Worst Censorware Blocks Cannot Be Fixed 420
The ACLU is threatening to sue a group of Tennessee School Districts for using blocking software that blocks sites categorized as "LGBT" — that is, sites themed around lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender issues that would not be classified as pornographic. Some of the blocked sites include the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation and the Human Rights Campaign.
Legally, the school districts' decision to block these sites seems fairly indefensible. The content being censored is political speech, not illegal to distribute to minors, and as the ACLU points out, by blocking these sites the school districts are engaging in "viewpoint discrimination," since the schools allow access to anti-gay sites like Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality (which, ironically, features a disclaimer saying its content is not suitable for children). But, you never can tell with judges. A judge in Utah once ruled in favor of a school that suspended a student for wearing a t-shirt with the word "Vegan." (Do you think the judge would have made the same ruling if the student's t-shirt had said "Christian"?)
However, while the ACLU would be right to bring this case, there may be another unintended side effect. By focusing on the fact that the "LGBT" category is enabled to be blocked in these districts, this sets up a contrast with districts that do not have the "LGBT" category enabled, which could lead people to think that such districts are not blocking LGBT sites. This is not the case.
When a school district buys blocking software, the software comes with an encrypted list of websites listed in different categories; categories like Pornography and Nudity are typically blocked, while categories like LGBT would usually not be. If a site falls into one or more of the blocked categories, then attempts to access that site will be blocked (at least until some reprobates help you get around the filter.) However, it's the blocking company that decides what to put on the list under each category. And even if only categories like "Pornography" are enabled, there are likely to be many non-pornographic sites categorized as "Pornography," and hence blocked wherever that category is turned on.
When the ACLU of Washington sued the North County Regional Library system for enabling blocking software for all patrons (including adults), they asked me to test the Fortinet Web filter that the library was using. I used a random sample of 100,000 .com and 100,000 .org domains and ran them through an automated script to find 536 .com domains and 207 .org domains that were blocked by Fortinet. Of those, about one out of every eight .com sites categorized as "Pornography" or "Adult Materials," and one of out of every four .org sites blocked in those categories, was a site with content that could not possibly be considered "adult" — some of the sites blocked in these categories included the Dabar Worship Center, the immigrant-rights group Families for Freedom, and the Seattle Women's Jazz Orchestra. Extrapolating these ratios to the set of all .com and .org domains in existence, one could conclude that there were about 71,000 non-pornographic .com sites and 5,800 non-pornographic .org sites blocked by FortiNet as "Pornography" or "Adult Materials" — a number almost certain to grow into six figures when you add in all the sites outside of .com and .org. Years earlier, I had run similar tests for Cyber Patrol and SurfWatch (products which have since been discontinued) and found that an absolute majority of sites blocked by each program were actually non-pornographic, which translated into an estimate of hundreds of thousands of .com and .org sites wrongly classified as "porn."
Only the blocking companies know for sure how such stupid mistakes end up on their lists, but the most widely accepted explanation is that they use machines to crawl the Web and guess which sites are pornographic, and add those sites to their blacklists without any human intervention. In their early years, the makers of SurfWatch and Cyber Patrol claimed that employees actually did review sites before adding them to their lists, but that claim became increasingly untenable as more and more reports came out of sites being blocked with no adult content on them.
Nobody has yet done a similar study for the ENA blocking program, but every blocking program that has ever been tested has had a non-trivial error rate that extrapolates to at least hundreds of thousands of non-pornographic websites being blocked under "Pornography" and similar categories. There is no reason to think that the ENA blocker is different; at the very least, if they claim that it is, then the burden of proof should be on them.
So, the ACLU will probably succeed in persuading the Tennessee Schools Cooperative to stop blocking the "LGBT" category, but that doesn't mean that LGBT sites — or any other category of non-pornographic sites — will no longer be blocked. A student who encounters a blocked LGBT site could request an override, but what if they don't want to "out" themselves as someone who was browsing an LGBT site? Is Tennessee the best place to be known as the "queer who wanted to get around the porn filter"? And there may not be an option of getting an override anyway. Some of the correspondents on Peacefire's mailing list for new proxy sites to get around blockers are teachers who aren't given a password to bypass the blocker on their school's computers.
