FCC Seeks Comment on Internet Filtering Rules

Liza writes: "The FCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rule-Making today, implementing the mandatory filtering requirements for schools and libraries. People should know that this applies to all schools and libraries that receive "E-Rate" discounts for Internet access, Internet service, or internal connections." More of Ms. Kessler's comments below; but you'll want to see the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking first. The ALA's guide to the law has some good information. For nearly every U.S. reader: this law will affect your local library. Go talk to them. Get involved.

"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."

Comments

URL changed

[Stephen Samuel]

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!

Education. The drug of the nation...

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Filtering Doesn't work

[Alien54]

They have to know that Filtering does as much harm as it does good.

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.

Re:Filtering Doesn't work

[pongo000]

One day, someone on the North Texas Linux Users' Group m/l posted a request for filtering software that would run on Linux so they could filter their home service. I suggested that instead of using software that was next to useless, I helpfully suggested that he simply put the computer in a public place and communicate with his kids about the Internet. Set boundaries and limits, and if they're youngsters, be proactive and monitor their activities.

I was mercilessly flamed for daring to suggest that parents become involved in their children's activities on the 'net. I was seen as accusing someone of bad parenting because I had the gall to suggest practical solutions over commercial snake-oil.

Given this attitude, I would imagine this rule will fairly sail through the rule-making process. We certainly can't have parents taking on the responsibility of monitoring their kids on the web, or even instilling in them the moral values necessary to differentiate between what parents consider to be acceptable and unacceptable content.

Re:Filtering should happen

[still cynical]

[sigh] Ok, I'll type this slowly...

Because filters don't work, and block "legitimate" information along with what you consider "porn".

Because filters block sites based on arbitrary criteria chosen by people with agendas.

Because we all pay for public libraries, not just those of you who want to decide what we all see and learn.

And oh yeah, because it's unconstitutional. Deny it all you like, it's censorship based on content.

Re:Filtering should happen

[SquadBoy]

Becuase it is not about blocking porn. And in any case define porn some of the pictures on a breast cancer site would be considered by someone like my Grandmother porn. Also it is not about blocking porn it is about blocking any information that the government considers to be bad for us. It would be my thought that the number of people surfing porn in the libarary is pretty low (kind of hard to do the one handed typing thing there). This is not about porn it is about anything W. thinks should be banned and that is *alot* of stuff.

Open-source blocking software?

[Stephen Samuel]

If this thing holds up, there may be a real value in open-source blocking software. As unpleasant as it may seem to support censorship, it could, at least, offer the following:

• 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!

Filtering Doesn't work (but does the community)

[rw2]

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.


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.

--

Re:Filtering Doesn't work (but does the community)

[unclei]

But why can't you do such research the "old-fashioned" way - with BOOKS? Yes, the library is there to provide

That's absurd. Just because some hyper-conservative parents out there might be terrified of the idea that little Johnny might see *gasp* a bare breast, the entire adult population should happily accept censorship of an entire medium? Sorry, but no.

Say all books with *wicked naked people* (including Cancer and You and Living With Breast Cancer) are banned from public libraries. That's no big deal! Hey, you can read up on that stuff in magazines, right? What are you complaining about?

The point, which has already been made in earlier posts, is that this is
1) Unacceptable censorship of material adults (and in many cases even children) have the right to access.
2) A promotion of an ineffectual technology to solve an exaggerated problem which can only really only be solved by parents getting up off their sofas and becoming involved in their childrens' lives.

But nobody ever got (re-)elected by telling the parents of america that their children are running wild because they're bad parents. So the rest of us have to live with these ridiculous nostrums and snake oil cures. *sigh*

What do you mean my son can't look up peacefire.or

[Platinum Dragon]

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?

Filtering isn't necessarily bad...

[swordgeek]

...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.

This regulation simply enforces existing law

[Jeremy Erwin]

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.

My Comments, just Submitted

[Speare]

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.

• The Constitution of the United States
• 
  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

Age Check Readily

[robbway]

Most, and I'd guess all, schools and libraries have the ages of their students and lenders on file. It's kind of required to get a children's or adult's card, or to attend school.

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.

----------------------

Before you submit comments to the FCC...

[Sodium Attack]

...please, PLEASE, PLEASE read the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, particularly the "Issues for Comment" section.

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.

Lets Demand "Open Filtering"

[kenf]

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.

