|
|
Thoughts about that City Hall-Library Internet Filter mess 1. There is no hurry. . . . 2. The issue is not technology. . . 3. The freedom-of-speech debate is off-focus. But first
Back to the filtering
debate 2. The issue is not
technology. 3. The freedom-of-speech argument is interesting but is too legalistically equivocal to be helpful. Local option should rule, whichever appropriate methods are used to determine citizens' preferences.
So, in Royal Oak . . .
. . . what is it? It's a turf war
between the Library and City Hall.
Before you choose sides, Readers, keep in mind that individuals in both camps feel aggrieved and slighted and justified in their postures. So, what's the solution? A divorce. VersagiVoice early-on contended that once the Library won its own millage, it should have converted to elected trustees, like School Board trustees, not city appointees. Taking that argument further: Whatever the outcome about Internet filters, the Library Board should begin to explore the feasibility, the pluses and minuses, of establishing an independent multi-city, self-funded District Library. -- 23 Apr 08 Internet Filtering on Library Computers
Introduction At both the national and local level, the arguments are often more emotional than dispassionate. In Royal Oak, there is an additional emotive tone caused by decades-long institutional animosity between the City Commission & Administration and the Library Board of Trustees. The Royal Oak Situation At the next CITCOM meeting, commissioners expressed unhappiness with that reply, describing it in terms which made it clear that they considered the reply dismissive of their concerns. The commissioners and the Library Director and President stressed the need to reduce the emotional tone, but they were only partially successful, as they several times apologized to each other for giving unintentional offense. The institutional animosity, however, was obvious -- at least to those who have followed the City-Library relationship through several commissions and library boards and two previous directors. The commissioners were dismissive on their part, seeming unable to take seriously or to acknowledge any validity to counterarguments offered by the Library -- whether about intangibles like free speech vs. censorship or tangibles like the pluses and minuses of privacy screens or filtering software. It seemed not to matter that the Royal Oak Library puts children on a separate floor, where they have access to filtered computers. The commissioners reacted not at all to the argument that the Royal Oak Library is bound by, and is in compliance with, pertinent Michigan legislation which specifies that if a library makes available one or more filtered computers it must also make available "1 or more terminals that are not restricted from receiving any material." A second level of emotionality emerged, one that pops up anytime filtering is discussed anywhere in the country. We had commissioners worrying aloud about disreputable men skulking in corners and grabbing young girls to rape. . . . We heard words like "anal sex" . . . We were warned that the early February arrest "is not an isolated incident" . . . that it should be possible for a library employee to monitor what is up on the screens in the adult computer area . . . that computer-savvy individuals can work around any any filter . . . that there is almost no protection against email attachments (Some patrons use free email services available through the library computers.) . . . that some way must be found to control individually owned laptops which are used in the library . . . We heard horror stories about attracting children to libraries where they are put at risk. . . . We were told it's tough if filters block useful information about, say breast cancer, because people can find books on the subject (of course, there are those who would ban such books, too). The commissioners gave the impression that the public is overwhelmingly in favor of filtering, "10-to-1" one commissioner said, probably overstating the count to make his point. "We need to find out what the public wants," suggested another. To which the Library replied, in effect, "We have for a long time been pretty good at learning what our patrons want, and we'll certainly cooperate in any new study." They suggested, too, that angry people are more likely to be first-responders in situations like this. Here -- given the Public Comment presentation by an outsider from Midland, it would be helpful to know how many of the complaints came from Royal Oak voters. A similar question might be asked about the anonymous formulaic sound-offs beginning to appear in the press. CITCOM passed a resolution directing the mayor to work with the Library Board to revisit Library policy, which the Library spokespersons said they do all the time anyway. The resolution also seems to mandate that the Library will prevent the use of computers "to access porn material," which poses the intellectual and legal arguments that are the subject of national debate. Institutional
Animosity
The National Picture re Filtering One aspect of the debate challenges the "abuse" of public spaces like libraries, which are taxpayer-funded. To which, others reply that they, too, are taxpayers. Then there is the physical argument about how effective or counter-effective the various filter software programs are. And the difficulty, "impossibility," of keeping up with the ever-growing and ever-changing content of the Internet. And the cast of players reflects the opposing viewpoints. In one corner, the American Library Association and the National Coalition Against Censorship. In the other corner, the American Family Association (whose Michigan leader spoke during Public Comment at Royal Oak's commission meeting) and Safe Libraries (whose founder's pro-filter article appeared in The Daily Tribune a day or two before the CITCOM meeting). Intensely interested in the debate is the growing number of filtering software manufacturers, like CyberPatrol and FilterGate, and WebSense. The suggestion is made that a library employee should observe the screens being viewed by adults to monitor text and images which might be seen by a underage person walking by. The counterargument is that such monitoring is an illegal invasion of privacy. The AFA speaker in Royal Oak alluded to library employees being sexually harassed by being exposed to a steady diet of inappropriate screens -- apparently because policy at one Minnesota library was for the workers actively to monitor what was being shown on computer screens. Those opposed to filtering adult computers add that the filters are lousy anyway, blocking perfectly appropriate sites, like the Declaration of Independence and the novel Moby Dick. Those who support filtering contend that even imperfect filtering, any percent of success, is better than none. But who decides what is objectionable: an image showing a nude couple having sex or one showing an aborted fetus? Anti-white or anti-black text? Pro-Labor or pro-management bias? The Cast of
Players
How
effective are filters?