Then of course — you know what's coming — there is the other "larger sense" in which unblocking the LGBT category doesn't "fix the problem," which is that there would be no "problem" if we didn't think of teenagers as children instead of adults. You've probably already decided which side you're on in that debate, but consider it as a scientific question instead of a moral one. Do you think there is any objective evidence that teenagers, if they were given the opportunity to have the same rights and responsibilities as adults, would behave differently from adults to a large degree — more differently than, say, men and women behave from each other? The trouble with the "evidence" that we gather from personal interactions is that it's not truly objective — if someone believes that teenagers are immature and adults are not, they're likely to see and remember only the pieces of evidence that confirm that belief. A true double-blind experiment might involve talking to someone through a computer terminal and rating the other person's "maturity" just based on their responses. That's a start, but the trouble with that experiment is that adults tend to know a larger set of words, so a participant might rate the other person as more "mature" because of their large vocabulary, even though having a large vocabulary is completely different from having mature thoughts or logical reasoning skills. A fairer test might be to take a non-native-English-speaking adult and a native-English-speaking young teenager who scored about the same on a test of English vocabulary, and see if participants could tell the difference in maturity between those two test subjects while talking to them through a computer terminal. I am not aware of any experiment along these lines that has been done, but this is the sort of evidence of differences between adults and minors, that would be truly objective.
Most of the evidence in favor of the innate "adulthood" of teenagers is also anecdotal and not scientific, but it is compelling. As psychologist Robert Epstein has pointed out in The Case Against Adolescence, for thousands of years humans in their early teens were giving birth and raising children of their own. That obviously does not mean that that is a good idea in today's society, it just means that somewhere along the way, we must have lost sight of the level of responsibility that human teenagers are biologically capable of handling. If one of our Stone Age forebears could be brought back to life, he might eventually get used to the Web, but he'd probably always be amused by the idea of Web blockers for teenagers who are older than he was when he was raising his first child.
Re:Fight...for your right.... (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm asking this in the full knowledge that someone will mod me down and call me names - but I'm ignorant on the topic:
Why do lesbians, gays, and bisexuals allow themselves to be lumped together with transgenders. To me, the layman, they seem like VERY different things. The first three are people who like to have relationships and sex in ways that aren't historically accepted. Fair enough, and I can get behind efforts to stop discriminating against these people.
The latter, at the extreme, cut off their genitalia. This is a group I have a little more trouble viewing as "normal". Or am I just too hung up on the extreme?
Pointing out greater problems (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Fight...for your right.... (Score:2, Interesting)
I agree. There is a difference between just being attracted to others of the same sex and actively wanting to become a member of the opposite sex.
I'm not against the former, though I'd be repulsed if one tried to come on to me. The latter though, just seem wrong...
Re:So, basically the parents are screwed? (Score:5, Interesting)
The argument you bring forth makes me feel the true pain it is to grant any sort of internet access to a population that isn't held responsible for what they do. Which is covered by the latter part of the rant above. If the sites are blocked, then free expression is squelched. If the sites are allowed, it could be considered offensive by the parents that you are arguing for.
Maybe, the school systems are going about it all wrong. Instead of having "blockers," poke "holes." I would assume that the access to the internet is not intended to be for the entertainment of the student. It likely has a purpose, namely assisting with research, email, or whatever else. The simple solution is to tell the student users, "This is for [purpose] only." And allow sites that assist with that purpose. If a student really wants to read about some other subject, they can research it at home, or at a local library, or a freaking coffee shop if they really want to. I'm sure that even Tennessee has a Starbucks or something to provide that in the towns.
If the school is feeling really frisky, they can even allow that instant messaging thing. Also, give the staff a way to access the broader content, so if there's something that they feel is worthwhile, they can get it added. I think that this addresses the biggest concern, "What should they be doing at school" against "What shouldn't they."
I don't think a school is a place where kids should be hanging out streaming the NCAA tourney either... Cause I'll bet that's not part of the curriculum.
Re:So, basically the parents are screwed? (Score:4, Interesting)
Frankly I do not believe they need internet access outside of what is required to finish a class assignment. I figure most of this comes down from haters who look for any chance to embarrass or otherwise annoy religious oriented Americans who send their kids to public school.
Let's play make-believe. I was once married to a female and had kid(s). My wife and I get a divorce and I win custody of my kid(s). Post-divorce, I realize that one of the reasons for my poor marriage was the fact that I'm gay.
Now I live with my life partner (not husband because those poor tread-upon religious oriented Americans say we can't be married) and my kid(s). We have a wonderful, healthy relationships (parent-child, etc). One of my kids decides to write a paper on child development in gay households, goes to school to research and ACCESS DENIED!
So now, my child can't do the report and who's being hated on, me or the poor religious oriented American (why do LGBT and religion have to be exclusive?)?
