It's always darker before it goes pitch black.
Here's a list of keywords to block the most offensive content:
:(
Microsoft
MPAA
RIAA
Lawyer
Janet Reno
Apple
DoubleClick
I'm sure there are others but this is a good start.
This is a good idea - but only for the context of a school (okay, *I* don't like it).<p>
The problem is defining "What are we offering?". If you're just providing "Kill some time" terminals, then any censorware should work (use one less than foolproof for intelligent people to get around).<p>
If, however, you're trying to provide a "Community Service", then having the terminals obviously watched is going to be VERY counterproductive. Think about a scared teenage girl who wants to make a decision for herself, and tries to research "adoption" and "abortion". Consider a macho guy who is starting to be worried, and wants to look up an anonymous AIDS testing facility. Censorware is also likely to hinder both searches.<p>
A public facility like a laundomat is *perfect* for those who don't have home or business net access but who could use the resources available on the web. There are plenty of people, either blue collar workers or otherwise intelligent but not web-savvy, who would want an open terminal... do you think our hypothetical football quarterback from a family unable to afford a computer would ask a friend to look up VD symptoms on his AOL account?<p>
Consider your *purpose*, and then adjust the capabilities accordingly.
<p>
--<br>
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
I honestly don't know what you're trying to say here, but that statement is backwards. It is not hard to block porn. Porn sites desperately want to be found. I guarantee that just blocking sites containing the words "sex," "breast," and so on will remove over 50% of the objectionable sites.
Many sites will have a backdoor access page that is designed to avoid being filtered by keyword blockers, just as the main site is designed to be found by porno search engines. The result is that using any filter that is not overly conservative, will still allow a fair amount of adult content for those eager to find it (aka. horny kids)
I haven't been to an internet cafe in a while: Is there a large percentage of persons using the internet to surf for porn? Are there many kids in there porn surfing?
"It's overkill, of course. But you can never have too much overkill." - Anonymous Slashdot Coward
There's a key idea here that I think a lot of people miss. There is an ENTIRE UNIVERSE of difference between a private business electing to censor its net feed, and a publically supported institution electing to censor its net feed. A business owner who buys the computer, and buys the software, and buys the building it lives in, and buys the network access, and pays to cool (or warm) the air the customers are breathing, is totally within his (her) rights to do WHATEVER THEY WANT TO to the net feed. It would is NOT CENSORSHIP for a private business owner to, say, only allow people to go to Billy Graham's web site.
This is something I don't think gets enough attention nowadays. I think that a business owner should be permitted to allow or disallow smoking, drinking, nakedness, being white, being black, being purple, adhering to a particular religious belief, being a certain gender or whatever within his/her establishment. It's frustrating to me when the government steps in and tells a business owner what they are permitted to do with their resources (within certain limits, of course. Killing people and taking pictures of naked children is just not OK). We as the consuming public have the right to patronize that business, or not, at our discretion. This is critically different from the public library, which I am compelled to support with my tax dollars.
Food for thought.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Well, you could just say "we're a business, so if we put it in our contract it's not censorship". I (and presumably you) don't like that, though, because soon everyone is doing it and I can't view any porn (I mean, "do breast cancer research").
So here's what you do:
Setup 10 kiosks. Make 3 of them "adult" (meaning they have no filter and you must present proof of age before using) and 7 of them "non-adult" (meaning everyone can use them but content is filtered--possibly over-zealously). You can put gradations in there like "anyone can use it but the session is logged" or whatever you want.
Objection: But underage kids can just get an overage kid to log them onto the adult kiosk.
Response: Yes, and that same overage kid could buy them cigarettes, beer, R-rated movie passes, etc.
Objection: But then underage kids can't do research without a parent or guardian.
Response: We're talking about a laundromat, right?
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
I mentioned this strategy on another thread, but here's my thought: make sure that the terms of service includes something to the following effect
The user realizes that [your organization] provides these terminals as a public service, and as such reserves the right to restrict or deny access to these terminals on the basis of improper usage, as determined by the judgement of [your organization]. Improper usage includes but is not limited to:
In the event that usage not listed here is deemed to be improper usage, a warning will be sent regarding the matter. Further violations will result in revocation of usage privileges.
(Here's the biggie) In order to ensure that such standards are met, usage logs (including but not limited to sites accessed) will be maintained and reviewed on a continuing basis. Any evidence that improper usage is occurring will be investigated and dealt with. Also, any reports of observed improper usage will be investigated.
(Here's where you allay concerns about Big Brother) [Your organization] reserves these rights as the owner/maintainer of the equipment and facilities provided. Nevertheless, in respect to individual privacy, any information which does not relate to the restrictions indicated will be disregarded and will not be provided to any third party without prior consent from the individual(s) referenced by said information and/or a court order from the government for specific information. Any persons associated with [your organization] that disregards this will be (list vile punishments here; termination + the company's willingness to cooperate in civil or criminal proceedings should suffice).
In short, you're telling people "Be responsible. We own the stuff you're using, that gives us the right to make sure you aren't being asses about it. We'll be watching. Screw up, and we nail you to the wall. Keep it acceptable, however, and we'll tactfully forget anything else you may do."
If an organization holds itself to the same standards that it expects of it's users in regard to civic duty (and puts it in writing), then legitimate users should have nothing to fear. It's a hell of a lot more effective than babysitting them, IMUO.
-TBHiX- ;)
IANAL, but sometimes I think I should have been.
I cringe reading this.
Sounds like the advice Clinton's lawyer gave him just before he said he "never had sexual relations with that woman".
.02
My
Quux26
My
Quux26
www.crashspace.net
Any thoughts on a hostile takeover of our government?
:)
Or am I taking this too far
Keyword filtering is neato, but what you really want is contextual filters. And that takes intelligent agents, fuzzy logic, grammar parsers, and some actual CPU power. Then you'll have to do it in all the possible languages that someone could use. You know, languages like Spanish, Hindi, Farsi....
I guess some website could spend, oh, about ten minutes one day, render all their text as tiny GIFs, then use a script to replace the text with the GIF of that letter, and completely bypass keyword filtering by not having a single letter of text on their website. Except for the meta and title tags. But those could refer to Martha Stewart and George Washington and other words that keyword filtering deems "OK".
Some sites use huge graphics that combine both pictures and descriptions. This is
1) bad webdesign (bandwidth-robbing, cannot be indexed etc.) and
2) not automatically detectable.
So there will always be sites that 'escape'.
Another question: How to handle a website that is made up of many pages in its subdirectories? Something like xoom or geocities comes to mind. While one person might upload all of his pr0n there, another one has insightful material on his last vacation (boring yet harmless). Where does one draw the line?
Not if the relative number of occurrences is checked as suggested elsewhere in this discussion -- these words appear, but there are a lot more 'unbanned' words.
It would be interesting to know if search engines have more advanced heuristics to put content into different sections like 'personal homepage', 'news site' etc. In a perfect world everyone would truthfully fill in the details in the meta elements, but that is certainly not the case.
Goal: change the world
.gif porn will get through but most people looking for this will give up quickly because it's too much of a nuisance so you probably won't get caught here either.
Action: Refuse to censor. Get fired. Contact the media.
Side effect: poverty
Goal: protect the kiddies, unless they're persistent
Action: Get commercial censorware. Allow users to disable it with a password. Post flyer saying "NO PORN! If you want a password and have read our policy, email me your name. If cyberpatrol is blocking something you think it shouldn't be, email peacefire.org.". Then make a few spot checks of the log for the most frequent users.
Side effect: you give money to the bad guys.
Goal: Do what you can do on your own to make pr0n a nuisance
Action: block jpeg's and realmedia. Allow access with a login, as above
side effect: lots of pages will look cheesy without the login. Hate speech and textual porn will get through, but you probably won't get caught for that.
Preferential Voting: easy as 1-2-3
i covered some of it below, but oh well.. he gets +4 i get +1 karma,.. can't win 'em all
anyway, i like the idea of banning everything then adding things as people suggest them. the problems with that kind of system is :
a) extra paperwork/wasted staff time (and it's not just a matter of someone asks for site X to be added, then the staff member adds it, obviously they need to go make sure it's 'clean'..)
b) will the list of things people want added ever end?
c) you're always going to offend some people, and when you at least appear to be taking the steps not to, and you do, they tend to get exceptionally upset.
like i said, i'm more for the 'don't let little kids into the porn store' approach.. there's no reason for anyone who's too young for porn to be on the net anyway. (of course, my definition of this might be a little 'liberal' since i was downloading porn online when i was 11.)
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
except that most people don't have the urge to go break into people's houses, whereas most people like to look at porn (whether they admit it or not..) especially teenage boys
obviously you're just set in the opinion that 'censorware serves a purpose' and you can't see outside of that. so there's no sense in this discussion.
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
..did i say that he cannot do what he wants?
i didn't, i said none of it is foolproof.
if he wants a patchwork, half-assed working censoring system in there, i'm sure he could cobble one together. but there is a much larger issue here, and really, what's the point in doing it at all if it's still going to let a good portion of the porn through? (and it always will, there are numerous articles on this.)
so many people consider so many different things obscene that it's really impossible to do this kind of thing, and that's the real issue.
i'd appreciate if, in the future, you relax a little before you reply to my posts.
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
I mean, it might cost the place more money, but maybe having someone there and walking around just to make sure there's no boobies on the monitor. I don't know if this place is 24 hours or not, but it might be good to have during peak hours to have someone at least glimpsing.
One thing they did in high school several years ago when they only had one machine was they had the computer also output to a TV in another area, where they could keep watch on what they were doing.
Also, to quell the fears, that person could help them find some interesting things to do on the net, perhaps have good websites bookmarked. So the glimpser serves two purposes...To kick out anybody doing unwholesome things and to help others find the "joy of the Net".
Has your head been buried in the sand? Filtering *does not work*. Not only does it fail to block most porn, it will also overblock on ligitimate content. There is no technology available today that can accurately filter the internet.
-- iCEBaLM
99% accurate? HAHAHAHA, I'll belive that when I see it. I'm sure I could get a porn site through it in 5 minutes buddy. There is absolutely NO WAY a filter can accurately distinguish between what is porn and what is not 100% of the time, or even this "99%" statistic you've pulled out of thin air.
Not only does it not effectively block porn, I'm sure it overblocks on many, many sites. That is the big reason why filters suck.
-- iCEBaLM
There is no system available to date which will reliably filter out unwanted porn while allowing all "legitimate" content to be available. Thats just the risk you run when running this kind of business. But you really have to ask yourself "Is someone going to come into my laundromat, pay to do their laundry, pay to use the internet, and surf for porn infront of everyone else?" That, my friend, is social-pressure, and that is what will keep people from viewing porn.
-- iCEBaLM
it is not censorship for a biz to say "I don't want certain things on my computers'
You can say anything you want, but the moment you modify or restrict a medium in order to impose an agenda (e.g. children should not see smut), you are censoring.
I think what you were trying to say was that it is perfectly reasonable for a business to display what it wants, and no more. This is fair, however the business in this case (according to our questioner) did nto want to censor, it felt compelled to because of the possible legal implications of allowing "inappropriate material" to be displayed so close to a school.
What was it about this that you felt was inappropriate for a Slashdot discussion?
So he doesn't compromise, they get sued, out of business. Next person trying, learns from their experience and installs [your favourite censorware]. What he is looking for is a mindful approach, everyone here can find lots of problems on any given subject, but how often do workable answers play a part on /. (except of course the non-front page topics, where a lot of useful info can be found).
Personally I'd be tempted arrange the screens so everyone else can see what others are doing, maybe not close enough to read the text, but enough to see nuddy pics, combine that with an internal messaging service so they can be grassed off.
Then make any offenders undergo questioning from your other clients as to their morality.
Who says we can't learn anything from the cultural revolution.
(one day I will manage to stop shooting my own arguments down, but not today)
Probably one of the best ideas would be to get in touch with other sysadmins from internet cafe's and similar, there are bound to be others who have had the same problems and are working on a solution.
~ppppppppö
Just to be contrary :)
For quite a large part of my childhood (possibly about 14 to 24 - with a couple of years out, college etc) I watched pretty much 0 TV, no reception, and for half+ the time no electricity either.
