Slashdot Mirror
Censorship - Libraries and the Internet?
JohnFred asks: "Recently I was in the North East of England for a quick visit. When the time came for me to depart Londonwards I needed to look up a train timetable so wandered in to my local library for a quick lookup on the net. The AUP document I was required to sign was so authoritarian as to be unbelievable. As well as the usual clauses about porn and virii it forbade the use of chatrooms and - get this: EMAIL. To add to this, they had set up the machines so that the only app that could be run was Internet Explorer. They also had blocking software that blocked evil, depraved sites like oh,
Deja.Com.
I think this is not acceptable in a service that is funded out of (partly) taxpayers pockets is so over-regulated as to be utterly useless. Are other libraries in the UK taking a similar line? Does anyone else know more about this, or is this just an individual
council
going overboard?" A few libraries in the US are
moving
to this kind of system as well. It's a tricky situation, and it was inevitable that we were going to have this kind of conflict when accessing the Internet through publicly funded outlets. Are there better ways to handle this situation?
I would like to point out a small technicality: this is not censorship. The library is choosing to provide internet access. It is not obligated to provide access at all, and it can provide access to whatever it wants on its own terms. A right to free speech and a right to government subsidized access to other people's free speech are two different things.
The library blocking email and chat rooms makes absolute sense to me, as they provide those machines for reference and research, and to have some kid chatting on a computer for two hours while you really need to get on and find some information can be very frustrating. Blocking certain sites is a good idea to a point (but difficult to do), but wouldn't it also be a good idea to have computers that are in specified area (easily monitorable by library staff) with unrestricted access?
I agree completely. If all the computers in a library are in plain view of the world, you'll either prevent people from viewing porn in the library through shame, or when somebody who has no shame tries it, they get tossed out on the street quite rapidly.
Of course, the downside is that when somebody comes along who has no shame, he'll be exposing everybody with a line of sight to the stuff.
Libraries are as subject to the Obscene Publications Act as anywhere else in the UK. And seeing as most US-based pr0n is more-than-technically illegal in this country, they're well within their rights.
And if you want to look at nekkid pictures, then buy a jazz mag. It's cheaper and you can take it into the smallest room with you.
[As an expat Teessider, I'm just glad that web access is available back home; there are plenty of libraries in the UK for which "computerisation" means mono terminals and antiquated catalogues.]
Once I was in a hotel room where they had a similar setup, where you were supposed to only be able to get to internet explorer and nothing else. This was a bit annoying as I wanted to test a few things with "nslookup" and "ping" - a site wasn't responding and I wanted to see what was up with it. There's a trick around this - just use a file: URL in the browser to get to the PC's C: drive. From there I could click on \windows\command.exe and it ran it. I don't know how well this technique would work elsewhere, though.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Yes most load balancers break traceroute as they rewrite packets esp when you trace to the virtual IP. Go get yourself a cookie for being so clueless.
-
router midget
- Why is the ninja... so deadly?
You've got Teletubbies and ... umm ... ummm ... well, try it for yourself and see how hard it is :)
:) I imagine even comedic depictions of accidents and violence is out too.
Well, that leaves us with PBS. Oops, scratch the nature shows.
I agree, trying to raise pacifists in a rude society (USA) is difficult and might possibly be unhealthy in terms of the possibility of being victimized. Heck, they'll either get victimized or think they are victims when they start school.
Life's tough. You have to be tough on some level to live through it. I'm not saying desensitize yourself or your children, but they have to grow up and learn the truth someday.
All I wanted was for it to be fixed. I can't stop people moderating my comments.
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
Alright, I was confused. Sengan posted the story *before* this one, and the anecdote was from a reader. Sorry, all.
My criticism of Sengan (in general) still applies, and my take on internet access in library still applies, but the link between them is broken. Bad poster.
My apologies. This is what happens when you stop to post a comment "real quick".
--Lenny
Oh yes you can.
The Finder is basically a shell. The OS is run by the System suitcase (and nowadays with the New World ROMs, etc.) There are a number of venerable 'minifinders' that would let you run another application from an open dialog (they were really small to fit on an emergency boot floppy with room for another app) and of course you could put any program into a System Folder, change the creator/file types appropriately and call it Finder and it would run at boot time.
Besides - haven't you ever quit the Finder and discovered that you're still running other applications? Used to happen to me all the time on one particularly flakey machine - fortunately DragThing was bright enough to realize that Applescript wasn't able to get the Finder to respond to commands because it was quit, and would reload it for me.
Bootable CDs are basically what killed the need for this ability, though sometimes people quit the finder to gain a little bit more free memory.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Of course one of the real CYA's can come from this situation:
Cracker Bill goes into the library with some source to a program to bypass copy protection in and he inserts this code into the net from the library.
Irked company C, sees his usenet missive posted from the library and tries to find out who posted the offending item. The library indicates it was some John Doe who just paid cash to use the station for 5 minutes.
Repeat as necessary for CyberCafe's. They will be next I am sure. Soon they will want verifiable ID before you can use a station.
The golden days of privacy on the internet are gone I am afraid.
Hedley
Um, nope. The Windows Explorer is a shell on top of the OS services, it can be replaced; For instance, if you install MSIE 4 with the Captive Deskslop option.
I also helped admin machines at a public library. Our policy on the internet access terminals had four simple parts:
1) No porn / violence / whatever_offends_the_librarian_who happens_to_look_over on the kiddie machines,
2) Internet use only.
3) If somebody is waiting, there is a 30 min. limit.
4) Kiddies need parental permission.
This worked quite well. #2 was mostly because we didn't have enough copies of productivity software (MS Office) to go around, and was a big hassle to secure (we had enough unauthorized software getting installed with just web browsers allowed anyway). #3 meant that you could check email, research a report, or whatever, and the machines weren't hogged by people addicted to their email. #1 was simple an extension of our already implemented policy of dirty books - they are set off by themselves, and the librarians try to make sure kids don't get into them.
There was no censorware, no usage limit, nothing except some words on paper posted above the machines, and the threat that the little old ladies at the desk would call the big bad janitor to kick you out. It worked quite well, although there was talk of putting very loose censorware on the kiddie machines before I left. The last time censorware was installed, the big boss had it done by the head IT guy, on threat of termination. It lasted under a week, by which time the big boss realized it looks really bad when you have massive staff turnovers (a few people actually quit, it was mostly just threats).
I don't know about other libraries, but every librarian I've talked to has taken that little first amendment thingy to heart. I know it doesn't seem like it sometimes, but there are a lot of institutions that will fight tooth and nail over the silliest little threat to the 1st, and the American Library Association is one of them.
Nice start, even better when computers are assigned to kids depending on their parents authorisation. It has been sugested before on /. ; Adults have every right to view what pleases them and only the parents have the authority to limit information exposure of their (own!) kids.
Thus membership cards should have the K,F or U classification countersigned by the parents. No card-no U class computer.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
I used to work in an academic library. It was the same sort of thing - no email, and fairly strict rules about what you were not supposed to be looking at.
The thing about email is understandable. A lot of the students would come in and work on their email for a long time. They're not supposed to do this because the library computers are supposed to be for research.
As for the other stuff (porn, etc.), they had to do this for legal reasons. In my state, it is illegal for state-owned computer networks to be used to transmit obscene materials. Of course, this is impossible to enforce, but all it takes is for one student to complain about what's on the next student's monitor, and there can be hell to pay.
No librarian I know wants to be on the internet porn patrol, but when Princess tells her daddy, the Taxpayer(tm), that someone was looking at dirty pictures on the computer, someone's going to get a phone call.
The irony of the whole thing is that most of the students at this school can hack around the defenses in about 30 seconds.
---Joe Merlino gnupg public key ID: 1E91EBAF
I do some tech support for a network of libraries and I completely understand the need for nazi regulations like this, execept the no email clause. The computers in our lib are not for people to plop down and chat with their friends for hours and hours. They are for doing research, using the online card catalog, and for writing documents. I sure as hell don't pay taxes so that people can play games and look at porn on the machines.
