Slashdot Mirror
FCC Seeks Comment on Internet Filtering Rules
"The law in question (CIPA) requires filters to be used whenever *anyone* is using the computer, although adults with "bona fide" research needs may request that they be disabled. Minors may not use unfiltered computers with Internet access, even if a parent gives permission or a teacher deems the site to be wrongly filtered.
"The FCC is seeking comment on how to go about implementing this requirement, and it is on the FAST TRACK. Comments have to be made in the next 15 days! For anyone interested in participating, the FCC makes it easy.
"How to Submit a Comment to the FCC: The FCC provides a number of ways for members of the public to comment on proceedings. The easiest is their web-based form.
"The Internet filtering proceeding docket number, which you must include in any comment to the FCC, is: 96-45."
Either the URL was originally typed in wrong (extraneous space) or they've decided to move it. In any case, the proposed rule-making is now here (pdf)
`ø,,ø!
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
http://www.ala.org/cipa/FCCRulemaking.pdf
it's a PDF.
We've always got filtering stuff at LISNews.com too, :-)
For nearly every U.S. reader: this law will affect your local library. Go talk to them. Get involved.
/. reaction against filtering at public libraries. Normally, public libraries have extremely limited computing resources (like one or two computers), that should be used as a tool for research and education.
Talk to them, why? Except to say, "Good job," that is.
I don't understand this knee-jerk
The last thing I want my tax dollars going to is for some dude to sit around all day surfing for porn. Screw that, I pay for my own porn just like everyone else should.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
Simple. Don't let minors use the computers... They'll only be using them for schoolwork, aiming to reach a higher standard of education than you, or particularly, I. Give em another few years and they'll be better qualified and after YOUR job!
And if they are viewing porn, which knowing the number of 13 year old boys which I do, I find very unlikely, just hardwire their seats into the mains and give them a 'little' jolt for picture viewed.
You'll find that this aversion therapy was highly successful in curing homosexuals in the 50s, which is why it's now damn near impossible to buy chapps in downtown San Francisco...
A better solution is to have the computer out in the open where everyone can see it.
For kids at home, this would be in the family room. [the rule of thumb at home is that, if you can buy your own, then you can have it in your room. If mom and dad buy it, it is in the family room.]
For Libraries, this would be not in the side room, but in the main hall where every passer by can see. This being a public space, maybe the illusion of "privacy" in this very public space should be dispensed with. This thought has problems both ways tho.
But this would certainly enforce "community standards"
Now there is a issue as far as making sure that there is no one hacking the system. But that is a sysadmin security issue, not a filtering issue.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
The recent court cases (see http://www.aclu.org/news/2000/n062200b.html) very clearly show no tolerance for this sort of thing. Is this just more grandstanding for the voters?
- You can actually find out what is being blocked, and why.
- You can choose and modify your list (especially if you disagree with it).
- You could, possibly, define your own criteria for automated blocking.
- There would be no NDA to deal with.
- kids could have realistic input into what is considered 'harmful' to them.
Self-censorship -- Isn't it wonderful?`ø,,ø!
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Yes it certainly does. For starters, I wouldn't want my borrowing history to be broadcast to everyone. Why? Wrong question. It is my business what I read and the idea that I must justify that is wrongheaded. The question is it in the best interests of the nation to know what I read. The answer, it isn't. Therefore I demand that my privacy rights continue to be respected.
How is putting the Net box in a public place any different. One example. What if I'm too poor, too old, too backwards to own a computer (maybe I just like to read paperbacks when I'm at home), but my wife comes down with breast cancer. So, being the caring guy that I am, I treck down to the library and want to do some research so we can ask good questions of the oncologist during the course of treatment. Again, I see no reason why I should have to justify my right to privacy, but this is a good example of a time where I really don't want the entire neighborhood looking over my should enforcing 'community standards'. I just want to do my research, print some stuff out, and go home. It's my computer, my taxes paid for it and I resent 'the man' telling me where and how I can use it just as much as I would resent him telling me what books are fit to be published.
--
Minors may not use unfiltered computers with Internet access, even if a parent gives permission or a teacher deems the site to be wrongly filtered.
You're kidding me.
You're not kidding me?
Wonderful way to protect censorware companies from having to actually update their lists. Also a rather interesting removal of individual power from parents and teachers. I guess a lot of bleating about "giving educational choice back to the parents" only extends as far as where parents can spend their money, not what their children can look at, even when the filtering software is clearly wrong in the eyes of the adults involved.
"My son needs to look up 2600.com for a project on hackers." "My daughter is doing a research project on breast cancer." "Why can't I see any sites about Wicca? I'm doing a project for religion class." Legitimate queries, all of which under law can only be met with, "I'm sorry, but I can't shut down the filter."
Consider that many filters not only try to block sexual pornography, but often sites about other religions, left- and sometimes right-wing political philosophies, gay and lesbian sites, peacefire.org, and anything else that doesn't fit the political agenda of the software company's target market. Fortunately, some (most?) filters allow the degree of blocking to be tailored, but how often will the administrator in a library or school be knowledgable enough to not just block everything out of worry or paranoia?
Yeah, it'll scare off the porn jockeys, but they can just claim to be looking up something else and have the filters turned off anyway. Not to mention intelligent, knowledgable students (the existence of which I'm sure will be considered dangerous to the public good, since they tend to know realfacts, not goodfacts) who already know how to get around filters will do so, and probably get accused of "hacking" by teachers who should know better.
If I were an American resident, I'd already have sent off some rather long letters to representatives about this moronic law, and I'd send a comment to the FCC now telling them software should not be implemented in taxpayer-funded facilities. that serves to restrict political and religious freedom. Find a filter that blocks only pornography, or recommend that filters be set only to block sex and extreme violence (and hope the latter doesn't block sites about the horrors of the Holocaust). Of course, I'd love to say "don't follow the law at all, it's badly-conceived", but I somehow doubt it would be taken seriously.
