Slashdot Mirror
Library Censorware Blocks Own Site
squiggleslash writes "The Daily Dayton News reports that a demonstration of a new website for a library in Piqua, Ohio, went horribly wrong when the site was blocked by the library's own censorware. Why? Because the library, founded by and named after businessman Leo Flesh 70 years earlier, had the domain name www.fleshpublic.lib.oh.us. And that key word, 'Flesh,' was a no-no as far as Flesh Public Library's copy of Net Nanny was concerned." And for an extra dose of tragicomic priority reversal, the library actually decided to change its domain name rather than have Net Nanny fix the erroneous blocking. I hope no one at the library wants to read about the fleshpots of Egypt.
Someone needs to upload illegal MP3s to the RIAA's server so they can sue themselves under the DMCA!
Alcohol and Calculus don't mix. Don't drink and derive.
When I was in middle school, I didn't have the 'net at home, so I had to use the library's. You would not believe the trouble I had looking up the Trojan War. (Really.)
Cogito ergo sum in Slashdot.
Fixing software by changing a domain name is a horrid solution. It's almost as bad as using software to fix porrly designed hardware.
That is the point where most people learns that they have gone too far. But did they? No, of course not. May this serve as a lesson for future generations.
The University of Essex
Cosmic Pussycat Designs (okay, maybe this one should be banned)
you get the idea...
moto411.com
Because the U.S. Congress decided that libraries have to implement software like Net Nanny or else lose federal funding.
The American Library Associate is fighting the law in the U.S. Supreme Court:
http://www.ala.org/cipa/
Does Net Nanny have no user-variable settings? No equivalent of the Cyber-Yes list in Cyber-Patrol? Even if it were not possible to de-filter the url this way, what about direct IP addressing (the library must know their IP address). As a last resort, ask Net Nanny for a minor mod on pain of switching censorware providers.
You would think so, but the particular thing that Net Nanny picked up on was actually "flesh" paired with "public". As stated in the article.
Still, gotta love that quote "we banned ourselves." Too bad no lesson was learned.
How about paying attention to what your kids are doing? How about instructing them on what you think their appropriate behavior/actions should be while they are online? How about not just dropping your kids off at the local library and assume that it is free babysitting? Of course, if you really believe your local library should babysit your kids, then make sure you vote accordingly so they are well funded enough to afford the extra position. Or maybe, here's a thought, you can get your ass over there and volunteer to do the computer babysitting yourself.
American Library Association v. United States (01-CV-1322) is the latest case to challenge mandatory internet filters at public libraries. The Library Association brief in a lower court case can be found here. The Pennsylvania court recognized the proper weight of the First Amendment issues in the case, finding that the CIPA (Children's Internet Protection Act) infringed on protected speech. The government appealed and the Supreme Court granted certiorari. Arguments are expected to take place this winter or early spring.
-R
I think websense is the worst of all, considering some of the categories it puts things into.
Archive.org is a "proxy avoidance system"
everything2.com is "Tasteless"
Among other categories: Non-Traditional Religion, Drugs, Alternative Journals, Political Groups, Financial Services, and Activist Groups.
Makes doing research on anything hell.
01101001 01100001 01101101 01101110 01101111 01110100 01100001 01101100 01100001 01110111 01111001 01100101 01110010
Wait,
if the library's censorware censored the library's own site, how did the librarians find out about the censoring without bypassing the censorware?
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
If you're worried about what your kids see, then it is your job as a parent to do one of the following:
A) Monitor them closer
B) Trust them
C) Ban them from all things that may put bad thoughts into their heads
A and B are good solutions. C is the solution that censorware takes...the easy way out. When are people going to step up as parents and take responsibility for their kids instead of pointing fingers? Personally, I would tell them how I feel about the matter and trust them. If they want to look at porn, the internet is just one of many ways to go about doing it. I'm sure kids still steal their dads' magazines and show them to all their friends.