I agree that a person that can haxx0r is not necessarily ready for stileproject.com
When I was in Junior High School, I hacked into BBS, wardialed for calling card numbers, dove in dumpsters for phone company manuals, and used linesmen's handsets at neighborhood telco crossconnects for free calls.
My father, an electrical engineer, knew none of this, simply because it was out of his realm of experience. There was no way he could have configured my computer to stop my ph/c/hacking forays.
As good as I may consider myself with computers, my children will be better. They will reach an age where technical measures will not be able to restrict them from getting to information/ideas/images they want. I doubt removing net access from the house will be a reasonable idea, so I will have to accept that they will see things I wish they wouldn't.
What my wife and I must do is prepare them for the day when they do see pornography or get a come on from the chat room perv.
We are going to have to teach them about the dangers of the net, just like we will teach them how to drive a car and balance a budget.
-----
nuclear iraq bioweapon encryption cocaine korea terrorist
That's because the library has preapproved the material in question. If they didn't want it, or deemed it inappropriate, they would not have it on their shelves.
The whole solution to this is to provide your own network connectivity and computing resources. Then you get to formulate the AUP.
This is an example of the golden rule: them's that gots the gold, makes the rules.
James
Oh, that's happened. Except it was a large public university in northern Florida. I don't know the details, but someone sent email from the library to the President (USA? the university?? a missing detail) and there was a major stank.
James - you can hear some interesting things at LUG meetings... :)
That simply doesn't work. There are legitimate concerns that people might want to investigate that they don't want others to see. What about an abused child looking for resources to protect him from abusive parents? A man looking up information about prostate cancer or impotence? There are many reasons people should be able to access the internet without broadcasting the contents to the whole world.
and I tell you to shut up
You're being pretty nice to them. If someone comes to my door with a pamphlet, I'll either close the door in their face without word one, or I'll tell them that their sect has visited before and been warned that they can and will be prosecuted upon their next unwanted visit. I then offer them a seat on the porch steps whilst waiting for the police. They always leave, and they rarely come back.
.sig: Now legally binding!
now is this no email because they don't want people spending that much time writing emails? or they don't want people downloading and/or sending email anonymously from a machine (ie downloading an email client or using Outlook Express)?
and what if you use hotmail or even access your Exchange email through the browser window? is that permitted?
Can you write email through the browser or is that against the rules?
"Internet Explorer is an integrated part of the Windows operating system."
well, that all depends. Microsoft swore up and down at first that it wasn't and that you could take it out without screwing up the computer. And comparing Internet Explorer to the Mac Finder is a horrible analogy.
Explorer (not necessarily Internet Explorer) is an integrated part of the OS. But you can run windows without the browser. You cannot run the mac without the finder.
If you are using one of the free mail services you can use email all right.
I would not allow E-Mail too on an publicly accessible System (at least I would not allow anyone to change the configuration of the browser, that is what I think the author relly meant by *no email*)
It is a matter of security and lastly it is a measure to ensure that this station is in service for all users and not down 90% of the time because anybody is allowed to mess up configuration.
Just my thoughts
E-mail is banned in my high school, but we compromise by using less popular services, like space.com mail. http://www.homestead.com/netropolis10/uen.html
poop.
Gorkman
It makes sense that email isn't allowed. Some people would be on the computer for hours doing email. Maybe email should be allowed, but only for 15 minutes. Some people would be on the computer for hours chatting about nothing, too. I think that visiting a chat with a focus (like the About.com Pregnancy & Birth chat) should be considered ok, because you might actually learn something there. But lots of IRC channels and telnet chats / muds won't teach you a thing, in which case you should let someone who is going to learn something use the computer. Maybe there should just be a time limit & do what you want, except no porn or virii. Proud father, Jason Uppenborn "The problem isn't whether computers think, but whether men do." -- ??
...I don't have enough faith to believe in the "big bang"...
Setting up machines that are only browsers makes sense, but they should not be using MS. Email and the like are not part of the libraries mission and open up the machines to recieving viruses. Browsers are useful for research and have a legitimate place in the budget. To reduce costs further they should have used freeware which would save them both initial costs and upkeep. Those MS machines are just too easy to break.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
No telnet client? No ssh client? Have the powers-that-be install a Web E-Mail server, such as http://ashaw.dyn.cheapnet.net/webmail/.
To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
From what I know of UK tax rates, he already is laying out more than a bit of cash for the service..
"What, don't like having to sign a form and comply with restrictive rules to read the NYT? Go to a news stand and spend some money!"
Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
best snow on earth my ass
*cough*vail*cough*
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
My school's computer policy is almost that good!!! Not only are chat rooms, e-mail, and naughty sites prohibited, but you're not allowed to STAND at the computer, and GET THIS: If more than one person is at a system, the get kicked off. That's it, you can't work on anything with another person!!!
-------
Oh shit! I forgot to click "Post Anonymously"...
As far as I know, anyone is free to create a private library and lend books on these terms, so I really don't understand the problem.
The moment you want to have a government paid for propaganda distribution building, don't expect them to stock everything. To expect me to pay to promote ideas, positions, philosophies, or religous beliefs I don't hold is a form of tyranny antithetical to the first ammendment. I would hold them credible if the first thing they did was to end their taxpayer, i.e. government funding.
Further, there have been cases past and present where the librarians censor things in violation of II above. Usually these are by people on the right (e.g. books with a Christian religous theme, or by Rush Limbaugh) that even when DONATED are not placed up for circulation.
The point that library and lab computers are meant for learning and not checking your spam filled hotmail account. Someone might actually be doing legitimate research but all the computers are taken up by kids sending each other "haha you suck" messages.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Wait, this was a British public library? Is that anything like a British public school (what we Yanks would call a private school)?
No. We only have totally screwed up terminology when it comes to schools. (Historical reasons - I think its because ordinary members of the public can go to them as long as they have enough cash)
Paying taxes isn't quite the same as paying for a service.
--
It's a
-- Danny Vermin
Not ours. The IT department is understaffed already. None of the techs want another os to support. It'd be great in the long run, but we are just too busy to fool with it. It's already too hard to get any real work done with all the ridiculous support calls we get. Besides, we're under contract with Gateway for our PCs and they come with NT on them. If all of our PCs (400-500+) had Linux on them and that's what the techs were familiar with, I'm sure it'd all be great. It's the rollover that would kill us. All the installing, training the users, compatibility issues with other state organizations just make it impossible. There are some programs we HAVE to use in the offices. There's just no way it'll happen in this decade. Sad but true.
I work in the IT department of a community college that supports the adjoining library. We used to always have trouble with people downloading programs and messing with settings that screwed up the systems. We were forced to restrict so much of the computers that only IE can be opened and only HTTP can be used. We now have to spend much less time supporting these machines and they now have more uptime to let the legitamate users use it the way it was intended. They're still free to e-mail through web-based mail if they want but no outlook. It has really cut down on virii.
There are many reasons to restrict systems. People seem to forget that those computers are there for EVERYONE to use FREE of charge. We haven't done anything to block porn yet, and I sure hope we don't have to. If people would just use the systems the way they're intended and stop treating them like their own or worse, everyone could more freely use them. No, we don't like restrictions, but let's stop giving them any cause to restrict. It'll still happen but hopefully not as often or as severely.
I find it both ironic and disgusting that what was once the center of information and free exchange of ideas is becoming the bastion of censorship - the public library.
Talk about values getting turned around?
When we have libraries that restrict the flow of information - schools and public institutions banning religous expression in the name of "religeous freedom" - and "rights" like the "right to bear arms" and "the right to travel freely" become "priveledges" subject to license, (a license is legal permission to perform an act that's otherwise illegal) it might sometimes seem that Mr. Orwell, with his 1948 classic "1984" was closer to the mark than we'd all like to admit.
More and more doublespeak piling up here...
How much will YOU accept from whatever form "big brother" takes?
