Slashdot Mirror
Congressional Panel Says No To Filters
Private Essayist writes: "In this ZDNet story, it points out the ironic news that just as Congress is about to require all libraries and schools to install antiporn filters, a commision created by Congress to study ways to protect children online is about to decline recommending mandatory use of filters. The commission says, 'no particular technology yet offers an ideal solution.'"
"...if the community wants to put filters in schools or libraries, then that is the choice of the community."
"...if the community wants to put blacks in separate schools or libraries, then that is the choice of the community."
Local option is no more moral than federal mandate.
--
An abstained vote is a vote for Bush and Gore.
Non-meta-modded "Overrated" mods are killing Slashdot
(Hey Ryan! Here's your proof!)
The best way is not to do filters in the first place. Some people may not get it, but is it really appropiate to be searching for porn in a public place? What about hate speach? Well, you do have a right to free speach, but you generally need to obtain a permit to hold a public protest. So by that reasoning the governemant should be allowed to block that stuff from government funded public terminals. Some belieifs are motivated through religion, and thus the government should just not get involved. For government the whole issue is a no win situation. The filtering software isn't good enough, and any soultion is outragously expensive to maintain. squidGaurd and squidBlock have potential, as the community at large can update the blocked and unblocked site lists. I belive they only filter the URL, not the actual page content.
If you're going to implement a filtering system, here's my gereral suggestion: train the libiary staff on how to add sites to the allow list. (Make a nice web interface for squid or something.) Whenever the users hits a site that was blocked, a page explaining the procedure will be displayed. They will then either fill out the request form or go to the libiary staff. The libiary staff will review the site and use their own judgment on the spot.
At the end of a given time period, the modifications to the list will be reviewed by a board of voulenteers. Sites can again be added or removed. After the meeting, the results will be posted for public review. At any time a voting user can go to the public libiary and request access to every site on the list, and give their vote on any listed site. These public votes will again be reviewd.
And so the process continues, each filtering site shares it's list and every voter has a a say. In time you have a system that has a large database of blocked sites. If the centeral government wants to maintain the centeral database, fine as long as long as the end user can override that instantly.
This is by no means a complete system, just me musing on what the heck I would implement a public filtering system. I should write my congressman. Maybe I can get a grant or something!
I'm going to go back in my box and will think within the limits of my box: MS Sucks Linux Good I read too much Slashdot.
What I want to know is, what is so intrinsically terrible about children looking at porn while they are at school? If they are doing it while they should be doing work, it is only as bad as them browsing Disney.com while they should be doing work. If they are eating bandwidth, it is only as bad as them burning Red Hat CDs. And if their parents think they should be prevented from seeing naked people, are we going to filter ankles from the Muslim students, and gay rights information from students with homophobe parents? What about sex education from students whose parents don't agree with it?
In fact, given the quality of sex education in some schools, it might be good for the students to check out some porn just so they learn which bits go where!
I can certainly see that any individual school might make the decision to block porn if it has a problem with it, the same as my primary school banned yoyos one time when there was a craze for them. But I see no obvious reason why all schools should be automatically required to ban porn, no matter how excellent the filters might be. To what extent are schools required to shelter their students from the outside world according to each set of parents' beliefs?
My parents never put me in a Mind-Cage(TM) and I'm not going to restrict my children's ability to make their own moral decisions either. If you teach your kids how to think for themselves and to realize when to click 'back' on the browser or when to close pop-up windows then you wouldn't have anything to worry about.
More than anything this is just another case of the american public trying to shake off one of the problems with it's family structure. First it was "My kid is hyper - better get him on that ritalin!", now it's "My kid has such a fragile mind, better not let him have access to any material that might force him/her to make a moral decision".
The government can't fix the problems that you have with raising your children. Schools can try to help, but in the end it's the parents responsibility to not just protect their children, but to teach them to think for themselves.
UBU
Not to mention the Sheeple Effect.
Surveys like this (especially when they are issued to prove a point - ie are politically loaded) are designed to elicit the result the questioner wants. You can design these "surveys" to get any answer. The best way to get sheeple...I mean people, is to prey on their desire to give consistent answers. For example:
Do you believe pornography is bad?
Yes.
Do you think children should be exposed to porno at school?
No!
There's porno out on the net. Do you think we should censor the net in schools so that porno can't be seen?
