Slashdot Mirror
Checking Out Library Censorship
This provision ought to be called "The Local Net Censorship Act" -- and it's close to becoming law. Lawmakers in both the House and the Senate approved a final version late last week, agreeing on a compromise approach containing elements of separate plans passed in the two chambers earlier this year. It would require all schools and libraries to install filtering software regulating the content available to any computers purchased with Federal money, blocking child pornography, obscenity and materials deemed harmful to minors. Schools and libraries would also be required to develop Net use policies that address minors' online access to "inappropriate" materials.
Much of the tech culture was asleep at the switch when the Digital Millennium Copyright Act was passed, giving corporations unprecedented control of American intellectual property, and is now paying for its apathy. This law could increase liability for schools and libraries, give local politicians and religious crazies a significant new weapon to ban access in public institutions to material they consider offensive or inappropriate.
Representatives are already lining up to lengthen the list of sites and subjects considered "inappropriate." Sen. John McCain of Arizona is pushing his own filtering provision in the Senate, where an amendment by Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania has just added the further requirement that communities be able to provide input about blocking other "inappropriate" Web sites that mention bomb-making, drugs or other topics.
As most of the people reading this know, blocking and filtering programs are arbitrary and wildly ineffective. While savvy users can easily bypass them, these filters hide from most users vast amounts of legitimate information along with so-called "offensive" content. This law is a license for every political interest group to keep subjects they don't like out of local libraries and schools. The victims would be kids with nowhere but libraries to go for Net access. Most filtering programs are censorship technology, pure and simple, but at the same time less effective than simple adult or parental supervision. They are not justified by any meaningful statistics regarding children and the Internet -- perhaps because there really aren't any.
Instead of tying the hands of educators and librarians, government should be doing everything possible to ensure that as many kids as possible have free access to the Net and the Web, because it will be vital to their social, educational and economic opportunities. Laws like this demonstrate how profoundly and dangerously ignorant of technology most of our elected leaders are, and how vulnerable to their ignorance the tech culture is.
The National Education Association is fighting the law -- the still nameless legislation is attached to legislation funding the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education departments. The American Library Association is in on the fight, too, since the bill would for the first time force public libraries to follow the same access policies as schools. But hardly anyone in Congress will dare defend "pornography" and "offensive" material.
"For a library, it's a different ball game," a spokeswoman for the ALA told The New York Times. "If you have to filter any machine a child may use, in a library, you'd have to filter every computer. It disregards age-appropriate levels." This means older children, teenagers and adults would be arbitrarily censored by any local community that didn't like a particular kind of Web site or subject matter, from abortion information to anything resembling sexual imagery. And kids in schools would be subject to even more controlled than they already are.
Libraries -- and local communities -- already have the freedom to establish controls ranging from increased supervision to some kinds of filtering if they wish. Most libraries and schools also have the ability to block sites if they are deemed dangerous and offensive. There is absolutely no reason for Congress to make censorship technology universal and required by law. The federal provision would further complicate Net access issues for libraries, since their environments are less controlled than a public school. Libraries are open to all ages, including adults -- who have a First Amendment right to access a broader range of materials on the Net than the proposed congressional filtering arrangement would allow. Libraries also fear that the law would expose libraries to a wave of new lawsuits demanding they filter -- in accordance with federal law -- any site that could be considered "inappropriate" or "offensive" by any elements of any local community. Passage of this law would force local libraries to radically increase filtering of the Net.
Most of us don't need to go to the library for Net access, but millions of people -- mostly kids -- do. They are entitled to some kinds of First Amendment protection as well as we are. This is a dangerous law, one which injects federal moral guardians directly into the issue of Net access. History tell us this is an awful idea. If you're in the mood to contact your local congressman or woman, this is a great reason to do it. For further information, you can also contact the National Education Association and the American Library Association.
Note: If you're looking for factual evidence to help bolster your arguments against the encroachment of filters, jamie also suggests checking out The Censorware Project, Peacefire and the GLAAD report on filter discrimination.
As this issue has come up in our local library, where I maintain the publicly available PC's, it appears that there may be an easy solution. Any legislation of this kind will only be able to restrict the use of systems purchased with federal money. Simply donate a pc to your local library with the express wish that it not be filtered. You may have to spring for seperate Internet access as well, since many libraries have their internal networks and net access funded with federal money. I believe that may libraries would find the donation of a PC with Linux installed and some minimum maintenance to be valued more highly a simple email to your local congress critter alone.
