Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Your Rights Online

South Carolina's On-Again, Off-Again Filtering 205

Posted by timothy 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. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

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

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

Comments Filter:

  • $$ (Score:1)

    by ElDuque ( 267493 )
    I hate this kind of stuff....not only is it stupid and a violation of rights and blah blah blah but WE'RE paying for it! I can think of many better things to do with all the money these people are being paid to change this back and forth......for example, my monitor is less than flat...

  • e-mail is being blocked? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by garcia ( 6573 ) on Sunday September 02, 2001 @06:48PM (#2246519)
    it says that the main reason for removing the filter is for e-mail access (as the current filter blocks it).

    now, correct me if I am wrong, but don't most of those that use a library computer for Internet access do *some* surfing and research but the majority use it for e-mail access? This is at least what I have noticed in my few trips to the public library.

    wouldn't it make more sense to have a filter that did not block e-mail but did block the rest of the crap? According to the article one of the librarians said that the filter is the best thing for them? Why not allow e-mail but still block the other shit?

    Just my worthless .02
    • fine with me if they block email too. whenever i go to my library the computers are full of people chatting and emailing. i want to look up a stinking book. isnt that was libraries are for? and anyone that is chatting or emailing somehow has a God-given right to ignore the 20 minute rule.
    • "Why not allow e-mail but still block the other shit?"

      Wouldn't it be very difficult to block every web-based email provider in the world?


      • Here's what might be happening. The site is intercepted by the proxy, which checks for "naughty" words, then rejects/forwards the request to the computer.


        Unfortunately, a lot of spam would trigger a rejection of the request. For example, I have a throwaway email account at hotmail that I use when I need a valid email address and don't trust the person/site. Each day, I get around 10 - 15 spam emails, divided equally between financial schemes ("Get out of DEBT... Consolidate") and porn ("Wet & Wild!! Cum See Us, Honey Bunch!!!"), using some subjects from todays load of spam. The porn spam is going to lead to a lot of denials, which means that a lot of web-based email is no longer accessable.


        Just a theory.

    • So I guess since they are supposed to provide access to free email, that they should be required to give me free stamps for my snail mail. I thought libraries were for research and entertainment through litrature. Not for sending my friends emails.
    • Webmail is indistinguishable from other web pages and wouldn't be blocked

      What they are talking about is email being sent through outlook or such a program that uses SMTP and POP. Most public places, even my university disble the ports that these operate on because of security. It is a sure fire way of stopping sircam and the sort from infecting the computers

  • Filters may be OK (Score:5, Funny)

    by Waffle Iron ( 339739 ) on Sunday September 02, 2001 @06:49PM (#2246524)
    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.

    • Re:Filters may be OK (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      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.

      The dust isn't the problem - what clogs the fans is all the hair from the hound dogs.

  • so what? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    So the law was updated so that if the filters block valid research you can move to an unfiltered one.

    This is what we wanted, right?
    • that's not what the article said but I assume that it could be used to do that.

      I can't imagine that in most public libraries 1 computer (or even 10% of the computers which would probably still be 5 or less) would be acceptable enough to do any sort of serious research.

      I still feel that it is better to use a University library and use photocopiers/note taking as a way to document what you have found. Public libraries for the most part (at least in my experience) are quite lacking in the facilities that you need for serious research.

      Just my worthless .02

  • Problem of Perception (Score:5, Insightful)

    by matthewg ( 6374 ) <matthewg@zevils.com> on Sunday September 02, 2001 @06:59PM (#2246571) Homepage
    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.
    • and they probably do an ineffective job of blocking porn, for that matter.
    • You'd think the press would know better. I live in charlotte, so I guess I better start writing someone. Soon I imagine parents will be telling their kids to stay away from the perverts who use the porn-machine at the library.
    • Do you see medical radiation being referred to as way to lose you hair or anti-cancer treatment?
      Same principle applies here.

      • Even worse - often food irradiation is described in such a way as to make you think that you will lose your hair :)

      • Re:Problem of Perception (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Erasmus Darwin ( 183180 ) on Sunday September 02, 2001 @11:20PM (#2247169)
        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.

    • so many filters remove "unusual" religions. so depending on who made the software, and what religion they are, others do not exist...
    • One of the more serious problems with filters is that they block a lot of other material as well

      While that is still debatable, the article points out to a larger problem:

      Lancaster's filter does not allow e-mail access, which is why the library system planned to remove the filter from one machine. Clearly, the people in the library didn't see it as pornography-blocking software only. The journalist obviously at least knew that fact. I might be grasping a straws here, but I would bet that it serves well to show how nobody really questions the common stereotypes. After all, the journalist could get plenty of porno-promoting spam in her email and assume that there was a good use for blocking it.

