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.
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/
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
I disagree. If I search for a "flesh library", I don't want to find the web site of a library founded by some guy named "Flesh", I wan't nudity, and a lot of it. Fixing the domain name was the right thing to do. You have to think of the perverts too.
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
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.
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.
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.
2 months later I had to see the principle again. "Please design the school webpage for us..".
Well, come on. Don't leave us hangin' like that... Did you?
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.