Slashdot Mirror
South Carolina's On-Again, Off-Again Filtering
fuzzbomb writes: "South Carolina libraries were forced to put filters on their computers or lose half of their funding. Now they're having to remove filters from some of their computers because the law says that every library system must offer unfiltered access on up to 10% or at least one of their computers. "
I've suggested before that Mozilla have a filtering technology built-in that lets the web be filtered by content-on-the-page, url/filename, image size, etc and all these be able to be specified in XML files on the web so you could subscribe at choice to one or more filters that'd block/modify your web experience. My main reason is to have easy ad-blocking but it'd work just as well to block porn.
An example would be that I happen to have a web site I wrote that collects images viewed through my web proxy and lets users vote on categories those images belong in.. including ratings on nudity and content.. so w/ such a filtering technology in the browser you could subscribe to my website and let other users moderate what images were acceptable.
It is democratic so at least it is reasonably fair (unlike company controlled software) and extensible and you could choose to block any kind of image you wanted.. you could block out images in the 'Al Gore' category if that was the one thing that you wanted to protect your children from.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
I can assure you our state is a little messed up sometimes. Catch this:
The state of South Carolina for years uses one-time funds for multiple years projects (not the brightest bulbs). This year the one time money didn't come in, and the state had a budget shortfall of $800M. The state decides to account for this shortfall they will cut funding to all state programs...except education...except colleges, because apparently colleges don't count as education. Tuition for instate residents at Clemson University just went up 40% this year to make up for the "we won't cut education, except for those rich colleges" decision. This is increasing ironic as last year Clemson University was named "Time Magazine's Public College of the Year" and this year we won a couple more awards. Apparently, in South Carolina, if you college wins a national award, you cut their funding. After all, we wouldn't want people to think South Carolina actually has GOOD schools! (I for the record do not mind the tuition increase. I personally support it as I feel the college had no choice. I fault the State, not the school.)
It does not suprise me in the slightest that South Carolina is having a little trouble figuring out what the law with regard to filtering should be. At least they made a decision here that tends more to the libertarian side.
Lawrence Lessig is my personal hero.
I have to ask, why? I can't understand why people are so keen to stop their children seeing things. When they finally get to see what it is they've been blocked from it'll obviously hold more interest for them, being completely new. Blocking things can only be successful if every single instance of that thing is blocked, which is impossible. If you remove pornography from the Internet, then the kids can see see it on TV. Block it from TV, and they'll see it in some magazine one of their friends at school smuggled in.
It's a losing battle, and it would be far better to just leave the Internet unfiltered and foster a spirit of family discussion in the home. If the kid sees something like hate propaganda, it's going to have a lot more effect on him if it's a totally new idea. Let them see everything, so that they know to spot the gunk when they see it.
One day they're going to see it, they might as well be prepared for it.
Remember, we live in the same state that dropped out of the lawsuit against Micro$oft and that sold our driver's license photos to a database company in New England.
Can you say 'Information Policy' Charlie Condon?
I agree completely, and this is exactly the route my local library took. Three years ago when they first installed Internet access, the problem arose that children were accessing porn via the libraries computers. Did they filter? Did they restrict access? Did they prohibit the Internet altogether?
:-)
No. First they instituted the Internet Card. It's like a library card, but for Internet access. You have to agree to several rules to get the card (including no porn), and then it must be inserted into the machine during each use. The beauty of the card is that the parents of minor children must sign for their access INSIDE the library, and must also agree to a few things...including acceptance of the fact that they know about the objectionable materials on the internet and are allowing them on anyway. This eliminates the libraries liability and reduces pressure on them to filter. The second step was to RELOCATE the computers to the middle of the library. The public computers are in two large circles in the center of the main room, where you can be assured ZERO privacy (the keyboard trays were recessed to prevent people from peeking your passwords as you typed them in.) The third and final step to eliminate porn from the library was to scrap the paltry 14" monitors originally supplied by Compaq and replace them with shiny new 21" screens...which are BIG and EASILY VIEWABLE from behind.
Today, there is no longer a problem with porn in our libraries public computers. Anyone dumb enough to open up xxxsluts.com on one of their computers would be spotted within minutes, and they are usually reported to the librarian immediately. Wthout the user even being aware that he's being investigated, the librarian can then verify what sites that computer has viewed via a special proxy monitoring package and establish exactly what was being looked at. If the librarian determines that the user was in fact trolling for porn, then his card can be instantly suspended for 7, 30, or 90 days, depending on whether he's done it before (subsequent offenses result in a five year access loss).