DMCA, UCITA, CIPA - government of the people, for the people?
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
It should be noted that this ruling specifically states that all internet activity by minors should be monitored, but NOT in libraries. So at least they had some sense that privacy should be respected for adults in a public setting. I don't think that this is a bad thing at all. When sending your child to school, you should not have to worry that they would have access to content on the internet that you would otherwise restrict. I doubt if any teenager would have much of a problem circumventing the restrictive measures that would have to be implemented given this ruling.
http://www.codewolf.com - Just good stuff to waste time
As an Australian, I am impressed that the FCC is interested in listening to what the American public think of their proposed laws... If only our equivalent body would do the same, with a number of issues -- censorship, telco deregulation, etc etc etc... Of course, it remains to be seen what the _general public_ will actually say -- there are louder voices than us nerds --, and it remains to be seen if the FCC will actually care what they hear... rr
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
I can't agree on filtering in Public Libraries on the basis that we do pay for them, and that filters have too much of a tendancy to block out very useful sights. In the schools, and this only applies to my personal belief, I don't mind the filters. Shools are a place set for our children to learn, and as a parent, I don't want my child to have easy access to certain things. True, with a filter there is still easy access if you know where to go and what to do, but at least there is some effort. I don't desire to take away first amendment rights, but don't take away my right to be a parent and have my children receive and education in an environment that I desire. Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong. (copyright Dennis Miller)
Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Does anyone know what filtering solution(s) they're planning to use? I didn't see anything in the PDF file, but maybe I'm not looking hard enough. More generally, do they plan to use web filters that block based on a list of "unsuitable" URLs or addresses chosen by some organization, or will they just filter for keywords? While I'm fishing, does anyone know anything about libraries' existing policies for determining what is and isn't suitable for display in a public institution?
I'm the son of a librarian, and I know firsthand that they are trying to stop this in any way they can... but should that not work, we're screwed, because I can research virtually nothing for my anatomy course... unfortunately, they get their internet connection through the local school, who has some kinda filtering software up... it's really screwed up, you can't go to half the 3rd party candidates' websites, 2600, or even the Onion. It's really annoying, because I got one of the librarians hooked on red meat, and now we can't access it!
Quoth the zombie, braaaaaaaains
Unfortunately, I can't submit a comment to the FCC since I'm not an american citizen, but I still would like to express my opinion.
I don't beleive that widespread filtering is a solution to anything. What would that filter would actually filter out? Has the image recognition software evolved so much that it can differenciate between porn and art?
For text recognition, how does a software make a difference between acceptable and acceptable? By using a vocabulary black-list? Does that mean that online dictionnairies will not be accessible from librairies because they contain words like "nazi", "devil", or "murder"? Will the words be taken out of context? If they're taken in context, how does the software draw the line between a site promoting hainous crimes and another simply relating to them in a journalistic fashion?
Will they filter out IP addresses? If so, who decides what's on the black list? Will Slashdot be on that blacklist??? (There was an article about virtual kiddie porn yesterday that contained some "bad" words).
What is scary about all this is that if the filtering is done by machine, there will be mistakes and "good" sites won't be available, while "bad" sites will be accessible. What is even scarier is if the filtering is done using a human generated blacklist of websites, the censure will actually be tainted and subjective, reflective of the censoring party's ideological, moral, religious and political beleifs, which is not democratic at all. And since america just "elected" a right-wing president, this can just go sour, IMHO.
I beleive in a free internet, where information flows freely, uncensored and unfiltered. Internet is not a babysitter nor an educator.
That will be all.
--- Worst tagline ever.
...but mandatory legislated filtering is!
I've said before that librarians have generally done a fine job of selecting what they do and don't want in their libraries over the centuries. Why don't we work at developing generic tools which can be set as appropriate by the librarians, if they so desire? I'm not normally an open source zealot, but this is one case where it's absolutely essential that the code be open for review, and you can bet that FCC censorware (along with it's stupid rules) won't be.
Disclaimer: I'm not a citizen or resident of the USA.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
I get it. The government takes my money in the name of the common good and uses it to micromanage the institutions that are out there doing the good. Where have I seen this before? Oh yeah, Federal Financial aid for education (Title IV). Either way, we pay for education, but now the money filters through the Feds' hands and arrives with strings attached.
CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.
The Minneapolis Public Library main branch is well connected and terminals are in the main hallways off the foyer. Gentlemen with poor hygiene and sub-standard housing can be witnessed at these terminals surfing pr0n for much of the day.
It got so bad that women on the otherwise largely liberal library staff complained to the board that it was creating a hostile work environment.
I'm not advocating anything here, just an observation about the effectiveness of an open floor plan as a deterent.
illegitimii non ingravare
After reading about Holland, MI, USA on this site last year (or so), I decided that it would be in my best interest for this 25 yr. old h*cker to 'get involved'.
We recently moved (2000-12-01) to a new town and I read in the paper that the Mayor was taking applications to fill the city boards, one of them being the Library Board. So, even though I had zero experience and really didn't know anyone in town, I applied.
On the application I mentioned my tech background, spoke about the issues of filtering and mentioned that the city could use a few people who 'understood the technology and the issues at hand'.
After a couple of interviews with the mayor, I was appointed last week! You're looking at the newest Library Board member (3 year term) for the city of Northfield, MN.
Filtering proponents beware! You have no friend here!
RinkRat
The regulation is designed to enforce the "Children's Internet Protection Act", which was signed by President Clinton 21 Dec 2000. Although the FCC could have declined to issue regulations implementing this rather draconian legislation, they have not. (They could have been sued by Congress for failing to do so). Besides, I really don't think that Shrub is all that more receptive to free speech and privacy claims.