But anyway the culture shock when I first started watching again was incredible, half the time I was sitting there thinking 'how the fuck can people watch this crap...'
Like it was just impossible for me to conceive that people could ever be watch tv, or take in the ads without leaving.
Happily now 4 years later I can spend a whole day veggeing out in front to the box (even sky tv UK) without finding anything strange.
~ppppppppö
This is yet another example of trying to apply a technical solution to a percieved social problem.
What do you plan to do to keep people from bringing in their issue of Butt Cheeks Monthly and reading while they wait for their clothes to dry? You could persuade all local retailers to put tracking tags in pr0n magazines, and have one of those shoplifting alarm systems at the door that goes off if somebody walks in with a dirty magazine.
Or you could have cameras with sophisticated (read: impossible) image recognition algorithms that would vaporize offending magazines with a laser.
The solution to this issue has to be social, rather than technical.
I disagree. Pick your battles. If I stood up for every single ideal I have, I would get no where, since just about everything is against one of my ideals. Making censorware for small-scale use is nothing compared to the Civil Rights movement, or Apartheid.
As a matter of fact, I find the whole argument about censorware being ineffective to be kind of pointless. I will never use it, and there is presently no law in the US that would force me to use it. I wouldn't use it for my own children, just as I don't leave them alone to gaze at the television for hours on end.
In this case, I say do what you can do to get a paycheck and redeem yourself in your spare time by doing something more worthwhile.
Now, my first inclination was think "Louisiana", not "Los Angeles" - so I am not too sure which area it is in, but both could be areas of high concentration of "poor" people.
/. - it would be a great site for budding hacker/geeks out there). Maybe do the whole "blocking past one or two links deep - or only allowing the reading of material from the main domain, etc", as another poster noted. Then, set up a box or something near the machine where people can drop in suggestions for sites. In addition, have the home page set up to take suggestions as well. These suggestions should be emailed or picked up, then read over by someone, who can then decide what to add to the main directory (off the "home" page).
Reading about reversing the problem, this was my idea too - except for the fact that you would run into the problem of people who are using the service not knowing what/where they can go/see, because they may have never have used the internet (or a computer) before.
I would say have an opt-in method - block everything, but put a few sites on that are normal sites (like news sites, entertainment sites and some information sites - too bad there wasn't so much possible "bad" stuff on
In addition, don't allow typed in URL's - the only way to "add" a URL should be via the comments box or the email system. Lock down the box pretty tight (both physically and network wise - IE, don't leave any cables, except for power, exposed, lock the CPU away, and set the system up so that no one can get root), maybe provide a keyboard that has certain keys disabled (if a keyboard is absolutely necessary - maybe you can get away with a trackball). Definitely use a trackball, probably a large one, for any disabled or elderly folk who may want to use the machine.
Also, every once in a while, go down to the place, and talk with the people - find out what their interests really are, and let them know what you can, and can't do - and why (I mean, if a ton of people say they want porn, point to the jr high across the street, and tell them your policy). Don't the leave the computer(s) to sit and be faceless things, that nobody ever sees anybody working on (which is one thing that always depressed me about some laudromats - they felt faceless).
Finally, take to heart the whole "elevate the monitor" thing - make the computers kiosks where you need to stand, and use large monitors (or 27" TV's running @ 640x480 - not pretty, but cheap)...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Provide a card to adults which will allow unfettered access. All non-carded use should be assumed to be by a child, and will allow access to a limited, pre-defined set of domains like yahoo.com, cnn.com, slashdot.org, disney.com, olsentwins.com, etc...
-- $SIGNATURE
Or set the default to images off. Have a notice saying that images are off by default and you can turn them on at your own "risk". If people turn them on they accept the risk of what they might see. Have some inactivity timeout that sets the default back and forces them to log back in (hit an OK button or something).
Of course the other solution is for parents to supervise their kids and not let them run around in laundromats looking for porn.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
The key here is to filter Dumb Porn (tm). Most of the porn on the web can be pegged for it's blatant stupidity. Getting rid of that stuff goes a long way toward the making the internet more palatable. It's like all the MAKE MONEY FAST! spam that people set up filters to get rid of. Hilarious phrases are popular with the owners of these kind of sites: "cum-soaked," "cum sucking bitches," "fuck my slit," etc. Really stupid stuff that's almost always associated with "for pay" sites.
Eliminating that is as useful as eliminating email spam.
Sexuality in advertising is intended to tantalize you so you pay attention to the ad; it is a means to an end. Although it *is* a means of control, it is not there for its own sake. Pornography, on the other hand, exists for the purpose of titillation -- an end in itself. Advertisers use sexuality to dangle a carrot in front of your face; it's a tool for that purpose. There's a major difference between sexuality and pornography. I seriously can't recall seeing any ads with pornographic content (except for those on pornographic web sites, but I never go to those anyway :-P ). I have seen many ads with violent content, however.
www.poak.net
One simple (/simplistic?) approach would be to have a keyword based filter on all public terminals, and let anyone at all use them. In parallel, you can set up unrestricted or partially restricted terminals that can be accessed by minors under supervision, or anyone over the age of 18, etc. The main drawback is that it requires a bit more manpower to keep going -- you can't just fire it up and watch it go with everyone happy. But then, that's the price here -- if you want to be able to control access then you have to be willing to supervise that process.
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
The internet is an entire world. It was constructed primarily by adults, primarily for adults.
...
Just like the non-electronic world, it has the equivalent of libraries, newspapers, and shopping malls. And also like the non-electronic world it has its bars, X-rated theaters, and red-light districts.
When children go out into this virtual world, the ways available to protect them are limited:
- They can be accompanied by adults.
- They can be restricted to areas known to be safe.
And that's about it.
Some people have tried to provide a robot companion to cover their eyes when they come to the seamier side of town. But robots are still too dumb. They often cover the eyes when they shouldn't, and don't cover them when they should. (And how can you expect a poor robot to figure out what is "improper" for a child when adults can't agree on that and courts can't define it?)
Some people have tried to remove from the adults' virtual world anything that is "unsuitable" for children, just as they have tried this with the physical world, throughout history. The courts stopped them - and rightly so. (And even if the courts hadn't stopped them, they'd no doubt have as much success as the book-burners of the past.) Just as with the physical world, creating a padded-nursery world for children ruins the world for adults.
Restricting children's access to known safe places restricts them to the tiny space that has been checked. "Don't cross the street!" works - for some value of works. But it eliminates the park, and Disneyland, and Africa,
So the only real choice for a child's guardian is to escort the child, or hire a babysitter, until the child can be trusted to wander on his own.
Your business is creating a door into the virtual world. So your decision-makers have to decide: Are they going to let children wander freely through that door? Are they going to demand permissions from their guardians to pass through alone? Are they going to demand the guardians accompany them or hire a baby sitter to do so? Are they going to provide the (necessarily defective) robot? Are they going to restrict the children (and perhaps everyone else) to the local block? Or are they going to bar children entirely?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
As is usual with the censorware debate, you are trying to use a screw driver to insert a nail.
:)
This is not a technical problem, this is an administrative problem. You'll never solve it technically. I am reminded of a Dilbert cartoon:
Dilbert is developing a censorware application. Dogbert observes to the effect, "You're going to pit your technical skills against the hormonal drive of your average 16 yr old male?"
This is a problem that screams administrative action. Get your users to sign an AUP, if they violate it remove their access. Simple and much more accurate.
Compare your problem to a problem ISPs usually have. They want their users not to spam. So do they limit the number of ppl on the To/CC lines, usually. They put "thou shalt not spam" and "we reserve the right to revoke your access at any moment" in their AUP, and if someone complains about spam, pulls the acct.
Simple, straight forward and a lot more accurate then any hit list of keywords you'll come up with.
Having said that you might also want to enable Content Advisor in whatever browser you're using (let's face it, given the environment this is likely IE), since sights that volentarily mark themselves as objectionable probably are
----
Remove the rocks from my head to send email
On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
WWJD -- What Would Jimi Do?
I am quite civilized, and I should be brought a beer immediately. -- Bruce Sterling
You're ignoring the whole question of what speech is objectionable in the first place. Let's say I'm Joe Local Launderer and I go to the closest Clean-N-Fluff(tm) to get my stuff laundered. Meanwhile, I decide I want to buy a t-shirt. I log-on to Copyleft and click on the "DeCSS" t-shirt. Now wait, this has illegal source code on it! Pirating movies! Hacking! This site should be blocked!!!!
Who makes those decisions, eh?
Why are we clamoring about software solutions, how about just putting in a policy that porn surfing isn't allowed and doing the occasional shoulder surf to make sure everone is following the rules. When the kiddies watch one or two kids get kicked out and lose access permantently for violating policy they'll be intimidated to follow the rules. This works great for government. Eventually they'll learn the porn is best appreciated in private.
The bottom line is that you can't. The reason is pretty simple and has been stated here many times before concerning cernsorware. Forbidden content is subject to interpretation within a cultural context. What is legal today may not be tomorrow and vice versa.
But let me offer a specific example. Let's assume for the moment that you are using the keywords in part to screen out sites/pages that may contain verboten images. My use of German there was not merely for the stronger connotations that word has to the English-speaking audience. It is to illustrate my point. Even assuming you have a complete list of such keywords in English, do you have them for every other language in common use on the net?
There is a tendency for each person to believe that the Web is simply a larger version of the corner he has seen. In some senses that is true. However, English monoglots may make the mistake of forgetting that much of the additional material is unreadable to them because they don't speak the language.
And you bring up the issue of protecting the children. While you appear reluctant to use that as an excuse for filtering the content you will serve to your users, it is often an excuse for curtailing the rights of adults. And, it is often quite unsuccessful in its original intent. Those junior high school students may be taking foreign languages. I remember from my own school days that unofficial bawdy lexicons were in circulation within the first month of any first year language course. Unless you intend to filter those words as well, your quest is hopeless.
As for the jargon of youth
The Web is a big place. It is constantly shifting and changing as a reflection of the cultures that it is embedded in. It is impossible to freeze a snapshot of it and forever have it behave as it did for a moment in time.
The net will not be what we demand, but what we make it. Build it well.
Censor the obvious because that's easy to do and will prevent a lot of porn.
Compliment that with posted signs saying that "Porn is not allowed, violaters will be asked to leave.
Compliment that with a system that logs all traffic and have someone randomly hit sites in the logs. ban the bad sites.
Not too much, not too hard, and effective.
I really think too much is bad. We tend to be so willing to let a computer be responsible for and do the work that we should be doing ourselves. A responsible and alert laundromat attendant can keep porn to a non-existent level. A computer will fail inevitably.
Fook
The price we pay for immortality... is death. Narnia The Great Fall
Also, consider the idea of a... ah, sandbox or playground or something within the internet; don't try to give them the whole thing. Take the search engine links off of your Links page. Also remove yahoo. Put links to news and "family friendly" sites, and remove the toolbar where people can type in URLs.
Although... I don't know. There's a point where you have to stop. I mean, these things will definitely cripple the users' experience (caveat below), and they are fairly easily circumventable by a smart user.
Now, the caveat: like the parent post said, look at your audience. An e-Laundromat? Probably mostly newbies, people in with their kids... the middle schoolers from across the road probably have better ways to get their pr0n. How "sacrificed" are your customers going to feel if it's difficult to access arbitrary sites on the internet? If their choices are restricted to your menu options? If most of them are going to be using your links anyway, then problem solved. That way, No one's 9-year-old son is going to accidentally wander into playboy.com while mom is doing laundry.
But the pesky 13-year-old who's seen his 31337 friends "hack" their way into porn sites... they'll be able to get around it. But if you make him sign an agreement that he won't, then you can kick him off when he does.
As most responses have made clear, what you ask cannot be done. IANAL, but I would not think that staking your defense on some censorware would be any better than a home-grown system or none at all (e.g., you could get sued either way).
There is only one solution, and it's the solution that librarians have always relied on: parental control. All you really need is a sign that clearly says, "Use by people under 18 requires parental supervision" or somesuch.