  • Perhaps a good type of filter would warn of potentially inappropriate content before displaying a page, instead of just blocking it. A librarian (in the case of a child) or the user could simply continue by accepting that they may be faced with such content.

    Perhaps with a parent's permission (or the user's own acceptance if older than 18) the filter could be disabled.

    What's wrong with having the screens face a public area? In a computer room at undergrad school only the last row of machines had porn in their browser histories; people don't want to be caught viewing porn.

    • Re:how to filter (Score:3, Interesting)

      by MikeFM ( 12491 )
      I've suggested before that Mozilla have a filtering technology built-in that lets the web be filtered by content-on-the-page, url/filename, image size, etc and all these be able to be specified in XML files on the web so you could subscribe at choice to one or more filters that'd block/modify your web experience. My main reason is to have easy ad-blocking but it'd work just as well to block porn.

      An example would be that I happen to have a web site I wrote that collects images viewed through my web proxy and lets users vote on categories those images belong in.. including ratings on nudity and content.. so w/ such a filtering technology in the browser you could subscribe to my website and let other users moderate what images were acceptable.

      It is democratic so at least it is reasonably fair (unlike company controlled software) and extensible and you could choose to block any kind of image you wanted.. you could block out images in the 'Al Gore' category if that was the one thing that you wanted to protect your children from.
  • So is the law that it is okay to see what you were looking for 1 out of 10 times or okay for us to pervert the minds of children by letting them see smut 1 out of 10 times? Does this seem to be getting highly silly to anyone else?

    Tell your kid, "If you see pornography turn it off!" and turn off Java/Javascript to protect from popup lockin and just let the kids watch out for themselves. If they are really young they should have adults helping them anyway. If your kid really sees something that troubles them get off your ass and have a family discussion about the topic. A computer is not smart enough to be a good parent.
  • is it atleast marked? Or do I have to guess which machine will let me look around the internet uninhibited? That'd probably worse control: it's like the watch tower in the prison scenario. It's one type of control when you know there's a watchman, but it's another when you're not sure if there's one at all.

    Scared of Social Control,
    F-bacher
  • Is that supposed to say at least 10% or at least 1? Or is 10% really the maximum?
    • As a lifetime resident of South Carolina, I have to say that I am suprised that the 10% adds up to a whole computer. It's probably rounded up...

      Seriously though, this does not suprise me one bit given the ass-backwards blue laws we've always had.

  • Its called supervision (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gad_zuki! ( 70830 ) on Sunday September 02, 2001 @07:06PM (#2246608)
    "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.
    • I am confused as to why people seem to feel that all that is on the net is X-rated material and why they feel that everyone is going to go look at it.

      just b/c a computer is available does NOT mean that there is going to be any use of it for porn.

      most libraries have their computers out in the open and quite visable from surrounding areas (in fact most that I have seen are directly viewable from the circulation desk).

      the ones that aren't I have NEVER seen anyone looking at porn.

      what do I know though?

    • Re:Its called supervision (Score:5, Interesting)

      by BrianH ( 13460 ) on Sunday September 02, 2001 @08:43PM (#2246851)
      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 :-)
      • But what happens when an adult wants to research extremist hate sites (or something else nonpornographic that isn't covered by the agreement) and someone complains about the local church minister's viewing of ihatefags.com (easily viewable by anyone else in the library, thanks to your publically positioning the monitors)? Wouldn't you start getting into first amendment controversies there?

        I can also imagine a comical situation as someone tries to block from the rest of the library's censorous view the sea of you-can't-close-them pornographic popups resulting from clicking on an apparently innocious link, say from a search engine. "No! Don't look! I'm not reading those! Nobody look!"

        • Ah, they have an answer for THAT too. Adults are permitted to view pretty much any non-pornographic site on the Internet. If you want to view IHateFags.Com, then you are permitted to. What they have done is set up two computers at the end of the librarians counter that aren't visible to regular users. They ask that people who are viewing "objectionable" material use these (you must get librarian permission to use them), but make it clear that screen content is still visible to the staff. If you view something objectionable on one of the regular machines and someone complains, they may ask you to change to one of the private machines. And what about innocuous links and popups? That's why they review the request logs. It's pretty easy to tell a porn surfer from someone who may have accidentally brought up a single page (and promptly closed it)

          See, all it takes is a little forethought and common sense.
      • This is an AWESOME Idea! I'm glad to see people are doing something constructive about a problem rather than blaming it on someone else!
    • What's more important here is that liberty is being taken away. It doesn't matter if they're children or not; they're still American citizens and deserve to see anything an adult can. The Constitution does not says that only adults are allowed to be free.
    • 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?"