The CHIP act requires that Internet connections be filtered for both adults and children, in both schools and libraries that recieve discounts on Internet connections & equipment. (Mind you, I'm not falling for the "we paid for it, so we get to reulate it" fallacy. After all, I paid for some of it, and I support uncensored, full access at public libraries.)
Additionally, it requires that Internet connections at schools (but not libraries), be monitored. And it requires both institutions to certify the existence of a "internet safety" policy. In the spirit of France's "Commitee for public safety" thsi apprently means that librarians are required to evesdrop on electronic mail.
If I setup a ISP, I'm going to supply my local library with Internet access. This is ridiculous. What happened to free speech? Wasn't this country founded on the ideals of freedom of speech and tolerance? A lot of people don't want this, unfortuntely, the people who do are in the positions of power to make it happen...when did elected officials stop being the servents of the people, and start representing only one interest, their own? These representitives are supposed to work with the people, to help them get their voices heard, and represent them and their interests in government. If they can't do that, get rid of them, and have a true democracy...if something doesn't work, why keep it? (I know that there are those who DO represent the people, but I'd guess that they're in the minority, considering what I've been seeing.) Back to the main point, filtering, in a public forum, where people who can't afford to have access to the Internet, will just create more of this "Digital Divide", this rift between those who have access to infomation, and those who don't. That's exactly what this country DOESN'T need. We need to help those people who can't afford it, help them get it, because the Internet is the portal to the world.
--------------------------------
This space reserved for valid arguements, not pointless ramblings.
FCC Request for Comments
Docket 96-45, Proposed Rule Making re: CHIP Act.
I am pleased to find that the FCC is requesting public comments on docket 96-45, a rulemaking proposal related to the CHIP Act. The following are my comments on mandatory computer- based censorship, and why I feel that it would be both dangerous and unethical for our government to filter the information available to any of its citizens.
Firstly, computer-based censorship has been proven entirely unfit for the task of accurately blocking or sanctioning either text or photographic content. Computers are not able to make subtle distinctions between HIV research, breast cancer studies, images of people in clothing, or discussions of firearm safety.
A politician once said of pornography, "I know it when I see it." That's just about the closest we as a society have come to specific standards on what is obscene, and what is not obscene. To some people, various images are purely artistic. To some, the same images are an abomination to their religious or moral fiber. With that dichotomy in place, and that inability for a sensible and exact definition of obscenity, is it no wonder that computer software cannot be made to comply?
Put in simple terms, computers cannot be offended: it's not the censorship computer program that is doing the filtering of offensive material, it is the human creators of the censorship program who decide what other people may or may not access.
That brings us to who watches the watchers? If it's not the censorware that is doing the censorship, then it is the proponents and designers of the censorware instead, that chooses what to hide from you. What political slant or prejudices are these people harboring as they design their filters? What bias or prejudice are you entrusting with the filter?
It has been demonstrated often that many software filters available on the market today block any mention of competitors, and also block any news story or website of the opponents of such content filtering. It may be the government's intent to block pictures of bestiality. It is in the best interests of those proponents to also block any dissent with their own opinions or objectives. If the same software blocks legitimate discourse about whether censorship is ethical, how can anyone learn more on the issues of freedom and democracy and the rights of citizens?
Government-mandated filtering via a commercial product means that a private company becomes a de facto government bureacracy. Many software companies are only a couple dozen or few hundred employees. Think of the required complexity of ensuring that several million, if not billions, of websites are blocked or allowed according to government-mandated standards. Think of the added complexity of oversight, reviews, and policy changes, as different local and national standards are introduced. The world wide web (just http: pages) grows and changes hundreds of thousands, perhaps tens of millions of pages every day. Can the government keep up with those changes?
If a government sets the standards for what to filter, then the government opens itself to be responsible and accountable for every blocked website. There will be millions of lawsuits where website creators feels they are being censored unfairly. The infrastructure to provide accurate and daily updates and access to the operations of the filter will be required, and inaccuracies will have to be addressable.
Public libraries have a mandate to provide open and unfettered access to materials to all its patrons. Public libraries do not have a mandate to babysit our children while we run off to the market. If a parent cannot trust their child's choices in conduct, then the parent should supervise that child. It is not appropriate for the government to play nanny to these children.
In closing, I'd like to quote from a favorite portion of a famous document. It's not taken out of context; the author's points were very clear and concise.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
It is important for this government to conduct itself as the founders intended. A government of the people, for the people, by the people. Thank you for your attention in this matter.
Signed,
Ed Halley
[
Why not implement a log-in procedure and tie it in with the card numbers and student id's. Anyone over the age of 18 should not be filtered at all. Under 18s could be filtered by default, but I'm a great proponent of having only the parents control the filtering option. Oh yeah, that would require parental attention.
I'm not sure why my library has to use filtering software at all, since all of the supposed types of no-no sites are already against library rules to view anyway. Penalty: no computer privileges.
----------------------
It would appear that a .pdf of the enacted text of the Children's Internet Protection Act can be found here (check in the middle of the page, under "McCain Amendment No. 3610").
/.ers think about this possible compromise.
My question is this: would the icra voluntary content rating system qualify as a "technology" under the bill sufficient to comply with the statute and the regulation? If so, the thing to do is to head to your local library and get them to implement ICRA, a self-rating and filtering tool based on voluntary disclosure by the page author of web site content. A quick and dirty summary of ICRA can be found here. I'm interested to know what
--J
I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners. - Berke Breathed
So, what does this requirement mandate: That the filter filter all content that falls in the requested categories (impossible), or only some content that falls in the requested categories (e.g. min 1 item)?