Yes!
Do you think we should use automatic blocking software to do this?
Yes! Definitely!
An alternative survey could be worded differently. Let's say the Slashdot Collective is running the survey this time, and wants to show that most people are against software filtering in schools and libraries. So they ask:
Do you believe in the freedom of speech as set forth by the constitution?
Yes.
The Internet is a breakthrough in freedom of expression - more people than ever can make their voice heard. Do you think this is a good or bad thing?
Definitely a good thing, oh yes!
Do you agree or disagree our children should learn about free speech?
Yes!
Software to block sites has been proposed for schools and libraries. It often blocks things it's not supposed to. Do you think that such an intrusion on the freedom of speech and information should be mandated?
Hell no!
This is just an example, and I'm sure the survey makers are a lot better at it than me. But basically, you can have the same person agree on opposite sides of the same point even if they answer both surveys back-to-back if the survey is well enough designed...so these surveys are actually meaningless. Pity so many people don't realise this.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
EXPERTS: There is no good technology to filter the net.
PEOPLE: We must protect the children!!!!
EXPERTS: Mandatory filtering is an undue restriction on free speech.
PEOPLE: You guys are a bunch of pedophiles, aren't you?
EXPERTS: Fine, you're on your own. ok bye.
Axel
Axel
mhm23x3, alt.fan.karl-malden.nose
"How does restricting people from looking at porn in a library have anything to do with human rights?"
Here's how: define "porn". Give me a hard-edged, deterministic, objective definition for exactly those items you want to make unavailable from a library computer. Is the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue porn? How about pictures of breast cancer sufferers? How about the the "sexual reproduction" entry of the encyclopedia (you know, the one with the drawings of genitalia)? The Starr Report? How about any court documents or news stories about sexual harassment?
--
An abstained vote is a vote for Bush and Gore.
Non-meta-modded "Overrated" mods are killing Slashdot
(Hey Ryan! Here's your proof!)
I want to, when I have kids, hold their hand as they cross the street. I want to point out right and wrong. I want to ease them into things as they grow.
I also expect the school they will attend will do the same, and I expect them to not rely on technology to censor technoloy.
I know its a bit much, but you just simply cannot safeguard the net against anything. Its noones fault except that we need more people to look after things. More education for them to know how to work with technology, and more money -- especially in education.
----
I think the most interesting comment in the article is from Rep. Istook.
"The commission was not designed to recommend the consensus of the American public,"
Ummmm.. Neither is the Supreme Court. The reason being is that we (theoretically) appoint people to such positions who will look beyond what is popular to what is right.
Remember that segregation was once the 'common sense conclusion' of many people.
Who the hell is going to the library to look at porn?
I could just see the scandal... "Paul Reubens (Pee-wee Herman [one of my personal heroes]) arrested for porn browsing in the library!"
"We didn't recommend any mandatory practices," said Donald Telage, chairman of the commission and an executive at Network Solutions Inc. "We did consider them, but not even the most-conservative members of the commission felt that was the road to go down...I don't believe they're good enough. They're hopelessly outgunned. A legislative, quick solution may not be the right answer."
Correct. Even those on the panel who were conservative knew that filters aren't the answer. And legislation to require filters is merely the "quick" solution, not the right one. But does this stop Congress? Nooooooo...
"The House leadership believes the amendment will likely survive because of its strong public support. A study this week from the Digital Media Forum showed 92 percent of 1,900 U.S. residents polled believe pornography should be blocked on school computers and 79 percent believe software filters should block hate speech. "
Basic ignorance at work here, folks. You poll people and ask, "Do you think porn should be blocked on school computers?" and what do you think the responses will be? "Uh, no, I don't think we should block porn at schools."?? Of course not! People are going to say, "Sure, block the stuff."
Those polled probably have no idea that filters don't work. Congress should know better, but they would rather run around waving papers showing poll results and claiming that the American public is clamoring for filters!
Ignorance triumphant.
________________
________________
Private Essayist
Just a random thought...
It just occurs to me that it might be better to make it illegal for porn sites (and whatever else the people deem inappropriate) to provide content to public schools, rather than attempt to block them out.
Think about it: porn sites pop up and shut down all the time, but public school IP addresses would stay relatively constant, and can be listed explicitly, and reliably. The list can be made available.
