Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Library Censorware Blocks Own Site

Posted by timothy on Sat Nov 23, 2002 02:40 PM
from the poignant-and-fleshy dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Library Censorware Blocks Own Site | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 388 comments (Spill at 50!) | Index Only | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • I believe Einstein once put it... by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Saturday November 23 2002, @02:42PM
  • Ummm.... by espresso_now (Score:1) Saturday November 23 2002, @02:43PM
    • Re:Ummm.... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by dogbertsd (251551) on Saturday November 23 2002, @02:52PM (#4739499)
      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/ [ala.org]
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:Ummm.... by espresso_now (Score:1) Saturday November 23 2002, @02:53PM
      • Re:Ummm.... (Score:5, Informative)

        by blibbleblobble (526872) on Saturday November 23 2002, @06:11PM (#4740287)
        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 [ala.org]. Several months ago.
        [ Parent ]
      • Re:Ummm.... by xmedar (Score:2) Saturday November 23 2002, @06:34PM
        • Re:Ummm.... by rebbie (Score:1) Saturday November 23 2002, @09:36PM
          • Re:Ummm.... by xmedar (Score:2) Saturday November 23 2002, @11:08PM
      • Re:Ummm.... by uncoveror (Score:2) Saturday November 23 2002, @06:47PM
    • Re:Ummm.... by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Saturday November 23 2002, @02:54PM
      • Re:Ummm.... (Score:5, Funny)

        by Twirlip of the Mists (615030) <twirlipofthemists@yahoo.com> on Saturday November 23 2002, @03:15PM (#4739608)
        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.
        [ Parent ]
    • Re:Ummm.... by MattCohn.com (Score:3) Saturday November 23 2002, @03:39PM
  • Quick! (Score:5, Funny)

    by bdesham (533897) <bdesham@gSLACKWAREmail.com minus distro> on Saturday November 23 2002, @02:43PM (#4739459) Journal
    Someone needs to upload illegal MP3s to the RIAA's server so they can sue themselves under the DMCA!
    • Re:Quick! by Hi_2k (Score:2) Saturday November 23 2002, @02:50PM
      • Re:Quick! (Score:5, Funny)

        by Istealmymusic (573079) on Saturday November 23 2002, @03:16PM (#4739609) Homepage Journal
        This is correct. When the RIAA's webserver was compromised, the attackers uploaded Linkin_Park-Reanimation-2002-SER and even after the webmaster goons cleaned up the mess, the RIAA was still serving Linkin Park's sorry excuse for a new CD for some time.
        [ Parent ]
    • You know, seriously... by raehl (Score:2) Saturday November 23 2002, @06:05PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Our library was worse (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Bobulusman (467474) on Saturday November 23 2002, @02:48PM (#4739479)
    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.)
  • Wrong kind of fix (Score:4, Insightful)

    by smnolde (209197) on Saturday November 23 2002, @02:48PM (#4739481) Homepage
    Fixing software by changing a domain name is a horrid solution. It's almost as bad as using software to fix porrly designed hardware.
  • "We banned ourselves" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AsparagusChallenge (611475) on Saturday November 23 2002, @02:48PM (#4739486)
    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.
    • Re:"We banned ourselves" (Score:5, Funny)

      by aiken_d (127097) <.moc.egadnob. .ta. .nekia.> on Saturday November 23 2002, @03:52PM (#4739771) Homepage
      Conversation overheard at library:

      Manager type: "Mr. Tech! Why didn't you tell us we had a pornographic domain name!"

      Mr. Tech: "Er, because we don't?"

      Manager type: "I can't believe you call yourself a tech! Our Net Nanny software clearly says that our domain name is pornographic. Don't you know anything about domain names?"

      Mr. Tech: "Sure, you mean like the fact that the system is a way for mapping names to IP addresses?"

      Manager type: "Nevermind that! Quick, change our domain name! We don't want to be listed as pornography!"

      Mr. Tech: "Er, OK, sure."

      Manager type: "By the way, what is our IP address?"

      Mr. Tech: "214.57.69.0/24"

      Manager type: "What? Are you kidding? You picked a *pornographic IP address*? What kind of tech are you? NetNanny says that addresses that include 69 are pornographic! You're fired!"