After three months of work by the staff, Oda was justifiably proud of the site.
Three months of work? Are you fucking kidding me?
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
You would not believe the trouble I had looking up the Trojan War.
That's a story about men entering a horse.
"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them." -- George H. W. Bush
Have them ummm, errr, read books? Gasp! Shriek! Oh, the inhumanity!
Sigs are bad for your health.
They are as effective as using a howitzer to remove an ant pile.
Bad analogy. A howitzer would be a supremely effective way to remove an ant pile.
In this case, though, the problem is that the software blocks legitimate sites while letting pornography sites through. This is more like attempting to use a howitzer to remove an ant pile, missing the ant pile completely, and hitting your own house, after which the ants move in set up an even bigger ant pile in the smoking crater where your house used to be.
I write in my journal
Reminds me of when I was a lot younger and the only net access I had was from the school library. I was banned, my parents were phoned, and I had to see the principle because they would log every hostname resolved and if they found anything suspicious, they would ban you. I explained at least 10 times that it isn't my fault if a perfectly reasonable site on a free host had a porn advertisement on it.
I argued with the principle for 15 minutes. He'd just repeat "You were accessing bad Internet numbers.". I tried so hard to explain about the concept of images residing under different hosts being shown in innocent web pages, yet he wouldn't listen. I then explained that he should probably learn to understand the technology before punishing me for using it. That didn't get through to him at all. I soon found myself explaining to him that I was amazed that somebody so ignorant, arrogant and most of all retardedly stupid could become the principle of a high school. So I got suspended.
2 months later I had to see the principle again. "Please design the school webpage for us..".
The implementation is awful, but the intent is acceptable. Why can't you go to a library and checkout/read Penthouse? Because Penthouse does not fit in with the mission of a library. The protecting our kids thing is great politics, but little more. I don't buy it and I don't like having others tell me what I should think is something my kids shouldn't see. However, I don't have a problem with a library using some form of control to block access to sites that lie outside of the mission of a public library.
http://www.davpilkey.com/ too.
If I were running a library (which I'm not), of course I wouldn't cencor the internet...I would let the people look at whatever they wanted. I would moniter their activities preiodically, and if I suspected the resources were being abused, I would simply stop the service for that individual.
Anyway you look at it, cencorship is a crackpot solution to problems that should be dealt with using more care than people are willing to put forth.
When I went home that year for Christmas my parents got all embarrassed when I announced in front of family and their friends that I would go to the Heyman Center for a good time.
Sure, the censorware doesn't work very well at all and will probably prevent people from accessing necessary information that contains words that could be used in a "naughty" context.
Sure, people who want to access porn will probably still find a way to do so, rendering this software useless.
Sure, censoring information for any reason is one of the first steps to becoming a facist state.
BUT THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!!!
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
It reminds me of the time my mom found a hustler magazine under my bathroom sink (you do it too damn it). She tossed it in the trash (censored it), so I walked down stairs and outside the next day and took it out, put it back under the sink.
Honestly people are making a much bigger deal about this stuff. Porn was easy enough to get when I was a kid a decade and a half ago, the fact that the net makes it a tad easier is moot. What do these folks think, seeing a nipple or the occasional double entry will mutate their kids into criminals?
Please, boys have hormones, they will get access to this stuff one way or another. It's when you force them to supress it and repress their emotions and hormones that they start acting out and punching chicks rather than chasing them. It's perfectly healthy for kids to know about sex, how it's done and more importantly why. The more these leftists fight it the worse off our kids are.
However supervision or trust is not the answer either. What I remeber most about the public library as a kid was it was a place for me to explore. ANd more specificall explore on my own without hovering supervision. freedom for me in a place my parents knew was safe. See what I could find that was new and interested me. Sometime it was a way to find out about things I'd hear about. Even with a very guilty feeling, try to look up a book about sexual reproduction.
