Fang-Face writes “The First Amendment Center has an AP article about the Pennsylvanian filtering law being struck down.
No one challenged the state’s right to stop the distribution of child porn, but lawyers for the Center for Democracy & Technology and the American Civil Liberties Union had argued that the technology used to filter out those Web sites was clumsy and produced unintended consequences.
The court agreed that those consequences were not constitutionally reasonable. I’m sure censors will ignore the fact that filtering is sloppy work and focus instead on complaining about liberal judges, wrong-wing conspiracies, etc, etc, etc.“
Filtering
It seems that there is a technological problem in a technological age. I don’t understand why there isn’t a filtering system that can meet the public need. Once again our profession has allowed people to create technology that impacts on our daily routines and service without consulting people in our profession. Wouldn’t one assume that if the computer people worked with librarians that they could develop a system that is professionally responsible while protecting the public. Once again it looks like agenda and politics rear their ugly head. No one is trying to compromise our rights as Americans, filtering should be intended to protect the public while not infringing on the serious researcher. It may be unpopular to say this, but you don’t find open access to porn in major department stores, pharmacies, or supermarkets, why should it be in the library. The internet use is truly a collection development issue. Once this fact is realized then realistic solutions can be forthcoming.
Re:Filtering
Very well put. I’m abusing my power and moderating and commenting on the same thread.
I think you’ve raised a great point there, why can’t the “computer people” and librarians get together and “develop a system that is professionally responsible while protecting the public.”? I don’t have a good answer, but I can guess at all the reasons people will say it can’t be done. At the very least it seems like if more time and effort was put into this area something could be developed that could be a decent compromise.
The internet as a collection development issue… didn’t someone write on that issue? I’m conflicted, it is, but then again it isn’t. For me a collection is something that can be managed, controled, and preserved, not sure we can do that with the web.
It’s a tough issue, but the idea of looking for a technological solution is probably the right place to start.
Re:Filtering
Yes it will be tough Blake, but I agree with you there needs to be some synergy (I do hate the word) between librarians and “techies”.
But you’ve hit on a important point. Librarians are in the business of “controlling, managing and preserving” and one more, “selecting”.
Conceding the Web from these quality control measures, would not only be the unprecedented, I believe it may eventually dilute our (librarians) importance.
Our business is our expertise and ability to ensure quality control.
Borders, Starbucks, Anytown Public Library, “What’s the Difference?”
Re:Filtering
Synergy, ah my old nemesis, the company I used to work for changed its name to a derivative of Synergy, really made me laugh. Stupid 1990’s ruined a perfectly good word.
I don’t know that we’re “conceding” anything in trying to not control the web, but rather recognizing it as something completely different from what we’ve taken care of traditionally. Really, I don’t know, I’m not saying we are, and not saying we aren’t, just raising that as a question.
It is our business to ensure quality, and it’s what sets us apart from Borders & Starbucks when it comes to most things, but should it be different for the web? Can we really ensure quality on the web? I don’t know that we can, perhaps the goal should be not so much to ensure quality, but to ensure that what is being blocked is not quality.
Obviously we can debate “quality” till the cows come home. I’d say block NewsMax and TownHall, you’d say block McihaelMoore and NPR, BUT, at least if there was a filter that allowed us as librarians to make these decisions, and not leave them to others, we’d be doing it ourselves, all the quality control would lie with us, we’d being doing collection development this way I suppose, rather than buying it. This is not a discussion on what quality is though, more of a discussion on how we’re treating the web, so I shouldn’t be raising it as an issue. So just ignore this paragraph.
There are probably a billion (for once I use that number and not exaggerate) sites/pages out there that most every librarian would agree that should be kept out, but it’s the pages/sites where only 60% (pick any number here, 40%, 50%, 51%??) agree that we start to run into trouble. That’s where I’d say NewsMax falls, maybe that’s not the best example either, but it’s the first one that comes to mind. There are many sites you’d say block and I’d say not. Maybe it is best to leave this decision to others, just imagine all the time we’d spend in meeting trying to decide what gets blocked? Eek, I shudder to think how much time we’d spend on that.
This is not an easy issue for me to choose sides on. Luckily I’m not in the position to have to make any decisions on this at this point in my career. I can really see good points on both sides, I guess it comes down to which side is defending (or attacking) what you see as more important.
Filtering
As the producer of IF-2K “ The Internet Filter “ I would like to add something to this dialog. From the Tech side…Filters Workâ€?….Our filter works and there are others that work.
The problem is the cultural side….they all overblock or underblock and they always will.
How much they overblock and underblock is a function of how you keep score and “who isâ€? keeping score. The vender’s seem to score it one way and the critics score it another way. Neither seem to be to involved in the truth…well the “whole truthâ€?anyways.
This brings us to the big problem. No one agrees as to what is harmless what is “badâ€? and what is “very very badâ€?. This is a cultural problem that probably has never been higher in America than it is today. It is quite polarized. I’m sure you’ve noticed that Librarians are not exempt from this polarization. I’m sure you’ve noticed that as well.
So the problem is off loaded to vender’s who keep encrypted lists. And around it goes.
There is one interesting concept that has recently come to my attention that I find fascinating and brilliant. It is by a man named Dr. James Freeman and it is about
“consensus web filtrationâ€?. When I first found out about this I thought this is “a wayâ€?the libraries could “white siteâ€? the children’s library which I personally think is the “only way to goâ€?. This is the only way I know that might work at this time in the culture.
If you love or hate filtering you must check this out.
http://smartsurf.org/
And no… This is not our product This is a promo for a competitor
because I think he has a “good ideaâ€? and a good product. I’ve tried it out by proxy.
This a unique concept.