We have two systems for Internet access; one windows box with NetNanny for filtering and one Linux system that is not filtered. Our library policy is that children under 12 may only use the filtered box, and young adults may use the unfiltered machine if they have parential consent. A further note is that state law prohibits the display of "obscene" material in a public place, so that we may ask a patron to not view such material at the library. This lets patrons visit sites for information (GBL sites, abortion, et. al.) why still giving us the power to not have Playboy or www.whitehouse.com on public display.
One side note here is that NetNanny is one of the only filtering programs for Windows that releases the blocked site list and allows the user to alter it. This gives the knowledgeable sysadmin some leeway. If someone knows of useable Linux filtering software, please let me know.
The Internet has no garbage collection
It won't stop here, you know. The bill calls for the restriction of "objectionable" content. Objectionable is a fairly broad word; it can mean anything from hardcore sex to an opinion you don't agree with. Do we really need to give the government that kind of power?
What about large organizations? The GOP, Nike, and lots of other bodies of people no doubt have large lists of things that they find "objectionable." What happens when they can dictate what sites get filtered due to "objectionable" content?
This particular battle may already be lost. It might not be possible to turn back the tide and make the Web available to everyone in its raw, uncensored form. If that is the case, then we need to start planning now for the day when opinions that you and I hold valuable are banned, when it is no longer possible for anyone to access the Web and see what someone else thinks is questionable or objectionable.
Samizdat may be the only way to go on this. We will each of us be a lone voice crying in the desert, but better that than to be gagged in public view.
www.alarmist.org
We'll just hire a bunch of puritans to come in and watch the computers! Better yet, hire in the easily offended! I know, I know! Let's hire a bunch of Luddites to tell Congress that the Internet is offensive! Let's ban it all!
Free BeOS, runs from a Linux partition
Keep the control at the local and parental level. Keep the federal government the hell out of it.
Almost, but not exactly, something unlike a fr0st p1st.
"Settle down, Beavis. We've got an experiment to do."
If such magazines were on the shelves, then I might find the filtering software to be something of a hypocracy. I don't see everyone yelling "Censorship!" because the libraries don't carry such magazines.
The trick obviously will be for them to be careful about what they filter. Filtering programs don't do a good job at keeping out nudity while at the same time allowing information about breast cancer to get through. Of course someone somewhere will filter out things that they deem inappropriate. Abortion issues? Gun control?
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
Libraries generally don't censor as such (by actively reviewing material for 'appropriateness'), they operate within budgets and prioritize their purchases based upon what they think their patrons and community want.
This is not the same as actively censoring all access to such material, nor is it even remotely the same as federally mandated censorship.
In addition, one can get nearly every book or magazine ever printed at your local library by making use of inter-library loans. This is where you go to the librarian, request a search for a book or document, and request that it (or a copy) be sent to your local library. It may take two or four weeks for the material to arrive, but arrive it will. So even if the local community library will not keep The Happy Hooker or Huckleberry Finn on their shelves, you can request it and, after a short wait, still pick up a copy there and read it.
Think of the internet as the world's most effecient inter-library loan system. This legislation wants to do something unprecendented: mandate exactly what libraries can and cannot share with one another, as well as what they can and cannot put on their shelves. And they want to do so at the least competent level of government: the federal level.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Given that the blurring boundaries between art and pr0n I find it hard to believe that libraries will be able to produce a level of censorship equivilent to that which is already available in print.
I remember the case of a photographer - sadly I cant remember his name - but he produced a book of his work photographing pierced and tattooed bodyparts (for lack of a better word). This was widely available across the UK until the police started raiding libraries to recover copies of it.
I'm sure this sort of material is not isolated and whilst your average small library might not keep much in this line, i'm sure city libraries must keep a reasonable collection of material which censorware would block (assuming it works properly).
I think by far the best principle is just to not put computers in hidden away corners and keep them out in the open. There was a student at an english university barred from using the computers after being caught hands-on in the library, and i'm sure the detterant is enough to stop almost anyone.
As usual, Slashdot comments are heavy on hyperbole, light on fact. To help swing the balance towards rationality, here are some links to the actual bill that (I think) Katz is referring to.
Amendment 3610 to H.R. 4577 as proposed by Senator McCain
Vote 149 - amendment agreed to
Amendment 3635 to H.R. 4577 as proposed by Senator Santorum
Vote 150 - amendment agreed to
Some discussion in the Senate about the two amendments (search for "Internet")
I think this is the final version:
H.R. 4577, TITLE VI--CHILDREN'S INTERNET PROTECTION
Full text of H.R. 4577--FY 2001 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations bill
Vote 273 in the House - passed
Vote 171 in the Senate - passed
--Chouser
--Chouser
"To stay young requires unceasing cultivation of the ability to unlearn old falsehoods." -LL
I don't like censorship, but this doesn't seem to be a problem for me. The adult material shouldn't be allowed to be seen in a public school or library. They have to accomodoate the lowest possible denominator--which means some censorship by blocking cites. There are some topics that are just not meant for kids to read about.
