Filtering

Web Filtering Moves to the Cloud

Bibliofuture — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 16:02:48 -0400

For those of you spending your workdays posting videos of the cat to YouTube or trading messages with friends on Facebook, you’d better start cultivating another pastime.

Web filtering software is moving to the cloud — that all-knowing, pervasive, sometimes unreliable cluster of computers in the digital ether — and it’s going to watch your every move online and tattle to your boss.

Zscaler, a Santa Clara start-up created by serial security entrepreneur Jay Chaudhry, is publicly unveiling itself Monday. Over the last decade, Mr. Chaudhry has founded such companies as AirDefense (sold to Motorola), CipherTrust (sold to Secure Computing), SecureIt (sold to VeriSign) and CoreHarbor (sold to USinterworking.) That makes him kind of like the Brett Favre of security entrepreneurs –- he keeps coming back.

Zscaler’s idea is to relieve companies of the tiresome and costly burden of managing Web filtering and security on their own servers. Instead, the cloud-based service, which is rented to companies by the month, acts like a Web proxy, intercepting all incoming and outbound HTTP traffic from employees and scrubbing it for malware and online activity that violates company policy.

Full story in the NYT

Firefox add-on Glubble too clunky and restrictive as a children's Internet filter

Blake — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 10:28:08 -0400

Tina Gasperson reviews Glubble, a free proprietary Firefox add-on from Glaxstar that limits the activity your child can perform online by blocking access to Web sites and filtering Google search results. For parents, a tool like Glubble can seem like the perfect answer to the problem of protecting kids from the unsavory elements of the Internet. But as she discovered through her use of Glubble, the questions surrounding the idea of Internet filtering don't come with easy answers.

Library aggressive on checking computer users for porn

Blake — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 14:16:05 -0400

The Safelibraries Guy gleefully sent over a more colorful headline for This News from Ohio, where Lakewood Public Library Director Kenneth Warren wants you to know there's nothing private about the 60 public access computers at the main branch. Every 15 minutes, a staff member takes a stroll around the center to make sure library patrons are not looking at pornography, engaging in illegal gambling or visiting other questionable Web sites.

Now the library, which recently opened a new technology center, might expand its monitoring policy by using free software, called virtual network computing, that allows librarians to remotely monitor what a patron is viewing on a computer screen.

"Library computers must be filtered to protect children" Editorial Cut Off By Filters

Blake — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 09:32:31 -0400

This Editorial in The Oakland Press says there's sound, logical reason for the ordinance in Royal Oak, MI, is wandering into some new territory. It could be one of the first cities in Michigan to pass an ordinance forcing the library board to install filters, according to the Michigan Municipal League. Other libraries leave only one terminal unfiltered as a matter of policy.

This editorial wouldn't normally be very interesting, but I'm behind a filter (not sure which) that does some sort of keyword filtering (not sure how) that automatically stops loading pages with bad words. It cuts this editorial off midsentence somewhere near the middle (end?) of the page. That "sound, logical reason" The Oakland Press says will save our children won't allow me to read this editorial. Should I assume this editorial has some kind of "obscene material" they say is blocked by those filters?

Internet poses new challenge to libraries

Blake — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 11:10:06 -0400

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 13:03:32 -0400

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 13:51:15 -0500

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 06:39:11 -0500

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 07:21:01 -0500

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 10:02:51 -0500

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.