      Mr. Tech: "Thank god for that."

      Cheers
      -b
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:"We banned ourselves" by kevin lyda (Score:2) Saturday November 23 2002, @07:33PM
  • Don't hire slashdot proofreaders by johnlcallaway (Score:1) Saturday November 23 2002, @02:49PM
  • I guess these are next... (Score:5, Funny)

    by mbogosian (537034) <matt@arenaun[ ]ited.com ['lim' in gap]> on Saturday November 23 2002, @02:49PM (#4739488) Homepage
    The University of Essex [essex.ac.uk]
    Cosmic Pussycat Designs [cosmicpussycat.com] (okay, maybe this one should be banned)
    you get the idea...
  • I hope the also don't care about..... by Total_Wimp (Score:2) Saturday November 23 2002, @02:51PM
  • Not Serious? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Handpaper (566373) on Saturday November 23 2002, @02:53PM (#4739503)
    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.
    • Re:Not Serious? by Dave2 Wickham (Score:1) Saturday November 23 2002, @03:20PM
    • NASA pornography (Score:5, Informative)

      by MacAndrew (463832) on Saturday November 23 2002, @03:35PM (#4739698) Homepage
      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.
      [ Parent ]
    • Yeah, that works for them.... by IshanCaspian (Score:1) Saturday November 23 2002, @04:12PM
  • Is this thing real? by TheSHAD0W (Score:1) Saturday November 23 2002, @02:55PM
  • Currently before the Supreme Court (Score:5, Informative)

    by Remik (412425) on Saturday November 23 2002, @02:57PM (#4739524)
    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 [ala.org]. The Pennsylvania court recognized the proper weight of the First Amendment issues in the case, finding that the CIPA [ala.org] (Children's Internet Protection Act) infringed on protected speech. The government appealed and the Supreme Court granted certiorari [supremecourtus.gov]. Arguments are expected to take place this winter or early spring.

    -R
  • Websense (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Rosonowski (250492) <rosonowski.gmail@com> on Saturday November 23 2002, @02:58PM (#4739525) Homepage
    I think websense is the worst of all, considering some of the categories it puts things into.

    Archive.org [slashdot.org] is a "proxy avoidance system"

    everything2.com [slashdot.org] is "Tasteless"

    Among other categories: Non-Traditional Religion, Drugs, Alternative Journals, Political Groups, Financial Services, and Activist Groups.

    Makes doing research on anything hell.

    • Re:Websense by Dave2 Wickham (Score:1) Saturday November 23 2002, @03:15PM
      • Re:Websense by ActiveSX (Score:2) Saturday November 23 2002, @05:35PM
    • Re:Websense by damiam (Score:1) Saturday November 23 2002, @03:32PM
      • Re:Websense by Rosonowski (Score:2) Saturday November 23 2002, @03:40PM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Websense (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dogfart (601976) on Saturday November 23 2002, @04:06PM (#4739833) Homepage Journal
      Yes, and the problem is a company (or a government entity like a school district) buys this software to block "porn", sees these other categories, and decides to activate them as well. I've done projects at a number of places like this, and have noted the strangest sites blocked. I mean, sites on finite state machines blocked, mainly because they were affiliated with a non-US university domain (my best guess). What is scary here isn't the blocking but the fact the blocking list is proprietary and undisclosed. The blocking companies can restrict whatever they want, get use of their software mandated by the government, and suddenly we find environmental organizations' Web sites are unreachable by a huge part of the population. I am very uneasy with government money spent on secret content filters censoring public resources. If libraries want to block sites - fine. They should acquire blocking software with an open, published blocking list and be prepared to publicly defend each site they are blocking. Heck, why not just set up a "Censorship Board" and have it meet periodically to get citizen input on what is being blocked? If the sites you are blocking are so evil, then you should have no problem with ordinary citizens reviewing the ENTIRE blocking process in the open. Or, why should a company like Websense be allowed to make public policy in secret?
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Websense by DMDx86 (Score:1) Saturday November 23 2002, @08:28PM
    • Re:Websense by Ruddigger (Score:1) Sunday November 24 2002, @01:37AM
    • Re:Websense by TeeWee (Score:1) Sunday November 24 2002, @04:36AM
    • Re:Websense by Yet Another Smith (Score:2) Sunday November 24 2002, @02:42PM
    • Re:Websense by mpe (Score:2) Sunday November 24 2002, @02:42PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • 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?
  • The new website is at by Phosphor3k (Score:1) Saturday November 23 2002, @03:01PM
  • Uhh... (Score:5, Funny)

