Filtering

Internet poses new challenge to libraries

Blake — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 10:10:06 -0500

Once upon a time, librarians risked controversy only when they decided to slip books like "The Catcher in the Rye" onto the shelf.

The recent flap over alleged child pornography at the Lindsay branch of the Tulare County Library illustrates how dramatically the challenges for public libraries have changed, experts say.

Gwinnett libraries to target porn site visitors

Blake — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:03:32 -0500

The Atlanta Journal Constitution Reports Gwinnett County library workers will be able to capture browsing histories from library computers and call police on suspected child pornography viewers under an Internet safety policy approved Monday. The responses include counseling users on appropriate Internet usage for less serious situations, ordering users to stop viewing obscene materials, or calling police and capturing the computer's browsing history as possible evidence in the case of child pornography.

"A lot of the pornographers, child predators and now the gangs are going to the library because they know they won't be tracked,"

Utah Internet providers could earn 'G-rating'

Blake — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:51:15 -0600

A Post Over @ Slashdot points the way to a Story on a new law in Utah. Internet service providers could earn a state-approved "G-rating" for filtering content and insuring that users could not access pornography under provisions in a bill heard by a House committee on Monday.
HB407, sponsored by Rep. Michael Morley, R-Spanish Fork, would require the Utah Division of Consumer Protection to create a designation for providers who prevent access to "prohibited" material. After attaining the "seal of approval," providers would be subject for fines up to $10,000 for violating requirements.

Dallas Council committee recommends monitors for library computers

Blake — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 05:39:11 -0600

The Dallas News Reports A committee of Dallas City Council members unanimously recommended Tuesday that city libraries install Internet monitoring software on its publicly accessible computers – but not more restrictive filters that actively block Web content, such as pornography.

Important developments in Bradburn library filtering case

Anonymous Patron — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 06:21:01 -0600

Big developments in the ongoing library filtering case Bradburn v. North Central Library. On Monday, both the library and the ACLU motioned for summary judgments. The motions are on my Bradburn page here. The ACLU and the library’s motion, along with statements of fact and memorandums in support can all be found here. There are a bunch of declarations to work through that I’ll post later. The most interesting of which is Dr. Paul Resnik, a library science professor who has published several pieces of research on filtering (see my research page here, specifically the Kaiser Foundation study he authored and his research paper on filtering testing). Resnick found that out of 60,000 actual pages accessed by library patrons, only 20 were incorrectly blocked – sounds like almost the definition of “de minimus” to me. I’ll add Resnick’s new work to my filtering tests page later.

What’s at issue is that the library will unblock sites upon request, but will not disable the filter. The ACLU essentially wants the courts to rule that libraries must disable filtering for adults, and unblocking isn’t enough. As I pointed out earlier, no reasonable reading of the U.S. Supreme ruling in ALA v. U.S. can be interpreted this way:
It’s not true that the Supreme Court interpreted CIPA so as to “require” disabling the filter. From Justice Rehnquist’s plurality opinion:
Assuming that such erroneous blocking presents constitutional difficulties, any such concerns are dispelled by the ease with which patrons may have the filtering software disabled. When a patron encounters a blocked site, he need only ask a librarian to unblock it or (at least in the case of adults) disable the filter.
And from Justice Kennedy’s concurring opinion:
If some libraries do not have the capacity to unblock specific Web sites or to disable the filter or if it is shown that an adult user’s election to view constitutionally protected Internet material is burdened in some other substantial way, that would be the subject for an as-applied challenge, not the facial challenge made in this case.
While the Supreme Court seems to be suggesting disabling or unblocking of websites as a way to avoid First Amendment problems, it definitely is not “requiring” it. Further, even if one does assume this is a legal requirement, note how both the plurality and concurring opinion both specifically state that either unblocking of specific websites or disabling the filter meet the same ends. So the library concerned about First Amendment considerations can unblock specific sites request by patrons if they don’t want to disable the filter. Certainly, no “requirement for disabling” can be read anywhere here.
New to my Bradburn page:
04/05/08 Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment
04/05/08 Defendants motion for summary judgment
04/05/08 Plaintiffs issue statement of facts
04/05/08 Defendants issue statement of facts

San Jose councilman argues for filtered computer use at SJSU (For The Children)

Blake — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 09:02:51 -0600

San Jose City Councilman Pete Constant is concerned with children viewing "second-hand porn" while visiting San Jose's public libraries, which includes the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Library.

"Children can get porn anywhere. If they don't see it at the library, kids will see it in other places," said Sarah Jasso, a psychology major.

Library wants survey on Web pornography issue

Anonymous Patron — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 19:08:22 -0600

Despite a groundswell of local controversy, it doesn't appear strong-arm measures like impenetrable filters or limited Internet access are in the Gwinnett County Public Library's future. Instead, library leaders plan to ask thousands of Gwinnettians for suggestions on moving forward. Library board members agreed Monday to a large-scale survey that, in theory, will take the pulse of far more library users than those who have come forth thus far with suggestions on Internet issues.
Ruth Hardy, a library user, sparked debate over Internet access after she witnessed a man viewing pornography last year at a local branch, she said. The Gwinnett system has more than 75,000 registered minors who frequent its 14 branches.

Here's The Scoop.

San Jose councilman chides head librarian on porn-filter report

Blake — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 19:26:04 -0600

San Jose City Councilman Pete Constant accused the city's head librarian Wednesday of foot-dragging and shoddy research on his proposal to filter pornography out of library computers. Constant told Library Director Jane Light he was "disappointed" in her progress report to a council committee on his October proposal for the city to reconsider Internet filtering on library computers. A final report is due in March.
"I don't honestly feel we're going down a path to finding solutions," Constant said. "I feel we're going down a path to finding reasons not to do this."

Porn Knows What It's For -- Do You?

Anonymous Patron — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 08:27:32 -0600

A board member of a Canadian library argues that the porn industry has figured out what its customers really want and how to provide it in the Internet age. Other content providers -- such as newspapers and libraries -- need to do the same.

People hate librarians....

effinglibrarian — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 20:46:19 -0600

People hate librarians enough to take it all the way to the Supreme Court.

In the U.S. vs. the ALA, the attorney for the respondents, Paul M. Smith makes a case that library patrons can't be required to suffer the stigma of asking a librarian to unblock a "porn" filter. Essentially, that asking a librarian for this help is so traumatic that it should be declared unconstitutional. So that ultimately, the entire filtering issue comes down to the "stigma" of asking the librarian for help.

And this is the basis for this case, people hate us so much that they can't bear to ask us for help even if that help allows them to watch videos of people screwing.

...

After I bloggered about this today, I thought about my conclusion and realized something else.... this "stigma" argument was presented by the counsel representing the ALA(!!!???).
What is it supposed to mean when the association formed to represent your interests in public and political arenas, admits in public documents that it's an undue burden for someone to ask for your help? (Yeah, I realize this isn't funny.)