-Ben
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
No, of course not. Children of that age shouldn't be allowed to use the net without supervision. Parental responsibility should not be handed over to a piece of censorware that has proven imperfections. Would you let children of that age wander the streets of any large city unsupervised? Do you drive your kids to school? If you don't think that your young children are safe using a public access terminal, then either sit with them or don't let them use it. Remember that it's a public access terminal, and not every member of the public is a four year-old girl. I pay my taxes too so why do you have more of a right to say what I can or can't look at on a machine paid for by my taxes merely because you have children and I don't.
The question in this case is how the 'dominatrix' was brought up. Was she given advice on sex as and when she needed it or was she 'protected' from it all and thus didn't have the knowledge she needed to recognise this dirty old man for what he was. But as she's only 21 she'll probably grow out of it. Here in the UK we have the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe and the worst sex education. You give kids the knowledge they need and the chances are they're less likely to get into trouble. Hiding them from sex will only make them more curious - easy prey for the some of the lower-life forms that infest some chatrooms.
Well that just shows how stupid the legal system is when a library can be sued for the use of their equipment. Simple answer is to kill all the lawyers.
But what if you're too poor to afford a PC. Does that mean the poor are banned from the internet. The real argument is about whether a supplier of information should be censoring information, especially using the inaccurate censorware products that not only block access to legitimate sites and don't block all the so-called bad stuff.The parents are the ones responsible for their children's surfing habits not the librarian. People these days seem to be so hung up over whether little Jimmy sees a naked breast. Am I the only one who thinks this is unhealthy, as if sex was dirty and wrong instead of the natural method of human procreation?
But the masses aren't always right, witness the continuing popularity of purveyors of inferiority, Microsoft, Disney, McDonalds, Nike etc. etc. Democracy means rule by the people, as in all the people, not just the majority. It's quite sad that the former Nazi country Germany has the truest form of democracy, while the original democracy has degenerated into oligarchy and mass disinterest in the political process.
Please go away. I'm tired of these lazy parents coming on here and expecting other people to take responsibility for their children's behaviour. The only place that has any responsibility for what your children have access to is their school because they are in loco parentis and even they are not responsible for your children's upbringing merely their education. Neither TimeWarner, your local librarian or Bill Clinton have this and as such are not responsible for what you allow your children to see, you are. That is the job you took on when you had children, if you don't like it well then you should have thought of that before you had them.
Education is all of the answer. If this young girl (who is now 21 and can make her own choices) had been able to recognise this creep for what he was she would have stayed away from him. Just saying 'don't' without a good reason is a poor answer. I'm speaking here as the much older brother of a teenage girl, and my parents have always tried to answer her questions about life, no matter how uncomfortable and she is better for it. They learned this from bitter experience with me and my other sisters who were problem teenagers in different ways. When my kid sister asked me about drugs, I told her the truth about why people do them, what they do and why they're generally a bad thing. I learned about drugs a much harder way because I was told lies and half-truths and 'don't'. Treating children like small adults rather than like irresponsible idiots tends to yield better results in my experience. ;-)
My local library in Cornwall Ontario forbids e-mail and chat too, and the computers are configured to only run Netscape. They claim the ban on e-mail and chat is because the computers are for 'educational use only'. Funny, because two rows over they have books that border on pornographic....
An AUP is an Acceptable Useage Policy
_______
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine." -- RFC 1925
Here in my town, we don't even have to sign an AUP to use the computers which are profusely scattered around the library. They don't need one, because the only app that can run is some custom-skinned web browser, and it blocks out a lot of harmless sites.
The thought of sending e-mail from there never even crossed my mind, they were so restricted...
Friends don't let friends use multiple inheritance.
Ahh, yes, good old Mormon country. As I recall, they can't even sell real beer there, it has to have half the alcohol content of regular beer. I may be wrong, though...
Friends don't let friends use multiple inheritance.
>What exactly is wrong with teenagers sending e-mail to eachother? What better way to build written communications skills?
The point is not whether or not it was wrong for the students to be using for the system for email, but that it was wrong that they were using the system for that sole purpose, and to such an extent that the emails they were sending were not only a waste of bandwidth, but also keeping the precious computer resources from their original purpose - research and education.
>Maybe it was just too much like having fun, and god forbid that any public schooler would actually enjoy themselves at the taxpayers' expense.
The tax payer's did not intend for the computers to be used for the sole purpose of having fun. Believe it or not, but it's relatively expensive for a money strapped school to buy and maintain a respectable computer system. Sure, have fun, but don't keep people from the computer who NEED to use it for academics.
-Medgur
In the USA the libraries have to worry about being sued by some overzealous public morality guardian. In the UK, the libraries have to worry about supplying free email access for bad people who like to blow stuff up. Without taking sides in the issue, we do have to note that the UK has some striking cultural issues. Which to them are a little more important than whether or not Johhy can get porn, regardless of Johhy's age. With rocket attacks in what's relatively downtown London, this isn't likely a big concern.
"You must do the thing you think you cannot do" E.Roosevelt
Libraries and censorship. Where have I heard this before? Oh yeah, right here at Slashdot.
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
One trick you could do Is put all the computers on a special web page. Leave the terminal, that page is programmed to send the computers to porn sites and put the computers sound on full blast. Sit back and watch the panic.
With effort it would be possible to figure out how to do this.
Perhaps due to the numerous security flaws in Outlook??
I'm surprised they let you use IE if that was the case!!!
Please stop APK.. you're only hurting yourself.
Oh yeah, find out the domain name of your POP server and add that in too *slaps own head* heh
I think your library has every right to do that. Besides what Argyle (the first poster to this thread) about protecting his children, chat and email allow one to send data to other people. What if someone started sending death threats or spam to other people from the terminal? If the library is found liable, that would probably be disasterous to them because libraries tend to be quite poor (at least american libraries are). This is somewhat similar to the argument against corporations blocking your ability to surf certain websites or screening your email. I know a lot of libraries have public terminals that don't require a username/password, but one solution is to set up accounts and to make people sign agreements. That's what they did in my high school and several people had their accounts suspended because of pornography :) And in the case where someone does something illegal, the DMCA and other laws state that as long as the ISP (the library in this case) doesn't knowingly let it happen and they act on it if they are informed, then they're in the clear.
I beg to differ. It really depends on how you use it. I use email to post questions to programming mailing lists to get help whenever i'm stumped. I've also used email at my university's library terminals to get help from professors from both email and also online courses using message boards. Sure, 90% of people who use email use it for 'chatty' purposes, but to say that nobody uses it to learn or do research is absurd.
I mean common, netscape runs horribly and IE is the only thing microsoft has done right :o)
... if your email is comming from a POP server, just get a hotmail account, log in, enter your POP username/password, and get your mail. Now as for chatrooms, well i would understand a library not allowing you to do that.
And they all charge for it.
I suppose you didn't like it either 40 years ago when libraries provided typewriters for free public usage.
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
That's fine for your kids. Please don't dictate to my children what they may or may not see.
A simple solution to the problem is a hardware key that is issued to adults at the library desk. If your ID says your over 18, you get the dongle that tells the computer to let you see what you want on the terminal. If you are underage, you get censorship. Sorry but that's the breaks.
Why is it that so many people seem to believe that minors have absolutely no intellectual freedom rights at all?? Less than adults, yes, but the courts have repeatedly ruled that even children have some intellectual freedom rights. Why do you want to take those away?
But at 7 years old, should my children be confronted with full frontal internet?
At 7 years old, should you be the one to decide whether my children are "confronted with full frontal internet?"
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
I'm not sure this is true even if the child is of an age where they are educable. I think education is a necessary, but by itself insufficient, requirement to properly protect a child in this situation. Certainly, there are children who although 15 or 16 and educable and educated, think they know more than they know, and believe they understand the evil of the world far more than they do, and get themselves into trouble. [I once resembled that remark.