Also, isn't material only legally obscene when it has been deemed so by a court? Or am I confusing US law with Canadian law again? =)
...to sumbit my comments about what a great idea this is. I'm glad the may tax dollars will no longer go to subsudize people looking at pr0n in public libraries.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
Call me crazy but I could have sworn that I alredy had one of the best filtering programs available to mankind. PARANTAL RESPONSIIBILITY! Being a parant it is my job to teach values, morals and common decency to my kids. It is not up to there teacher, librian or goverment to raise and control my kids or myself. That is a growing problem in the world today. To many people either dont know how or choose not to raise there own kids, instead allowing others to do it for them, either directly or indirectly, as in this case through censorship. I surf porn on a daily basis, my kids surf the internet almost daily as well. The differnce is that they are responsible enough to know what is approate for them and what is not, (according to ME the parant). Yes they from time to time run accross a site that is qustionable, and for the most part they either close the window or ask either myself or my wife about the page. I think that before we start mandating filtering programs that we should mandate Responibility amoung parants. Just my 2 cents with Deflation.. Zaphod
"No A Zaphod, didn't you hear we come in 6 Packs Now"
The FCC is seeking comment on fairly specific issues. The FCC does not have the authority to choose to not enforce this law at all. Their hands are tied; they cannot overturn an act of congress.
So comments like "this law is stupid and unconstitional," while true, will have no effect on the FCC's rules. Even if you convince people at the FCC that it's unconstitutional, they must still enforce it. (Legally, a law is presumed constitutional unless and until declared unconstitutional by a court.) The place to challenge the law as a whole (rather than just the particular way in which it is implemented) is in the courts, which is already being done.
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
Any comments you send to the FCC I would include a CC: to Sen. John McCain since he is the one that put the language into the Appropriations bill December. You can email him at john_mccain@mccain.senate.gov.
This is meant as a serious question, although I can see how it might be interpreted as trolling...
--
not plane, nor bird, nor even frog...
I only skimmed the articles mentioned, but IMHO, there wasn't much being said on the details for the filtering. A lot depends very much the nature of the filter to be used. There wasn't much info on exactly what guidelines they plan to filter on, and which filter they wanted to use. Something the government's going to cook up? Something the librarians will determine? Something compromised in-between? I think the distinction between what is pornographic and what isn't is different for different groups. And the library has for years dealt with issues of censorship. I mean, libraries already filter out porn magazines and there are certainly no porn films in the AV section (although I only have my public libary to base these observations on). In a sense, there has been some slight filtering in the libraries already. The question is, how to make that leap from porn magazines to porn sites, and what might also be unfairly censored along the way. I think it's pretty much agreed that your 6 year old kid shouldn't be looking at porn. And parents have the right to expect that a city-funded public place will not expose their child to porn. The question is, how exactly does one create a methodology to tell a hardcore porn site from a medical anatomy chart on the web?
I'm not saying I know the right answer - I know how I would go about dealing with that distinction, but clearly it's a different process for everyone. I find I can agree with a filter only if that filter takes into account all these different views on what is porn and what is valid research material. And only if that filter is based not on a single group's input, but the input of many organizations and libraries. Though that's probably too much to hope for.
Does anyone have a standard letter or comments we can cut and paste in there? I'm sure I'm not the only one too lazy/inarticulate to get my point across.
BilldaCat
If we are going to be stuck with this crappy law, lets see if we can get the FCC to insist that any filtering software used in public libraries or schools publish what is being filtered.
That way we can know what is going on when a breast cancer awareness site, or the ACLU site gets filtered out.
Clearly this rule should require the libraries to buy only filters which have been certified by their vendors to be accurate and to NOT violate the 1st Amendment. Which means no filters -- since such a certification would expose any of the lame filters in existence to being sued into bankruptcy....
My hat is off to you. While most of us (myself included) sit here and moan and groan about the stupidity of this measure, you have actually put yourself in a position to help shape public policy. I applaud your initiative.
"Biped! Good cranial development. Evidently considerable human ancestry."
E-Rate is a subsidy paid for with a tax on your long distance phone bill. Schools and libraries must submit piles of paperwork to apply for grants. It is not a discount!
When schools and libraries apply for E-Rate grants, they already agree to many restrictions on how they can use the provided Internet access. Filtering is just one more rule.
Under the current rules you cannot use E-Rate Internet access for religious education. Why is religious freedom less important than porn?
Which means the Canadian Internet Privacy Act applies to me, especially since I'm a dual citizen (USA/Canada).
You can take away my web links - but you can't take away my freedom!
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
I sent this in. Here's my comments, for your viewing pleasure. Warning: This is LONG.
.edu sites for no real reason.
In regards to public filters, my suggestions:
1. Allow libraries to choose their own filter products.
2. Suggest or require that libraries use filtering products whose parent company discloses what criteria is used when blocking or allowing a site (many don't) since many sites may be blocked for often poor reasons, sometimes even on a whim, or if they go against an individual's beliefs or agenda (even if the sites are not in any way profane or could be considered dangerous.) Here's a few articles of interest:
http://slashdot.org/yro/00/12/08/0238239.shtml about a decrypted filtering list used by SmartFilter, which found a number of sites obviously mis-rated. As with everything else on Slashdot, there are a number of interesting comments appended to this article.
http://dfn.org/focus/censor/contest.htm A contest, apparently to find the most ridiculous examples of filtering - such as a high school student that couldn't access his own high school's web page from its own library since the filter automatically blocked the word "high" from domain names. The runner up, Hillary Anne, tried to register her email address at Hotmail as hillaryanne@hotmail.com but the filtering software spotted the word "aryan" hidden in her name... A number of other examples exist here, too. Richard "Dick" Armey's Web site is blocked by Netnanny, Surfwatch, Cybersitter, N2H2, and Wisechoice, the very same filters he promotes - because his site contains the word "dick." And, this excerpt from the article:
The conservative group Focus on the Family intends its anti-porn site Pure Intimacy to be a "resource for those struggling with sexual temptations" and the "psychological bondage" that is "a major reason why individuals go online." Jim K. observed that Cybersitter blocked this site for violating the following categories: porno, hardcoreporno, sexual, nudity, and, of course, bondage.