And there you have it. The perfect way to eliminate porn in libraries without filters! And before anyone tries to argue it's effectiveness, let me point out that it's worked perfectly. A few people were nailed within a few weeks of the new systems implementation, but after those instances the reports of porn viewing dropped SHARPLY. They now average one suspension a month, and those tend to be new users who didn't expect rigid enforcement. Parents love it because their kids are safe from viewing porn and extremist hate sites, students love it because they don't have to deal with annoying filters blocking their access when they try to do their biology homework, and computer geeks love it because they get to stare at those beautiful 21" screens whenever they go to the library. Everyones happy
There is nothing so pathetic as seeing a beautiful young theory roughed up by a tough gang of facts.
I'm probably going to get flamed here, but I don't really have a big problem with filtering in public libraries.
Remember that we're talking about libraries that are funded with public money. That means money that comes from taxpayers.
I, a taxpayer, should be allowed to exert unilateral control over which public programs are candidates to receive my portion of the tax pie. If I'm an ignorant baboon and I demand that none of my money be used to view bomb making instructions, then I should be allowed to do that. And if I demand that none of my money should go to pro-DMCA biased studies, then I should be able to do that as well.
Of course, implementing such a system would be a bookkeeping nightmare. So then we get the all or nothing solution that is so popular in the US' version of a democracy: if enough people raise a stink about something, then no one's tax money is spent to do that thing.
Fine. Better that than forcing me to pay for something that I'm opposed to. All that means is that as different groups scream and fight about different funding programs, more and more programs get cut. And as more programs get cut, there's more room for the government to lower my taxes. Sounds like a win-win situation to me.
The real problem here isn't that we have filtering in public libraries. The problem is that we don't have enough private organizations operating libraries for the public. Let them charge a monthly fee for the library card and go from there. These baboons who demand filtering in the libraries probably don't use the libraries anyway, and therefore they'd have no influence on whether or not a privately run library would have filtering.
Of course, there are certain problems that a privately run library would have that public libraries wouldn't. And that's why we need both. Go to the private library for almost everything, but go to the public library when you need to read something that's critical of the corporation running the private library.
And there's the possibility that a cowardly management team in the private library would follow suit with the public library's filtering. But if they did that they'd be particularly dumb: if the public library is all filtered, then a private library that doesn't filter would have exclusive access to that portion of the market that wants unfiltered information. Talk about a revenue boon! Alas, cowardly managers are pretty common.
-- Nolite audere delere orbiculum rigidum meum.
They came up with a simple solution to the requirement that they install filtering software on the computers. When you fire up the browser it asks if you want filtered or unfiltered access. Meets the legal requirements and doesn't interfere with internet access (the law doesn't say anything about requiring people to use it, just that it must be installed on the computer).
For the hell of it, I checked a few non-porn sites to see if they were blocked. Slashdot wasn't, but Peacefire was.
-- Will program for bandwidth
The real problem here isn't that we have filtering in public libraries. The problem is that we don't have enough private organizations operating libraries for the public. Let them charge a monthly fee for the library card and go from there. These baboons who demand filtering in the libraries probably don't use the libraries anyway, and therefore they'd have no influence on whether or not a privately run library would have filtering. Of course, there are certain problems that a privately run library would have that public libraries wouldn't. And that's why we need both. Go to the private library for almost everything, but go to the public library when you need to read something that's critical of the corporation running the private library.
;)
This is plain wrong. I've already paid for my public library in the form of sales taxes, other taxes, late fees, etc. Why in the hell should I pay a second time? You're right about the baboons not using the library themselves. I think it would be better to post signs outside to the effect that while public libraries are not the dens of iniquity some make them out to be, they are public spaces, where you may be exposed to things you disagree with or object to. If they don't like it, there's always the mall...IOW, filtering in public libraries IS the problem here. If these people want better control over what their kids get up to on the internet, THEY can sign up with an ISP, pay a monthly fee, and buy their own goddamned filtering software. Rather than imposing their own impoverished version of learning on the rest of us and forcing us to pay extra for the filtering software, they should leave the public libraries alone and eat the costs themselves. They're the ones with the problem, not the rest of us.
BTW, if I want something critical of public libraries, I can get it from *gasp* a public library.
--
Freeper Logic
I can't agree more! It is funny to me that everyone here takes for granted the factthat "adult" sites are bad for children.
How many /.ers saw their first adult image when they were over eighteen? Didn't think so. How much harm did it do you? Do you still view it? Let us be honest here.
It remindes me of parents not wanting there children to swear, because they are too young. As if I use fuck in a more advanced way then when I was eleven.