CIPA - that sounds familiar to me!

[the_olo]

Heh, that one amused me. This law's name (CIPA) in Polish means "pussy"...

Re:Filtering should happen

[lrichardson]

I agree that any filtering will not work perfectly, but that's not a very good reason.

EXCUSE ME?!?! There's a slight difference between a spell-checker not having a specific word in it, and a 'filtering' program that blocks thousands of legitimate sites.

Personally, I have no problem with filtering software provided it is implemented properly and openly, so that you could see what agenda was being pushed. In particular, I would like to see that the librarians have the capability of adding or removing any sites.

There are some filtering programs that work on blocking specific sites. Pretty bloody useless, too, as the main class they're trying to block is pr0n, which change their names on a daily basis. So, unless you've got some company scanning the web 24/365, and sending updates as they come in to every library/school/whatever running their software, it isn't 100%, in fact, it's closer to 10%. The second class, which is being pushed far more, blocks based on 'key' words (or if other words contain these words). So forget going to a site on breast cancer, any site on sexual diseases, ... the list is huge.

Perhaps banning porn is a good goal, but the primary software being pushed tramples all over the constitution, if implemented in public places.

I use libraries for both research and recreation: I use the web the same way. If what I do is legal, then why the f$ck is it being prohibited in a library? My local library doesn't carry Penthouse, nor does it carry pr0n videos (although it does have some 'soft' literature in the fction section). This presents no problem - the library has limited resources, and chose not to get them. However, they also have net access. It costs them no more for me to browse Penthouse.com online than it does for me to browse Bookfinder.com. If they block access to a legal product (Penthouse), then that is active censorship, unconstitutional, and illegal. I did run into a situation that was laugable ... research into Goodyear kept getting me the big red X at the library ... probably because of the use of the word 'rubber'. Had to continue that work at home. Tell me again how that's implemented 'properly and openly'.

There are laws in the US about what constitutes illegal pr0n. This mandatory filtering (on publicly funded institutions) goes way beyond that, attempting to legislate software into existence that just doesn't exist. And, while the site specific software doesn't raise my hackles on the 1st amendment issue as badly as key-word specific software, if it's legal in the real world, then it should be legal online. The sole problem here is that pr0n is legal if you're over 18, illegal if under. Libraries don't normally have the personnel to monitor who's browsing what. This could be resolved with 'Over 18 only' machines. Personally, I reached the point long ago of getting thouroughly P.O.d over having legitimate research blocked, and the first thing I do with any library computer is disable the filter (along with the monitoring and anti-virus, but hey! ;)

BTW, gotta love the new image filtering stuff. The best tests I've seen show that a program randomly blocking 20% of all requests would do better.

So how about THIS!

[goliard]

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:

• Any filtering software used to compy with the law MUST release to public review the list of censored sites. "Public" MUST mean posted to the web (and not self-censored!) and available for free upon demand in hard copy.
• Any filtering software company MUST have and conform to an appeal process so that wrongfully censored sites have a process of appeal and redress. This appeal process MUST presume the filtering software is in error and the burden of proof MUST be upon the filtering software company.
• Any filtering software company which is found in a court of law to have censored web sites unethically, such as censoring the pages of its competitors or of political opinions its owners disagree with, MUST BE SUBJECT TO UNLIMITED PUNITIVE DAMAGES. There must be restraints on the almost unlimited power being given to these corporations.

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.

Re:Filtering should happen

[sagallagherstarr]

I've been working to uncover another possible objection to filtering/blocking that has to do with copyright.

I'm not a lawyer (just a lowly librarian), so this may not fly, but:

• filters work by changing the text of an online document.
• Current copyright law reserves copyright in "derivative works" to the holder of copyright for the original work.

My guess is that the implication of the above is that copyright holders must be consulted before derivative works can be published.

Now, some problems creep into this online world, like this:

Filtering software does not alter the original work, but only the presentation of the original work. In the offline world, this is a big distinction; in the online world, original work/copy/modified copy are indistinguishable. Bits is bits, that is.

The CIPA has been worded so that it actually refers to "visual depictions of" the various categories of material to be filtered/denied for viewing. Does this mean text and images (still or motion?), or just images? On screen, pixels is pixels.

If there are any real live copyright attorneys out there, I'd dearly love to hear what you have to say about these matters.

Scott
Assistant Director, North Bend Public Library
North Bend, OR 97459