I could go on and on, but just visit that contest site - it does.
http://slashdot.org/yro/00/03/09/133243.shtml about Symantec's I-Gear software and a hack that revealed its true nature - reporting user information back to Symantec and blocking - unnecessarily - a number of
About I-Gear, the high school I graduated from - Celebration - used it, but only for monitoring, since they believed it to be too unreliable and preferred to go after students that continued to visit sites that they themselves could deem inappropriate. They could check for sites that were inappropriate, some of which the filtering software would miss, and would be able to ignore sites that weren't really inappropriate at all but were otherwise blocked by the software anyway. I only know of one site that was blocked, which was a message board for people complaining about the town of Celebration, which has a policy that forbids anyone living there from practicing their first-ammendment rights (they sign them away.) involving negative comments about the town. Whether the site was blocked because of over-use or if it was blocked for more political reasons is unknown to me. I also do not know if they continue this more involved practice of checking the records themselves.
Having read the article on the contest, however, I really can't say I blame them!
4. Take steps to protect privacy. Notably, Mattell's filter software (cybernanny, I believe, but I'm not sure) has been accused of spying on the user. A good idea would be banning any software that reports back to the filtering software company. This information is often sold for profit, for uses like targeted advertising or for "spamming."
5. Allow institutions to selectively add or remove individual sites. Given the above information, I feel that this is more than reasonable. Researching Fibonacci's sequence tripped up one filter, for example - so much for a student's math homework.
6. Please endorse free and open source solutions. An open product would allow for anyone to suggest that a site be added or removed because of its content, and allows for a debate over sites that otherwise could be blocked or allowed on a whim. In the case of open software, a library could be instead required to go through the developer for a change to be made (improving the integrity of the filters). In addition, allowing for different "levels" of filtering might be desired - allowing for different levels of appropriateness similar to movie ratings. For example, while no minor should access pornography, "adult language" isn't really a problem for 16-year-old students (anyone who's ridden on the back of a school bus can vouch that most elementary school students don't have much trouble with it either, but that's another story.). As an added benefit, they're free, and libraries, schools, and the like could use the money. Unfortunately, however, I know of no open-source filters at this time (much of the tech community is anti-filter anyway, since they disagree with cencorship of all but the most objectionable content.)
7. Allowing users to gain higher levels of access in order to be able to find more diverse material upon proving age is probably a good idea. In middle school, my required reading occasionally had some amount of profanity, which nearly all filters would immediately modify or block. Filters would also block a number of perfectly legitimate phrases. Saying "I'll just be in and out of the store really quick" would be blocked by any filter that watches for the phrase "in and out" (and I'm sure that there's a filter out there that does, or will.) The upside to this is that a number of areas of interest could be blocked to younger users, such as a study on homosexuality that, while perfectly fine for an older teenager or adult to read, may not be read by children if their parents would prefer they didn't. In addition, allowing parents to selectively add and remove restrictions on various areas of interest that could be considered "gray areas" would be good. While it's fairly obvious that pornography, bomb-making recipies, marijuana growing tips, and the like should be blocked, a number of areas such as human anatomy, homosexuality, religion, and discussions or even readings of banned books (Catcher In The Rye, for example, which many schools and libraries still censor but some embrace as a literary masterpiece) and research reports on the aforementioned topics could be considered "gray areas" that some ages could be allowed or denied access to, and that parents could control more. Allowing a filter software provider of full control over what users can see, and deeming everything to be either bad or good (as is done now) is, obviously, less than desirable. Personally, I don't see what a political campaign and hardcore bestiality have in common, but may programs will block both at once and don't discriminate. Since there is no clear-cut means of deciding what to block, etc., allowing for more flexibility is ideal.
Personally, I think a standard should be defined for filtering software:
1. NO reporting back to ANYONE other than local administrators on what users have been doing. Privacy should be protected and only necessary exceptions to that should be allowed. Corporations have no business knowing what a child does online. However, the local administrator and certain individuals (parents, perhaps teachers, etc.) should be able to review logs of what a user does (and all usage should be logged! This offers recourse in the event that a site that is inappropriate, but not yet blocked, is visited.) No one that has no business in knowing should be able to review an individual's usage of computer resources.
2. Material should be broken down into different "categories" by their topic and the objectionability of each, and a separate standard should be set for which categories are to be blocked to all users, which should be blocked to older teens, to younger teens, etc. and unless unlocked by an authorized operator (eg. A librarian) the software will assume that the user on the given station is a toddler, or a member of the most restricted group.
3. Aside from mandatory blockings (such as porn) that are simply blocked, period, parents and local administrators should be able to define restrictions for the aforementioned "gray areas," topics that may or may not be objectionable to some. While administrators would be able to specify general restrictions by user groups, parents would have the option to selectively modify their individual child's restrictions (aside, of course, from the mandatory blocks such as bona fide pornography.) A standard should be set for what gray areas will and won't be blocked, that should be enabled by default on all software, but that is modifiable by the local administrator.
4. Administrators should be able to selectively alter site lists. As demonstrated by the previous examples, a local administrator really is no less trustworthy of what should be blocked and allowed than the software developers, so as long as site visiting is logged, there should be no problem.
5. Word and phrase filters should be avoided, and only the most extreme examples used. For example: "sex" should not be blocked as the word is often used for gender and appears accidentally within a number of phrases, "cum" appears, among other places, in the word cucumber, "breast" would prevent discussion of breast cancer (America Online once inadvertently did this).
Government-produced, multi-platform software is likely a plus for this. Since this will cost a great deal of money for each institution to set up, avoiding for-pay services will be a tremendous benefit.