      Why bother with that Internet thing when we can pull those nasty books [upenn.edu] off the shelves and burn them to keep such filth out of childrens' minds, eh?

      Good idea, Herr Doktor!
      Seig Heil! [arizona.edu]

    • "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.

      It's also nothing like restricting children from seeing 'R'-rated (or NC17) movies. Movies are reviewed by a group of people on an individual basis, and a rating is given to each movie. The internet filtering software bans sites based on the pages matching a certain list of words, completely out of context, and it cannot tell the difference between a minor and an adult user. That would be like disallowing anyone to see "Saving Private Ryan" in the theater, because 'the title contains the word "private" and pornography is not suitable for children'.

      Now obviously the movie mentioned is not made for children either, but the point is that everyone would be prevented from seeing it because of the so-called child-safety legislation. And how many otherwise acceptable movies be trapped under a similar word-net, considering all the different euphemisms for body parts and sexual acts?

      • 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

      Slightly serious suggestion: put a big flashing light and a klaxon over each machine. Look over shoulder. See something revolting like kiddie porn or www.disney.com. Push button. Wake up library. Watch Mouseophile scuttle out of library, never to return.

  • Let me get that straight (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 02, 2001 @07:06PM (#2246609)
    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.
  • Actually, I hate to admit it, but this isn't all that unreasonable. If it were up to me, there'd be no filters on library computers, but this isn't an unreasonable compromise -- though I'd like it more like 50-50.
  • this is good. what we need is better filters .. but that's a far fetched dream .. so til then those ppl whose research involves subjects that can confuse the filter can use the 10% of the computer .. though i feel it should be more.

  • "Pornographic smut anywhere is undesirable, but in the local library where our children visit, is intolerable."

    All other forms of smut are just fine, in fact, we encourage non-pornographic forms of smut. Ok, sorry.

    But not to waste your time, I'll add my .02, whatever they may be worth in this filtered society. What good do we think we're doing with all this filtering? Do we really think our kids will be better off if we disallow some forms of thoughts, or various undesirable themes of thought? Last time I checked, it was pretty damn impossible to keep 14 year old boys from thinking about naked women all the time. I can understand how it's gross if people are in the library all the time looking at pr0n, but can't the librarian get the gist (no pun intended) of it and call the cops? What if part of one person's job was to casually walk past the computers and make sure they were being used constructively?

    Ok, I know that's impossible. It raises all sorts of ethical questions blah blah blah. Including, "Is /. constructive use of a computer?"

    These questions will plague us.

  • who decides what's appropriate and whats not. you just can go on blocking everything just cuz it had the "s" word in it. this is a step in the right direction .. but 10% isn't enough ..

  • As a South Carolina resident... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by pgpckt ( 312866 ) on Sunday September 02, 2001 @07:42PM (#2246701) Homepage Journal
    I can assure you our state is a little messed up sometimes. Catch this:

    The state of South Carolina for years uses one-time funds for multiple years projects (not the brightest bulbs). This year the one time money didn't come in, and the state had a budget shortfall of $800M. The state decides to account for this shortfall they will cut funding to all state programs...except education...except colleges, because apparently colleges don't count as education. Tuition for instate residents at Clemson University [clemson.edu] just went up 40% this year [clemson.edu] to make up for the "we won't cut education, except for those rich colleges" decision. This is increasing ironic as last year Clemson University [clemson.edu] was named "Time Magazine's Public College of the Year" [clemson.edu] and this year we won a couple more awards. [clemson.edu] Apparently, in South Carolina, if you college wins a national award, you cut their funding. After all, we wouldn't want people to think South Carolina actually has GOOD schools! (I for the record do not mind the tuition increase. I personally support it as I feel the college had no choice. I fault the State, not the school.)

