It's time for you to learn the truth about internet filters.
There is simply no internet device or program out there that can block "bad" stuff and not "good" stuff too. It does not happen now, it will not happen ever as long as these programs are created by human beings or human organizations.
Censorship filters are also not very smart, and sometimes their poor design causes large numbers of innocent web sites to be blocked.. This is not some remote possibility that happens only occasionally. This is a common problem that happens all the time - and can be compounded by having the internet filter set up poorly.
Also, filters have been used by the companies who make them to suppress ideas which they would rather not have you read about.
Consider the following examples (taken from http://www.peacefire.org/blind-ballots/)
of sites which were blocked by the default installation of the CyberPatrol
internet blocking software at the time of the last election. Certainly,
researching potential candidates to decide which to vote for is a noble
cause for library internet use, if I've ever heard of one.
| Democrat | Republican | Libertarian |
|---|---|---|
| Pat Casey (10th dist, PA) | Grant Garrett (9th dist, MI) | Grant Garrett (9th dist, MI) |
| Linda Chapin (8th dist, FL) | Jeffery Pollock (3rd dist, OR) | |
| Llord Doggett (TX) | Jim Ryun (2nd dist, KA) | |
| Mark Greene (12th dist, TX) | Chris Vance (9th dist, WA) | |
| Joan Johnson (CO) |
Any person trying to be a more informed voter by researching these candidates would have found these candidates web sites completely inaccessible, if the library had gone with CyberPatrol. If you visit the peacefire link above, you can view the complete list of blocked candidates - this list only shows those blocked by CyberPatrol.
Wow. Pretty scary, huh! We're not talking about dirty pictures anymore.
You could run down to the Minneapolis public library, sign up for internet use, and visit the complete list of candidates blocked by all censorship programs in the last election at the address that I posted above. (http://www.peacefire.org/blind-ballots/)
However, if the Minneapolis Public Library does install a censorship program, you may not be able to go there to view this information! You see, being an anti-censorship web site, peacefire.org is commonly blocked in all categories in censorship programs. That means that even if the organization chooses only to block categories of "Pornography", for example - peacefire.org will be blocked. Why put an anti-censorship web page in the "Pornography" category? Well, the answer is very simple - companies who depend on censorship for their bread and butter don't particularly like anyone to hear anti-censorship viewpoints - and nearly all of their customers do at least block the "pornography" category.
So the decision to install a censorship application should not be taken lightly! We've seen what a free speech disaster only one program could potentially be! So, let's say we go to our local public library to research any of the other various censorship applications that are available. We do this by searching for the program name on the internet.
Hmm... Time Magazine has an article about CYBERsitter. Maybe that will be useful.
So we click on the link.
What happens next, depends.
Time Magazine wrote an article critical of the censorship program "CyberSitter". But if your library has CyberSitter installed, you may not see that article. This particular Time Magazine article was blocked from CyberSitter - which prompted Time Magazine to publish a follow-up article - "CYBERsitter Decides to take a time out". It doesn't take much to see why CYBERsitter would be motivated to block an article critical of their product.
These filter companies, if asked, would tell you how quickly they responded to the public in correcting the issue. That is because they don't want to explain how it happened in the first place - they don't want you to know that they impose their political agenda on the sites that they block. Hey, internet filters are only supposed to block smut, right?
Here's why internet filters don't work:
The problem is that all censorship software out there currently uses two methods of deciding what to block.
The first method is by using a pre-defined database of "bad" internet sites, created and maintained by the censorship program vendor.
The problem with this approach is that web sites come and go so fast that any database of "bad" sites becomes completely obsolete in a relatively short period of time. This means that despite installing any internet filter, pornography and other objectionable material WILL STILL BE AVAILABLE to someone who takes the time to search.
The second problem is that censorship companies can't help themselves
from blocking things that they don't want people to see, such as:
a. Anti-Censorship
web sites (such as www.peacefire.org)
b. Web sites of their
competitor's products
c. Web pages giving
negative articles or reviews.
d. Web pages that
tell parents how ineffective internet filters really are.
The second method of determining which sites to block is having the software look for pre-determined "bad words" on an internet site, and blocking any site that contains them.
This method is almost certain to block legitimate web sites - yet most censorship filters still offer this option. Commonly, the word "breast" is one of these "bad words" that are looked for. This, of course, causes the censorship filter to block all web pages about breast cancer. It's not hard to see how many web sites on AIDS, STDs, and pregnancy could easily be blocked in error by this method.
But the public pays for the internet filters! Shouldn't we be able to install filters if we want to?
Some people, misled in their trust of internet filters, believe that public funds should not go to libraries without censorship filters installed. Their belief is, more or less, that offering some internet sites is permissible when compared to not offering any at all.
The problem with this viewpoint is that by installing a censorship filter, you are not selectively making information available - you are selectively making information unavailable. This is not like a library choosing which books to buy - thus censoring those which are not purchased by exclusion. This analogy does not work because the internet is one information resource - by default, it is intact! By making some sites unavailable, you are selectively erasing information from public view.
A much better analogy would be a library tearing only specific pages from a book and burning them. I think our public libraries should be allowed to serve the public better than that.
So, how do we do it?
How to solve the problem of internet abuse in libraries - without censoring:
It is much better for libraries to enforce standards of behavior on
library patrons rather than install censorship applications because censorship
applications block many sites in error and yet fail to solve the actual
problem of availability of "bad" sites. Also, any individual
could probably find similar "bad" pictures in the biology section of the
bookshelves - internet filtering isn't going to stop abuse.
The only way to stop the abuse of Public Library Internet resources is
to target inappropriate behavior. This is the only way
which will actually work, and will avoid the catastrophe of censoring innocent
web sites.