Educate the people at the site so parental control actually happens. Set up a screen saver or somesuch which prompts people for whether they certify are over 18 and supervising anyone under 18 who's there. Simply don't allow unsupervised access to the junior high school kids. (They're not going to be doing their laundry there anyway.)
A few more examples on the futility of software: what if someone reads the Kama Sutra (it's posted recently by Project Gutenberg, who also does Alice in Wonderland and other great works of literature).
Or, forget about pr0n - what if someone finds information about how to make LSD, or skip out of school, or send fake email? Forget about any possibility of shielding yourself from possible mis-use. The only solution is to facilitate strong parental control. You'll sleep better.
Unfortunately, in the real world, yes, you'd be kicked out of the mall for letting kids download badly-digitized copies of the pictures from the magazines sold in the bookstores of the same mall :-) Alternatively, the mall could act like a typical mall and kick the teenagers out, but that doesn't stop somebody from leaving porn up and walking away, which teenagers will do just because they can tweak the mall management and get away with it.
So what approach is your system using? Some commercial censorware provider? Or a homegrown system? Are you providing some override mechanism for adults to check the sites being censored?
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Another approach that's less thorough but lets you say you've done something is to use some of the PICS rating meta-systems, which allow web sites to do their own ratings using a variety of rating schema. I've heard that many of the big p0rn sites do use that stuff, mostly the RSACi-like video-game ratings, though I haven't tested that assertion. Again, you may want to set your system to support multiple rating servers so you're at least somewhat diverse-valued (and because there are different rating schemas available which don't have the same variables and value ranges.)
You could also build a sound-enabled addon that lets people override censorship by announcing OUT LOUD that the page is blocked, reading its name, and asking if they want to override. For a laundromat with an attendant, that's enough to simplify user behaviour management without requiring constant attention by the attendant, though junior high school kids may still find ways to entertain themselves by tweaking adults
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
A third problem, which has a relatively easy technical fix, is people leaving inappropriate material on the browser and leaving, which lets kids who come in later see it. Near a junior high school, with some kids bright enough to work around any censorware you find, this will happen occasionally
I don't know how much of this is easy to do using the browser's own capabilities, or whether it's simpler to detect inactivity and then kill the browser and restart it - the latter's pretty dependable and also takes care of the problem of Netscape and IE getting themselves wedged way too often, which you'll also have to solve.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
This could not be farther from the "ultimate test of American hypocrisy." This is a laundromat wanting to prevent porn on their private terminals. It is not the government trying to ban porn on anyone's machine.
These machines belong to the laundromat, and they can do whatever the hell they please with them. It is not a basic human right to be able to do whatever the hell you want with someone else's property. If a company [i.e., SurfNWash] wishes to own computers, good for them. If they grant you permission to use them, that's pretty cool. But you're going to complain when they give a list of legitimate uses and tell you what the DON'T want their machines used for? Wake up.
Free speech is alive and well on the Internet. The government is not arresting porn site webmasters, and it's not about to start. Allow me to repeat: THE OWNER OF A PIECE OF PROPERTY HAS EVERY RIGHT TO DICTATE THE TERMS UPON WHICH SOMEONE ELSE MAY USE IT. The laundromat doesn't _have_ to let people use their computers. They're being nice, and saying "you can use the computers to access the Internet as long as you don't look at pictures of naked women giving horses head." They could also say "you can use my computers to do anything but read the Constitution or look up info about Camus." They own the stuff! If you don't like it, too fucking bad for you, eh? Get your own computer and 'net access.
If I let someone into my home to use my computer, and they go to the KKK homepage, I'm going to fucking tell them to get off it or leave. If that person were you, would you make a big stink about me encroaching on your rights? It's MY property, MY computer, just as it is SurfNWash's property and computers.
THEY HAVE EVERY RIGHT IN THE WORLD TO TOTALLY DICTATE WHAT USES THEY APPROVE. If you don't like them, find another computer!
If the government were trying to make surf filters mandatory on ISP's, or make it illegal to have a public terminal without porn blockers, I will be first in line (probably right beside you) making a big fucking mess about it. They will feel the collective wrath of you, me, and thousands of others.
However, I'm big on the right to property granted to me, and that extends to the laundromat as much as it does to you or me. I'd _expect_ you to hand me terms of use if you were to allow me onto your computer, using your internet connection.
Yeah, and Rosa Parks was only riding the bus.
-Vercingetorix
-Vercingetorix
"Necessitas non habet legem." -St. Augustine
This is MORE important than civil rights, in the sense that it affects far more people. This isn't about nekkid pictures in the laundromat. It's about the *attitude* people take toward the free expression of ideas, one of the cornerstones upon which this country is based. Once the notion that it is OK to restrict access to information to certain people becomes aceptable, we are doomed. I want to live in a world in which any and all information is freely available to all who want it. It is up to me to ensure that my children are instilled with the values required to make good decisions and to use the information available to them wisely. Not governments, not schools, and definatley NOT LAUNDROMATS!
-Vercingetorix
-Vercingetorix
"Necessitas non habet legem." -St. Augustine
Don't you think the parents have a right to decide what their children get to see or not? If parents don't want their kids to look at the stuff they will either teach them the appropriate values, or they will not let their kids into the place. It's not anyone elses reponsibility to see to the moral upbringing of my children.
-Vercingetorix
-Vercingetorix
"Necessitas non habet legem." -St. Augustine
On another note, what is the point of giving people access to the most powerful information retrieval system in the world, when you don't plan on letting them access whatever they want? If the potential for abuse bothers you, then give them arcade machines, magazines, and books. Then you can exercise control over the information and not have to fear the kiddies seeing a bit of skin.
The internet is the ultimate test of American hypocrisy. We've been preaching free speech for over 200 years, but now that we finally have it, I mean *really* have it, we run scared for the hills. So what is it America, does free speech matter? Or is it just a nice platitude that helps us feel superior all the other nations of the world (many of which don't seem to share our fear of *true* freedom of expression).
-Vercingetorix
-Vercingetorix
"Necessitas non habet legem." -St. Augustine
I would tell my employer, if asked to come up with such a list or algorithm, "It's impossible."
Do you think you can get a set of requirements from an audience, and then go and filter the 'net so they would get only what they want, and all of what they want? I don't think it's possible, and I think that's why censorware is bad. If I thought it was possible, I'd be working on it day and night. Whoever makes that software is an instant billionaire.
I'd tell my boss the best I can do is block "too much," leading to complaints of inappropriate filtering; or "not enough," leading to complaints of contributing to the delinquency of the schoolkids. In short, I'd tell him there's no way to do what he wants---not because you're not good enough to do it, but because it can't be done.
Let him decide which risk his business should take after that.
SteveYou mean all the places that put the magazines behind the counter so kids can't get to them? Or the companies that put the magazines in bags so kids can't read them? There are things that are acceptable in society and things that aren't, and having people under the age of consent having access to adult material is one that is unacceptable.
That said, IMHO there is no good technical solution in terms of blocking, whether by keyword or anything else. Witness the tens of commercial products that are rediculed by Peacefire on a frequent basis. For any blocking scheme, there will always be holes in the system, and also sites that are incorrectly blocked.
Your correct, there is no way of blocking 100% of the sites correctly, but that doesn't mean nothing should be done. There are very few things that can be done 100% correctly without any error. Should we stop prosecuting people for crimes, since we can't catch everyone, and there will be times an innocent person is wrongfully convicted? Sometimes, you have to get as close as you can and accept that. If you can block 50% of the porn sites, that is a good start. It's not like he's censoring the net as a whole, he's blocking sites for a private business, and they have every right to do that.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
I was on a contracting gig where I didn't have access to the internet from my PC, but the HP3000 we were working remotely on did - so once I found a version of Lynx for the HP3000, I had my fresh air again...
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
While it's true that you can't porn-proof the proxy server, you can give it a good shot by either using commercial software or coming up with your own list of ban keywords. Sure, users might not get to do their breast cancer research while waiting for their duds to dry - but there are other avenues available. A determined user could also get to what they really want, but in order to absolve themselves of liability the laundromat wants to make a sincere effort to keep things above board. And, like many others have said, just make sure the monitors are in plain view of the rest of the laundromat. Self-regulation can do wonders.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
The point is to make a determined effort to keep the screens clean - absolving themselves of liability lawsuits. Otherwise, parents could sue them for negligence in allowing porn to be displayed in an environment that the proprietor knows will be used largely by mothers and their kids.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
It comes down to a simple choice between what is more important to you, the ideals or your job (I'm making the assumption that this is a job, if it's not, then the answer seems easy, tell them no.)
Ideals are wonderful things, but they don't keep the family fed, do they. Is this ideal important enough to you that it's really worth fighting for?
On the other hand, maybe it's more important to set the standard and suffer the consequences. And even if they end up getting someone else to do it anyway, you'll be able to sleep better at night knowing you've done what you think is right. But you also have to pick your battles.
There is of course middle groud here, talk to them about it and maybe you can find a way to keep your ideals and your job. ;)
Just my $0.02 on it, take it for what it's worth.
--Ty
You bring up a great point--the comparison of porn to hate liteature.
I have always thought that when a child is old enough to look *at* porn, it isn't going to do him any harm (Meaning that most young kids will turn away when the titties come on during the HBO movie), the exception is generally the ones with the psycho parents that freak out every time a nipple rears its ugly head, then the kid is F*'d for life.
But your point about the racist site made me think. Kids below a pretty serious age (18? 22?) are still forming opinions about how they relate to others, and being exposed to hate liteature (or Christianity for that matter) has a much more significant effect on them. You will notice that Christians know to prey on younger kids--even up through college.
On the other hand, the kind of mind-bending that can come from reading liteature will never equate to what happens to you when you view a picture, espically the simple, peacful pictures that USUALLY deliver porn.
Oh, about the Chocolate Chip search--I heard about a reference to a senator who had a homesexual encounter and was curious if it was real or made up (turned out to be the latter). When I did a search for related material, the search page actually returned with gay adds (including naked men) on the page. This doesn't bother me a bit, but I could certianly see some people freaking *completely* out about that.
Finally, (This will probably get me a -1) I am getting REALLY tired of the typical assumption that "Parents Know Best". 90% of the time, if a kid is screwed up, it's because of the parents, and I can't remember the last time that a parent spent even a year educating themselves for the most significant task of their lives. The assumption is, aparently, having the ability to pump out children magically makes you an automatic expert.
In the past 10 years (Since I started caring) I have noticed SO MANY subtle abuses of children that it makes my mind spin. Not the major beating stuff, but stuff like smoking with them in the car, letting them watch TV (even Disney videos) as a substute for spending time reading to them or teaching them. Parents fighting in front of them. How about expecting them to be quiet in a restaraunt or on a plane? It's a kids JOB to scream when they are tired or uncomfortable, physically restraining that must be one of the most tramautic things that can happen to you at a very young age.
These little abuses are the things that destroy a kid for life. Maybe deep inside even the poorest parents know that and they are using Porn to misdirect their guilt into some kind of anger? I dunno but the whole thing is getting pretty sick.
The legal liability issues surrounding public Internet access terminals in privately-owned businesses are strong enough, especially in this case, that the techniques required are going to be very different than an unregulated home Internet connection.
The possibility arises in this scenario that young children will probably be exposed a variety of controversial subject matter, which means that Surf 'n Wash will possibly be making themselves liable for what is accessible. A business in this country can be sued over anything, and freedom of speech vs. contributing to the delinquency of a minor is not a battle that any business wants to face in court. It would, in fact, probably bankrupt them.
So, how will they do it? Well, filtering software is interesting, but it's been shown that it is not very effective, easily bypassed, and prone to manipulation by the software company.
A possibility (and this is what is going to get some of you all riled up) is to start with a minimal list of approved sites, and then, instead of relying on a third party to generate lists, approve sites on a case-by-case basis. I know that this would be a pain in the ass, and that it would require someone on staff to continually be reviewing sites for approval, but it's one of the only ways I can think of for a business such as Surf 'n Wash to protect themselves from liability.
Anyway, I'll be really interested in seeing what happens with this and other other cases like it.
Free music from Jack Merlot.
You wish it were that easy. Really, look at reality for a second.