About the tangible matter of how effective Internet filters really are, the extremes are 1) They continue to block perfectly innocent material and fail to block objectionable websites and pages. 2) The frequency and quantity of improperly blocked information do not justify leaving public computers unfiltered. Blocking can be done by URL (website address) or by keyword. Filters can be programmed to block for perceived political bias. Sometimes, only one or more specific pages within a website are blocked. There are over a billion websites, many of them changed daily. Filters can under-block, as well as over-block. Whatever your preference, here - from diverse sources -- is food for thought. 2008 filter software is not much different than in 2004. It is possible that some inappropriate material may still be accessed on [filtered] computers, and appropriate material may be inaccessible. Image filtering continues to have a low rate of accuracy. One test in Denver Airport found fewer than 2% complaints about blocking, out of more than 1 million searches. [Blocked by several filtering software programs]: Traditional Values Coalition ... [part of] City of Hiroshima website ... Jefferson Bible ... Contraception methods ... Hillary for President ... Casa Alianza ... [Several Gay/Lesbian/Transsexual websites] ... Amnesty International Israel ... Peacefire ... Lesbian.org ... The Politics of Nazi Symbols ... [2 pages of] National Organization for Women ... [Several sites which oppose filtering] ... Some blocks are removed after complaints. The Legal
Dimension Readers who want to peruse the legal arguments will find the citations easily as they scan the pertinent literature and websites. VersagiVoice concludes
I do not agree that rare incidents should be extrapolated into justification for extensive modification of policies and practices which have proved successful over several years. -- 12 March 2008
Resolution Opposing Censorship
Submitted for Consideration of the Royal Oak Area Democratic Club WHEREAS, the Royal Oak City Commission is considering adoption of an ordinance that would require computers reserved for adult use in the Royal Oak Public Library to be restricted from receiving material not first passed through filtering software; and WHEREAS, such filtering software prevents access to vast amounts of valuable information available on the Internet, while still allowing ready access to sexually explicit images, because the technology does not exist and is unlikely to exist in the foreseeable future to appropriately filter out material that is obscene, or sexually explicit images; and WHEREAS, the Royal Oak Public Library Board of Trustees nearly a decade ago adopted policies prohibiting the viewing of sexually explicit images in the Library, and those policies and their enforcement procedures continue to work effectively; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Royal Oak Area Democratic Club supports our Nation’s cherished freedoms and long-standing opposition to government-ordered censorship, and urges members of the Royal Oak City Commission to oppose any ordinance requiring adults to use filtering software while in the Royal Oak Public Library.
More Library problems: International Edition The British Library's main reading room, housed in the British Museum, is receiving complaints from writers and researchers who find the study area crowded with noisy teenagers texting each other across the room and listening to loud music on their electronic gadgets. Their idea of research: "I've got to write about Islam, Can I have your notes?" And they don't use books. Instead, they check things on the web. On their part, the youngsters complain that old geezers pick a dozen books, flip through one, then sleep at the desk for several hours. The British Library has issued 127,000 reading passes and has 1,480 studying seats.
In Ohio Going further, Warren is considering installing monitoring-software such as is used my many employers. The software would allow staff to see what is on-screen at the computers. "If the site being viewed is objectionable," the Cleveland Plain Dealer reports, "a snapshot is taken of it." Asked about this, American Library Association Deputy Director Deborah Caldwell-Stone counters that monitoring, either by technology or by "a tap on the shoulder" is likely to make someone researching breast cancer uncomfortable. She reports that feedback from libraries around the country reveals a very small percentage of patrons misuse computers. Her philosophy: "Make the rules for the good people" and let everyone know what the rules are. Broadening the survey beyond this Cleveland suburb, Cuyahoga County Public Library, with 1,000 public access computers in 28 branches, doesn't see the need to do more than "have staff up and about," according to Deputy Director Tracy Strobel. Cleveland Public Library takes a similar approach and would not consider using any monitoring software. "I would be concerned with privacy," says Deputy Director Holly Carroll. Back to Lakewood Librarian Warren: He feels so strongly that users of public computer have no right to privacy that he resigned from membership in the American Library Association when it recommended installing privacy screens on computers. The reason for the Plain Dealer report? The Lakewood Library turned over to police a patron found viewing child pornography. Not one of these librarians, not one of their respective governmental agencies suggests Internet filtering as an option. § We freedom-lovers lost the battle to keep CITCOM from mandating Internet filters at our Library. But we can take solace in learning that Iran has ordered Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to block more than 5 million sites which inflict "social, political, and moral damage" with dissent or pornography or anti-Islamic material. On a roll, the Iranian government charges the European Union with seeking to develop "anti-Iranian cyberspace." -- Nov 2008
Australia seeks to block 10,000 websites Australians fight Internet Filters Especially troublesome for some is that the government has expressed an interest in controlling peer-to-peer exchanges, too, because much of the objectionable material is distributed there, not on public websites.
|
Overview How effective are Internet Filters? Library Director comments re VersagiVoice's report about the future of libraries. email to "Royal Oak Governmental Leaders" |