South Carolina's On-Again, Off-Again Filtering 205
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. "
$$ (Score:1)
e-mail is being blocked? (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:e-mail is being blocked? (Score:1)
Re:e-mail is being blocked? (Score:2)
Wouldn't it be very difficult to block every web-based email provider in the world?
Re:e-mail is being blocked? (Score:2)
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.
Re:e-mail is being blocked? (Score:1)
Re:e-mail is being blocked? (Score:1)
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)
Re:Filters may be OK (Score:1, Funny)
The dust isn't the problem - what clogs the fans is all the hair from the hound dogs.
so what? (Score:1, Insightful)
This is what we wanted, right?
Re:so what? (Score:2)
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
Problem of Perception (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Problem of Perception (Score:2)
Re:Problem of Perception (Score:2)
Re:Problem of Perception (Score:2)
Re:Problem of Perception (Score:1)
Same principle applies here.
Re:Problem of Perception (Score:1)
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)
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.
Freedom of Religion (Score:2)
Re:Problem of Perception (Score:1)
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.
how to filter (Score:1)
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)
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.
1 of 10? (Score:2)
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.
If atleast one computer... (Score:1)
Scared of Social Control,
F-bacher
up to 10% or at least one? (Score:2)
Re:up to 10% or at least one? (Score:1)
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)
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
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.
Re:Its called supervision (Score:2)
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)
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
Re:Its called supervision (Score:3, Insightful)
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!"
Re:Its called supervision (Score:3, Informative)
See, all it takes is a little forethought and common sense.
Re:Its called supervision (Score:1)
Re:Its called supervision (Score:1)
Re:Its called supervision (Score:2)
Re:Its called supervision (Score:1)
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]
Re:Its called supervision (Score:1, Insightful)
"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?
Re:Its called supervision (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re:Let me get that straight (Score:1)
'... up to 10%, but at least one,
or specify the range with clearer (more) words.
But, as another poster pointed out, this is what the reporter says the law says, not a quote from the law.
Not so bad (Score:2)
more needed! (Score:1)
Eh? (Score:1)
"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 !! (Score:1)
As a South Carolina resident... (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:As a South Carolina resident... (Score:2)
Re:As a South Carolina resident... (Score:2)
Re:As a South Carolina resident... (Score:2)
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.
Re:As a South Carolina resident... (Score:2)
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?
Re:As a South Carolina resident... (Score:2)
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?
Re:As a South Carolina resident... (Score:2)
Re:As a South Carolina resident... (Score:2)
Aw, poow wittle sowdier, is oo aww tiwed of the nasty, mean peopwe not bewieving oo?
On any significant scale, yes. Especially as Universities are increasingly obsessed with commercial and not academic results.
Re:As a South Carolina resident... (Score:2)
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)
Re:As a South Carolina resident... (Score:2)
As a post graduate qualified, published commercial author, I have learned vague concepts like:
Re:As a South Carolina resident... (Score:2)
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.
Re:As a South Carolina resident... (Score:2)
As for Fluor-Daniel I can't say. I know the building. It is very nice from what I have seen, and I haven't seen it effect the studies there.
BTW, why are you replying as an AC? Don't you want to speak about Clemson in a more open way if you disagree with me? Email me (or call me, I am on the PH) if you like.
Re:As a South Carolina resident... (Score:2)
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.
Re:As a South Carolina resident... (Score:1)
Re:As a South Carolina resident... (Score:2)
Re:As a South Carolina resident... (Score:2)
As a fellow South Carolina resident... (Score:1, Interesting)
Can you say 'Information Policy' Charlie Condon?
Re:As a South Carolina resident... (Score:1)
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)
Re:Clemson (Cow College) SUCKS! (Score:1)
...at least our mascot isn't named after a chicken
Re:Clemson (Cow College) SUCKS! (Score:2)
Clemson is the Tigers...
I believe you are thinking of the University of South Carolina, who are the gamecocks.
USC != Clemson
Re:Clemson (Cow College) SUCKS! (Score:2)
I saw you are a Clemson student and were refering to a USC fan. I didn't see the orignial post when I replied to you before.
You may notice Mr. Chicken Fan has decided not to list his email address, while those from Clemson are listing their email address. I see Mr. Chicken Fan is a chicken fan unto the last!