Problem 1: That said, it would probably also help to put the terminals in a position where the contents of the screen are prominently visible to other patrons of said laundromat. Public embarassment can be a reasonably good deterrent.
Do you think kids really care what other people think about what they're looking at? As long as their parents aren't around, they're just going to goof off, much to the dismay of the patrons.
Problem #2) It's a public facility, and there's no more obligation to censor/filter material for minors than a magazine store that happens to sell copies of Playboy and Penthouse.
This isn't your local convenience store. Even if it were, Playboys are packaged and wrapped. Besides, Playboys are pretty tame to the blatent pornogrophy you can get anywhere online. This is a public laundromat (possibly mom'n'pop), and the last thing they're going to want is a million dollar sexual harrassment LAWSUIT on their hands because a woman was disturbed from seeing pornogrophy being accessed in a public laundromat.
Unfortunately, reality says that it's much more cost efficient to eliminate a little free speech to prevent any possible lawsuit.
Aye - FWIW, I'm 100% behind ya. It is not censorship to provide one thing, and not another. It is censorship to prevent someone else from providing it. IMHO, that definition of censorship cuts through most of the silliness on the subject that I've seen.
That's one reason I'm not bothered when a local library decides to install filters. Their connection, their choice. When a goverment agency mandates filters in all libraries - well, that stinks, but I'm not sure whether it's censorship or not because arguably, the public libraries belong to the goverment. When a goverment makes private isp's install filters, that's plain and simple censorship.
Just when are we gonna wake up and smell the &bullet?
(Damn, they did it again!).
Blatent Editorial: As an area where North Americans are so completely blasé about censorship that we've stopped recognizing it as such, sex and sex education censorship is our elephant in the living room. Teachers are supposed to be preparing our kids for life in the real world. According to The Alan Guttmacher Institute, 80% of teens have sex and 90% of those who do so without protection become pregnant within a year. Add to this the fact that Pregnancy can have a massive effect on both mother and child.
What we end up with is teachers who are hog-tied when it comes to teaching kids about something that is going to have a massive effect on the rest of their fucking lives (please excuse the pun).
----------------
My suggestion is that you NOT censor access to the net. Despite all the blab in big media (who have a vested interest in limiting public acceptance of the net), people don't access the net porn by accident -- in the same way that kids don't 'accidently' show all their friends the Playboy that they found under their dad's bed.
For people who don't like porn, show them how to use the 'back' button.
For structural design, make sure that all child-accessible sites are in open view. If you want to allow questionable content, create 'unobtrusive' booths with their backs to the walls and separators between stations so that one person's content can't be accidently viewed by other users.
As far as being sued because somebody accessed a porn site on the internet, Libraries have been (sucessfully) sued for putting filters on their stations. I don't think that you could be seriously sued for giving (paying?) customers the same kinds of rights that libraries are being forced to allow the public. In fact, I'd guess that you're more likely to be sucessfully sued for NOT allowing open access to the net. (IANAL)
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
You seem to be an otherwise intelligent, progressive person. But, like too many people, when someone shouts "Won't somebody *please* think of the children," you start to get irrational...
n derage/print.html It is natural and healthy for males to be attracted to females who look about 15-25--any good psychology textbook will tell you that. That's why pedophilia is defined as sexual attraction towards pre-teens. Sexual attraction to teenagers is a natural biological force, which we in America have made taboo due to purely cultural forces. We in America try to keep our kids naive children for as long as possible, which to my thinking is the whole root of the problems we have in schools now--kids are given huge responsibilities akin to those of adults, but very few rights, and are expected by parents to be asexual even though their hormones tell them "party time." Nature tells us that, in strictly biological terms, people are physically mature enough for sex within a year of first menses, and thus it's not abnormal at all to be physically attracted to people who are at least adolescents. Of course, people in this country are seldom *emotionally* ready for sex in early adolescence, but attraction is a natural biological force. Why do you think Natalie Portman (later than in *The Professional*), Joey Lauren Adamns, Alicia Silverstone, Kate Moss, etc. etc. were considered so beautiful? The people who were attracted to their youthful features weren't pedophiles, just normal. Attraction to pre-adolescents is what defines pedophilia, not the screwed up Puritanical American tendency to think that 18 is some magic age at which people are suddenly adults.
;-)
> Censorship is not prudishness
What I said is thet you're advocating censorship due to your own prudishness. The two generally complement and reinforce one another. You just seemed to be so *offended* at the very idea that such things as bondage, barely legal girls, and double penetration are out there on the Net being talked about and depicted. You even lumped them together with (yucky) coprophilia and bestiality.
> I lumped these items together because they are things that a lot of parents would
> have severe objections to their children witnessing.
Sure, of course; but you do make a distinction, don't you? But that's an aside. The real issue is that, as a parent, it's *your* job to teach your kids, from at least 7th grade onward (newest studies show that 1 in 5 middle school kids engage in at least oral sex at least once), what is healthy and what is unhealthy, at least giving them the basics about sex, and telling them what they shouldn't access on the Net if they're going to be around the Net. Bottom line: it's your responsibility as a parent to set out boundaries for your youngster and teach him/her not to cross them, not my responsibility as someone who wants to provide a free Net terminal in my laundromat/restaurant/bookstore/whatever, to make sure I dumb down my Net access just for your kids.
> Bondage may be consensual, and for the most part is play-acting, but real
> dominance in a relationship, particularly when it is usually associated with sadism,
No no no, it isn't associated with sadism; that's why there are two separate terms, B&D and S&M. A B&D relationship usually takes the form of one submissive partner who finds fulfillment and feels loved by giving his/her will over to the dominant partner, much as in an old-fashioned heterosexual marriage the wife supposedly felt comfort and felt loved by trying to make her husband and kids happy. The dominant male or female feels loved by having this huge amount of trust and care placed with him/her, much as in intense hetero relationships the young woman feels like the man is a lover/father figure. It's actually a very caring relationship is you analyze it along those lines, and not unlike old-fashioned marriage philosophies adapted to the 21st century. But I digress, I just wanted to point out an error of yours. Those of us who live in or near big cities know that there's a huge B&D community, which thanks to misconceptions like yours is fairly underground much as the gay and lesbian community was 15 years ago.
> is not normal. "Barely legal" caters to the borderline pedophile, and is the
> pederast's methadone
But your big mistake is in describing Barely Legal, either the magazine/website by Hustler or similar material, that way. I suggest reading http://www.salon.com/health/sex/urge/1999/12/04/u
> But as a libertarian, I greatly object that you wish to ban a class of software for
> use in private.
I never said that. Use whatever you want in private, I don't care.
> Censorware may be morally objectionable to you, but for some
> people it isn't. It is one thing to keep censorware out of publically funded
> libraries, but it is quite another to keep it out of a private laundermat.
I never said that it would be unlawful censorship to use censorware or keyword blocking in a private facility such as that. I just said that it would still be censorship, although a legal non-governmental form, and that word filtering would filter too many useful sites to be truly a good solution, and that it's not the responsibility of the establishment to filter, it's the responsibility of the parent to teach his/her kids what to access, since there are many porn sites which will still come through any effort to filter. The guy who asked this question didn't just ask what to use, he asked complex moral and ethical questions about whether it's right to help set up a filter like this, and I gave him my honest answer that the "right" thing to do is, I think, not to filter, and especially not to use ineffectual word-based filtering as was suggested--because it's not his responsibility to make sure your kids don't go to porn sites, it's *your* responsibility to teach your kids better. And despite your protestation to the contrary, my contention that Americans are prudish does have a place in the discussion: only in America and similarly sexually prudish countries would anyone be having this conversation about whether or not to filter Net access at the terminal.
> It's absolutely stupid to say to a parent "you did a bad job raising your kids so
> you forfeit all rights to keep pornography away from them".
You are so narrow-minded on this issue that you didn't even listen to what I said, you morphed my words way beyond their meaning. You, as a parent, have every right to prevent your kids from doing whatever you don't think they should be doing. Fine. So be it, I don't care. But you do not, do not, do *not* have the right to expect that censorware or word-based filtering will be applied to a public-access Net terminal. The owners of that terminal, as long as it's in a private establishment, can install whatever filtering they wish. But they don't have to if they don't want to, and no one can expect them to. That was all I was saying. That it's the parent's responsibility to make sure kids don't access naughty things, not the owner of a Net terminal. If you don't like the open Net access, don't let your kids go there. .
> What possibly right do you have to pick and choose who is fit to be a parent?
> You, sir, have absolutely no moral, legal or ethical right to tell someone else
> how they should raise their own children
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America gives me that right. I can tell you or anyone else how to raise your children; you, of course, have the right to ignore me. But, I'm right.
> How dare you!
I dare quite readily and forcefully, thank you, because someone has to be the voice of freedom in the tide of censorship, someone has to say "it's not his responsibility to keep your kids off the Net sites you don't like, it's *your* responsibility." Else, the Net would cease to be a very free and open place, and most of us wouldn't like that. Imagine, billions and billions of AOL content-pages...the horror...
> Before you start accusing us of reducing the net to our own "narrow ideology and
> belief and morality", take a good look at youself. We certainly do not want
> to impose our morality on the net. But you, on the other hand, want to impose your
> morality on people's lives and children.
See how black-and-white it is to you? I haven't advocated pushing any sort of morality, or immorality, on anyone. All I advocated is keeping Net terminals like the one mentioned free of censorware which will block out signal as well as noise. All I advocated is the dialectic that
A) censorware, and especially word filtering, don't work and block many, many legitimate sites, and
B) it is the parents' responsibilty to keep the child off "bad" parts of the Net, not the responsibility of the public terminal owner, therefore
C) the best course might probably be to install a terminal with no filtering.
It's entirely up to the establishment installing the netterm, not up to you or me, but the guy asked our advice and I gave him mine. I have no agenda other than freedom, and keeping people like you who expect everything to be filtered and cleansed and AOLified from being the only people heard. So, keep an open mind next time, instead of not listening and distorting everything someone with a different view says. Libertarian my ass--I'm a libertarian, and you're too narrow minded to see the forest for the trees.
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, *The Annals*
He was known as Porn Grad.
Does the blood of the Puritans still run so cold through the veins of people on this continent? .SEX or perhaps .AC (for Adult Content). The Adult Entertainment industry is making HUGE buck off the net, why not force them to take some fairly simple steps to allow censorship to be easily implemented?
Why are we so concerned with children being exposed to sexuality, when the real dangers of drugs like crack and violence proliferate?
Seriously, I think we are wasting time trying to protect our young from at best a red-herring of "danger", while allowing them to grow up violent and illiterate. Such a shame.
All that being said, to address the question on it's own merits, I have a recolection of the possiblilty of regulating "adult" content sites, forcing them to place certain tags on webpages, or creating a new TDL such as
why are Libraries, and other "community" based organizations being forced to waste all this time and effort, when the onus should clearly be on the manufacturer of the potentialy offensive material.
While manufacturer regulation would work for sites originating in the US (and/or Canada perhaps), the very global nature of the WEB makes it almost completely valueless...I mena, where can you gamble online? ANYWHERE....but where are the sites hosted? NIMBY.
Going on means going far
Going on means going far
Going far means returning
I've seen this sort of thing happen before - manglement says "We want the web server to do XYZ!" and you say "That's neither easy nor wise...yes, it could be done, but web servers were not designed to do that, and it's going to cause problems a, b, and c..." and they ignore you and listen to the consultant or salesman or other team who says, "Why, our new software does exactly what you want!" so you get shoved aside and the crappy software gets installed and spreads its strangling grip, choking out intelligent design..
I'm not saying that you should abandon your standards and ideals - far from it. But unless you have exceptionally good management, you may not accomplish anything by it.
As an example, Brainwash in San Francisco is a real laundromat with Internet access kiosks. They don't censor.
I suppose you could require a credit card to log on. I've seen kiosks that do that. But nobody uses them except in airports.
You're doing the public a service. You'd like to keep what is displayed there "clean". So do it. If someone wants porn they can go buy a magazine or find another place to get it online, or even find a way around your "security". It's not your job to control what is done on your boxes (from my understanding), it's your job to try and keep it clean. If someone defeats your security.. well big deal. It happens. But don't feel like you're doing something immoral or wrong just because you're making it difficult to stumble upon porn, or whatever. "Freedom of speech" is not being hampered, no one is being oppressed. You're being helpful to the community, not hurting it. Don't worry.