    It does not suprise me in the slightest that South Carolina is having a little trouble figuring out what the law with regard to filtering should be. At least they made a decision here that tends more to the libertarian side.
    • I have to say that my knee-jerk reaction wouldn't be to blame the state, it would be to find out whether or not Clemson wants to be a for-profit business or a school. Politics is politics, and it's never convenient for politicians to cut funding for education, because no matter how you spin it that is going to look very, very bad. I would think it more likely that Clemson was enjoying swimming around in cash, and when it was denied cash it didn't need, someone decided to raise tuition so that students and their parents would get ticked off at the state; forcing politicians to renew the cash flow. In other words, criminal extortion. I just don't see what a politician could possibly hope to gain by making it so that they appear to be attacking education.
      • Hell, the Clemson site says that donors gave $37 million in 2000-2001. I live 3 miles from a college in Charlotte that looks like a prison, and is basically the poverty-puddle that all minorities of low-income areas are funnled into. I have a hard time feeling sorry for Clemson. I'd be interested to know where the donations came from, as well. They never seem to be charitable, so if it's handled like most situations I wouldn't be surprised if there's an on-campus McDonald's. Or if the college is paid to advertise local businesses, and give deals to students who'll be shuttled over to the preferred stores.
        • No on campus McDonalds here. That money is all legit. No advertsing or pushing of local (or national) buisnesses. Most of the money went to departments (where there is still no advertising done or anything like that). As I said in my other post, some school are corrupt, but not Clemson.

          The only reward for donation I see is premium parking for football games (I unfortunatly have to move my car to accomidate these people) and naming rights (most buidlings are named after Clemson officials from the past, but I live in a unnammed dorm (its brand new), and I hear they are trying to sell the naming rights).

          People give gifts to Clemson. Clemson has not sold itself out to corperate interests (I think Dow donated a research lab on campus last year, but we didn't even name the building after Dow), nor is it likely to do so. Some colleges, maybe, but at Clemson, it just isn't the case.

          You may not feel sorry for my school, but I go here, and I know what is going on, and I am telling you that donations and gifts to this school are charitable.
            • That money is all legit. some school are corrupt, but not Clemson

            So, what is the money buying? Have you considered the possibility that it's buying something, but that you're not in the priviledged group that knows the details?

            • *Sigh*

              Yes, I suppose it is possible that there is some secret slush fund that I am not privy to. I don't think it is likely, but I can't rule it out completely.

              I suppose it is completely out of the question that Alumni and others just want to give the University free money?
              • I believe plenty of individuals would give out of the goodness of their hearts, but I know for a fact that a corporation operates like a machine. There is no mastermind, and decisions get made because groups of financial advisors analyze it's profitability on paper. So my point is the same, that the money is buying something.
                • *Sigh*

                Aw, poow wittle sowdier, is oo aww tiwed of the nasty, mean peopwe not bewieving oo?

                • I suppose it is completely out of the question that Alumni and others just want to give the University free money

                On any significant scale, yes. Especially as Universities are increasingly obsessed with commercial and not academic results.


                • Rogerborg [slashdot.org] said: Aw, poow wittle sowdier, is oo aww tiwed of the nasty, mean peopwe not bewieving oo?

                  At least with my university education, I have learned vague concepts like:

                  *Writing in English
                  *Writing in complete sentences
                  *Spelling and Grammar

                  It's pretty pathetic when you have to resort to an Circumstantial Ad Hominem [nizkor.org], Appeal to Belief [nizkor.org] and Appeal to Ridicule [nizkor.org] logical fallacies [nizkor.org](yet another thing my university taught me) to attempt to make a point.

                  I appreciate the total lack of evidence that would either implicate most universities or my specific university [clemson.edu]. (Note: That was called Sarcasm. Repeat after me: Sarcasm)

                  • As a post graduate qualified, published commercial author, I have learned vague concepts like:

                    • Flamebait is rarely accidental, and never so when the baiter has their counter-strike already prepared.
                    • When to boldly set aside the rules for dramatic effect.
                    • How to make a point through terseness and style rather than through bombastic verbosity.

                    • My original point was not flamebait, and I am sorry if you saw it that way. My comment "Schools are out for education and not for corporate interests" might be wrong, but it is still not flamebait.

                      I think you might want to keep the post graduate degree (I am assuming you are referring to graduating an accredited college) under raps if you are going to reply to people's arguments using insulting baby language rather then constructive argument.

                      I believe you can make a point through terseness and style rather then long argument. I have done impromptu and understand how to make a point more succinct. You did not accomplish that. All you did was resort to childish antics of saying "Nah-uh!" "Nah-uh" is certainly terse, but does not reflect the level of education you claim to have.

                      As for setting aside the rules, that is all well and good in its place, and I agree there are times for that, but I don't know where you got the impression it is ok to set aside the rules of politeness or respect.
      • I can understand where you are coming from, but in this case it isn't true. I sit on Student Government as have looked at the school's budget. Trust me; we arn't swimming in cash. We are very prudent with cash here and mis-spend little. The links I provided show we lost $20M, not an insignifigant amount. Tuition was low here to start with anyway, and it is still compartivly low.