I would suggest finding and endorsing an open-source effort for creating filtering software and push to see the above features implemented, or for the government to spearhead an effort itself. A number of programmers would become involved for the opportunity to protect their children/nieces/nephews/neighbors and still minimize censorship that is simple unnecessary. An open source model, under government supervision and control, would enable tremendous security and quality and minimize potential for abuse, while allowing for an amazingly rapid exposure rate for newly-appearing sites.
At any rate, I would appreciate a reply on this. This hits close to home for nearly all Internet users, especially the more technologically-inclined like myself. The simple fact is, currently available solutions simply are not ready for public use and are very much unrefined, and a fair implementation is impossible.
My wife's a teacher, and when she demonstrated to parents how blocking software worked, a lot of them were actually pissed off that it was so general. The public has the idea that the programs can actually identify porn and only porn.
Study your history. Follow the money.
-Eldurbarn
Why don't we gather all the highest-moderated posts (excluding jokes, since this is serious), and submit them together as the representative opinions of the /. community? It might carry more weight to submit as an organization.
So, I've posted the purely technical comment. Now, it's time for the rant. . . =)
1) I don't support censorship or any other public expression or public gathering limits by governments (and their agents). They almost universally don't make any sense. (e.g. public nudity laws... can these be justified in any rational manner?)
2) Censorship laws which target by age group simply add insult (age discrimination) to injury (see 1).
I live in a country where age discrimination constitutionally prohibited.
Oh, but wait: -- "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society" -- a limitation big enough to drive a tank through.
I forsee that the "demonstrably" adds a lot of complexity. For example, I have a feeling that the pending supreme court decision about the constitutionality of the child pornography posession law will hinge on that one word and its meaning in context (maybe the law has an indirect effect on child pornography production, but if so, can this be demonstrated?). Although, even then, I have no way to know what the court considers justifiable in a "free and democratic" society. =( My free and democratic society justified law finder box is on the fritz and will be undergoing repairs in the shop until the end of next week. =)
Heh, that one amused me. This law's name (CIPA) in Polish means "pussy"...
This law appears to me to have two potentially conflicting standards. It mentions obscenity, which is a legal term defined at the local level, and which is different from place to place. A library in New York, New York would have to apply a different standard for obscenity than a library in Backwater, Nebraska. It also mentions content 'harmful to minors' which would quite possibly conflict with the obscenity standard in place. In short, I don't think there's a filter out there that can conform to the standards the law requires. It would have to be completely configurable by the library and also allow multiple levels of filtering depending on who was at the keyboard.
Whatever happened to JonKatz?
We can't change whether the law is implemented, but be can change how it is implemented. So write to the FCC to demand they institute a policy whereby:
If there is going to be a private industry censoring what Americans can read in their libraries, then there'd better be checks and balances. We can take advantage of this situation to force filtering software companies to be more ethical and responsible.
-*- Any technology indistinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced -*-
can they add everything from adbusters various .ini ad lists?
fslg503-985-8686503-985-8686503-985-8686503-985-8
The FCC does not apparently want to get too involved in enforcing this Bad Law, which specifies that they have to enforce it. So (if you read the NPRM it's clear) what the FCC wants the schools and libraries to do, when filling out the form acknowleging receipt of the federal money, is say "we comply" or "we do not need to comply".
Beyond that "self-certification", the FCC says nothing about filtering itself. Clearly they are not enthusiastic.
And don't blame Clinton: McCain pushed this one through as a Rider to a big appropriations bill. Vetoing that bill would have been very hard. Riders are a trick for passing bad law without going through the constitutional approval process.
...if the government dictates what can and can't be shown at a public library, then that makes the government responsable for the content viewed. i.e. if I did see some p0rn at the library, (due to shoddy filtering) and was offended I could hold the government responsable, and maybe sue them. If this holds true then I can see a great way to GET RID of filtering.
Jaysyn
p.s. I bet Slashdot is on some of those filtering lists...
There is a war going on for your mind.
Why should Mr. Fundamentalist have to pay for my access to a sexy web site, or for that matter, for my access to the book Catcher in the Rye? Why should Mr. Humanist have to fund my access to creationist research?
Some people have kind of a knee-jerk reaction to this whole issue, and oversimplify it to "censorship is bad." Censorship carries connotations of forbidding access to information. I would argue that to decline to fund access to information is not censorship at all. Shut down the internet feed, and give both sides what they are asking for: no blocking software, and no porn.
"Rub her feet." -- L.L.
This country was founded by Puritans, who were fleeing religious persecution in Europe because their views were a little too fucked up for anyone over there to deal with. Their legacy inclues the Salem Witch Burnings, Prohibition and the McCarthy communism inquisition, among others. Any time the minority is vocal and the majority is apathetic, the minority can sieze power.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
You have to be literate to use a library. In addition, I don't know that a library exists in Threeteeth, West Virginia. I think the library/civic center was destroyed during the "Beech Nut Free Chawin' Bakkur Night" stampede of 1974.
"5. In this Notice, we seek comment generally on the implementation of the CHIP Act as it affects [E-Rate recipients]."
It goes on to ask for additional specific questions.
Liza
These opinions are my own. My employer is not aware of them, does not endorse them, and is not responsible for them.
If you as a parent is denied this right, drag them to Haag.
While I'm not that opposed to general idea of Censorware, I'm very opposed to current implementations, and I would reserve the right to teach my kids (I don't have any yet) to crack the filters, or put up a proxy for them so that they can surf unhindered anywhere.
Also, it is worth pointing out that any rule-based filter is snake oil.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
The filters may only be disabled for adults conducting "bona fide" research or using the Internet for other lawful purposes. It isn't clear how much you have to tell the librarian about what you want to do, but the language certainly suggests that the default setting for adults is supposed to be filtered access.