The streets shall flow with the blood of the Guberminky.
As other folk have said, your customers aren't going to be doing serious surfing, but they may want to access links to places (eg. if you've read an article about a graphics card, you may want to follow a link to the manufacturer).
/. is unlikely to be one, given what gets posted...), but that's not too hard, just watch what everyone in the office looks at over the course of a couple of weeks.
So, a solution emerges. Have a master-list of "node" sites (eg. Yahoo, BBC news, etc.) which folks can start from. Allow accesses to these nodes, and allow click-through to ONE SITE only beyond there. Once they've visited one of these sites, it'll be in the history, so allow them to go to other pages on that site as well. This may need adapting for ISPs who give 2nd-level domain names, but that shouldn't be too hard to do - just get a list of as many ISPs as you can, and on these sites, only allow access to the same 2nd-level domain as in the history.
But don't allow the user to follow links off that site, or only allow one stage further from that site to prevent any possible "daisy-chain" to unwanted sites.
This can be combined with blocking of "illegal" words (sex-related, hate-related, etc.) to screen out obvious offences, but leave in references to "breast, etc., which may show up in legitimate sites.
That means that folk can read news and stuff, and can follow links to investigate the stories, but can't go any further. That'll be a medium kind of project to code, I reckon - not as easy as just a blocking-list of words, but perfectly feasible. Obviously you need to compile your list of "nodes" (and
Grab.
"Information just harmed you. "
No, ignorance and the legal system would have harmed me.
Harmed by racist materials? An intelligent, well educated person does not generally turn out to be racist. Education of other cultures, foods, geography, for example, prevent ignorance.
You cant make an intelligent, unracist person racist, but you can keep an `ignorant/uneducated` (discuss!) child stupid by only showing one (the bad) side of another culture/race. I think a discussion about why they like/agree with Stormfront would be a good starting point. If i were a teacher i`d probably want to use it in a lesson. I know that we used National Front (sad u.k. racist group that fizzled away in the 70s) material in classes over here.
The stock market - investors etc. These people are stupid. If we live in a society where stupid, greedy people can cause people to lose their jobs/money/companies, then again, theres something wrong with society/the system, isnt there? Look at the dotcom thing recently - just amusing, really. Its a problem. But is the best solution just to make it illegal to rattle the cages?
I`ll leave you to decide whether or not information has side effects. To me, information is something you use to make choices. Good information = good choices, if its processed properly. In the last few paragraphs i was talking about people not being picky about their information, so how they process it (side effects) is irrelevant. It doesnt help that they are stupid though. Its like the `are guns/knifes/drugs good/bad` discussion. Well, they are just matter, its what you do with it thats important. Clearly not all uses of them are purely evil.
Explain (about plasters)? Well, only that if someone is going to censor, say, picture of breasts, then i would suggest that it would not have any effect on society one way or the other. Mapplethorpe photographs of naked kids - porn or art? Doesnt matter. It will have no effect for better or for worse. Its just a picture. Its not going to make someone who ISNT a kiddie-porn person become one, and if you are, its just one more picture. Arent child-abusers people who`ve been abused themselves? Or are mentally ill? Or are you suggesting sane rational people just wake up one morning and decide to do these things? Of course, i support the illegality of taking the pictures, and of child abuse. But getting worked up about trying to block stuff isnt very useful, in my opinion. You *wont* be able to block *just* those sites, you will be blocking "ok" sites, and i just dont believe it will harm anyone.
Information doesn't harm people, people harm people. So cheesy, but so true.
I got to the internet, learn how to build a pipe bomb, I then stuff this pipe bomb into a cows large intestent. Farm goes to milk cow, pipe bomb explodes killing the farmer, the cow and the milk.
Now who is responsiable for this? ME? or the web site with the information posted?
Let's use your example here: People post dire rumors about your company on the Internet. Stock tanks, management panics, you get fired. Information just harmed you.
Who is responiable for this? The people that posted the information or the information it'
s self? Who can you sue in a court of law for disfacement of character, the people that posted the information, or the information it's self?
That information did not harm you, the people posting it where out to harm you.
Information does have a soul or mind, therefor it can't be good or evil. It doesn't have thought, it can't set out to malicly hurt you. People have souls, minds and thoughts. People can set out to malicly hurt you. Information can not.
Information doesn't have INTENT (how I spelled that right) to do anything. IT intents to sit on it's ass without thought or reasons. Man has intent, and this intent can be good or bad. Man can use this non-reasoning object and use it for good or bad. Man uses information like a hammer, some will use it to build great building, something will use it to bash anothers skull in and yet others will use it for masterbational purposes...
"`Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.'" -THHGTTG
As the sysadm/BOFH responsible for maintaining the Internet service for a government department in Oz, I'm required to maintain a filtering proxy server that blocks access to pr0n and "non work-related sites". In practice, it's almost entirely a pr0n filter. (Threatening to block HotMail/Yahoo Mail etc. - we have our own mail service - or sports sites is usually sufficient to demonstrate why filtering *all* non work-related sites is not advisable... ;-)
I use Squid's url_regex (regex_url?) patterns to match which sites to block (playboy.com, natalieportman.com, hotgrits.com etc.) I started off with a list of sites and words extracted from the Squid logs, and then revised the list based upon user activity. I look for which users hit the filters, and see what other sites they visited that weren't blocked which may also be pr0n. (Conversely, some rules needed to be revised since they blocked non-pr0n site e.g. "naked" blocked "The Naked Chef" - a BBC cooking show.) Over time, you get a pretty good filter without having to find every pr0n site on the Internet or relying on flawed commercial "black box" products. (My ISP select CyberPatrol as the "official" filtering product - I told them exactly what I thought of it with references to the relevant Slashdot threads.)
With Squid, you can build ACLs that apply the url_regex filters to only selected IP address ranges etc. This might be the best approach in your case, since you may be able to filter only the Junior High School.
If this is for a public access site, set up the browsers so they cannot manually enter URLs, then set up bookmarks to kid friendly indexes like Yahooligans This provides access to sites for "breast cancer" and "chicken recipes", but won't return anything for "hot anal sex"
A user in a laundromat will most likely be casually surfing to kill time, not to do research. If you set up a box that limited access to the content available only on AOL or Excite@Home, you'd get news,sports, entertainment, etc, and not much else. Don't set up DNS, and use the hosts file to only point to sites served up by the content provider, and it'll be hard(er) to access porn for the average surfer.
meta http-equiv="pics-label" content='(pics-1.1 "http://www.rsac.org/ratingsv01.html" l gen true comment "RSACi North America Server" for "http://www.playboy.com" on "1996.05.04T06:51-0800" r (n 4 s 3 v 0 l 4))'
Of course, not all pornographers are as responsable as Playboy, but it's a start.
I think keeping out all the fly-by-night-look-at-me-I-got-a-porn-CD-and-put-it -on-line people is impossible.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Yes, censorship is bad for places like a public library. You know the arguments. But, you are not a public library. You want to give the people of the community something useful. You don't have to give them everything, though. You can still give them something useful. Maybe something like Apple's KidSafe http://itools.mac.com/KidSafe_marketing.html would be a good approach. Maybe just get an iMac and set up KidSafe on it. Then you're done! Fred
Even Lynx can't handle that.
Maybe they might actually see a penis bird..:)
Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
they explode.
Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
But what you say is entirely true, given that pedantic nitpicking of mine. I think we are in perfect agreement; the slant of my post was targetted at the idea that we should always stick to our ideals. We should always stick to our ideals ... but we must allow our ideals to evolve as we gain more information. It seemed that the original poster was ignoring the new information and recommending he stick to his old ideals, and that is what I take issue with.
If you see what I mean :-)
--
It's a
-- Danny Vermin
I tend to thing that people overlook power of disclosure. How many people are going to access porn site with their peers watching them? The simple solution is to have the computers placed in an area that is very visible to the librarian or teacher and everyone else in the area. ;-). I would not filter based on content but rather on site lists... there are many a free services that track pornography sites. Granted that with 30,000 new sites popping up on the net everyday the list will be near impossible to keep up with; but something is better than nothing.
Chances are that such methods will not satisfy your supervisor... I've tried
----------
while (alive) { Work(); PayTaxes(); Eat(); Sleep(); }
Bool
The internet is not the same as leaving a few magazines lying around for people to read -- The content is real.
What's to stop children from reading "vulgar" books in the library? What about books like Mark Twain or I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings, which some people consider inappropriate?
Your best solution is to avoid potential problems from disgruntled parents and let them handle the internet in their own home under their own terms.
--
Wooden armaments to battle your imaginary foes!
Also, by logging the sites and using a script that you can use after the fact, you'll know when and how much someone has searched for porn. Afterwards, you can have the adults show up at that time of day to supervise.
This doesn't mean that you shouldn't use a filter, but don't over do it. Just hit the known porn sites, and add a few as you encounter them in your logs.
If you need to go high tech, use a tool like SquidGuard. SquidGuard is a very fast and flexible proxy with a filter. With it, you can limit access by time of day as well as user.
SquidGuard allows you to do fancy things like redirect known porn sites to a local page that has annoying and colorful graphics and multiple Javascript pop-ups. That might also 'scare' some of the kids -- as well as adults -- away, since they won't easily be able to hide what they are doing. Hook a speaker up and play a warning if you really want to freak someone out. It'll only take one bad experience to have them be more careful.
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
Require that the users sign a form/contract type thing that states rules, and also states that your company or you, or whoever is in charge of this endeavor, would not be held responsible for the content that viewers look at. Also, state that their login sessions will be logged, to ensure that the terminals aren't used for anything innapropriate. Make these forms available publicly, then have a dropbox or something to put them into, or a mailing address to send them to. Once the user has signed the form, issue them a login name, and a password. Log the sessions. You don't necessarily have to go over every logs (because, of course, if the terminals get lots of use, the logs will be huge). You could go ahead and keep the logs for a week, so that any disputes could be solved easily. Also, another person suggested to position the terminals so that the contents of the screens would be viewable by others in the laundromat. I think this would cut down on a lot of innapropriate surfing. Just my 2 cents.
If I had something more interesting for a signature, this is where it would be.
I think that will be at least as effective as any filter, but if you have to, filter by words stronger than 'breast'. You should still be able to get rid of most of the pr0n if you check all the metatags.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
C'mon, this guy is running a laundry. What great ideals is he promoting? The right to display porn in front of a junior high school? He has a technical issue, but I fail to see the great social consenquence of any action he could possibly take.
The real problem with filtering software is that it blocks sites that rightfully should be let through. But again, this is a laundry, not a school and not a library. My suggestion would be for this person to help out with an open-source filter, if there is such a thing. Perhaps his laundry business could contribute to the development of such a project. But I don't see the social implication of a laundry employing restricive software, even if it does block worthwhile sites. If its illegal for him to show any pr0n whatsoever, protesting the law by allowing it anyway(especially in front of a school) is not going to further his cause.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
Every day the admin to our proxy server reviews the logs and sets up site bans based on type of content. My company has a line straight out to UUNET and our clients on our private network tend to abuse this great bandwidth for non-business related stuff, ie. mp3's, quicktime movies, realaudio/video, and of course, porn. So, it's a simple process, really. Look at the logs, check some questionable ones out, and block them. Keep doing it until people get the idea and stop eating into the bandwidth. Open and shut case.
The Public Space side:
These computers are provided for entertainment while people wash their clothes. Well, let's say instead of computers you just had nice benches where people could read. Say some guy walks in with a pornomag and flips through that while he washes his clothes, then leaves the magazine there. You can't expect the laundromat to be responsible if some old lady throws a fit upon that magazine's discovery, now would you?
If some moron wants to get his jerk on in an laundromat, then the cops (or the people inside) will kick him out. Just make sure each station has no privacy whatsoever.
[pink beam of light]
1. An intranet that lets users browse a local cache of the more popular sites. If somebody wants to reach something that's not cached, they could ask an attended to pull it down. The downsides to this method should be obvious to most of the people here: Forums like /. would not be very interactive, and people's tastes are so diverse you would be constantly responding to requests.