Perhaps far more importantly, there are children who are exposed to the net who are not educable in all of the ways and evil of the world. Nor, I hope, should they be. Must innocence die at age 4?
Only Women Bleed (Sex, Sharia remix)
The choice is not necessarily binary -- either/or. Because current filtering software censors breast cancer sites is no reason to just give up and say 7 year olds must have public library access to the entire net, animated blow jobs and all. One does the best one can.
One possible solution is Open Source filtering software. That is, no secret lists. If you are going to place filtering software on a public library computer, it should be Open Source so the community can make informed decisions. If the breast cancer site is initially on list, look at the list, have the debate, take it off. Refine the list. Make it what it should be.
Again, I'm assuming toggled access -- i.e., unfettered net access for adults, filtered access for minors.
Only Women Bleed (Sex, Sharia remix)
This raises the following interesting and scary issue: What happens if and when a child's ability to haxx0r censor software is occurs at a younger and younger age compared to his or her ability to learn about and deal with messy issues such as sex, bad people who prey on children, etc.?
By that I mean, it may be the case that soon sharp 10 and 11 year olds will be able to haxx0r censor software, if they aren't already. Can such children really be educated and prepared for what they will find on the net? This question is not rhetorical, I honestly do not know. What do you think?
Only Women Bleed (Sex, Sharia remix)
While I generally applaud your post, your last sentence quoted above troubles me. Please do not fall into the trap of believing the fact a child has the intelligence and technical ability to "haxx0r" censorware out of the box necessarily implies the child has the maturity to deal with all of the crap on the net.
Please let me give you an example. I have a friend who has a bright, intelligent, wonderful 14 year old daughter. She is clearly capable of "haxx0ring" any censorware out of the box. Indeed, the fact she has more computer skills than her parents has become something of a family joke. Nonetheless, there is stuff on the net -- and perhaps far more importantly, people -- that she really isn't mature enough to deal with.
Please don't underestimate the crap the net brings into your home. Please don't underestimate the easy and economic access children now have to all sorts of crap that there were previously rarely and infrequently exposed to.
Another example is a young lady I know who thinks she is an online "dominatrix." She is now 21. She was started down this path at age 16 by a man in his 40s. Did that happen prior to the net? Of course, but not so easily, and not so frequently.
Only Women Bleed (Sex, Sharia remix)
I agree with pretty much everything you say. However, even if a parent does provide his 16 year old daughter with good advice, guidance and information about sex, I can understand why the parent would want to keep his daughter away from 40+ year old men who are into either sadism or masochism, and who are seeking either an underage dominatrix or slave.
Education is part of the answer, certainly. But keeping a young person away from the "lower-life forms that infest some chatrooms" may also be a part.
I hope she does grow out of it. Right now, it has done her harm.
Only Women Bleed (Sex, Sharia remix)
I guess libraries just want people to do research, nothing else. No e-mail, no discussion lists, no chats, no nothing else.
Looks like you have been trolled.
If you don't accept it, pay your own connection.
You couldn't figure out how to sign in. Nor have you yet learned how to be civil. Go away, please. Thank you.
"..don't you eat that yellow snow."
and Lithium, lot of lithium.
"..don't you eat that yellow snow."
Logical and prudent, sir I salute your thinking. I also like your Carnivore teasing signature.
"..don't you eat that yellow snow."
The only "blocking filter" that ever worked with me is Sister Mary Elephant with her hardwood ruler. Having her sneak-up behind you will put tha fear o' God in ya.
"..don't you eat that yellow snow."
only in my girlfriend.
"..don't you eat that yellow snow."
This issue is a result of newbie under paid or not paid administrators that want to learn on all the security features they can instead of using good knowledge to make everything right.
What do you want more? It's FREE so eat it.
You can definitely lock a Windows machine down to where you can only run IE. I know, because I've done it. Internet Explorer and Explorer are separate programs. They both call upon IE dlls (which is why IE is so integrated into the system, as Explorer depends on it for it's interface), but they aren't the same. I can't remember the name of the software I used, but it enabled me to lock down every operation of the machine (including the 3-finger salute) except the execution of iexplore.exe. We used this in a kiosk in combination with a WebRamp 700s to filter what sites the kiosk users could browse.
Good luck.
My mother is a library director in a small (7000) Midwestern town; there are no internet cafes in this area, and the nearest university computer lab is 60 miles away. This community has a large number of people who, if it were not for the library, would have no way of getting on the Internet.
This library is (as are many others, I'm sure) struggling with the question of "What is the role of the public library in the 21st century?" Should the public library restrict itself to books, periodicals, and other printed matter, or does it need to try to incorporate new forms of information, and if so, at what level? The question gets down to the real question, "What is the role of a library in society?" Why do we have libraries? Answer: We have libraries for the public good, the common education. Just as the wealthy can go to their "Internet Cafes" and "College (hint: restricted to students) Computer Labs," they can also buy their own books and newspapers. But the many blue-color workers (meat packing, mostly) don't have quite that level of luxury, and libraries and were instituted to ensure education for all citizens.
IMHO, by providing free Internet access, the library is not so much acting against censorship, but rather working to lessen the so-called "digital -divide." The 'haves' and 'have-nots' are now the 'have the internet' and the 'can't afford the internet.'
Granted, time and usage limits must be placed, so that people aren't MUDding for hours while others wait, but I think it's sad if we're asking the librarian to decide who "needs" to use the Internet.
On a related note: I asked her about installing a program so that when minors use the computer, it keeps track of the websites they visit, possibly with lists available to that minor's parents upon request. She stressed to me that they try very hard not to keep track of who is using the Internet and where they're going, to avoid possible liability concerns.
Only 99 days till the REAL new millenium!!!
You may think that those restrictions are a bit over the top but we have restrictions at my UK school that make them look paltry.
All web based email is banned, forcing us to use the school's exchange system (via Outlook) which is basically read by members of the teaching staff in transit. The excuse given is that web based email uses too much bandwidth (the entire school of approx 150 machines is running off 128k ISDN).
Just as we get home, they shut down the school's mail server so we can't check our school accounts from home.
Oh, and deja.com and all the useful sites on the internet are blocked by the aptly titled "Smart Filter".
UK library users should count themselves lucky...
I feel compelled to point you to 98lite.net. This is a collection of install scripts and a front end to them that allows a nice custom install of windows. Also on there are utils to allow for the complete removal of "built-in" apps like IE.
-= I can't think of anything witty, creative, or insightful for my sig, so deal with this. =-
The Music Building's Library at UNC Greensboro has a similar setup. Though you don't have to sign anything, the only thing you can access on any of the computers is Netscape. Dunno about the regular library, though. Worse still, it runs Windows. Aciel aciel@speakeasy.net
Neither Outlook nor Outlook Express is needed on the client computer. It probably relies on JavaScript, though.
where there's fish, there's cats
Oh please - I mean, Score: 3, Informative for pointing out that two links were broken - I mean, karma whore 'ho or what?
.iMMersE
codegolf.com - smaller *is* better.
Spooon!
-N
You have the best snow on Earth!
And Utah's unique workforce will made it the next High-Tech Heaven. Don't you know? Nothing to worry about.
(It's irony. I am on the same boat)
I have been reading through the posts on this issue and many are against blocking but in a way I am for it. I once saw a news story on one of the local stations in my area that featured a young teenager checking out R rated movies and easily viewing porn on the computers with internet access in the library. I found the ease in which the teen accessed the material scary. I think we should at least provide blocked computers for children. We should not allow them into areas with unblocked computers unless they are with adults and we shouldn't let them check out R rated movies without a parents consent.
I'm not closed-minded, your just wrong!
If you're a member of a certain religious-sect who knocks on my front door to talk to me about your religion, and I tell you to shut up, then I am engaging in an act of censorship. The proper question is, is it a justified or legitimate act of censorship. I, as a private citizen, reserve the right to restrict speech on my own property. But does the public library, financed by public monies, reserve the same right? I would argue it doesn't.