    by User 956 (568564) on Saturday November 23 2002, @03:01PM (#4739541) Homepage
    After three months of work by the staff, Oda was justifiably proud of the site.

    Three months of work? Are you fucking kidding me? [lib.oh.us]
    • Re:Uhh... (Score:5, Funny)

      by minitrue (213792) on Saturday November 23 2002, @03:09PM (#4739574)
      Well, two days to do the code in FrontPage, and eighty-eight days to troubleshoot why the page wasn't showing up in Internet Explorer ("What's this damn NetNanny thing that keeps popping up?").
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Uhh... by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Saturday November 23 2002, @03:11PM
      • Re:Uhh... by GigsVT (Score:1) Saturday November 23 2002, @03:42PM
        • Re:Uhh... by 0x0d0a (Score:2) Saturday November 23 2002, @05:57PM
          • Re:Uhh... by LX.onesizebigger (Score:2) Saturday November 23 2002, @08:22PM
            • Re:Uhh... by 0x0d0a (Score:2) Sunday November 24 2002, @02:03PM
              • Re:Uhh... by LX.onesizebigger (Score:2) Monday November 25 2002, @05:19PM
              • Re:Uhh... by 0x0d0a (Score:2) Monday November 25 2002, @08:02PM
      • Re:Uhh... by kampit (Score:1) Saturday November 23 2002, @03:54PM
        • Re:Uhh... by 91degrees (Score:1) Sunday November 24 2002, @05:26AM
    • Re:Uhh... by parliboy (Score:2) Saturday November 23 2002, @03:58PM
    • Re:Uhh... by Reziac (Score:2) Sunday November 24 2002, @01:58AM
    • Re:Uhh... by signer (Score:1) Monday November 25 2002, @04:16PM
  • ARGH (Score:4, Funny)

    by Doomrat (615771) on Saturday November 23 2002, @03:16PM (#4739611) Homepage
    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..".
    • Re:ARGH by Chromium_One (Score:1) Saturday November 23 2002, @03:34PM
    • Re:ARGH (Score:5, Funny)

      by Jester99 (23135) on Saturday November 23 2002, @03:44PM (#4739733) Homepage
      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?
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:ARGH by miu (Score:1) Saturday November 23 2002, @05:36PM
    • Re:ARGH by kubrick (Score:1) Saturday November 23 2002, @09:51PM
      • Re:ARGH by Doomrat (Score:3) Saturday November 23 2002, @10:27PM
        • Re:ARGH by Doomrat (Score:2) Saturday November 23 2002, @11:06PM
          • Re:ARGH by kubrick (Score:1) Sunday November 24 2002, @03:27AM
          • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:ARGH by Rhubarb Crumble (Score:2) Sunday November 24 2002, @09:39AM
    • Re:ARGH by Spunk (Score:1) Saturday November 23 2002, @05:41PM
    • Re:ARGH by Doomrat (Score:3) Saturday November 23 2002, @05:58PM
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • It's not a terrible thing... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Snoochie Bootchie (58319) on Saturday November 23 2002, @03:18PM (#4739622) 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.
  • by isdnip (49656) on Saturday November 23 2002, @03:20PM (#4739629)
    Piqua, of course, is the literary (?) home of the Jerome Hurwitz Elementary School and its Principal Krupp. Never heard of them? Ask any third grader! Dav Pilkey's Captain Underpants books are set there. Kids love this stuff, and it puts Piqua onto the same map as, say, Bedrock. I assume that their Net Nanny would censor Pilkey's site

    http://www.davpilkey.com/ too.