2. Only permit unaccompanied access to the system to adults. Then you have no need of any censorship at all. How many teen-aged kids actually use a laundromat by themselves anyway?
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
On the other hand, you could be fair about it by performing a similar improvement to all religious pages. Use your creativity! Just make sure you do block those breast cancer pages, or else kids will start playing doctor and giving each other exams.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Don't flame me, but I did it. Why? Because he owns the place and it's his business. If his employees don't like it, they can leave. But I didn't feel that this guy's employees' internet access to p0rn was a big enough deal to lose the client.
If someone is saying something I don't like in my presence, I am free to walk away and live my life how I want. People should also be free to decide how they want to view the web. If customers don't like the censorship, they can and will go elsewhere.
I think anybody should have the right to put most anything on the internet, but also that you have no right to tell me how I view it on my own time (with, or without filters). In this Ask Slashdot Question, the owner has full right to designate how people view the internet on his equipment, and those who wish to see it otherwise can ues someone else's service.
I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.
Seems more suited for YRO. Oh well. At any rate, I hope the responses are more interesting than this one.
Can you spare some karma, bub?
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
You say that as if the internet is the only vechial in which this type of content is carried. Do you realize that there are more TVs
Bingo. I personally believe that the Warner Brother's network (dubya-bee) is single-handedly responsible for the increase in pedophiles in this country. They constantly portray nubile babes as underaged objects of raw sexuality (think how much midriff, microskirt and nipple action do you see with 20-something actresses portraying ~15-16 year old kids). Anything for a Neilson point I suppose.
I think the images presented on prime-time TV do more damage to kids' minds by virtue of constant bombardment and innundation of 'ideals' than does a brief image of lactating transexual goat fucker.
Of course, the long term affects of heavy porn usage still haven't been disclosed...
---
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
He didn't say "foolproof" was a requirement, that was an assumption of yours. And, a hybrid solution which entails blocking of certain obvious words, coupled with leaving the terminals in open areas which are likely to be monitored (once again, not "foolproof", but reasonably effective in many cases) would probably be quite workable.
On the contrary, I feel it's actually more dangerous to give these kids access to places like msn.com and aol.com than to accidentally allow a pr0n site through. What the pr0n site does is a temporary offense to the mind - but allowing such bastions of commercialism through like aol.com is a slow denegration of the soul. It only exposes previously rather unexposed children to the rampant buy-buy-buy culture that is the outside world, and makes yet another media convert - a person with no thought skills, who does what the media wants. Can pr0n do that to a person? No. Can aol.com? Most definitely. I conclude that the commercialism is much, much more dangerous to society and to these individuals.
Download and install PE, and then delete all the image translators. Bingo! Instant image-free browser (Netpositive) that's too dumb to display most pr0n sites anyway. Woohoo!
That is NOT the solution. The easy was out is to censor what we dont like. But we all know that that in no real way works. So teach them that porn is not what they should be looking up. Admit to them that porn is out there. Admit to them that they can reach it. Then tell them that they shouldnt go to it. Sure, not everyone will listen, but the ones that spend thier study time getting off instead of studying will be the ones with the bad grades, they will learn. But that takes real, human effort unlike censorship programs. Neither is totaly effective, or even remotly effective. But you need to ask yourself why are you censoring porn? Because it is expected of you. All the parents with thier librarys of porn videos and mountans of Hustler will cry bloody murder. So ask yourself just who are you doing this for. Examine your goals. As for all the what ifs, what if someone knew that 1984 would cause distrust for the gov'it so they censored it. Then we all wouldnt be so paranoid about censorship.
"Cornflakes are not the innocent critters they seem"- Sterling Morrison
Buy a censorware product, and install it. Have a policy that says something akin to "no porn, indecent material, or illegal activities (no DoS, not no browsing drug sites)" or some similar AUP. Then , implement censorware to block all such sites, using an OTS product. But, have it set up so that there is an easy way (web form?) to submit a link to a site that should be allowed. Periodically got through the submissions manually and remove those sites (if appropriate). While something of a hassle, I think it is a reasonable solution. I imagine that only a small fraction of users each day would submit links, so having someone spend an hour at the end of each day might be sufficient. Or perhaps do that throughout the day along with other admin duties. Granted, it woudn't provide immediate response, but its far better than nothing. I think you have an obligation to provide reasonable censorship at your site. Good Luck!
---
How about just block any site that attempts to bring up more than 8,000 little windows, and any site any of those link to? I think that ONLY gets porn sites. Admittedly, not quite all, but it seems easy enough. Then, you can modify the software for your home use, so that you can look at porn without the annoying windows :)
---
I think the point is that they are not harmful. Information cant harm you.
This is ridiculous. I produce fake evidence that you are a child pornographer. You are charged with a sex offense. Information just harmed you.
My child sees racist propaganda on stormfront.org. Despite my best efforts to talk with him about this and why it's wrong, how do I know that it hasn't permanently affected him? Information just harmed him.
People post dire rumors about your company on the Internet. Stock tanks, management panics, you get fired. Information just harmed you.
And if you are harmed by a side-effect of freedom of information, then theres a wider issue that needs attention.
Such as the fact that the dissemination of this information causes such side effects. Information always has side effects.
Putting a plaster on a ruptured main artery may look better than nothing in court, but not in a hospital.
And a banana is bluer than a skunk, but only if there's no beer in Italy.
In short: explain, please.
My first piece of advice is to find yourself a lawyer to advise you. Call me cynical, but if you make an attempt at filtering content and then fail, you're going to get sued by someone's parents. It might still happen anyway. I recall that a black man sued Collier's because his son happened across what he termed 'racially offensive' material on the CDROM version of their encyclopedia. The son claimed he was looking for the Niger River and misspelled it, resulting in him finding references to things like Joseph Conrad's book, "The Nigger of the 'Narcissus'". I don't think the suit got very far, but it still consumed time and money for Colliers. I don't mean to throw cold water on your efforts, which sounds admirable, but just be aware of the hazards and protect yourself as much as possible.
"If I have seen further than other men, it is by stepping on their glasses." - Michael Swaine
Actually all the things you have named are individuals uninformed and biased interpretation of information. Let me please clear some things up for you.
1. You really would have no bounds for charging anyone with a sex offense with false evidence. Eventually you will be found to be a fraud and most likely cuonter sued at least, or worst you may find yourself getting a shotgun in the face by a man in black clothing.
2. Your child really must be (no offense) dumber than dirt to be influenced by some stupid ex-farmer from Iowa who decided to but his neo-Nazi web site up for fun and kicks. Give kids more credit than that. Hell it's common knowledge amongst my younger brothers and sisters that the telletubbies is just a from for the portrayl of a gay childrens character. Kids are not stupid.
3. So like if I say "Andover.net is a sham business they hire slaves in Cambodia to moderate posts" that will automatically prove to be the downfall of slashdot right? Most companies are smarter than that and most large brokerages are *way* smarter than that. The only way anyting close to this is going to happen without a lot of luck is if Cletus is the majority stock holder.
4. Information has side affects. You know more and become wiser for it. What people are seeing now is that people are becomming less and less able to be essentially talked into doing anything and more likely to follow their bliss.
What you are saying is that you fear that little Billy is going to see the naked people on the internet and become a child molester right? As far as I can tell most sex offenders are usualyl not over sexed porn addicts but repressed middle aged men who never married, had a steady girl or anything resembling good sexual relations with anyone. Hell maybe providing freer access to porn would actually *prevent* sexual battery and the like.
In short your ideas are not really that remarkable. People can be suckered and fooled in almost any time. That dosn't mean that we should totally restrict things because of a few outcries of data outliers in the system.
Respond to s
Here's a good idea just run a web browser like say lynx. Then they get access to the net and all you have to deal with is the written smut and the like ( I personally am very font of written smut but that's a discussion for another day).
Another good idea. Would be to do a content grabbing method like spidering or crawling the web.
Want to know a really good secret. Operate a proxy server that you route the stuff through and keep your cached documents on that you grabbed. Lynx basically can already do this and has for some time. Only problem is when applied to slashdot you get crap when you want the comments. My solution to this is actually to get the lynx2-7 code and compile it. However it does need one little change there is a conflict in the interpretation of basic error logging in one file in the WWW library when building that conflicts with stdio.h. It's their fault and you just change the applicted file with the correct line in stdio.h. That being said it allows for crawling via slashdot and keeps nested mode (which relies on nested tables) working and you can keep your login via the login string in your Preferences that slashdot allows.
Now that being said I really do think that allowing access to the net is almost a necessity for some things. I also believe that people should have all the access they can handle. Someone mentioned smartcards for access to your computer system. I submit that a person should get graduated access to various portions of the web based on some loosely defined age criterion. At first access could be granted via simple under 18 over 18 type of thing. Make people who want to access the over 18 classification in a seperate bank of machines that are kept secluded and away from youngsters.
Perhaps a finer tuning for the junior high could be imposed. Just have an initial fee to cover media costs for the smart card media and allow for logging of all sites that are not agreed on via the smart card and then change the parameters.
People who act unreasonably may be the victors of the day but it comes at a very high price. You personally reviewing the materials that people need on a case by case basis might be the only option unless you have the desire to write the first AI bot for web filtering in perl.
Whoever picked an area near a junior high should be beaned on the head. I suspect that whatever you choose these kids are going to fully stress test this system.
Respond to s
A local library when faced with this issue simply turned off images in Netscape. Lynx was considered as an alternative, but rejected because the interface was confusing to the non-enlightened.
What you do is stick to your ideals. It may be inconvenient. It may result in losing a job. But if it is something you feel strongly about, you must not surrender your conscience. It is especially hard if your ideals are significantly different than those of mainstream society. But where would we be if Martin Luther King had reached a "compromise" with Jim Crow legislation? What if Nelson Mandela decided to change his position in order to avoid the inconvenience of prison? The fact is, the actions you take are important, no matter how unimportant you may feel as an individual. It is only through many small individual acts that large-scale change will happen. As Camus wrote "it is better to die on one's feet than to live on one's knees."
Reasonable...though some information requires images to properly illustrate/present the information. You could also simply disable "load images" in the settings of Netscape or IE. This wont stop improper textual content. The only sure method is supervised usage - but since you are using supervised usage for the kids, there is no need to block the pictures preemptively.
Basically, when people of a certain age use the net, they should be supervised/watched over to prevent porn/child porn, etc, access. Perhaps have some boxen set aside purely for child use. Other boxen are for adults, who are able to access offensive material intentionally or accidentally. If it traumatizes them too much, then they aren't fit enough (in the Darwinian sense) to live in the real world anyway. They need merely leave the site. They're adults, they can handle THAT. If they can't handle running across cavorting nekkid bodies now and again without it destroying their world, they need their adulthood revoked.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
In the real world, your business is apt to get sued and/or prosecuted for allowing a minor to see an adult picture, text, whatever...a list may be good, but the web is so dynamic, by the time the list is compiled, it is obsolete.
The solution, for the real world would be to implement an off-the-shelf filtering software, maybe like someone would use in their home. This will at least show that you have "in good faith" attempted to curb what minors can see. A perfect solution? No. A defensible solution? I think so, not being a lawyer or anything. Stepping on adult's rights? Yes, but may be a necessary evil by the laws of your state (minor looking over shoulder from accross the room), but shouldn't be considered restraint of free speech (it's on private property) - customers can still get whatever they want through their ISP, or local library (since it's a public building, and is subject to free speech).
Roll Tide! For Bama headlines, check out Bamadog.
Having hit some of these issues while setting up an internet presence at a large university library, we found that people looking at porn don't like others to see that they are looking at with porn. So what do they do? Ever seen someone hunched over the monitor at a public workstation for long periods of time? Well, odds are they ain't reading Martha Stewart. I'd recommend installing a large monitor, and mounting it on the wall at a height that can't reasonable be blocked by a standing person. The power of Social Censorware outperforms the software kind handily.