Re:Fight...for your right.... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm your classic "woman trapped in a man's body." By all appearances, I'm a man, but from even before I started school, I've felt female. Nobody would know the difference between me and a normal guy if I didn't tell them. In fact, I've only ever told one person because there is so much stigma about transgendered people. Lots of people can't wrap their head around why someone would identify as the opposite sex. As you point out, it's even more unacceptable than being homosexual.
So, I'm attracted exclusively to women. That makes me straight because I have a penis. However, deep inside, I feel that I am a woman. Does that make me a lesbian with a penis? If I were to undergo gender reassignment, does that make me a lesbian or a straight man without a penis?
understand where the issues over sexual orientation based discrimination comes in now?
btw, I'll probably never go ahead with SRS or attempting to live as a female... I'd make a horrible looking woman thanks to the changes after 20 years of testosterone coursing through my veins. So, if I don't cut off my genitalia, does that make me "normal" as far as you're concerned? Am I just quirky if you notice my tertiary characteristics like multiply pierced ears, tramp stamp, and shaved legs? Will that make you assume I'm gay?
Plane crashes: Oh, sorry. I didn't mean it! (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm iffy on the whole concept of blocking content. People just need to learn to surf responsibly, and teach their children right and wrong. And no matter what, children are going to be exposed to smut, mostly by their peers.
That being said, there are clear cases where the sensorship is wrong, and technical explanations are not adequate excuses.
Professionally, I worked as a chip designer and software developer for air traffic control systems. I've made my share of mistakes. I've coded bugs and had to fix them. But when that happens, I take it VERY seriously. Yes, the ATC systems have sophisticated fail-over systems, but the last thing I want is to have ANY chance of increasing the probability of putting airline passengers in danger. "Oops, sorry." doesn't cut it, and once a bug is discovered, I certainly can't dismiss it. I have to fix it right away!
If you know anything about this history of the USA and plenty of other free countries, you know that people are willing to trade their lives for freedom from oppression. And I generally think of censorship as oppression. Of course, I'd prefer that there were no blocking software. But with it being there, all I can say is that there's no excuse for leaving discovered blocking errors unfixed for any length of time. People's rights are being infringed, and the people who develop these blockers need to take those rights seriously.
As long as there is censorship, there's going to be a slippery slope. The law must protect people against abuses of censorship laws. There needs to be checks and balances. There are laws that let the police search your home. The check against that is that they have to have a warrant issued by a judge, which means they need to show significant probably cause. A balance against that is called "exigent circumstances", where if they believe someone's life is in danger, they can enter a home even without a warrant. The balance against THAT is that even WITH exigent circumstances, things they find in your home are likely to be inadmissable in court. Likewise, with censorship laws, there needs to be other laws that come with penalties for abuse of the censorship laws. If you censor, you're taking on a huge responsibility, because false positives and false negatives are not something you can just brush off.
Re:Fight...for your right.... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not against the former, though I'd be repulsed if one tried to come on to me.
Why? I've been married for better than a decade and, over the years, I've rejected several advances from ladies and a couple from guys - Not sure why that is - My wife tells me that I'm an ignorant flirt. But it's not much different - You let them know that they're barking up the wrong tree and, typically, they back off and look elsewhere. I've actually had much more trouble rejecting straight women than gay men (I've been literally tackled twice, but liquor was involved).
The latter though, just seem wrong...
I wish I could fault you for that, but frankly it gives me the heebie-jeebies too. But the fact that it creeps me out does make me sympathize with the fact that they feel ostracized.
Re:Fight...for your right.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Wow, I've got +1 Flamebait.
I'm not actually trying to be flamebait, I do actually find the idea of a gay coming on to me repulsive. I think a lot of other people also think like that, only they extend it to hatred of gays themselves instead of the live and let live attitude I take.
I've been friends with gay people before (and one bisexual), and I don't have anything against them as people. They're perfectly normal, just a little different to me.
Re:So, basically the parents are screwed? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Fight...for your right.... (Score:1, Interesting)
If you refuse to believe that the LBG people empathize with the T people directly, there's a simple, practical way to look at it.
Transgenders are warm bodies.
It's what a lot of political marriages are founded on -- a small to medium-sized group simply represents X number of people who are willing to pitch in with the main group, and the main group wants a larger headcount and more voices. This has a LONG history in the civil rights movement, going back to women helping with the 19th century American antislavery movement, blacks (and gays) helping with the women's suffrage movement in the early 20th century, women throwing advocacy behind black rights fifty years later, and organizations previously involved in helping all of these groups lending support to the LBGT folks from the late 20th century to today. Yes, I'd argue that common sympathy is a driving factor, but if you can't wrap your skull around transgendered people as people innately deserving a hand up, then there's a somewhat functional rationalization for you.