        There might be schools where you analysis might apply, but not here. I am bias as a student here, but I am a student paying tuition, so I hope I gain some credibility there.
      • Clemson is still underfunded. We only get about 2/3 the funding per student that NC State and Georgia Tech get.

    • As a fellow South Carolina resident... (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Remember, we live in the same state that dropped out of the lawsuit against Micro$oft and that sold our driver's license photos to a database company in New England.

      Can you say 'Information Policy' Charlie Condon?
    • It makes perfect sense.

      We have an election in 2002. This way Gov. Hodges can blame the legislature for the shortfall and the legislature can blame Gov. Hodges. Works well for everyone. (except the people of South Carolina)

  • We had filtering software for anything accessed... the filtering software wouldn't let me go to site on a topic I was researching for English class it happened to be cyber terrorism and someone else was reporting on the Wiccian (sp?) values and beliefs which was also filtered out and in all the times we were allowed to go to the library during the school hrs to work on it we had to sit around and do nothing because every thing was blocked, pages on the DOJ web site were being blocked because of what it mentioned... and we could still hit whitehouse.com and many other porn site, when myself and friend tried using a proxy and web forwarding pages we both were taken to the main office for trying to bypass the web filtering software

    Yea this is going to fix the problems

    • even we had a filtering proxy server .. but whenever someone found a site which was wrongly blocked, you just had to inform the sysad .. and the site would be unblocked. simple as that.
      Something like that should be implemented everywhere .. a submit for review ! but i dunno how feasible this is ?

  • WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jaysyn ( 203771 ) on Sunday September 02, 2001 @07:51PM (#2246725) Homepage Journal
    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
    • 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

      Why 18? If you haven't yet reached the magical age of 18, you can't handle more mature subjects, such as...ohhh, say, AIDS research? Different people mature at different rates, ya know.
  • I am very much a libertarian when it comes to these issues. It is not the right, role, or responsibility of government to permit or restrict your personal internet access within their institutions.

    There are BETTER DESERVING issues that need public funding instead of damned internet access within the libraries.

    Dump the internet access within the libraries. Take that money and pay down the national debt, feed some hungry people... do SOMETHING constructive.
    • I am very much a libertarian when it comes to these issues. It is not the right, role, or responsibility of government to permit or restrict your personal internet access within their institutions. There are BETTER DESERVING issues that need public funding instead of damned internet access within the libraries. Dump the internet access within the libraries. Take that money and pay down the national debt, feed some hungry people... do SOMETHING constructive.

      God forbid that someone too poor to own a computer and pay an ISP could use the internet to read non-corporate news sites or coordinate via indymedia [indymedia.org]. Gotta keep 'em down, right?

      Seriously, the problem with jumping on the Libertarian bandwagon is that, when you get down to it, the only roles they see for governments are contract enforcement and national defence. Thus, ALL the tax money goes to lawyers and defense contractors. No feeding the hungry, no "faith-based" destruction of the wall between church and state. If you want to do that, start a company and find a way to make a buck at it. If you can't make money off of it, fuck 'em. They'll starve.

  • Why censor it at all? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by 3141 ( 468289 ) on Sunday September 02, 2001 @08:01PM (#2246755) Homepage
    State Attorney General Charlie Condon says that "Pornographic smut anywhere is undesirable, but in the local library where our children visit, is intolerable."

    I have to ask, why? I can't understand why people are so keen to stop their children seeing things. When they finally get to see what it is they've been blocked from it'll obviously hold more interest for them, being completely new. Blocking things can only be successful if every single instance of that thing is blocked, which is impossible. If you remove pornography from the Internet, then the kids can see see it on TV. Block it from TV, and they'll see it in some magazine one of their friends at school smuggled in.

    It's a losing battle, and it would be far better to just leave the Internet unfiltered and foster a spirit of family discussion in the home. If the kid sees something like hate propaganda, it's going to have a lot more effect on him if it's a totally new idea. Let them see everything, so that they know to spot the gunk when they see it.

    One day they're going to see it, they might as well be prepared for it.

    • Re:Why censor it at all? (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I suppose you also think it would be acceptable for a school to sponsor a field trip to see a KKK march, or for the principal to flash students at a pep rally. There is a lot of legally protected speech that the government should try to avoid inadvertently exposing youngsters to.

    • Mod this UP!! (Score:2, Interesting)

      by tester13 ( 186772 )

      I can't agree more! It is funny to me that everyone here takes for granted the factthat "adult" sites are bad for children.

      How many /.ers saw their first adult image when they were over eighteen? Didn't think so. How much harm did it do you? Do you still view it? Let us be honest here.

