Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

South Carolina's On-Again, Off-Again Filtering

Posted by timothy on from the what-your-money-buys dept.

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. "

8 of 205 comments (clear)

  1. Filters may be OK by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Funny

    If they're having a lot of problems with dusty conditions in South Carolina libraries, then I support filters on the computers. It could help the fans and other components last longer.

  2. Problem of Perception by matthewg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One thing I noticed while reading the Charlotte Observer articule is that they kept referring to the filters as "pornography-blocking software". They implied that the filters block porn and only porn. One of the more serious problems with filters is that they block a lot of other material as well.

    1. Re:Problem of Perception by Erasmus+Darwin · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I don't think medical radiation is quite the same thing -- you don't have private companies with zero accountability manipulating the effects of medical radiation to push their own political agendas.

      In contrast, a so-called "anti-pornography" filter can (and in many cases does) delibrately censor sites containing information that is critical of the company producing the filter (Peacefire, anyway?) or that focuses on gay rights (a non-pornographic issue that is contrary to the religious-oriented nature of some of the filter companies). This same material, if presented in book form, would most likely not be blocked.

      Futhermore, there have been cases where "anti-pornography" filters have been found to block the sites of various politicians. Whether on purpose or accidental, this underscores just how drastic the results of giving carte blanche censorship power to a private company can be.

      Overall, we have a hard enough time trying to define pornography in a regular, open context. To just hand this decision off to a private company with no oversight and less regulation than a corner hotdog vendor.

  3. Its called supervision by gad_zuki! · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "I think as adults, we have to step up and see to it that (children) are safely using the computer and that they're not going to see the filth out there," Provence said.

    So why are you enlightened adults passing this duty off to some lame filter? Kids will find their way through it in about, oh, 8 nanoseconds.

    If you want effectiveness, post rules and take an occasional glance at what people are doing. Ban the rule breakers for x amount of time and let the fear and chilling effect do the rest.

    Filters don't work and these "responsible" adults aren't being very responsible at all.

    "People who cry that it's limiting their freedoms ... I don't think they have a leg to stand on. Children under 18 aren't allowed to go to R-rated movies, so why would we allow them to go into a school or a library and see X-rated material?"


    This suggests that 18 and overs should be able to disable filters which is and never will be the case. Most people I see in the library are over 18 anyways.

    1. Re:Its called supervision by BrianH · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.
  4. Let me get that straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The South Carolina law says every library system must offer unfiltered Internet access on up to 10 percent, or at least one, of its public computers.

    Assuming that the "or" in the law is logically an "and", it is illegal for a library to have <=9 computers because if 1 or more is unfiltered, it contradicts the "10 percent rule", and if 0 is unfiltered, it contradicts the "at least one" rule.

    Of course, if the "or" is logically an "or", then a library can have 100% unfiltered and the legality boolean reads: (false || true) == true.

    I think that Logic101 should be a required course in the study program of lawmakers.

  5. WTF? by Jaysyn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What would be so freaking difficult about having a "Children's Section" in your library? If you're under 18 you use the filtered/monitored computer(s) near the librarian's desk. Keep the other computers in the reference area where they are supposed to be. I live in a small rural town that uses this system, and this isn't even an issue for us.

    Jaysyn

    --
    There is a war going on for your mind.
  6. Censorware MUST ban privacy, anonymity sites by Seth+Finkelstein · · Score: 4, Informative
    Let's see if it's safe for me to go back to Slashdot ...

    Readers may be interested in my anticensorware reports on the above topic, particularly

    Censorware MUST ban privacy, anonymity, even language-translation sites, because these represent a possible escape from the control of censorware.

    See also, by Peacefire, http://peacefire.org/babelfish/ - BabelFish blocked by censorware

    I'm going to be releasing much more anticensorware work in the near future, but it's not clear if it'll be accepted for consideration on Slashdot. This is in part due to the still-active issue of What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org), and the acrimony between myself and Slashdot editor Michael Sims. I'm trying to see if there is a way to work around that editorial abuse, but frankly I'm a programmer, not a diplomat.

    -- Seth Finkelstein