Oh, and your library has to filter because Congress doesn't trust them to follow their own rules, however sensible or well-enforced those rules might be. Plenty of schools and libraries use a "partial filtering" approach, meaning in lower grades or children's areas, but not everywhere. CIPA does not appear to allow that approach either.
Liza
These opinions are my own. My employer is not aware of them, does not endorse them, and is not responsible for them.
The thing I don't get about all of this, is that essentially what They are trying to tell us is that we're not smart enough to know what's good for us, and that we should trust some machine to know that better than we could, and to protect us from ourselves.
If you're placing that little faith in humanity, you probably also think that allowing people to vote is dangerous and should be stopped too. "Let the computer decide who you'll vot for, it knows you better than you know yourself, and it knows what's best for you."
Yeah, right. No thanks.
I rang, you rang, we all rang for orangutang!
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Good luck. *sigh* The few times I have suggested this, I've gotten either ignored or flamed. I think I saw one similar suggestion with similar results. I'm growing convinced that the entire "unreliable blocking software" argument is more of an excuse to oppose filtering than an insurmountable reason, because anyone who tries to talk about overcoming this "problem" is attacked. (though I'm seeing more of this suggestion on this thread, so maybe something good will eventually emerge from the noise)
Another good response, since this is only being applied to users of a government discount program would be to form local coalitions to offset the loss of these programs for libraries that are willing to opt out.
The bad response, which seem to predominate, is to scream and rant and rage, steroetype and insult your opposition and ignore any chance there could be real concern in there.
-Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking says "Comments . . . can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to [this site]. Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed.
OK, I think, why would they WANT more than one copy of an electronic submission?
Then there's this bit of doubletalk:
"If multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, however, commenters must transmit one electronic copy of the comments to each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption."
Um, THEY wrote it, don't THEY know whether "this proceeding" has multiple docket numbers?
Thre are pages and pages of this kind of doubletalk, such as I've never read in my life. And if you don't submit your comments correctly, I suppose they count for as much as, well, maybe as much as if you do submit them correctly.
How's this for a comment: fold that "electronic proposal" down to sharp pointy corners . . .
DON'T take E-Rate money from the FED...... Or if you need it, use it to get the cabling, router, and servers then drop the program. ;-)
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
In addition, a library or school explictly may filter "access to other materials."
I'm not aware of any filters that block the required materials, although N2H2 has created a web site to inform schools and libraries on how N2H2 can help them comply with the law.
The FCC doesn't specifically ask about filtering products in the NPRM, but it is a "general implementation" issue, as raised by paragraph 5 of the NPRM.
Liza
These opinions are my own. My employer is not aware of them, does not endorse them, and is not responsible for them.
I work part time at a local library and the librarians there will probably resist these laws. Given that I know a lot about computers I would try and help them... I wonder how effective this "filtering" must be...
Could I just edit the hosts file? www.goatse.cx 127.0.0.1 www.playboy.com 127.0.0.1
There, I just saved all the kiddies at my library from being corrupted forever by a large gaping Asshole and a softcore porn magazine. Would this be enough filtering to comply?
Barring that, How about we just install Cyber Patrol or whatever on the computers, and leave it OFF all the time except when the censorship Nazis come to visit.....
Now I work in the childrens department and I can tell you this software is totally unnecessary. Never once have I seen a kid go to an innapropriate site. The worst thing I ever saw was a wrestling site with the words "The Rock is gonna lay the smack down on your candy ass!". Now if some kid did try to get pr0n, it is quite simple. Someone would see him in about 30 seconds. He would not use those computers again! No filterware needed.
Next time I go in, I'm going to ask about this law and see what I can do to bypass it...
Tim
Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.
The filtering of internet sites in public schools and libraries is only the beginning of a government plot to filter everything in our lives. Next the bill of rights will be filtered so that any mention of freedom of speech will be removed, and shortly thereafter any criticizing documents or TV shows will be destroyed. For those who insist that freedom of speech is being blocked, a mental filter will be implanted in their minds so that they will obey all of the commands which big brother gives them.
Yes, this is an extreme exaggeration and meant to be humorus, but one should wonder, how far may this really be from reality? How far will censorship go?
These are just my opinions, but I believe that with the exceptions of kiddy porn and how to build munitions, neither a computer nor the government should determine what we should or should not be allowed to see or hear. It should be the parent's responsibility to raise their kids with sound morals. As for adults, we should be old enough to know what is right and wrong, good and bad.
~Ken
the community college library i currently work for does not really need to receive Time, Rolling Stone, or the New Yorker. any information found in these periodicals can be found elsewhere in a more authoritative form -- yet we gladly purchase them as a service to our patrons.
there is no accredited, instructional reason for us to allow students and community members to come use our LAN of research stations to check their email, book travel accomodations, or read "101 Funniest Blonde Jokes" sites -- yet we gladly allow this as a service to our patrons.
there is no immediate academic reason why we should order Terry Pratchett novels, sports biographies, or books on Linear Algebra -- but we scour the book-trade journals to find the best ones as a service to our patrons.
do you see the pattern? we are here, most of us, because we enjoy learning and thinking and arts and sciences and investigation and discovery -- and we want to pass that humanistic pleasure on to others.
perhaps one of the english faculty will offer a class on modern SF Literature. perhaps a student will get bored in his Calc3 class and want to tackle material not typically offered at the 2-year level. perhaps the high point of some poor suburban tract-home kid's week is dropping by the library to look gawk at the bizarre angles and alien contours in the latest issue of Architectural Digest.
what you have especially failed to understand is the difference between State-Mandated Censorship and Local Control.
library professionals have always used reasoned judgement and educated discretion in selecting the materials they believe will serve the Public Interest. Frequently this involves acquisitions which we find offensive -- e.g. i personally would not want to spend my money on Gates' Road Ahead, but because he is who he is, his detritus becomes a part of the civilization in which people are interested, and thus my library, as a repository of the products of civilization, has an interest in obtaining a copy so that the public may make their own judgements.
but federal Rules such as those under discussion require ALL libraries of ALL levels serving ALL manner of patrons to conform to one unyielding standard. blindly global content restrictions are at the dark, immoral heart of censorship, and it has no place in a free society.
i've grown tired of hearing certain political factions constantly whining about how some book, CD, webpage, article, etc. is going to completely ruin the little capsule they've worked hard to place around their children. since it seems to consistently come from the same folks who are so into "consequences of our choices" and "responsibility", i find it strange that they believe that the rest of the world should be responsible for the consequences of their choice to bring their children up completely ignorant of anything approaching reality.
again, the point is not that libraries should not decline from providing access to anything and everything, but that the decision should NOT be made by a washington bureaucrat, but by those with the experience and training to make those judgments.
which is what librarians, despite sometimes brutal persecution, have been doing for thousands of years.
