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?

Comments

Re:The library isn't for email anyway

[Jeremy Erwin]

I find email to be a most useful library tool. I've often used librarycatalogs that will email the results of a search to a user specified address. This feature is inavaluable when collating a electronic bibliography for BibTex, or for collating interlibrary loan lists.

Often, I've kept certain notes in my email account, so that I might be able to refer back to them if neccesary. I don't always have all my notebooks with me.

It's also useful to be able to correspond with other researchers-- some material cannot be transmitted accurately via telephone.

Of course, the WWW has subsumed some of these functions-- but how are you supposed to update a web page without telnet access?

Regulation..

[bokane]

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.

Uh, hi, I'd like the PERVERT key

[john@iastate.edu]

Exactly how many people are going to do that?

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.

Re:covering (their) asses.

[Doomdark]

Yeah, it really seems libraries are covering the butts... and boobs and all that, I guess. What a waste.

covering their asses.

[photozz]

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.

Other side of the coin...

[Scytle]

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

cost of the net

[jesterzog]

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.

===

The entire question

[Obiwan Kenobi]

Due to the lack of proofreading, here is the entire question:

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?

blocked e-mail

[Lxy]

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

Blocking software is arbitrary and abusive

[mooredav]

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:

• 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).
• Keyword filtering
  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.
• Image processing
  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 question is really about public access

[Argyle]

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.
-----

Re:censorship

[Yardley]

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.

--