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

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!

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?

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

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.