Back in the System 6 days, there were several superior Finder replacement programs. These days, you can still find a few like Entrypoint.
There's nothing sacred about the Finder. You can force-quit it like any other program. (And many do so, in order to free up more memory.)
To add to this, they had set up the machines so that the only app that could be run was Internet Explorer.
You must be mistaken. Internet Explorer is an integrated part of the Windows operating system. You could have just as easily said "The only app they were running was the Network control panel".
Would you complain if they were using Macs and had the Finder as the only app running?
There is a difference between the government ruling on what content can be served and viewed on your own computer and content that can be viewed in a public area on public computers. To have a functioning society everyone has to sacrifice. The extremes end up sacrificing more than the average. The extremely religious end up sacrificing because it almost kills them that porn even exists. The other extreme, as evidenced on slashdot a lot, ends up sacrificing the opportunity to access all information everywhere whenever they want to. I'm not sure I'd even classify this as censorship. They are doing nothing that prevents the information from existing or being accessed. You still have the right to access the information. I don't think that "Anything Goes" is a good motto for public accessing of information. I also probably won't agree with all of the regulations they come up with. All public policy pisses off someone, but when it actually pisses off the masses, it usually gets changed.
if you have an account you can telnet to, you can install the mindjar java applet that I got from www.mindbright.se/mindterm. It allows me to read my email when I'm at the local supermarket, which has a PC with Windows but telnet is disconnected.
Sergio
See, that depends. Do you mean a better way to handle censorship, or a better way to handle the lack there of? As similar as they may be, there is a big difference. Well, assuming the first, there are three choices: A) Fuck it, don't censor anything. B) Fuck it, censor everything. or... C) Ooh, let's censor adults and mature teens because they can't handle the internet, and say it's in the good of the little kiddies who don't even on what a porn site is, let alone a web site hardly. Oh, my bad; those are the one's we're already employing, although I agree with A) most. The internet isn't evil, you don't need to filter everything out for the good of the masses, we can do it our own damn selves. As for libraries, unless it's a private library, they have no right in the area of censorship; if you have a problem with the internet, don't provide access to it, its as simple as that. -- Sometimes I think I'm the only one who understands common sence. Then I find another hacker.
Just a quick note that your comment they can only block 30% of pr0n by blocking 30% of the internet is based on the assumption that 100% of the internet is porn.
You left out a link.
Does anyone else know more about this, or is this just an individual council going overboard?
You left out a link.
Does anyone else know more about this, or is this just an individual council going overboard?
Both of the A elements in this story are missing the trailing double quote from the HREF attribute. Please fix this.
--
"Where, where is the town? Now, it's nothing but flowers!"
Now there's a blast from the past. I wouldn't mind if he stayed there, myself. And yes, Sengan, we know you're British. Those who've been around a while well remember your anti-US tirades, as well.
But, back to "topic", so teenagers with mod points don't mark me down... The increasing restriction on internet use in libraries *in* troubling. Aren't libraries about sharing information widely? Maybe not, but, I think they should be.
Unfortunately, libraries are a workplace, and thus can be smacked with sexual harassment charges if some one loads porn on the screen, and some one else gets offended. If you ask me, the library should not be liable for such things, but, even in the UK, you have to have *someone* to sue. Unfortunately, libraries have to cover their asses, and so they forget about Sharing Information, and lock down the boxes as hard as they can. First it's porn, then hate sites, then drug information sites, then "fringe" political sites, and soon you are left with Barnie and Friends.
It is a disturbing trend, but certainly nothing new. Slashdot has been particularly vocal on this topic. I don't see what Sengan's antidote adds to the discussion.
I guess the summary, as always, is pay attention and write your congressman! (or whatever the equivalent is in your country)
--Lenny
Okay. Here's the deal.
Is Censorship wrong? Sure. If it's enforced by the government on it's citizens.
But a Library? Hey. Libraries chose what software to lend out. Libraries chose what books to keep. They an ALSO chose how to provide you with network access.
If you want it unfiltered, you can always get it yourself.
There are still a few days left in the Foil the Filters Contest. They're looking for failures at both extremes...
Just because it looks like a PC, and a PC is probably the easiest way for the l;ibary to bring in the kind of functionality they want does not mean they have to provide a complete cyber-cafe.
Who cares if IRC is shut down. For that matter, why should you care which browser is being used? The point is it is their machine and they are the ones letting you use it.
The only services they really need to let you have is access to their book catalogue. If that is on an online terminal, then so be it. If they decide to give you the option to use online info sources, then that is their choice.
I'm starting to believe that there is an unrealistic expectation for the level of service that libraries shoudl be providing here on slashdot. Want unlimited access? Get your own damn machine.
--sugarman--
Any unaccompanied 7 year old gets only filtered content, the filtering perhaps being based on what he or she could legally purchase at the local magazine store.
More likely based on whatever the company who wrote the software considers to be OK. Which is something explicitally not open to any review. Unlike the magzines sold in a store.
An Access Control List
Human operators simply cannot filter all of the sites (despite censorware claims to the contrary). Either censorware has to miss much of the content that they deem "offensive", or they must filter using some automated procedure. The result is that many censorware products blacklist sites based on an algorithm without any human supervision. The algorithms are typically keyword matches (in one example, the presence of the word "couples" in the URL blocked out a harmless photo of Al Gore and Tipper).
The above example is also likly to block sites about mechanics and trains. What the people involved forget is that there are very few keywords which are unique to whatever "bad" catagory they think of.
Don't forget the wonderful censorware.org site. This is what we recommend to parents. Peacefire has more of a "how dare they lock me out!" mentality.
As well as a "look how trivial it it to subvert anyway..." mentality.
One think Peacefire does have the "Solid Oak archive", which gives an insight into the mentality of a censorware producer.
What the Library is doing is covering their butts in case some kid gets in there and catches sight of something he shoulden't. I can understand it, to a point.
And what do they do when (not if) something nasty gets past their (expensive) filtering/censorware package?
Or they get hit with a libel suit due to blocking something that shouldn't have been blocked?
minor typos in post, it should have read:
...depraved sites like oh, Deja.Com. I think this is not acceptable in a service that is funded out of (partly) taxpayers pockets is so over-regulated as to be utterly useless. Are other libraries in the UK taking a similar line? Does anyone else know more about this, or is this just an individual council going overboard?"...
Thats the thing, not everyone can afford internet access or computers. Libraries are so that people can read and have access to information that they may not be able to afford or gain access to.
You might as well say "If the bus doesn't take you downtown, then buy a car"
FunOne
FunOne
Any unaccompanied 7 year old gets only filtered content, the filtering perhaps being based on what he or she could legally purchase at the local magazine store.
But that's the real trick, isn't it? No filtering software can deliver this, and will block a bunch of ancillary stuff as well.
DFN, the Digital Freedom Network is running a contest until September 25th to find the most egregious example of censorware error. The Foil the Filters contest is being held to coincide with the American Library Association's Banned Books Week.
Entries can be either a site you'd expect to be filtered that wasn't, or one that shouldn't have been but was. WIRED is running a story on it here
Work for Change & GET PAID!
Libraries have had books and magazines with nudity in them and books and magazines with violent pictures in them, many parents have complained, a few have sued, I don't know of anybody who has won a lawsuit (the library is, afterall, not a babysitting service, though some parents treat it as such).
The Library Bill of Rights, created by the American Library Association states in part:
Libraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and enlightenment. Libraries should cooperate with all persons and groups concerned with resisting abridgment of free expression and free access to ideas. A person's right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views.