      It remindes me of parents not wanting there children to swear, because they are too young. As if I use fuck in a more advanced way then when I was eleven.

      • It remindes me of parents not wanting there children to swear, because they are too young. As if I use fuck in a more advanced way then when I was eleven.
        I agree with you on viewing porn, but I can't agree with you on that. When somebody never learnt to talk without using "shit" and "fuck" and others, he/she won't be able to talk in a regular way later.
        I know a guy who is only able to speak the local slang. He got bad marks at school because of that (on presentations etc), it just didn't fit there.
    • One day they're going to see it, they might as well be prepared for it.

      Of course, that's exactly the point that any of those parents are going to make: they need to prepare their kids for this. Just because a 3 year-old will "someday" see some porn doesn't mean 5 people should rush up to the kid with laptops running hardcore porn mpegs and say, "get prepared, kid!" I suppose it's possible you disagree, but how far are you willing to go -- once you've usurped the parent here, once you've said "I don't care that you're the parent, I'm better at it" -- are you willing to usurp the parent in other areas? What if the parent agrees with you and says, "fine, you think you know how to raise this kid, then do so."

      As a parent myself, I know very well how carefully I try to avoid parenting for others. I had a very religious mother who refused to let her child have the number 6 stamped on her hand as she entered a day care center -- because "6" is an evil number (think 666). Do I think the parent is flat-out absurd? Yep. Do I stamp the kid with a 6 and tell the mother to get used to it? No way. I say, "how about I stamp your hand with a J, for Jesus?" The second you start parenting for other parents, you're likely to get physically beat up, or end up adopting a kid you didn't really want -- you just thought the parent was stupid. Kids shouldn't be collateral damage in those kinds of pissing contests.

  • Take look at this project:

    www.squidguard.org/ [squidguard.org]

    I will have to be honest and say that I have yet to implemt this, but geeze, a small amount of Googling can save much turmoil...
  • I recently visited the library in my area (in MD, USA) and to my surprise, whatever net filtering software they are using blocks Slashdot! I couldn't believe it, that's ridiculous. It also blocked a bunch of other sites that really shouldn't have been blocked.

    Fortuneately, only half of the computers there have filtering software installed, the other half are unfiltered and have privacy screens on them. I sure hope it stays that way. IMO, that's a pretty sane way to work a public library, unfortuneately, the filtering software could use a lot of work...

    • In Tacoma, WA, the library has filtering. But the filtering rules are generated inhouse and what they filter is images, not words. I am not claiming this is the perfect solution, but it appears innovative to me.
  • I see some comments saying this is impinging on personal liberty.

    I agree that over 18's should be able to look at everything they want (including drinking alcahol). But the thing is, it's in a PUBLIC PLACE. What if some 10 year old walked passed your terminal at the library and saw your favorite donkey pron site?

  • unpopular opinion (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sinster ( 518986 ) <sinster@@@ballistictech...net> on Sunday September 02, 2001 @08:48PM (#2246861) Homepage
    I'm probably going to get flamed here, but I don't really have a big problem with filtering in public libraries.

    Remember that we're talking about libraries that are funded with public money. That means money that comes from taxpayers.

    I, a taxpayer, should be allowed to exert unilateral control over which public programs are candidates to receive my portion of the tax pie. If I'm an ignorant baboon and I demand that none of my money be used to view bomb making instructions, then I should be allowed to do that. And if I demand that none of my money should go to pro-DMCA biased studies, then I should be able to do that as well.

    Of course, implementing such a system would be a bookkeeping nightmare. So then we get the all or nothing solution that is so popular in the US' version of a democracy: if enough people raise a stink about something, then no one's tax money is spent to do that thing.

    Fine. Better that than forcing me to pay for something that I'm opposed to. All that means is that as different groups scream and fight about different funding programs, more and more programs get cut. And as more programs get cut, there's more room for the government to lower my taxes. Sounds like a win-win situation to me.

    The real problem here isn't that we have filtering in public libraries. The problem is that we don't have enough private organizations operating libraries for the public. Let them charge a monthly fee for the library card and go from there. These baboons who demand filtering in the libraries probably don't use the libraries anyway, and therefore they'd have no influence on whether or not a privately run library would have filtering.

    Of course, there are certain problems that a privately run library would have that public libraries wouldn't. And that's why we need both. Go to the private library for almost everything, but go to the public library when you need to read something that's critical of the corporation running the private library.

