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?
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.
No.. Many books *are* censored, in the US and in Canada, and in other countries, and they are NOT permitted to be on the shelf. Or the library choses not to carry them.
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.
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.
Except that the current companies in this kind of business do not do the best job they can. For various reasons such as: As it's software they can disclaim any responsibility anyway. They typically lie about the use of people vs (simple) computer programs for selecting what to block. And finally, they often have criteria such as "block anywhere who gives us a bad review" and appear to drawn from political extreamists.
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?
I was just thinking, all the references I've seen so far have been to windows and IE. Are there any libaries that use Linux for their publicly accessible terminals ?
Which would also address issues of viruses or downloading programs. Whilst certain people may moan about Linux not having the ability for an end user to easily download and install programs in may situations (including this one) this is actually a positive feature.
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.
So, if I choose not to buy a book, am I a censor?
How far exactly would you like to carry this argument? As long as the library's resources are limited, they will have to purchase some books, and exclude others. CENSORSHIP!
Should the librarians choose the books randomly, to avoid making value judgements? Librarians don't limit access (much) to books and such. But they should certainly remember who pays the bills. The folks of that town are ponying up lots of pounds to provide that library. I think that it is entirely proper for the townsfolk to have a BIG say about what their money gets spent on. If you don't like their taste, spend your own money to make whatever they don't approve of available to the public. Don't try to force others to pay for your opinions. The burning desire to implement your opinions at the expense of others is what this censorship argument always boils down to.
There is, here in the US, a national organization for librarians. They buy into your argument hook, line and sinker. It makes them feel brave and daring to "fight censorship", I suspect, and is always a good argument for a bigger budget: "we need more money to buy reference books... the porn is so expensive, and so popular we can't cut back on it...". I'm sure that's true in GB too, so you can rest easy: the public's right to be robbed to fund utopias isn't in any real danger.
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.
bugger off
--
--
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...
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.
This is most certainly censorship. Libraries don't have to carry potentially offensive books, either. But they do (or, at least, many do). Any librarian worth his salt would never even consider limiting access to the information on paper; why should access to the digital stuff be any different?
Certainly, this is the work of mindless bureaucrats; most have gotten over their penchant for censoring books, but there are still plenty who are keen on censoring the Internet. If it looks like censorship, smells like censorship, and makes you feel dirty all over like censorship, it's probably censorship.
If there's a national organization of Librarians, they need to get on top of this ASAP.
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.
It's a children's library. They're *supposed* to romp around.
Exactly. I let my kids use the libraries without close supervision because I know that there won't be some teenager downloading porn. It's my taxpayer dollars they're using, and that kind of controlled Internet access is exactly what I want them to provide.
And since when can you not access email through a browser?
Uh, no. Just the hour a week I leave them to romp around the library while I read. Any you try explaining to a three year old (or even a seven year old) what porn is and why they shouldn't be very, very upset by it.
Your company's webmail policy makes no sense, but I suppose you already knew that. How do they stop you? There are literally hundreds of free webmail sites.
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
If there's a national organization of Librarians, they need to get on top of this ASAP.
There is and they are completely against censorship of this or any nature.
The Library Bill of Rights, created by the The American Library Association, states:
The American Library Association affirms that all libraries are forums for information and ideas, and that the following basic policies should guide their services.
I. Books and other library resources should be provided for the interest, information, and enlightenment of all people of the community the library serves. Materials should not be excluded because of the origin, background, or views of those contributing to their creation.
II. Libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view on current and historical issues. Materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval.
III. Libraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and enlightenment.
IV. Libraries should cooperate with all persons and groups concerned with resisting abridgment of free expression and free access to ideas.
V. A person's right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views.
VI. Libraries which make exhibit spaces and meeting rooms available to the public they serve should make such facilities available on an equitable basis, regardless of the beliefs or affiliations of individuals or groups requesting their use.
--
--
He lives in a world where those who do not run the client software of the omnipresent meme are unacceptable.