I have to agree with what they are doing to a point. I can understand blocking email, nearly anonymous message sources can be a dangerous thing. They are perfect for people making threats or harassing statements without much fear of being caught. There is also the risk of some spammer catching the address the email is coming from and then the library has to deal with that increased bandwidth, admittedly this is not a top concern but more of a notable. I also understand filtering some content. Put the flames away and let me explain. There are definitely sites on the internet I don't want some perv at a library viewing while someone wanting to use the computer for school based work or research should wait...persiankitty.com comes to mind. I'd also hate to have a child of mine be strolling the library and be exposed to adult content because captain hard-on walked away from his terminal to refill his coffee. The library is still a public place after all. I've heard all the arguments about the filters not being perfect and yadda yadda but I'd rather they used what's available rather than "trusting" people to use the computers in an acceptable manner. There's good reason we have rules and laws rather than saying "we trust people" and that's because not all people can be trusted.
The obligatory link to Peacefire. Founder Bennett Haselton usually shows up when a library is under attack to argue against immediately reaching for blocking software.
The library laid down the gold for those computers, so they make the rules about using them. Don't like it? Don't use them.
The folks of that little town (?) presumably think that their tax pounds sterling are being used in a suitable way. Here is the US, at least, that would have probability >>0. If you don't like the outcome of the public debate there, either stay home, or move there and get involved.
It is the nature of these socially funded goods that the rules controlling them WILL be set socially, by the political process, and thus in general suboptimally. What can you do about this? Well, try to keep your society from providing things which are not strictly speaking public goods! These computer terminals are rivalrous in consumption, and pretty darn excludeable. Certainly not public goods. My point is not that there should be no "public" access points for the web, but rather that it's not appropriate for the government to fund them. Why not set up a charity to provide open-access terminals, subject to sane conditions of use? Then anyone who doesn't like YOUR idea of sane can go found his own charity. Don't think it's worth while? You're probably right, so stop complaining.
The point here is not censorship, exactly, but rather the more fundamental question of "what should the government be doing?". Today we would all be far better off if the government did just a bit less. Not nothing, mind you; just a bit less. Then we wouldn't have to decide so many fundamentally private questions in the public arena, where the folks who sniff a handout always have more incentive to yell 'till they get their way than the rest of us. Think how much more restful life would be if we didn't have to continually lobby for this bill that will line our pockets at the expense of others, and against that bill which will line someone else's pockets at our expense!
Nels Tomlinson
See what I've been reading.
Utterly useless, huh? Well, did you get your timetable?
I'm not (just) being snotty here. You went into the library with an almost archetypical legitamate purpose : to gather some useful information in a short timeframe. Yor goal did not need porn, or virii, or IRC or email. People using the computers for any of those purposes could have seriously increased the time you had to wait. So, were you able to get what you legitamatly needed or not?
If so, how can you then call the system utterly useless? If not, do you think the failure had anything to do with the blocking software, or just the railways not keeping their info accessable on line?
Just trying to keep some perspective arround here.
-Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
Maybe it was just too much like having fun, and god forbid that any public schooler would actually enjoy themselves at the taxpayers' expense.
The UK Library Association has a policy statement which is against filtering software:
The Library Association does not endorse the use of filtering software in libraries. The use of such software is inconsistent with the commitment or duty of a library or information service to provide all publicly available information in which its users claim legitimate interest. Access to information should not be restricted except as required by law.
Filtering software
Filtering is the term used to describe the use of software that restricts or blocks access to material on the Internet. Such software is intended to prevent access to undesirable and extreme material.
Many library or information services are providing their users with access to the Internet. The provision of unrestricted Internet access raises a number of concerns, for example, that a library user may access illegal material or that a child may see inappropriate material in a library. The use of filtering software may be considered as one way of addressing these concerns. The consequence of the use of filtering technologies is, however, to deny users reasonable access to information in digitised form.
--
--
He lives in a world where those who do not run the client software of the omnipresent meme are unacceptable.
If you want email access, uncensored web browsing, and all your other "rights" online then you need to go to a CyberCafe and pay a few quid. I'm sure even Stockton has cybercafes.
--
It's a
-- Danny Vermin
Yes, there ARE better ways to handle the situation. Especially all the porn crap-- just put the computers in an open area in plain sight, like near the entrance to the library, near where they check out books. Then not only can the librarians see what you're doing, but so can anyone entering the library. Put the computers all right next to each other, too.
Maybe that doesn't solve 100% of the problems, but I bet it solves more than censorware does.
On a side note, the "IE only" thing is really funny. I was at the Metreon in San Francisco, and went into the Microsoft store to check my e-mail. It was IE-only with high security settings. Guess whose web e-mail client doesn't work under that? That's right, Microsoft Outlook. I couldn't check my Microsoft Outlook e-mail using Microsoft Internet Explorer on Microsoft Windows in the Microsoft Store. That rocked.
Above each of these computers is a sign with a big letter on it: K, F, or U. These letters represent the type of internet access that particular terminal has. K(id) terminals only allows sites that have been pre-approved for children. F(iltered) terminals prohibit certain sites/words. U(nfiltered) terminals have full access to the web.
Have any other cities used a similar system? Does anyone see a reason to be opposed to it?
I can sit down at almost any "locked-down kiosk" and be completely in control within 10 seconds (a minute for the well-done ones). Take that, librarians! =)
TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
The reality is that the net is full of stuff some people shouldn't see. My daughters, 2 & 4, are already on the net playing games at zoogdisney.com, mamamedia.com, etc. I really don't think it's for them to see porn. I'm not a prude but banner ads of animated oral sex is too much for children.
... umm ... ummm ... well, try it for yourself and see how hard it is :)
For an interesting counterperspective, my friend Andrea is a 20-year old single mother of twin 18-month old girls. She has no problem with them seeing sex when they're 14, or 7, or 4, or now, she believes sex is healthy and fun -- but she is a committed pacifist and wants to protect the kiddies from viewing any violence.
Do you have ANY idea how hard it is to do that in our society? I didn't have any clue how hard it actually was until I saw her trying. You've got Teletubbies and
Personally, I agree with her that sex shouldn't be treated as something dirty even around infants, North American society is very sick in that regard, but I think that by trying to raise them as pacifists she's letting them in for a life of victimization. But I've never known anyone who goes to the length she does to remove all depictions of violence from their formative years, so it's going to fascinate me to see how they do turn out...
1. Virii protection: The computers were linked to the rest of the network. A E-mail virus coulda caused much damage.
2. The people running them were not computer gurus. They were librians. There were a few employees who probally could have protected the system better but most of them were part time college students working as clerks.
3. The person that made the policy (president of the library) certianly didn't know much about computers. He got very confused outside of microsoft word and outlook.
4. and possibly most important.. These systems are out in the open where not only can small children (usually 6 and up or so) see them but often did. They also used them. If you notice libraries will carry copies of say the Kama Sutra but will not carry Hustler. Is this censorship. I don't think so. It is an intelligent choice made by the head of the library.
Also remember that libraries are funded by public funds. While any of us would have stood up and fought with our jobs to keep the Kama Sutra or almost any other book with even a modicum of literary merit to it on the shelves most of us felt that Hard-Core porn is a worthy topic to filter out of the public library.
If there was a law passed saying libraries could not have this sort of thing I would probally agree with standing up and fighting with all that I was worth for. Or if a library banned works of serios literary merit (even something like the Mummy from Ann Rice which has little literary merit) agian it would be something to rant and rave about. But filtering hard-core porn in the presence of minors. Come on.
Also if it seriously bothers you don't post it here on slashdot. you are wasting your breathe. Get a petition signed from members of your community and present it to the head clerk. State your arguments. The floor clerks kept a few books on the shelves agianst the will of the city mayor with this tactic.
Pithy, yet ultimately meaningless, phrase expressed with gusto!
there is someplace else just as bad as Utah. This is just the same here in SLC
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
AUP: audible user pissandmoan
lucky me, I get to hear it all day long.
Dirty Pirate Hooker
Same reason kids arn't let into rated R movies, cant buy playboy..ect.. if their parents don't mind, they can acompany the kid, or use their own computer. it's a dicy issue, and it comes down to proper education and parents that actualy care.
Dirty Pirate Hooker
Not.
IE is tied heavily into the OS, but it's entirely possible to have the browser as the only interface to the PC. System policy's can keep users out ot the control panel, start menu,..ect.....