Ah... there are "some topics" that are just not appropriate for kids. This is something I don't think anyone will argue with. The question, however, is which topics are inappropriate for kids. The majority of the country believes that homosexuality is a sin. Are sites advocating tolerance and equity for gays "inappropriate" for children?
When we start using loose language ("inappropriate topics") we open the door for a wide interpretation of that language. I'd rather have the choice of not letting my kid use the public library computer (or of designating a kind of filter for him to use there) than to have the Kansas board of ed and all like thinkers potentially filter the "controversial theory" of evolution one day because they think it could be construed as inappropriate material for children.
Be careful when you say that the need for effective filters is obvious. The issue isn't the fact that the filters don't work well; the issue is that someone else is deciding what is and isn't appropriate for my child (and myself!) to have access to. Even if the morality being applied is that of the public consensus, that's not okay with me. Porn we can probably all agree is inappropriate to children. Abortion information and freedom of choice? Tolerance of people who are homosexual, who have different religious beliefs, who are of a different socio-economic class? My opinions (and morals) differ in many places with the consensus of this country. Be careful not to open a door you'll find hard to close.
Do something about world hunger. Click here
I think there are actually two separate issues to consider here:
1) How much libraries and schools should "protect" our children, and
2) Should censorware be used to do this protection
Now, in my mind, item 1 is open for discussion, as there will be good and valid arguments on both sides, and it an important issue.
However, item 2 has nothing substantial to recommend it. Censorware will do nothing that a lab monitor couldn't do - a lab monitor could keep children off the adult computers, and, at a glance, make sure that children aren't looking at porn or anything. Censorware could and would block helpful information while allowing "harmful" information, and could also be programmed per a political or religious agenda, as Katz's article mentioned. Censorware just does a bad job of censoring, all around. A human, library lab censor, would do a better job.
Remember, that I am not taking a stand, in this post, on library censorship at all. I am saying that censorware is the worst possible way you could filter information for those not yet ready to encounter it.
wish
---
If you plan on sending a (polite) letter to your elected representive you should refer to H.R. 4577. Specifically the the provisions related to filtering.
I would suggest telling your representive that you oppose filtering on the grounds that, dispite what the marketing departments have said, the filtering is 1) Poorly implimented, and many times restricts access to legitiment information, such as university studies on Health, Sex, and STD's. 2) Filters most sites dealing with legitiment Gay, Lesbian Bi-sexual issues. (Although if you elected a republican into office you may as well leave that part off).
You may also wish to detail that most filtering companies consider the lists of sites they filter to be a trade secret, and that they are slow to fix incorrect filtered sites.
We've got an election comming up people. Let's get moving on this.
Do we need to create separate childrens' libraries, so there IS someplace that I, as a parent, can send my children without worrying that they'll see (insert favorite porn site here)?
If your kids have a favorite porn site, you're in trouble already! *kidding*
These are public libraries, funded by yours and my tax dollars. Ergo, they are bound not by the standards of a few, but by the constitution (in the USA, anyhow). Ironically, most of the libraries in Canada don't use filtering software, at least not on the East Coast - and we don't have a consitution per se. (The charter of rights and freedoms is close, but most people couldn't even tell you who wrote it let alone what's on it). Common sense, people.
You are free to start a privately funded library for kids if you want, hell, fill it with religious propaganda-of-choice if you're paying for running it. Public libraries are different.
Something else people are missing is that most 10 year olds aren't that interested in pr0n. Sex, maybe, but that's not a problem, that's healthy. It's not until you get hormones into the mix a couple years later, and by that point, most of 'em are probably playing around anyhow, geeks or no. Unless of course, you as a parent have imparted your moral values to them, in which case, they'll make up their own minds. God forbid.
The irony is that you can get GRAPHIC depictions of violence anywhere, yet this isn't seen as a problem, but looking at n3kk1d breasts is. Go figure.
..don't panic
I was a systems administrator in a public charter middle school. Naturally, this issue came up several times when our technology plan was being drawn up.
The solution I came up with (which worked very well for our small population) was to keep a log of sites visited. Every couple of days I would scan the list of sites. Didn't take too long, as the "inappropriate" sites tended to jump off the list. A few banned accounts and everyone stayed in line.