Re:Fight...for your right.... (Score:1, Interesting)
Transsexual here. Common question, and you're absolutely right, sexual orientation and gender identity are separate, they're like two axes on a cartesian plane. I know some male-to-female trannies that are lesbians, some that are bisexuals, and some that only like men. So the reason we transgendered are lumped together, well, probably mainly because we face a lot of the same stigma and phobia that homosexuals did say twenty or thirty years ago, and a lot of the discrimination and then clarified rights apply quite similarly to our situation.
Re:Fight...for your right.... (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm a male-to-female transsexual with a girlfriend. When I kiss her in public, we sometimes get weird looks... People view us as a lesbian couple. That's something I have in common with the LGBT community, but... If you think about it, lesbians, gays, bisexuals and trans people get discriminated against for the same reason: because some people (often bible thumping idiots) view what we are and what we do as being wrong. Transsexuals also claim the same thing as gay people: we're like this from birth, and it's our right to do what we need to be happy.
>> The latter, at the extreme, cut off their genitalia. This is a group I have a little more trouble viewing as "normal". Or am I just too hung up on the extreme?
Sexual Reassignment Surgery (SRS) involves no "cutting off". In the male-to-female case, it is typically done through penile inversion. The tissues are reused. They even use the head of the penis to create a small clitoris, which most often functions quite well. You should also realize that there are many transsexuals, like me, who have no plans to undergo SRS. The surgery, at this stage, while cosmetically realistic, does not interest me. It's too expensive, it involves risks, and it won't allow me to carry a child (yet).
Re:Sorry, but Schools DO have Totalitarian control (Score:2, Interesting)
Alright. I'll bite. So are schools breaking the First Amendment when they give a kid detention for talking in class? How about by enforcing a dress code? How about forcing the kid to sit still and listen in class for 8 hours?
IANAL, but the the rationale that giving a kid detention for acting up in class is that it is OK because the child undergoing punishment is actively harming another individual (they are denying the other children their chance to learn in an environment without undue interruptions). Dress codes are more iffy, and there's various arguments either way, but generally are OK, so long as the speech involved is not specifically protected, and as long as they are not targeted towards protected groups, as dress is not in and of itself considered to be in the class of protected speech, because it is not generally religious nor is it political in nature. Furthermore, if dress or something advocates illegal action, the presumption of protectedness is much harder to gain, which is the reason schools can ban clothing featuring ads for illegal drugs. The relevant cases are Tinker v. Des Moines (a dress code case that also established the right to free speech in schools, and is broadly applicable to any case involving protected speech in schools) and Morse v. Frederick (which established that promotion of illegal drug use is not classified under protected speech) in particular, but there are others. As regards the last argument, I suspect that it is generally assumed to be covered under the in loco parentis principle, in which it is generally assumed that without specific statements to the contrary, the school's faculty and administrators are assumed to have responsibility to act in the the child's parents or guardians behalf for the good of the child, and that it is presumed that ensuring an education meeting meeting the minimum required standards meets that responsibility.
To me, those are all clear examples of the School _actually_ infringing on someone's rights. On ther hand, how, exactly, are they breaking ANY amendments or infringing on anyone's rights by installing Blocker software on computers which they are providing to the students?
In comparison, the blocker software is illegal because it actively prevents students from obtaining information under the first amendment, infringing on their rights and arguably the rights of those publishing the information. Because they are denied information, the student may make choices which they would not have otherwise, and may open themselves up to harm that they would not otherwise face. In particular, potential viewpoint discrimination, as in this case, is generally going to result in the blocking methodology being considered to be infringing, as it can include infringement on religious, political, and/or commercial grounds, particularly if the scheme is not incredibly well-crafted to avoid such issues. This is basically impossible, at least as far as automatic blocking goes due to the presence of non-trivial quantities of errors, something noted by TFA. Potentially, non-automatic blocking could work, but is impractical in part due to the number of administrators versus the number of students and also in part due to the way the internet works. The classic example in this era of infringement without intent (for example, infringement due to a false positive from automatic site blockers) is the LGBT student who's still in the "questioning" phase or the child with LGBT parents and who lives in a conservative community where such things are looked down upon who wants to look at LGBT advocacy materials which are blocked. Chances are, in that environment, viewpoint discrimination is going to be hard to disprove, and therefore, the school needs to tread very lightly where their blocker is concerned. Even a smart blocking scheme, that lets teachers cancel blocks if necessary, may be a problem, due to embarrassment of the student, and potentially the problem of possible physical violence against the