    And there's the possibility that a cowardly management team in the private library would follow suit with the public library's filtering. But if they did that they'd be particularly dumb: if the public library is all filtered, then a private library that doesn't filter would have exclusive access to that portion of the market that wants unfiltered information. Talk about a revenue boon! Alas, cowardly managers are pretty common.
    • I'm also a taxpayer, and I want to be able to have unfiltered searches in public libraries so that I can research things like breast cancer. See the problem?

      The fact is, we all pay taxes for things we don't like to see funded (my personal pet peeve is multibillion dollar "stealth" aircraft that hardly ever work).

      -Legion

    • Private libraries? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Karl_Hungus ( 180893 )
      The real problem here isn't that we have filtering in public libraries. The problem is that we don't have enough private organizations operating libraries for the public. Let them charge a monthly fee for the library card and go from there. These baboons who demand filtering in the libraries probably don't use the libraries anyway, and therefore they'd have no influence on whether or not a privately run library would have filtering. Of course, there are certain problems that a privately run library would have that public libraries wouldn't. And that's why we need both. Go to the private library for almost everything, but go to the public library when you need to read something that's critical of the corporation running the private library.

      This is plain wrong. I've already paid for my public library in the form of sales taxes, other taxes, late fees, etc. Why in the hell should I pay a second time? You're right about the baboons not using the library themselves. I think it would be better to post signs outside to the effect that while public libraries are not the dens of iniquity some make them out to be, they are public spaces, where you may be exposed to things you disagree with or object to. If they don't like it, there's always the mall...IOW, filtering in public libraries IS the problem here. If these people want better control over what their kids get up to on the internet, THEY can sign up with an ISP, pay a monthly fee, and buy their own goddamned filtering software. Rather than imposing their own impoverished version of learning on the rest of us and forcing us to pay extra for the filtering software, they should leave the public libraries alone and eat the costs themselves. They're the ones with the problem, not the rest of us.

      BTW, if I want something critical of public libraries, I can get it from *gasp* a public library. ;)
      • I'm probably going to get flamed here, but I don't really have a big problem with filtering in public libraries.

      I'll flame you for apparently missing the point, which is that content filtering doesn't work. It's a PR exercise, and a waste of your money. You slap on some Lame-O-Filter and pretend the problem's gone. Mmm, no. The problem is still there, because the problem isn't the kids (who will bypass it in 30 seconds flat), the problem is Joe Sixpack abrogating responsibility for his own children. Joe is happy to join in the pitchfork wielding mob, he's even happy to pay a few tax bucks a year (about 20% of which will actually make it to the program), he's happy to do anything except actually talk to his kids about what they're doing and take some accountability for ensuring that they're not curious enough to go out and find goatse.cx for themselves. Heck, if you can't talk to your kids, buy a soft core skin mag and leave it where they'll find it. Do something!

      The big laugh for me is that US citizens so often berate Europeans for living in nanny states. That's true enough, but it's also the pot calling the kettle black.

  • Censorware MUST ban privacy, anonymity sites (Score:4, Informative)

    by Seth Finkelstein ( 90154 ) on Sunday September 02, 2001 @09:39PM (#2246953) Homepage Journal
    Let's see if it's safe for me to go back to Slashdot ...

    Readers may be interested in my anticensorware [sethf.com] 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 [peacefire.org], http://peacefire.org/babelfish/ - BabelFish blocked by censorware [peacefire.org]

    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) [sethf.com], 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 [sethf.com]

  • X terminals will rule the day, then (Score:3, Insightful)

    by blang ( 450736 ) on Sunday September 02, 2001 @09:44PM (#2246960)
    Teh requirement of 10% or at least one computer to offer unfiltered access will do away with filters nicely.


    Set up only one Linux server, that works as display manager for the whole library. Let all workstations be X terminals. No more filtering.
    Plus library will save a bundle and half worth of HW and software licenses.

  • Filtering any type of content will, at best, filter a larger percentage of acceptable content than the stuff it's supposed to filter. We see this time and time again.

    Besides -- who the hell goes to the library to look at pr0n? I can't see how filtering legitimate medical-related sites and such really does anything more than hurt the situation. If there existed a filter that could do the right thing 95% of the time, I might agree, but as far as I know, no filtering system is even close to 50% right...

    Again, though, the (hopefully) very small percentage of people who use public computers to look at pr0n and other such things, compared to the large amount of users who'd have legitimate content blocked, really makes these things pointless.

    And then, to decide that making 10% of the PCs unfiltered -- doesn't that just defeat the purpose? One looking for pr0n can switch to another computer just as easily as someone who was un-fairly denied content... so again, it's just a waste of (taxpayer's) money.
      • Besides -- who the hell goes to the library to look at pr0n?