That having been said, IE is just an app running on top of the os. you can remove it and windows still works fine.
Dirty Pirate Hooker
Yeah, libraries need some uniformed police to keep kids from passing dirty notes to each other instead of studying.
Better still, use some technology to make sure the library patrons really do "look up information for a paper or research project" instead of just hanging out there and socializing. Maybe something like electronic bracelets?
If those nasty people could be kicked out of the university in the first place--without returning their tuition--then the rest of us could enjoy smaller classes and a lot of the computers would end up not being used at all--we smart folks would walk in and see lots of them just waiting for us to use them properly.
And think of what the Internet could be if it were not for all those stupid AOL subscribers, chatting and emailing away! And the pornography--why, without some people downloading the stuff all the time, think of what our bandwidth might be!
After all that, we could turn to the real purpose of libraries and colleges. Libraries should preserve books, not allow people to use them to death. And colleges should be places where little bits of exquisite wisdom are distilled by expert professors and carefully handed down only to the worthy few.
If some stupid people misuse computers, who knows what they will do next. Better to put them in jail to prevent that from happening.
Assuming ultimate and final control by parents, the question is what should be the default position for unaccompanied 7, 8, 9 year olds, etc. I see two possibilities:
- Any unaccompanied 7 year old gets unfettered access to "full frontal internet," including banner ads of animated oral sex. If any parent has a problem with this, then the burden is on the parent to accompany his or her child to the library and monitor his or her internet access.
- Any unaccompanied 7 year old gets only filtered content, the filtering perhaps being based on what he or she could legally purchase at the local magazine store. If any parent has a problem with this, then the parent can come into the library with the child and obtain internet access to anything the parent deems appropriate for his or her child.
Now let me ask you three questions.This is analagous to the default standard society has long had for reading material for years. A 7 year old cannot legally buy a copy of Playboy, or Hustler, or walk into a porn shop and buy a copy of Bondage Babes. If you want your child (be her or she 7, 14, 16 or any other age)to have a copy of Playboy, Hustler, etc., you simply need to go buy the copy yourself.
First, what do you really think ought to be the rule?
As a corollary to the first question, do we really want to adopt a rule where the burden is on the parent who does not want his seven year old to see banner ads of animated oral sex to accompany his child to the library each and every time?
Finally, what do you think, as a matter of political reality, the rule will wind up being?
Only Women Bleed (Sex, Sharia remix)
My dear old mum is a member of the Vancouver Public Library Board of Directors, and they are dealing with this issue as an on-going stuggle between liberation and control. They really want to use technology to help people learn and find information.
The real world does creep into these Ivory Tower ideals, and there is a valid argument for restricting access to portions of the Web that don't exactly qualify as "enlightening". Of course, if you are a student researching the history of porn then you might have a legitimate claim that such a restriction interferes with your right to producing the best work you can, so where and how do you draw the line?
Do you have people walking around, peeking over shoulders or flipping between monitor-feeds? Do you make people sign waivers to protect the Library from being sued by an angry parent or innocent-bystander who sees something that offends them? Do you install technology that blocks/allows sites based on some proprietary technology?
What kind of information can I pass on to my mother and her colleagues, so that they can make the best, most informed decision possible? What resources are out there that outline successful (and disastrous) solutions to similar problems in the public domain?
I'm sure there are plenty of libraries in the world who would LOVE to be altruisticly giving access to the public, if they could do it the "right" way.
The school libraries do this as well, but not to the extremes of blocking all but one app. Unfortunately people waste time checking email all day on a computer, waiting for more or reading irrelevant chatter (I used to do that), so all these organizations got the wrong impression.
A better method, I think, is to allow these kinds of things, but to be ready to let others use the computers for more important activities, if our society wasn't too uptight to talk to strangers...
# debian/rules
As a parent I am concerned about what my child might encounter. I'd like to be involved in guiding that exploration. Should an eight-year-old have full access to violent or pornographic sites? I don't think so. It would seem to me appropriate to have heavily filtered public access for children (libraries DO have children's departments) while maintaining open access for adults and children with adults or with adult permission.
Libraries themselves, by selecting the material they collect, routinely perform acts of censorship. I would suggest that a form of filtering on internet access for minors is appropriate as long as parents have a way of telling the library they will accept responsibility for what their child views. (And the youngster who is surfing accepts responsibility as well, I might add.)
The library is a place where people go to read and to research. I don't see the point in allowing email in the library. There are computer labs, internet cafes, etc for that sort of stuff. I think this is a good move to ensure the computer is avaiable for those who "need" it. (Yes, I realize many of us - including myself need email, but you know what I mean.)
Holy s-, it's Jesus!
Don't forget the wonderful censorware.org site. This is what we recommend to parents. Peacefire has more of a "how dare they lock me out!" mentality.
Censorware has a "Look what doesn't work to protect your children" mentality.
In either case, my husband and I ended up getting a Sunday editorial spot in our local paper on the school library and censorware issue. (It doesn't carry editorials past day one, so there is no link to place here.) This is a case where the technologically literate need to do a few simple things to fight censorware.
- Write letters to the editor of all local papers. Include facts. Hammer on the facts. Hammer on pages that do get banned, and pages that slip through. censorware.org's review of bess contains excellent ammunition.
- When discussing censorware with the community, make sure your language and affect are similar to that of a Baptist Sunday School teacher. Show deep concern, explain that these things don't work, express dismay at this abrogation of parental and community responsibility, and do it without frothing at the mouth.
- Do not use ad hominem arguments. (What would you expect coming from an ignorant slob like that?) Instead, be the voice of sweet reason and responsibility. Explain the wonders that can no longer be seen. Blocks flesh tones? No more Sistine Chapel Ceiling. Uses keywords? No more Testicular cancer. Uses algorithms? No more information on the Brotherhood of Flagellants. If all else fails, use
- Indignation. How dare anyone decide what your child gets to see? Who appointed them the ultimate decider of your child's upbringing? What standards shall be used?
- Bring up community standards. Communities are changing so rapidly that the demographic standards obscenity have changed. In many cultures, the pictures of astronauts in shorts at NASA is offensive to modesty. In other cultures, the human body is something to be celebrated. Shall I assume that the female breast is taboo, as in Baptist Illinois, or shall I be like the folk on Pago Pago and forbid the display of female thighs, and the discussion of bodily function between father and son?
- Finally, if necessary, in public debate, ask how much time they spend watching TV with children, reading the books their children read, and providing other outlets. Remind the audience that the Internet has never been a substitute for parenting. Remind the audience of the evils of using the public library as a babysitter. If parents do not trust their own children, have them watch their children, rather than forcing us to do it for them.
Laughter is always your best weapon. Use it well.I worked in a public library last summer, and one of our biggest problems was not about content, but rather seating, and number of workstations available. Prohibiting time-consuming activities like chat and e-mail or restricting them to off peak times allows others to use the facility.
I may be only a young lad of 19, but I have over three years of employment background with the public library system in Nova Scotia, Canada, first as a book shelver, and more recently as a web developer/sysadmin/techie.
The Canadian Library Association's stand on Intellectual Freedom states:
It is the responsibility of libraries to guarantee and facilitate access to all expressions of knowledge and intellectual activity, including those which some elements of society may consider to be unconventional, unpopular or unacceptable. To this end, libraries shall acquire and make available the widest variety of materials. [The full policy, if you're interested, is accessible from here.]
A problem I recall being mentioned earlier (NZ, IIRC?) is that of limited bandwidth. Two of the three branch libraries within the system in which I work have a 56K Frame Relay connection; one, as part of a pilot project, just switched to ADSL.
So, while some libraries don't explicitly censor pages, sometimes network availability or simple slowness of machines prevents some pages from being displayed correctly.
One way I've seen this handled is through the use of a disclaimer. Its quite lengthy, so I leave its reading as an exercise to the reader.