I think having a benign (i.e. safe) place for children to roam a bit and explore things at the fringes of their limits is a great idea. Libraries already fill this role well. They are a well controlled but very open environment.
the problem is the internet lets in a less well regulated world. A world without curation or librarians. And that is something for parents to fear. I dont want to curb adults but I certainly do want to curb my children and to protect them from the evils of the world. THis is common sense.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
You know, I'm assuming this is done for The Children (tm).
Just more of the same old stuff: Let something/someone else do parenting duties. Anything but the actual parent, please!
Seriously, the internet isn't a good place for children to begin with. Supervise them yourself. If you can't, don't let them on, because clearly filtering software is garbage. And the internet is NO place for kids!
Quit being shitty parents.
-- Note: If you don't agree with me, don't bother replying. I won't read it.
Net Nanny is reputed to be one of the most brain-dead filters. My favorite example was its blocking "marsexplorer.org." You'll have to study that a little to figure out why. They had to set up a mirror.
Also (in)famous was AOL blocking discussion of "breasts" as in "breast cancer." another software package blocked women's political groups like NOW, for reasons unknown other than perhaps some twisted political agenda. When this was announced by ahacker, the publisher went ballistic with charges of reverse engineering, etc. Scary but true.
I dont know.
I'm still waiting for the version that doesn't let me browse slashdot at a threashold lower then 3.
Censoring at the library, and of course only for your own good. Monitoring at the library, only to track down terrorists. A truely free country! Somebody should suggest to cross out all the dirty words in the book with a black marker though, otherwise children could get in a situation where their poor innocent souls actually see the word "flesh" written before them! Motto: "Dont think, we do it for you, because we do it better!" And: "The earlier you get used to somebody else thinking for you, the easier it will be later on"
Let's compile a list of bible verses that get blocked by censorware, publish it on the web and have someone at every place that installs NetNanny write a fundamentalist letter to the editor along the lines of "NetNanny censorware blocks our children's access to the WORD".
Do the same with compassionate conservatism lingo, pro-life web sites, NRA... and see how fast NN get's brabded as part of a vast left wing conspiracy.
What lesson should they have learned?
They are required by law to have these filters.
I was planning to open the Dr. Samuel Skinflick Memorial Online Museum at www.skinflickmom.com
:)
Damn the luck.
Does it have to be actually said?: Keyword filterings of internet searches are just moronic. The censorwareans have yet to demonstrate that keywords bypass the highly integrated nature of Human knowledge. "Flesh" can be sexual, but also medical, religious and generally metaphorical for many other things, like the "substance" of an object or idea.
The only thing that "works" with stopping inappropriate Internet browsing in the public library is the common control of citizens. If you see a kid surfing for pygmy lesbian cheerleaders (which he should do at home, like I do), stop him from doing it. If the confrontation gets awry, just resort to a librarian and perhaps a security guard. Problem solved.
My local library system has browsers that always come up with the same startup page, which is a yes/no statement of understanding. It says that if you surf for the nasty stuff, the library can boot you off the computer and even out of the library, and perhaps can even confiscate your first-born child when you get one.
That the library that censored its own website -- and then changed its domain name to avoid being filtered -- was in deep Ohio, is hardly surprising. It's in the flyover. Don't expect much to come out of Ohio but tomatoes, corn and grapes. (Oh, and also call centers to handle support and billing calls before an Indian company is found to handle the work at 1/2 the price.)
[also misbehaves on Kuro5hin as Peahippo]
Banning the word "free" would be a much more reliable way of blocking porn.
Color me idealistic, ignorant, misguided or deluded; but why not create an open-source filter for libraries to use? This would solve a lot of problems.
1) The list of blocked sites and algorithms is available.
2) The community would probably make available separate levels of filtering. Like, maybe a whitelist appropriate for little kids, something else for schools and a narrow list for purposes like libraries.
3) It would be freely available, so politically motivated censorware like NetNanny would see its market eliminated.