I haven't really thought about it deeply, so it may be a stupid idea. There's still nothing that can be done about foreign sites, for instance. But it's just my $0.02.
Accountability on the heads of the powerful.
Power in the hands of the accountable.
I can really identify with you, so much.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
The problem is that everyone wants to do what is popular, not what is right or legal. The first amendment must be defended, even if it is not popular. If 90 some percent of the population want censorship, fine. Amend the constitution to repeal the first amendment. If it passes, you have a whole new problem. The second amendment was created to prevent the first from being repealed. You can't get rid of either of the first two without a civil war. Go ahead and take away our freedom of expression. We'll just take that to mean you want us to excercise our right (not privelige) to bear arms.
2000 != 1984 Stupid English people.
As far as I'm concerned, if your children can't handle using the internet properly (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean) then it's your duty as a parent to teach them how to deal with information and what is appropriate. Don't expect the government to provide a quick fix to your faults in upbringing - it's a slim chance it will get implemented soon and if they ever do it's highly likely that it won't work the way everyone would want it to anyway.
UBU
Hook the school/library/kiosk computers up to card readers. Issue cards to the people who want to use those machines. Give "full-access" cards to adults, "custom access" cards to minors. Let parent's configure the minors' cards to say what software (if any) and what levels within that software the child is limited to.
Viola! Personalized filtering that affects ONLY your child.
Possible downsides with comments:
Setting it up. No big deal with a true multi-user system (especially one where you can install multiple filtering technologies). Alternatively you could use filters that are online.
Child A has "full access" and show porn to Child B. Unavoidable in any system. Child A could bring a dead-tree copy of Playboy to school, it's no different.
Privacy violations if tracked by card? So don't do that. Print the name of the person on the card (or even a photo) but don't encode it for the computer to read. Just encode the settings.
--
An abstained vote is a vote for Bush and Gore.
Non-meta-modded "Overrated" mods are killing Slashdot
(Hey Ryan! Here's your proof!)
While it is fun for slashdotters to get all up in arms about hot button issues... lets keep a few things clear.
1) Both candidates support filtering. When Bush mentioned it, he explicitly stated that it was only appropriate for PUBLICLY FUNDED institutions. He went on to state his support for the first ammendment EXPLICITLY. Gore suggested much more expensive and invasive requirements to be levied on ALL ISP's, and was more interested in showing how much "smarter" he was then bush to bother bringing up the first ammendment.
2) Content filtering is not a new problem. Go down to your public library and ask for the latest copy of Penthouse. See what happens. There is already all sorts of mechanical filtering for the mechanical media in place, the question has been asked and answered. The question is how to implement the electronic filtering for the electronic media.
3) There are two seperate issues...
a) Should we filter at all?
b) Is current filtering software effective?
These are two seperate problem domains with two seperate soultion spaces.
4) The first ammendment protects "free as in speech" speech, not "free as in beer" speech. That is, you are free to say what you want, and seek what you want, but the government is not obligated to fund you for either.
5) The question "should parents have legislative supports to help them control the actions of their minor children" is also a different question. Saying minors should not be allowed unfiltered access without supervision is no different then saying minors can't buy ciggarettes and beer without parental supervision. Again, this is a question US society has asked and answered.
6) Free speech advocates are free to use their own money and their own resources to set up their own information kiosks (not unlike the Christian Science Reading Rooms, but with different content and motivations) and let people have all the free, non-filtered and unrestricted access they want. In this case, for non-minors, the second ammendment DOES protect them, as it is clearly a form of free speech.
7) Just becuase current filtering approaches suck, does not mean that all future filtering approaches will suck.
Hopefully that helps clarify the debate a little... we aren't helping anyone on either side with confusion.
Bill
Mathematically impossible requirements are technically not against policy.
If they wanted to poll on filters, the question should not have been "Do you think porn should be blocked on school computers?" - it should have been
"Do you think school computers should randomly block internet material, including chicken breast recipies and Superbowl XXX information, in an effort to keep out some undisclosed fraction of the pornography on the internet?
---
Even if the subscriptions were free, storage space is a non-negligible cost for libraries. I have offered to donate MacWorld subscriptions to a few of my local libraries, but they declined with regrets. Now if porn mags were donating archives on microfiche...it would be weird, but doable.