I've got a problem with censorship alltogether. I fully agree that there need to be some limitation to what can be said/shown/heard/read/written, but my i feel that it's more essential to educate people. I come to my point: if i were to see a neo-nazi site with extreme propaganda, it will not make me think that nazism is good by god sake. And i would not think so, because i was educated to think that way. People wise and with more experience than me have been kind enough to share their experience and knowledge with me, so that I could make up my mind about what is wrong and what is right. So I think what is much more important than preventing people to access information is to teach team how to understand it, teach them to read between the lines. By experience I can say that I was, and I'm always, attracted by "things" I'm not supposed to experience/live/do, not because they are wrong (or right ...) but because nobody ever took time to explain me what those "things" were about.
Knowledge is power,
Ignorance is a plague.
BTW: what's the problem with porn ? Children are all the time in contact with some degree of sexuality. Adult's answer: it's about love ... nope, sex is about reproduction instinct, and sometimes is accompanied with love and such high rated feeling. But children, and even most of grown men and women out there should make the distinction between what's reality (mother and father loving each other (or not anymore) for a lot of other of reason than sex) and fiction (porn actors fucking 24/24 7/7 for ... money) ... maybe confronting children with hardcore porn early and explaining that it is just a fiction and not a goal to achieve could spare them visits to sexologist later ...
if sexologists or porn actors want to reply or give advice, we'll sure be glad to ear your opinion :-)
root@lame:/var/log# grep DENY *
When our ideals meet the real world, they flex. If we are strong enough, committed enough, "ideal" enough, then being human, we modify the world to suit us and our ideals.
That is what humans do. Unlike other living things, when we meet something that doesn't suit us, we can change it. What happens depends on you, your ideals, your convictions, your strength and the "resistiveness" of the real world. Sometimes the real world wins and you are modified. Each and every day someone faces a part of the real world that doesn't match up with their idea of that it should be. It is up to each one to change the world to fit them, or to change themselves to fit reality.
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
Leaving out the ideological arguments, it has been quite adequately demonstrated that censorware can't and won't work. Have you tried explaining this to the decision-makers involved, and going from there to discuss the alternatives already canvassed here (Lynx, login and tracking, placing the computers where access is supervised, etc)?
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
"And that is the very definition of censorship."
Censorship is not prudishness.
And yes, you're obviously prudish; you lump bondage and "barely legal" in the same category as bestiality and coprophilia.
Oh gee, I don't like bondage so I'm a prude!? Get real. I lumped these items together because they are things that a lot of parents would have severe objections to their children witnessing. Bondage may be consensual, and for the most part is play-acting, but real dominance in a relationship, particularly when it is usually associated with sadism, is not normal. "Barely legal" caters to the borderline pedophile, and is the pederast's methadone.
"You pro censorship types are such blame-shifting imbeciles."
I am not pro-censorship. If you have read any of my other posts, you will know that. I am a radical libertarian, and as such I have absolutely no interest in telling you what you can or cannot do.
But as a libertarian, I greatly object that you wish to ban a class of software for use in private. Censorware may be morally objectionable to you, but for some people it isn't. It is one thing to keep censorware out of publically funded libraries, but it is quite another to keep it out of a private laundermat. There is a universe of difference between government censorship and the outright banning of pornography and parents restricting what their minor children can view.
This whole slashdot topic was about using or not using censorware in a private business. Your morality simply does not enter into it. Your comment about the ineffectuality of filtering by words was right on topic and informative. Your accusal of Americans as prudes was very off topic.
"If your kids are raised properly, you don't need to protect them from the Big Bad Internet, they'll know which sites are good and healthy and which sites are negative and unhealthy."
It would be great if all children were raised properly. But they're not. But it's completely irrelevant. It's absolutely stupid to say to a parent "you did a bad job raising your kids so you forfeit all rights to keep pornography away from them".
"If parents aren't willing to do that, they shouldn't be parents, and you have no responsibility to filter through software what parents should be filtering by education."
What arrogance! What possibly right do you have to pick and choose who is fit to be a parent? You, sir, have absolutely no moral, legal or ethical right to tell someone else how they should raise their own children. How dare you! Before you start accusing us of reducing the net to our own "narrow ideology and belief and morality", take a good look at youself. We certainly do not want to impose our morality on the net. But you, on the other hand, want to impose your morality on people's lives and children.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
You can't. At present there is no meaningful way to censor the internet without losing valuable content. The very notion of 'censoring' is predicate on a fixed idea of what is and what is not appropriate. There is no computational method for finding isAppropriate(viewer, content).
as i said in another post, putting net connections in libraries and schools is like running a freeway through the playground.
if you don't want kids and sheltered adults from finding porn 'on accident' *cough* then the simple solution is don't give them net access.
there is no form of blocking, automatic nor manual that is foolproof. if you go with automatic, either you end up blocking things you'd rather have available, or you miss some of the porn.
for manual, you just simply can't keep up with all the porn sites.
the only 'possible' solution, which is
i really don't see another way.
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
Yes. They are providing a free service to the community that their own expense, and the specifications of that service are theirs to dictate. They are free to dictate terms of use to anyone willing to utilize their service.s
In the other case, I am doing the server/filesharing at my own expense. No one can dictate to me the terms upon which I may or may not share my own files, save perhaps the ISP.
.sig: Now legally binding!
Somebody commented in the past that p0rn pictures are almost always JPEGs rather than GIFs, because of better picture quality and because it's what digital cameras generate, so you can do a surprisingly effective crude first cut by killing JPEGs and letting GIFs through. That does block web sites with pictures of people's kids and cats, and doesn't block animated GIFs or advertising banners for p0rn sites, but it's usually close enough for government work and better than blocking pictures entirely.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I agree with the posts that you'll have a tough job filtering content based on text...you'll probably need to use filter software which could be bucks. I don't know. Here's a quick link: www.safekids.com
Concerning the moral dilemma...there isn't one. You are not the U.S. government. You are not shutting down these servers with objectionable content, you are not prohibiting anybodies free speech. True, surf n' wash is limiting the content available to it's customers. That's not censorship. It's a business policy. Newspapers don't print expletives found in letters to the editor (at least mine doesn't). Government censors, businesses do not.
Now, businesses and corporations are gaining power in the ability to dictate government policy (maybe they have already gained?). At some point it may be necessary to worry about businesses controlling online content...I don't think we are there yet.
What does AOL do?
Maybe allow for the filter to be switched off with proper identifcation....but would you want to do your laundry at a place where teenage boys are surfing porn?
TGL
--- this space intentionally left blank.
> It's not about being prudish, it's about blocking off what you don't want to see
And that is the very definition of censorship. When you filter based on what you, personally, don't wish to see, and have that choice be applicable to everyone, that's censorship. And in this case it's censorship for the purposes of being prudish. If you don't like something, don't look at it. If someone leaves a terminal pointed to a site you don't like, close the window. It's that simple.
And yes, you're obviously prudish; you lump bondage and "barely legal" in the same category as bestiality and coprophilia. The latter two are considered very unusual perversions, while bondage is a consensual lifestyle choice much like homosexuality or heterosexuality, and "barely legal" is a term usually used to refer either to the Hustler magazine/website of the same name, or to girls 18-22 who look young and girlish--in other words, the type of women most men are naturally sexually attracted to.
> My biggest objection however is the insistance that I can't keep my children away
> from anything that isn't immediately fatal.
You pro censorship types are such blame-shifting imbeciles. Sir, you can keep your kids away from anything you want to. You can keep them from going to public access Internet terminals--hell, you can lock them into AOL-only sites on your home computer, if that's what you want. You can keep them out of standard junior high/high school sex ed classes, if you want to. You can keep your kids away from whatever you choose to keep them away from. My sole point is that ultimately it's a parent's responsibility to teach his or her children well enough so that they don't need useless and inaccurate key-word filtering on public terminals to keep them from looking at inappropriate things. If your kids are raised properly, you don't need to protect them from the Big Bad Internet, they'll know which sites are good and healthy and which sites are negative and unhealthy. But I guess Americans just don't want to take responsibility for raising their kids and teaching them well any more, I guess they want to censor the world in the hopes that their kids won't be exposed to sexuality of any kind, ever. That's why we have insanely high teenage pregnancy rates and sex crime rates compared to France, England, and most of the rest of Europe, where kids are taught about sexuality and taught the difference between constructive and destructive sexuality.
It's very telling that someone modded down my first comment in this thread, which simply pointed out that filtering by words contained on the page is ineffectual, and that ultimately it's a parent's responsibility to raise children who know what they should and should not be looking at on a public access Internet terminal. It's very telling indeed, about the outright Puritanism which is still rearing its ugly head in this nation, holding us back even after centuries.
I repeat, and pay attention this time: "Yes, there's lots of unhealthy sexuality on the net that I wouldn't want my kids exposed to at an early age. But do you know the best way to keep them from looking at that stuff? It's by having honest discussions with them about adolescence, life, sex, and the difference between sex with love and sex without it, and the difference between healthy sexuality and destructive sexuality. If parents aren't willing to do that, they shouldn't be parents, and you have no responsibility to filter through software what parents should be filtering by education. Censorship "for the good of the children" is no better than cesorship for any other reason. Nazis and NetNannys are two sides of the same coin; it's the parent's responsibility to supervise the child, to raise the child, to teach the child the difference between constructive and destructive sexuality, not to try half-assedly to reduce the Net to their own narrow ideology and belief and morality."
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, *The Annals*
I worked for a community college that had several large, public computer labs and censorship was never an issue. Most people just don't want to get caught looking at porn in a public place. Not to mention the "being turned on in a public place" factor... Of course there were a few people that would look at porn in the labs. It was kinda funny actually. The offenders would have a 2 inch high space to browse in and they woudl get real close to the screen so they could scroll through the image. You always knew who they were and they had a reputation. You can simply ask them to leave. It should be your right to ask someone to leave if they are doing something that is "inappropriate." Just have a written policy that states "No Porn! Violators will be asked to leave." On the other hand, it should go without saying that porn is inappropriate for a public computer lab. Just like running around yelling or talking loud is inappropriate for a public library. It really shouldn't have to come down to legality or written policies or censorship.
Really, the only "censorship" we found necessary was blocking web based chat sites. And that was just to keep people from hogging machines in busy labs. I swear, some of those people are friekin' chat JUNKIES!
Point is that you are wasting your time trying to censor content. Personally, I really don't think there is anything worth censoring. Most information, and lets keep it this way, is still legal. There is nothing illegal or unethical about researching illicit drugs or reading racist manifestos. What people DO with the information is another story. I think you should be strong and insist that if it isn't illegal and it isn't blatantly inappropriate, it should be permitted.
-matthew
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
It's is strange that we strived to block smut from "young" people, while trusting that "adults" can watch them without being "corrupted".
The truth is that people who are interested in smut will always be interested in smut whether or not they are exposed to smut as young kids in the first place.
Smut is just an interest. If somebody has nothing better to do in his/her life, and like smut then he/she will want it. If somebody likes smut, but then found something else more interesting to do (like writing obfuscated Perl code), then he/she will just lose interest in smut and channel his/her interest somewhere else.
Block smut in Junior/Senior/Blah blah anywhere is NOT going to make a more "moral" world. What's the difference? 12 year old kids will eventually grow up to be 18 anyway.
I personally think watching smut is not amoral. I just think it's boring after a while : there are just so much more interesting things I can do.
Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
Sticking to your ideals isn't imperative by any means. What most people think are "ideals" are just preconceptions about the way things are and the way things "should" be. Whenever you examine your preconceptions under a bright light, you find them to be not quite so black and white as you first thought.
I'd go even further, in fact. It is imperative that you not stick to your ideals. Your response should be appropriate to the circumstances, not just a knee-jerk reaction because of your preconceptions. It is quite immature, and logically falacious, to say that one preconception overrides all other concerns.
Witness the pro-life groups. Would you say they are right to kill doctors for their ideals? It's a tricky issue, and you can't answer complex questions like these by using your dogma and preconceptions.
You use the term "something you feel strongly about". If only more people would think about the world, rather than try and feel their way through it. Emotions are unreliable indicators.
The fact that the original poster admitted that Slashdot has "indoctrinated" him into these ideals is also quite telling...