Naturally, that solution would not work for a school with say, six thousand students surfing every day (we had 80), which brings up the main point. No cookie cutter solution can possibly address all the scenarios for different schools and libraries. Each place will need to come up with their own solution to what most people will agree is a legitimate problem/concern. Easy examples: should a kindergarten only school have an internet as open as a high school? How about vocational schools (with many adult students)?
If Congress really wants to be helpful about this, let them require that such issues be addressed in each library and school's technology plan, but leave the implementation up to the local level where the administrators and communtity might *gasp* actually know what is needed at that specific locale and for that specific audience.
Of course I use Microsoft. Setting up a stable unix network is no challenge
Censorware attempts to "describe" the universe that is the Net. But it is mere software. People are hard wired for parsing, computers are not. They don't parse worth diddly squat. People are the best judges of what is worthwhile and what isn't and they can only decide this for themselves. Software can't "know" and judge an idea as well as people can.
M$: "We're #2!"
This law is a license for every political interest group to keep subjects they don't like out of local libraries and schools. The victims would be kids with nowhere but libraries to go for Net access.
Bingo. Or, the disadvanges, or the mass of americans that don't have access to computers. I'm wondering why the lobby groups for the poor (are there those in the USA? Or do you have to be a representable minority? *sarcasm*) aren't freaking out, because they will be disproportionaly affected by this bill. Alternate names for this bill have been suggested already, but how about "Let's censor poor electorate, oh wait, they don't vote anyhow!" -> boy, I'd love to see online voting happen. Maybe a few terms of WWF representatives in Washington put some good 'n proper fear into elected officials, just like the old days (tm).
If you don't want your kids being exposed to pr0n, they shouldn't be in a library unsurpervised, unless they started censoring books since I was a library rat. There's lots of good stuff if you know where to look :).
Today's pr0n, tomorrow's Michelangelo!
..don't panic
"If you're looking for a political issue that will advance freedom,..."
If you are looking for another Jon Katz article with wild statements, over generalized statements and no factual data, you have come to the right place.
"Instead of tying the hands of educators and librarians, government should be doing everything possible to ensure that as many kids as possible have free access to the Net and the Web.."
We do. It is called the Universal Access Fee (federal tax) which I pay every month on my two phone lines. It was setup to subsidize Internet access to schools some time ago. At least I hope it was. I have not seen any numbers which show monies have actually been distributed to schools by the federal government.
"..because it will be vital to their social,
educational and economic opportunities."
Point of contention. Produce facts, studies, etc. which prove that having Internet access actually produces a better adjusted, educated, economically viable citizen. I contend this is your opinion fostered by the "Digital Divide" crowd. It would be far better to train young people on hardware, operating systems, coding, applications and ethics before throwing them into the maelstrom of the Internet - my opinion.
"Most of us don't need to go to the library for Net access, but millions of people -- mostly kids -- do"
Sorry, Jon. I am not accepting your statements as fact. Journalists learn how to make statements stick which involve numbers with the simple phrase, "According to ____, in 199____, over ____ of children depended upon libraries and schools for access to the Internet". Please present factual data to back up your sweeping generalizations.
Unlike many detractors, I could do a better job at this than you are currently. You know how to contact me. In the meantime, the University of Missouri has an excellent Journalism program you might want to investigate.
In Europe, they calls those politicians fascist.
In the States, how are they called again? Somehow, puritan comes to mind...
This is actually a good thing because at school, we are not allowed to go online because the teachers are afraid we're going to look at porn. With the filters, the teachers may let the students go online to research more without supervision because they don't have to make sure every student is not looking at innappropreate things. Students have "accidentally" went to porn sites and I, as a student am VERY afraid I'll search for something and the result is a porn site because I may get disaplined.
Although this is censorship, it will help students research on the 'net more. Just make sure the filters don't filter out /. :)
As I see it, the main problem with the censorware programs that exist now, is that they have lists of sites that they block, which may or may not be just, or right. They often block sites to further their own agenda, ect. What if we had a user contributed list?
Something like the OpenDirectory that there was a while ago, or somesuch. People could submit sights that they thought were "bad", where tehy would be added to a pending list. From there, they could be voted on.
So the submitter would say:
"I went to playboy and it had pr0n. Block it?"
People would then see the site, and vote for it.
You could set userlevels in the client program, "require [5] votes to be blocked".
I think that having the list out in the open, and community might be a halfway decent way to do a not so great thing. The lessor of evils, you might say. What do you guys think of this idea?
Colin Davis