  • Cencorship is wrong (Score:5, Interesting)

    by vga_init (589198) on Saturday November 23 2002, @03:20PM (#4739630) Homepage Journal
    Net Nanny might be good software for uptight parents, but I don't see why a libarary has to use censorship. As the demonstration proves, most cencorship efforts end up going horribly wrong, usually censoring things you don't want cencored and then not cencoring things you do.

    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.

    • Re:Cencorship is wrong by mgkimsal2 (Score:2) Saturday November 23 2002, @04:01PM
      • Re:Cencorship is wrong (Score:5, Interesting)

        by PatientZero (25929) on Saturday November 23 2002, @05:08PM (#4740061)
        That's not censoring; it's refusing service. If the library computers are set up in such a way that everyone can see what everyone is surfing, then it isn't appropriate for people to be surfing pr0n, based on our cultural standards of not allowing minors access to it. Therefore, if you want to use the public computing resources, you must adhere to the public rules and standards. That's called living in society.

        Similarly, while I believe various soft drugs should be decriminalized, I also feel that it would be inappropriate to use them in certain instances. I wouldn't want to see people snorting lines of coke at the library, for example. That's called being personally responsible, and as long as we make the State responsible for enforcing good behavior, we will never learn to be responsible ourselves.

        Freedom includes the right to learn to be personally responsible, often by making mistakes.

        [ Parent ]
    • Re:Cencorship is wrong by duncf (Score:1) Saturday November 23 2002, @04:05PM
  • by jeepliberty (624159) on Saturday November 23 2002, @03:24PM (#4739645) Homepage Journal
    I went away to college. The city's entertainment center was named after it founder, Herman Heyman (pronounced hy-men).

    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.

  • YARTBCFPL by chunkwhite86 (Score:1) Saturday November 23 2002, @03:26PM
  • Think of the Children! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Maul (83993) on Saturday November 23 2002, @03:26PM (#4739657) Journal
    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!!!!!!!
  • Change name, or stand up for yourself? by SuperBug (Score:1) Saturday November 23 2002, @03:29PM
  • Speaking of filtering, where is the EFF report? by eddy (Score:1) Saturday November 23 2002, @03:30PM
  • This is crazy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by geek (5680) on Saturday November 23 2002, @03:31PM (#4739671)
    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.

  • Libraries are for kids to explore (Score:4, Insightful)

    by goombah99 (560566) on Saturday November 23 2002, @03:32PM (#4739678)
    Netnanny like softwares may flubb. but I think really this is like google-wacking: it's fun to see where they flubb because it is so rare. And these can only get better with time. Do we need netNanny's for kids. Absolutely. THere is no reason why kids should have unfettered internet access. There's plenty I want to keep away from my kids while they are kids.

    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.

  • Parents (Score:3, Interesting)

    by fire-eyes (522894) <sgtphou@nosPam.fire-eyes.org> on Saturday November 23 2002, @03:33PM (#4739681) Homepage
    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.

  • Poor USA (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jopet (538074) on Saturday November 23 2002, @03:40PM (#4739719) Journal
    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"
    • Re:Poor USA by sheean.nl (Score:1) Saturday November 23 2002, @04:24PM
  • Austin, TX Story Nearly Identical by gary21cp (Score:2) Saturday November 23 2002, @03:47PM
  • This would be.... by Morphine007 (Score:1) Saturday November 23 2002, @03:48PM
  • This gives me an idea... (Score:3, Funny)

    by lelitsch (31136) on Saturday November 23 2002, @03:49PM (#4739752)
    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.
  • Censorware by BoneFlower (Score:2) Saturday November 23 2002, @04:07PM
  • name wrong by neverpsyked (Score:1) Saturday November 23 2002, @04:08PM
  • Block my website as well? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Rai (524476) on Saturday November 23 2002, @04:14PM (#4739871) Homepage
    I was planning to open the Dr. Samuel Skinflick Memorial Online Museum at www.skinflickmom.com