OK - I worked managing the computers at a library for two years, so I speak from experience here:
Yes. You really, really do need some kind of usage policy. My library had a no-email policy, which I never enforced, but I think that certain of the policies were perfectly reasonable.
The "no porn" one, for example. You'd be really amazed by how many middle-aged men come into the library and look up porn, on a public computer, in full view, in the middle of the day, and then actually get _indignant_ when you ask them to leave. Kiddies are just as into it, but they're mostly (in my experience at least) just doing it on a dare or whatever.
There are other ones that aren't quite as obvious, too. The afterschool crowds at my library were really staggering, and since a lot of the kids needed to use the computers for reports, we had do have a policy to give them preference over kiddies who wanted to check out Pokemon and DragonballZ sites.
Certainly, some policies aren't reasonable (ie "no email, no Deja"), but a lot of them are. Don't get into some kind of knee-jerk reaction about how bad it is for libraries to regulate the use of their computers. Think it through before you post.
I have a 7 year old, our library has no filtering software -- bully for them!
First of all, unlike some people, I'm not just ditching my kid at the library, I'm sitting next to him.
Second, I suspect his interest in something like that would be just about equal to his interest in a treatise on quantum chromodynamics.
Shut up, be happy. The conveniences you demanded are now mandatory. -- Jello Biafra
Yeah, it really seems libraries are covering the butts... and boobs and all that, I guess. What a waste.
I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
What the Library is doing is covering their butts in case some kid gets in there and catches sight of something he shoulden't. I can understand it, to a point. The best answer right now may be a key type system that allows adults to turn off the filters when they need to, but leaves them for the kids. If the kids are smart 'nuf to bypass the filters, they are probly old 'nuf to know better, and thus not need them.
Dirty Pirate Hooker
It seems excessive but speaking as someone who formally worked at a libarary for large university I can see the reason for this. We also ended up having to ban email & chat room use. What happened was that we brought in all these computers to help people in research & such but a small group of people ended up monopolizing them for hours so they could hang out in X-Rated chat rooms and do their email. Anybody who wanted to actually look up information for a paper or research project was out of luck.
Scytle
I'm not sure what it's like in Europe, but one thing that becomes a lot more relevant as soon as you leave the US is the traffic cost of the net.
The vast majority of info is hosted in the US, which is why even at my university we have only very restricted access outside New Zealand, unless we're really nice to the sysadmins. If you want a better connection you have to pay extra for it, and the cost is usually traffic based.
At the library down the road from here the net is freely available (when it works), but it's not cheap for the city to pay for. I can completely understand why they want to restrict people from using services that are going to cause people to hang around and use what they probably don't need. If people want better access there are lots of cybercafe's up and down the road.
Email seems a bit over the top though.
===
Recently I was in the North East of England for a quick visit. When the time came for me to depart Londonwards I needed to look up a train timetable so wandered in to my local library for a quick lookup on the net. The AUP document I was required to sign was so authoritarian as to be unbelievable. As well as the usual clauses about porn and virii it forbade the use of chatrooms and - get this: EMAIL. To add to this, they had set up the machines so that the only app that could be run was Internet Explorer. They also had blocking software that blocked evil, depraved sites like oh, deja.com. I think this is not acceptable in a service that is funded out of (partly) taxpayers pockets is so over-regulated as to be utterly useless. Are other libraries in the UK taking a similar line? Does anyone else know more about this, or is this just an individual council going overboard?" A few libraries in the US are moving to this kind of system as well. It's a tricky situation, and it was inevitable that we were going to have this kind of conflict when accessing the Internet through publicly funded outlets. Are there better ways to handle this situation?
There is a legit use for blocking e-mail. Not so much for security or privacy sake (although I can see some kid e-mailing threat letters to members of congresss and stuff). After managing a high school network, I discovered how addicted teenagers get to e-mail. Before we had all the logistics of student e-mail set up, we had simple net access. They were used pretty heavily, but usually there wasn't a waiting line unless a class needed to use it for some research project. When the day came that we let the students freely e-mail anybody on their school accounts, things got out of control. People were constantly e-mailing EACH OTHER (even if they were sitting right next to each other) and basically turned it into a form of high-tech note passing. Lines were wrapping around the computer lab by others anxious to check their e-mail. That and after every class there was always a barrage of teenage girls who needed to write 2-page letters to their boyfriends. Eight times a day. I think the restriction on e-mail has a valid concern, but there are better ways of doing it. It looks like they wanted to keep the internet station for sole research purposes, which makes sense from a certain standpoint. I think they could have found a better way to manage it, if this was their intent.
"You'll die up there son, just like I did!" - Abe Simpson
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
First of all, I don't think that porn needs to be blocked. Perhaps some sites may cause real harm (internet gambling?), but the damage done by porn is theoretical and unproven. Do the obscure "benefits" of blocking justify the cost of purchasing, deploying, and maintaining the software?
With that in mind, I hope that none of the current batch of crapware gets proliferated in any more libraries. They frequently block good sites because of poor AI and because of the inherent difficulty in the decision-making task.
Let's look at three main methods of blocking to see why they don't work:
Human operators simply cannot filter all of the sites (despite censorware claims to the contrary). Either censorware has to miss much of the content that they deem "offensive", or they must filter using some automated procedure. The result is that many censorware products blacklist sites based on an algorithm without any human supervision. The algorithms are typically keyword matches (in one example, the presence of the word "couples" in the URL blocked out a harmless photo of Al Gore and Tipper).
This frequent technique has less intelligence than plankton. They do not use state-of-the-art AI algorithms to parse language. Their methods are crude and arbitrary. However, that doesn't stop vendors from making exhorbitant claims about their intelligence, as if a real nanny was protecting childeren while they surf.
My experience with computer vision and pattern recognition suggests that cutting-edge technology is nowhere near distinguishing between pr0n and non-pr0n. How can you tell an innocent dance from a vile sex scene? How do even count the number of people in the photograph? One vendor claims to be able to interpret images (by counting the flesh-tones) to decide whether they are pornographic. Of course, all independent reviews of the software reveal it their algorithm to be complete arbitrary (they can only block 30% of pr0n by blocking 30% of the internet). Mostly, it just blocked people's faces.
In summary, censorware is not much more than cheap introductory-level AI with a lot of marketing hype. Why would we install this crap at the risk of undermining parental authority? Kids will not learn to respect authority by being forced to swallow such stupid and arbitrary protectionist measures.
Furthermore, the whole system reeks of abuse caused by deliberate blocking. Athiest, feminist, and gay newsgroups are frequently targeted. Sites that criticize censorship are often targetted. Remember when CyberSitter threaten to block out all sites on Peacefire's ISP unless the ISP yanked Peacefire's site (for criticizing CyberSitter and showing how lame it was)? Access control lists and blocking algorithms are kept secret, presumably to prevent the competition from improving their filtering product. However, I think that they must disguise their poor algorithms and abusive practices.
Even filtering advocates should be appalled at the actual practices of the industry. See peacefire.org for more analysis of filtering software.
So please don't let your solution include a blocking filter.
The reality is that the net is full of stuff some people shouldn't see. My daughters, 2 & 4, are already on the net playing games at zoogdisney.com, mamamedia.com, etc. I really don't think it's for them to see porn. I'm not a prude but banner ads of animated oral sex is too much for children. Currently, my wife or I are with them while on the computer. As they get older, they get censorware on their computer. Once they can haxx0r it out of their box, they are free to surf where they please.
There is a place for censorship, but not for adults.
A simple solution to the problem is a hardware key that is issued to adults at the library desk. If your ID says your over 18, you get the dongle that tells the computer to let you see what you want on the terminal. If you are underage, you get censorship. Sorry but that's the breaks.
Yes, I know the 'nannie' software strips out stuff like breast cancer research. But at 7 years old, should my children be confronted with full frontal internet? I think not.
Adults on the other hand, should always have free access to any and all information on the net at a publicly funded terminal.
-----
nuclear iraq bioweapon encryption cocaine korea terrorist