Yes, I know this proposal is evil, because it is caving into a bad law. But guess what, the law ins't that unreasonable, it's just that the implementations are downright awful. Most libraries would probably choose to have a modest filter (known porn sites for the most art, maybe all-numeric IPs) than nothing.
Many parents would like to have moderate filtering to kill things like obscene links hidden in slashdot discussions. I mean, even if you're surfing the net w/ your kids, how does it help with stuff like that?
This NetNanny keyword based, politally motivated filtering is A Bad Thing. And a law requiring libraries to install filtering software is A Bad Thing. But, a good, user controlled, community built filtering software is absolutely, positively, a good thing.
Because the U.S. Congress decided that libraries have to implement software like Net Nanny or else lose federal funding.
The American Library Associate is fighting the law in the U.S. Supreme Court:
Yes, and they won. Several months ago.
You have it backwards. All you need to do is listen to Tipper Gore for about 10 seconds to realize that, especially since her and her liberal friends are in part responsible for the legislation on library censorship.
Have you *seen* the sort of books they have in libraries? Some of them have every single *one* of the words you can't say on television in them.
Not to mention all the un-Christian/Islamic/Jewish/Buddhist/Zoroastrian texts packing the shelves. Some of them, I know you're going to find this hard to believe, are even *un-American!* Why, I myself found a copy of the Communist Manifesto *right out in the open.*
Don't even get me going on the photography or "art" departments. ( The very existence of which vilolates the precepts of major religous groups)
A public library is the primary weapon in the arsenal of freedom. Is it any wonder that most people and all governments are, at least in some respects, agin 'em?
KFG
Sorry, a library is not a daycare that you can dump your kids at and ignore. It isn't a Disneyland created to keep your children safe at all costs. Libraries exist to help create a well educated public, to encourage the spread of information and to support the spread of new ideas necessary to keep democracy flourishing. To support these goals, information that you may object to your children seeing must be available to adults. Any restriction on this information for adults is unacceptable.
And somewhere there is someone who wants to keep your kids away from things you think are perfectly safe. When the paranoid religious group decides to bar links to Harry Potter fan sites as "Occult" or breast cancer information sites as "Sexual". It's not possible for a library to come up with a perfect filter for everyone. Unless you filter to the extreme, some parents will be horrified that their child has access to to information about halloween. Unless you have no filter, some parent will find some information filtered that they want their child to have access to. (And do you think a child that encounters a "Access Denied" is going to ask the librarian to unblock it? Heck, most adults would be too embarrassed to do so!)
No system will work for everyone. Heck, no system will work for most people. And any system will irritate many patrons doing legitimate research.
Ultimately responsibility for filtering what you child sees is your responsibility. If you're not confident that you child is mature enough to handle whatever he comes across, you are responsible for keeping your eye on him. Even before the internet, you could find novels with graphic descriptions of sex and violence and books encouraging racism and violence, yet you don't seem to worry about that.
Your child is your responsibility. Just because you're too lazy to keep an eye on your child is no reason that my library experience should be diminished.
Censorware can't work. It simply can't. The internet is growing too fast to restrict. New pages with "bad" content are being added rightnow, and new pages with "good" content are being added. Censorware has no hope to keep up. Search engines with an easier job (find everything, and try to find everything) can't keep up. How can a censorware manufacturer accurately make all of those decisions? Deciding that a given page is "reasonable political commentary" or "hate speech" is extremely difficultt, even for humans. A computer has no hope. Check out Michael Sims' "Why Censorware Can't Work" article for more details. Furthermore, censorware must filter any web site that could possibly redisplay content from another web site. This means that all censorware must always restrict translation software web pages. There are a number of articles documenting this problem, here are just a few: "BabelFish blocked by censorware", "SmartFilter's Greatest Evils", and BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE (censoreware vs privacy & anonymity"
Search 2010 Gen Con events