---
Hollywood, Television, has become the dream machine. We need to take that back; each of us is a Dream Machine
However, the library or school must filter, when minors use the computer, material that is "obscene, child pornography, and harmful to minors."
What does the last catagory mean? Someone could argue that disney.com, microsoft.com, etc are "harmful to minors"...
You need s54 of our constitution:
In fact, since the writers of our constitution were well aware of the situation in the US, it's probably not a coincidence!
I took the strategy of outlining my concerns with the enforcement of 42 USC 254(h) and suggested some mitigation strategy. The text of my comment is below:
SUMMARY
The FCC should not implement the so-called "CHIP Act" in the fashion outlined
in the proposed rulemaking notice and 42 USC 254(h) without provision for the
protection of freedom of expression guaranteed in the First Amendment and
informed consent of libraries and educational institutions purchasing
Internet "filtering" software.
AREA OF CONCERN
The most likely compliance with 42 USC 254 (h) will be with Interent
"filtering" software, which is based on inherently subjective notions of what
is appropriate for minors. The CHIP Act amounts to a subsidy of
technologically sloppy and often politically motivated corporations selling
software clearly more effective at blocking access to politically unpopular
sites than to text or images appealing to prurient interests. The blocking
software likely to be used by libraries in fearful compliance of the CHIP Act
will amount to government-imposed censorship of political opinion, albeit
indirectly, and there is no basis for deciding that minors do not deserve the
same access to politically unpopular ideas as adults.
Some examples of Internet filter products inappropriately blocking access to
Internet sites not restricted by 24 USC 24(h):
* N2H2 "Bess" software blocks WWW pages from organizations such as the Illinois
* Federation for Human Rights, articles on breast cancer from various
* universities, eating disorders resource groups, educational articles
* concerning birth control, and, most alarmingly, Peacefire, a watchdog
* organization reporting such malfunctions of Internet filtering software!
* Solid Oak Software, makers of CyberSITTER, has been notorious for legal
* harrassment of watchdog groups and other critics. CyberSITTER has been known
* to block left-leaning political sites (eg, National Organization for Women)
* for no apparent reason other than political disagreement.
* "Net Nanny" blocks computer science mailing lists from the University of
* Colorado--Boulder and medical science forums dedicated to discussion of
* diseases such as breast cancer and AIDS.
* PC Data Power's "NetRated" software frequently blocks web sites devoted to
* political action on behalf of gay and lesbian citizens even though the sites
* do not contain obscene or even indecent information.
(More info and verification available at www.peacefire.org.)
These are just a few examples of malfunctions which one might call "Type II"
errors--unnecessary filtering of information which need not be filtered from
minors under 42 USC 254 (h). ALL FILTERING PRODUCTS CONTAIN THESE
MALFUNCTIONS, even those not listed above. Many experts on the subject believe
it is impossible to construct Internet filtering software without compromising
the freedom of access to information by minors, and government-mandated use of
such software certainly amounts to censorship held to be prohibited by the
First Amendment.
CONCLUSION
The risk to liberal democracy (through government-enforced suppression of
dissent) is much greater than any benefits achieved by protecting minors from
"smut-kings" or the Internet bogeyman du jour. While I appreciate that
the FCC must enforce the law, I suggest that the FCC take
the following policy stances in order to protect against abuse of
Americans' First Amendment rights--
1) The FCC should certify all software claiming to facilitate compliance with
42 USC 254 (h).
2) In order to receive such certification, a vendor of such software MUST
release to public review a list of all filtered sites, as well as a reasonable
summary for criteria used to filter sites. In this way, libraries and
educational institutions may make informed decisions as to which filtering
products they purchase.
3) Vendors must not be allowed to hide behind 42 USC 254 (h) to shield them
from liability stemming from inappropriate filtering.
Admittedly, some of these measures may be beyond the jurisdiction of the FCC.
However, I hope that the FCC can take whatever appropriate steps necessary
to meet the goals of these three ideas--to enable compliance with 42 USC 254
(h) without resorting to government-mandated censorship.
Thank you.
"The term 'harmful to minors' means any picture, image, graphic image file, or other visual depiction that--
On thing to note about this definition is that it is similar to, but not exactly the same as, the definition found unconstitionally vague in the ACLU's challenge to the Children's Online Protection Act (COPA).Liza
ps The URL for the doc is pretty ugly. If it doesn't work the main 3rd Cir URL is http://pacer.ca3.uscourts.gov/, and the COPA challenge docket number is No. 99-1324.
These opinions are my own. My employer is not aware of them, does not endorse them, and is not responsible for them.
To answer your question about ICRA, I don't think it's clear. Do the ICRA ratings match up with the law? If you blocked all unrated sites, maybe, maybe not. But that blocks a lot of sites. (Is /. rated? How can a user-content driven site rate accurately from day to day?)
Liza
These opinions are my own. My employer is not aware of them, does not endorse them, and is not responsible for them.
I rang, you rang, we all rang for orangutang!
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!