Go Tigers!
in my Highschool (Score:1)
Yea this is going to fix the problems
Re:in my Highschool (Score:1)
Something like that should be implemented everywhere
Re:in my Highschool (Score:2)
When I was a high school student (99-2000, I'm not that old) our network was like that too. Now, I'm an administrator of that network (go figure, eh?).
If your admins are anything like the one here, they're well aware of the problem. Unfortunately, it isn't always easy to fix. Before I graduated, I was friendly with the admin here, and got to watch what he was going through trying to get Microsoft Proxy to work properly. He reinstalled MSProxy, WinNT 4, and whatever the most recent service pack for NT was at the time at least six times, and every time, Proxy just crashed.
Even better, of course, was the fact that he couldn't get security policies to work right either (call him incompetent if you want, but nobody else could figure it out either), so you could "log in" by hitting escape at the login screen and get to the 'net that way, and to programs and printers, everything but your home folder.
So what did he do to fix it? Well, he trashed the NT servers and switched to Novell Netware, and that's the network I inherited. I love it. First, you must log in to do anything, including access the 'net. Also, the 'net can only be accessed by people in the "Internet" group, so access can actually be restricted for people who abuse it now, without revoking access to everything else. Most importantly, though, the proxy is transparent now -- nothing's set in the web browser, all HTTP traffic goes through BorderManager, which in turn goes through the filtering proxy.
I still don't know why people deal with NT.
WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Jaysyn
Re:WTF? (Score:2)
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.
Government funded internet cafes... (Score:1)
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.
Re:Government funded internet cafes... (Score:1)
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)
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)
Mod this UP!! (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:Why censor it at all? (Score:1)
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.
Re:Why censor it at all? (Score:1)
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.
The Solution is Obvious... (Score:1)
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...
net filtering (Score:2)
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...
Re:net filtering (Score:1)
should be filtered (Score:1)
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)
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.
Re:unpopular opinion (Score:1)
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)
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.
Re:unpopular opinion (Score:2)
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)
Readers may be interested in my anticensorware [sethf.com] reports on the above topic, particularly
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)
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.
Filters are useless... (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Filters are useless... (Score:2)
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)
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)
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.
Re:Filtering the Internet is kinda like book banni (Score:1, Funny)
I vote for the Bible.
Porn, anyone? (Score:1)
Hooray! (Score:1)
<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)
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.
SC school internet connections (was: Re:SC Laws) (Score:2, Informative)
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.
People think that filtering works (Score:2)
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.
Re:People think that filtering works (Score:2)
Re:the big picture (Score:1)
step 2. Walk over to the other side of the library... you know, where those funny rectangular objects are all stacked together with the funny pieces of paper stuck between them.
step 3. Read as much sexually explicit material as you want. Read as much racially ignited material as you want. Child? You can still read it. Pervert? Go right on ahead, read away.
step 4. Realize that the medium does not change the standard. "Books with sex pictures and flag burnings are ok, but sex pictures and racists on the internet are not acceptable!"
step 5. Enjoy Canada. I'm sure you'll fit in quite nicely.
Re:The corps control consumers- case closed. (Score:1)
Try this [zdnet.com]. The state doesn't run that. Do those users have control over their connections just because they pay a monthly fee to a private entity? If you point to the DMCA as gov't interference in the marketplace, I refer you to the private bodies that bought and paid for that piece of legislation. Appeals to the "free market" will be referred back to the geographic monopolies many broadband providers enjoy because they won't open their pipes to competition. Besides, the filtering software and associated maintenance and administration is an added burden on taxpayer funds. Unfiltered access is cheaper, so why not let the filtering advocates pay monthly fees to ISPs, buy their own filtering software, and spare the rest of us the added cost?
Letting government run things is always an inferior alternative to private ownership 99% of the time. I wish leftists were mentally capable of digesting this fact.
always != 99% of the time. I wish right-wingers were mentally capable of simple logic.
Re:The state controls what it owns- case closed. (Score:1)
So, that same state should not take decisions about what is good or bad for those citisen, they can surely do it for themself.
Public money is being spend, that means no single interrest group should have overriding influence.
And those that are using these public facilities are typically those that dont have private access, so demanding they pay for their own is plain silly, following that type of arguments you should close down all public services.