    Damn the luck. :)
  • Holy jeez... by dacarr (Score:2) Saturday November 23 2002, @04:24PM
  • An Idea Made Flesh (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Peahippo (539266) <peahippo@mail.cPLANCKom minus physicist> on Saturday November 23 2002, @04:31PM (#4739928) Homepage
    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.)
  • Is it really that big of a problem? by ToadSprocket (Score:1) Saturday November 23 2002, @04:43PM
  • Walt Kelly'd by TheDreamDragon (Score:1) Saturday November 23 2002, @05:16PM
  • Did anyone see tux? by Rosonowski (Score:2) Saturday November 23 2002, @05:33PM
  • Why not an opensource solution? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by fname (199759) on Saturday November 23 2002, @05:36PM (#4740158) Journal
    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.
  • Libraries in the past... libraries in the future.. by joebeone (Score:2) Saturday November 23 2002, @05:43PM
  • The sad thing is... by acoustix (Score:2) Saturday November 23 2002, @06:30PM
  • I agree, they should change the domain, heres why: by IrvineHosting (Score:1) Saturday November 23 2002, @07:01PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Tell that to "Mr. P" by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Saturday November 23 2002, @07:02PM
  • Perfect Metaphor for Bush's America by Zhe Mappel (Score:2) Saturday November 23 2002, @07:25PM
    • Oh shut up by geek (Score:2) Saturday November 23 2002, @08:22PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • I agree and disagree by mt2mb4me (Score:1) Saturday November 23 2002, @07:57PM
  • For the nth time, it's not their job! by Dunkirk (Score:2) Saturday November 23 2002, @08:42PM
  • Let's promote OSS censorware by dheltzel (Score:2) Saturday November 23 2002, @09:48PM
  • See what I found in some censorware by Bob Cat - NYMPHS (Score:1) Saturday November 23 2002, @10:17PM
  • *sigh* by dopefish3 (Score:1) Saturday November 23 2002, @10:52PM
  • You think this is bad? by dopefish3 (Score:1) Saturday November 23 2002, @10:55PM
  • Hypocrisy... again? by mcrbids (Score:2) Sunday November 24 2002, @03:57AM
  • The most stupid content blocking @ Ph···ps by Jens (Score:2) Sunday November 24 2002, @06:31AM
  • Been there, done that by martin (Score:2) Sunday November 24 2002, @02:12PM
  • At least get the name right by campbedj (Score:1) Sunday November 24 2002, @03:25PM
  • Re:What do you suggest we do? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by octalgirl (580949) on Saturday November 23 2002, @02:57PM (#4739523) Journal
    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.
    [ Parent ]
  • Re:What do you suggest we do? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by crawdaddy (344241) on Saturday November 23 2002, @02:59PM (#4739535)
    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.
    [ Parent ]
  • by Snork Asaurus (595692) on Saturday November 23 2002, @03:03PM (#4739554) Journal
    What do you purpose we do to keep adult sites from our kids while they're at the library?

    Have them ummm, errr, read books? Gasp! Shriek! Oh, the inhumanity!

    [ Parent ]
  • Re:What do you suggest we do? by Sensitive_Clod (Score:1) Saturday November 23 2002, @03:27PM
  • Re:What do you suggest we do? by stevejsmith (Score:1) Saturday November 23 2002, @03:31PM
  • Re:Easy proposal. by DAldredge (Score:1) Saturday November 23 2002, @03:37PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Re:Easy proposal. by NortWind (Score:2) Saturday November 23 2002, @03:37PM
  • Re:This is scary by stevejsmith (Score:1) Saturday November 23 2002, @03:40PM
  • Re:Easy proposal. by Kaemaril The Magus (Score:1) Saturday November 23 2002, @04:23PM
  • Re:Easy proposal. by AntiNorm (Score:2) Saturday November 23 2002, @06:04PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Re:Timothy Sux by KoReE (Score:1) Saturday November 23 2002, @06:32PM
  • Re:Deja vu by flikx (Score:1) Saturday November 23 2002, @07:47PM
  • Re:This is scary by kliment (Score:1) Saturday November 23 2002, @07:50PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Re:Easy proposal. by Kong the Medium (Score:2) Saturday November 23 2002, @08:22PM
  • Re:What do you suggest we do? by Gonzoman (Score:2) Saturday November 23 2002, @09:50PM
  • Four options by DoctorFrog (Score:2) Sunday November 24 2002, @05:01AM
  • 21 replies beneath your current threshold.