--
It's a
-- Danny Vermin
Here's another illustration. My summer job is providing support for public web terminals at a mall. We have filtering software for one simple reason - if we didn't and someone complained about their kid looking at porn, we'd be kicked out of the mall in about 5 seconds flat. It would happen - no question about it. It doesn't matter if it's fair or not. That's the way things work in the "real world."
I don't like filtering any more than anyone else, but the reality is that it really is necessary sometimes. If you're offering public web access, you're taking a huge risk if you don't at least make some effort to restrict content. No, filtering is not perfect and never will be. My point is that there are situations where it's the only answer.
I read an article in the Vancouver Sun about new product which has a rather large database of educational and 'safe' sites and they have a panel adding more sites weekly. It is SafeXplorer.com.
What does the /. community think of this option?
You're asking for the impossible - a context-sensitive proxy. Why not compile a list of 50-100 sites (LA Times, CNN, ESPN, etc..) that would be useful to people, and proxy based on those domains? It's not a perfect solution, but it will save you the trouble of having an imperfect text filter showing some 11-year old porn.
'ARRGH! Pirate Designers of the Internet, we be!'
why not have *no* blocking software, and only a simple request not to look at pr0n? Depending on the community, this should be deterrent enough.
Lemurific!
Dammit, why the fuck is this even a question for /.??? First of all, it is not censorship for a biz to say "I don't want certain things on my computers'. As an employee, I wouldn't want my boss telling me this, but then again I've had to put the smack down on people in my office that were looking at porn where customers and other employees could see it. I thought about installing censorware, but decided that it would be much easier to fire the employee after his second warning (the first was when a new employee 18 year old girl came in crying because he was showing other employees 'BigAssBitches').
/. story.
As a biz owner, you can do what ever you want. If your customers don't want to see it, then thats the audience you have to please. If your customers want porn, close the door to minors and have at it too (though the biz license would probably be harder to come by).
Now if it were the Gov't censoring shit, like the gov't saying ya can't have violent games played on public property like here in Indianapolis (though this still doesn't effect private property 'cause Jillian's still had my favorite sniper game as of last week), I'd say it was a
Enough of my complaining about a nonissue.
clif
Great job, you used the words "cunt" and "cumshot" in a sentence. Now he has to block Slashdot...
On the gripping hand, quitting your job and publicaly stating your reasons can often do far more to change attitudes than simply quietly working within the system. By quietly working to reduce the amount of censorship, you are still censoring. You are not making a stand against it, nor are you doing anything that will likely bring attention to the issue. All the while the crusders for the moral right will advance their agendas further and further. Social change usually doesn't happen by people quietly sriving against the system. It works by publically and willingly getting your butt kicked in the name of the cause. It ain't easy, and it ain't fun. But you have to ask yourself which is more important; you're comfy life, or the betterment of your Fellow Man? In some instances it may be teh former, but sometimes it will be the latter. The final decision is up to the individual. We already know which side of the fence the corporate oligopoly has decided upon.
-Vercingetorix
-Vercingetorix
"Necessitas non habet legem." -St. Augustine
A simple modification: Multiply the score (if negative) by the number of JPEGs over 50k. Or something similar. Banners and other "Business Graphics" are usually GIFs or small. Porn, however, is much more often large JPEGs. So a site that only uses a little bad language would get a much higher rating if there were lots of large photos.
---
On the other hand, if you truly believe in your cause, then you'll do what you can to make sure there's a little censorship as possible going on at this laundromat. If you fail to meet the requirements of the management, they will find someone else to replace you, and that other person may simply install CyberPatrol. It may be best to compromise your ideals in order to maintain your influencial position.
Isn't politics great?
--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
There is no substitute yet for a human when it comes to intelligent filtering. Squid, Perl, and ipchains goes a long way, but there really isn't a substitute for scanning the log files.
I set up something similar for public use for my troop of Boy Scouts. After explaining to them how their privileges would go away (and their parents would be notified) if they disobeyed the rules, and showing them how easy it was for me to monitor what they were surfing (a quick example involving a simple Perl script and the squid access log) they were off and running.
The system has been surprisingly automatic, and it has had the added consequence of getting several of the boys interested in tools like Perl, Squid, and Linux.
However, it wouldn't work at all if there wasn't an intelligent person manning the switches. Much of the tedium can be removed from the job, but your computer is not going to make value judgements for you. No matter how fancy your porn detection algorithms are there will be a way around them, or worse yet, there will be web sites that generate false positives. But if you put an actual human in the mix, then you can make the type of useful system that the poster above mentions.
This is the approach that was take for a University hall of residence.
Firstly, squid was used to do some IP address filtering. The suspect domains were obtained by greping the
The next thing was to put posters up, explaining what was done, stressing the blocked sites were selected by an automatic method, and that porn (and others - warez etc) was banned.
The next step was to ensure that all the monitors could be seen anyone (ie no terms tucked in a corner).
After that, anyone caught, the site was baned, and so were they [1].
The bandwidth each user utilised was also examined (automatically). If it was found that a person downloaded more than a limit [2] of data from one site, in one day, the site was flagged for checking to the admin. This was desiged to catch warez sites, and similar. IIRC, the only think it caught was uk.kernel.org
This approach yeilded one complaint about an incorrectly blocked site (It was along the lines of fuckedcompany, although I forget the exact one, and one person caught for looking at porn.
The reason for the porn ban is that porn is just about the only clearly recognisable objectionable item, at a distance (ie for someone at the next term). There were other banned catagories, but they were unlikely to cause problems. Porn is also a bandwith killer.
Today, we'd probably be looking at throttling Napster, or possably blocking it [3].
Whilst this is possably slightly more than you want to block, it's justifyable on most fronts.
[0] In the UK, the netherlands is infamous (rightly or wrongly) as a source of, uh, XXX porn.
[1] This, of course requires user authentication, which I assume you are doing.
[2] Something insane, like 400 Mb (we were on the back of 155Mb/s ATM link).
[3] The Net was explicitly for 'academic purposes only'. One guy we found downloading porn claimed it was for his course
The whole filtering debate is useless, as everything is shades of gray -- like the poster alluded to, showing a baby breast-feeding is not porn to most people. I'll bet it is to someone, though. Violent scenes could essentially be porn to someone; pornography is not about genitals and breasts and butts -- it's about lasciviousness, gluttony, and passivity (not necessarily bad things in themselves, IMHO). The reason you see governments, big business, the wealthy, the powerful, and elite having problems with porn is that they have a hard time using it to control you (well, that's not totally true, but mostly, I think). Violence in the news, on the other hand is a very effective tool for them to get their way (which is usually to fill their pocketbooks), by teaching the public their own filtered view of reality.
I'll try to make this on topic again by saying that you, the poster, as well as anyone else who cares about their freedom, have a duty to NOT participate in such filtering nonsense. Anyone who would be harmed by certain content on the internet should not be using it without parental guidance anyway; filtering software is NOT a suitable replacement for a human being. It is far worse, IMO, for benign content to be accidentally blocked that it is for a child/sensitive viewer to see something that might prod their value system a little bit (heaven forbid!).
In a word: abstain.
www.poak.net
You have been given an impossible task. There is absolutely no chance in hell that you will be able to block even .001% of the pr0n/objectionable sites out there. Commercial software filters can cover a lot more sights, but not with much better accuracy. Instead, look at your target audience. You are serving people who have little if any experience with the net. Therefore, a nice portal site will lead them in the right direction without you worrying about "objectionable" material.
You definetally need to make your users sign agreements for internet use. You need to make sure your company isn't held liable for any problems they have or cause. Another clause must deal with objectionable material. Perhaps simply having an agreement that they will immediately close any material that the management deems inappropriate to the customer base. Maintain no liability, but keep the option open to kick people off the system if you get enough complaints. Train your staff to simply scan the monitors and make sure nothing explicit is available.
The problem with censorware has always been choosing what is objectionable to whom. I am a strong advocate of free speech, but when people are using a pay service in public, the proprietor of the service has a right to enforce certain rules. Allowing the on-site staff to survey online use to make sure nothing "inappropriate" to the customer base is probably the best solution - this way people on the scene can address whether content affects them and their neighbors, instead of relying on a person or company far removed.
You simply can't do it. You would either have to do it by hand (yuck) or install censorware (yuck). The latter would filter about .01% of the material, while the latter would filter maybe 50% of the material and be wrong 10% of the time.
A better option?
1. Put the computer near the counter or wherever your guys stand. People won't mess around when their screen can be seen by employees.
2. Post usage policies next to the computer in a _visible_ location.
It acts on the same principle that should hopefully keep our libraries uncensored: People wanting to avoid public embarrassment.
--
Friends don't let friends misuse the subjunctive.
What you do is stick to your ideals. It may be inconvenient. It may result in losing a job. But if it is something you feel strongly about, you must not surrender your conscience. It is especially hard if your ideals are significantly different than those of mainstream society. But where would we be if Martin Luther King had reached a "compromise" with Jim Crow legislation? What if Nelson Mandela decided to change his position in order to avoid the inconvenience of prison? The fact is, the actions you take are important, no matter how unimportant you may feel as an individual. It is only through many small individual acts that large-scale change will happen. As Camus wrote "it is better to die on one's feet than to live on one's knees."
-Vercingetorix
-Vercingetorix
"Necessitas non habet legem." -St. Augustine
These kids are at the age where they can be responsible for their own actions, and where seeing pr0n probably will not scar them for life. It's a public facility, and there's no more obligation to censor/filter material for minors than a magazine store that happens to sell copies of Playboy and Penthouse.
That said, IMHO there is no good technical solution in terms of blocking, whether by keyword or anything else. Witness the tens of commercial products that are rediculed by Peacefire on a frequent basis. For any blocking scheme, there will always be holes in the system, and also sites that are incorrectly blocked.
I would suggest that each person should have to log on with a unique ID to use the system, and that all accesses would be logged, and that they are told that their activities are logged, and analyzed.
That said, it would probably also help to put the terminals in a position where the contents of the screen are prominently visible to other patrons of said laundromat. Public embarassment can be a reasonably good deterrent.
My $0.02
For example, say that the word "breast" is a -1 word, being rather mild and usable in ok ways ("There goes a robin red-breast!") while "worse" words such as "penis" are -5. Some phrases ("hot bitch") would be -10, and so on.
Some words would activate "positive" words, so that finding "breast" might allow "cancer" to be a +1, so "breast cancer" is a 0, not a -1.
Once the page has been scanned and a score has been figured, determine a score needed to allow viewing, adjusted for number of words (so that someone looking at "-1" on Slashdot doesn't find it blocked because some troll posted "Jon Katz is a cunt" 30 times in a row).
I dunno how well this would really work, but it's an idea. It still runs into some problems - the optimal solution would be to have someone watching people online. And of course, go over the proxy logs and see where people have gone - block sites that shouldn't have been allowed that way.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
In response to some of the standard comments in this thread:
1. The "Social shame will keep porn to a minumum" argument.
Laundromats are strange places. They attract strange people. And they seem to make ordinary people lose a lot of their inhibitions. I've seen people take off their pants and throw them into a washing machine, as if it were perfectly normal to get nekkid in public. That some dirty old man won't immediately begin to hunt for porn seems like wishful thinking, even if he's got an enormous audience.
2. The "Supervisory staffing will be a burden" caveat.
Laundromat employees are hardly burdened as it is. Maybe there's some secret work that they do that I've never noticed, but it seems like most of the time they sit around and watch TV or read or stare at people. Once in a while they'll clean a lint trap or yell at someone for using too much detergent. Asking them to keep an eye on the internet terminals, or even to man an administrative terminal to process un-blocking requests, seems like no big deal to me.
3. The "Stick to your ideals! Screw the Man!" exhortation.
We're talking about a laundromat. Nothing noble has ever happened in a laundromat. Stop quoting Camus and making wild comparisons to great moments of integrity throughout history.
Remember that the sites want to be found by search engines, so think about what they are going to put into their text to get indexed and act accordingly.
Filtering based on "breast" is not going to lose any porn sites that filtering stronger language left behind.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
That way you won't display any dirty pictures, and you can use Linux and 486's to do it real cheap. And the ascii erotica will help the junior high kids learn how to read.