      You're missing the point. The point is that I'm protecting your children so you don't have to switch off WWF Bitchslap, get off of your lazy asses and do it yourself! Re-elect me and I'll fix a whole bunch of other problems that you didn't know you had until I told you about them! .

  • Library in Dublin, California (Score:3, Interesting)

    by rossz ( 67331 ) <ogre&geekbiker,net> on Sunday September 02, 2001 @10:03PM (#2246992) Journal
    They came up with a simple solution to the requirement that they install filtering software on the computers. When you fire up the browser it asks if you want filtered or unfiltered access. Meets the legal requirements and doesn't interfere with internet access (the law doesn't say anything about requiring people to use it, just that it must be installed on the computer).

    For the hell of it, I checked a few non-porn sites to see if they were blocked. Slashdot wasn't, but Peacefire was.

  • Filtering the Internet is kinda like book banning (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Gezzus Krist ( 317716 ) on Sunday September 02, 2001 @10:41PM (#2247085)
    I don't think that children should have unrestricted access to the Internet, and I don't think that the purpose
    of library computers is so that people can access pornography. However, I don't think that it's the
    governments place to say what information I have access to either. I have seen many books in the library
    that I would not want small children to have access to because they have unsuitable content. However,
    should we ban the Catcher in the Rye, Tropic of Cancer, or the Bible.

    Should we restrict people from viewing any literature that has opinions that are contrary to the governments
    views.

    Why not just require a parent to sit with the child and monitor their online sessions. Wouldn't a responsible
    parent do that anyway.
  • Not only are filters ineffective against porn, but the focus on porn misses the point. Most censorers are idiots when it comes to email, chat, newsgroups, etc., for which there are many ways to get access.
  • In a statement, Condon said, "Pornographic smut anywhere is undesirable, but in the local library where our children visit, is intolerable."

    <sarcasm> I, for one, applaud this action. Jesus knows (*making sign of cross*) these smut-peddlers need to stop using public libraries as their personal peep-shows. We've all walked by the terminals and seen one of these sickos stroking himself while looking at the latest Anna Kournikova faked pics. </sarcasm>

    Condon sounds as in touch with reality as that senile old fuck Jesse Helms is.

    -Legion

  • SC Laws (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    SC Laws don't necessarily make sense, but the intent of the law is to make sure that at least one computer in every library has free, unfiltered internet access, regardless of the stuff you can get to.

    But there are other issues here as well. South Carolina has implemented a statewide network backbone that all of the K-12 public schools, libraries and distance education centers can connect to, free of charge, that's right, unmetered high-availability, high-speed access to the internet. Some of this is made possible by a federal program called E-rate (http://www.sl.universalservice.org [universalservice.org]) that pays a certain percentage of the cost of technology expenses for connections to the internet etc.

    This FEDERAL program has guidelines and restrictions that require protection for children using the stuff the FEDGOV pays for, (http://www.sl.universalservice.org/reference/CIPA .asp [universalservice.org]), or you don't get your "financial assistance."

    This may be the reason that this law was enacted.

    Anyone ever see those commercials with that goofy Matthew Lesko and all the government money available that you don't know about? This is one of those plans.

    • High-availability? High-speed? You've never actually USED an Internet connection at an SC school, have you? In the school district of Aiken County (which is -- I shit you not -- about [k12.sc.us] the size of Rhode Island [census.gov]), school Internet connections are well-nigh useless because of the massive number of people using them (in the district, there's about 30,000 students, faculty and staff) at any given time. ALL HTTP traffic from every school in the Consolidated School District of Aiken County is filtered through a single proxy server (yes, just one) on a T1 running Bess [n2h2.com] (N2H2 claims that their "high capacity, clustered appliances" [translation: Linux boxes running a hacked version of Squid]scale to "tens of thousands of users", but as far as I can tell from my experience, they're full of shit). And of course there are enough people browsing the web at any given time that the T1 is almost completely saturated.

      So while there is a statewide backbone that all schools can hook up to, as long as they all have to filter their traffic like this, it's pretty useless.

  • I'm surprised not everyone here realizes this. Listen up, fellow Slashdotters: the average person thinks that filtering software works. Shocking, isn't it?!!?

    Why are all of you geeks are so surprised when non-geeks have a misconception about technology? If everyone knew as much about technology as we did, then everyone would be a geek!

    The way you fix this is not by posting on Slashdot. Instead, you should be educating your neighbors and your elected officials. Write them letters or talk to them. Tell them in plain language that the filters are not effective.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The four building blocks of the universe are fire, water, gravel and vinyl." -- Dave Barry

Close