Electronic Brown Wrapper

[Dianne L Parham]

WARNING....PHILOSOPHY RATHER THAN TECHNOLOGY BELOW.  DELETE NOW IF YOU 
DISLIKE DISCUSSION OTHER THAN OF A STRICTLY TECHNICAL/SOFTWARE NATURE.

I guess that sounds like a simple solution until you think about how many 
millions of websites there are with links to each other.  It seems to me 
as if you would need a full time staff person who does nothing but check 
out websites and make sure they are pure and virtuous so that they could 
be keyed into the software.  And at that, by  what criteria are you 
choosing them.  Staff member "A" may think any site 
that gives information on abortion is not approrpiate under any 
circumsatances.  Staff member "B" may feel that a site on wicca is too 
vile for children's eyes.  Staff member "C" may hate Barney.  Websites 
are not quite like a book in that they provide immediate and 
effortless links to other sites.  I've been on "clean" sites and 
by following links suddenly found XXX rated links (and everyone 
seems to be so much more upset about porn than 
bomb making that I'm getting a little worried myself about how 
the forbidden sites are chosen....you may flame me but the kid looking at 
a naked woman seems less lethal than the kid putting together a pipe 
bomb or that is in training as an militia extremist.)  I think it's going 
to be some software that accomdates all the variations.  I am not saying 
the technology isn't there....I wonder if we are spending so much time 
trying to find a software solution when the answer probably lies in 
education.  Dianne Parham, Grants Analyst, San Diego Public Library, 
dzp at jill.sannet.gov

On Thu, 5 Jun 1997 cfkfb at eiu.edu wrote:

> I guess the question I have is this:  Why isn't there a software solution
> that allows libraries to block/allow access to web sites?  It seems a big part
> of the heat in this issue is that some third party decides what's blocked --
> often without giving a complete list and/or criteria.
> 	The software would function like this:  In conjunction with a browser,
> perhaps as a Netscape plugin, this software would have a list of sites that
> are allowed.  Attempts to access a "forbidden" site would redirect that
> browser to a predefined page that indicates this is blocked.  It could also
> have a password feature so that adults/staff could bypass the block.
> 	This would serve two functions: (1) It would put collection development in
> cyberspace back where it belonged -- in the library.  The collection
> development specialist's job would be reviewing sites and adding appropriate
> ones to the library "allowed" list.  (2) It would also allow the same computer
> to be used by both adults and children since adult-oriented sites would
> require a password that could be passed out at the reference desk or
> maintained in a central database.
>     It seems to me that this makes everyone happy.  The Family Friendly
> library people are assured that little Jimmy or Jane won't get to the naughty
> stuff while adults not of a like bent can view what they want.  It also gives
> the libraries control over their "collection" of web sites.  The ACLU is happy
> since libraries are not "censoring" anyone's Internet access -- they're simply
> putting some reasonable restrictions on usage of a limited resource.  I'd see
> it as the electronic equal of selling Playboy in the grocery store -- it's
> there, but in a brown wrapper behind the clerks desk where only those of legal
> age can get to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Millard Johnson wrote:
> >
> > .David Burt quoted Marilyn Gell Mason:
> >
> > On selection she says, "Nevertheless, there have always been material
> > that most libraries don't buy.  (Much of what can be found in an adult
> > bookstore falls into this category.)  When we make judgments we call it
> > selection.  When we choose to exclude material we call it censorship.
> > Evidence suggests that the distinction lacks meaning in an electronic
> > environment."  She then goes on to compare a library installs a
> > exclusive filter to one which sets up an inclusive list of permitted
> > sites.  "Which library is providing access to more information?  The one
> > that selects or the one that censors?  Is it any less valid to 'select
> > out' material that it is to 'select in'".  Precisely!
> >
> > If keeping out pornography is the ONLY objective then censoring may
> > be "precisely" the solution.  But the big problem with censoring is that
> > pornography is a precise activity only in the mind of the censor.  If
> > the library is concerned about helping the user, then there are
> > issues of quality, reliability, accuracy, presentation, etc.  In short, if
> > the collection goal of the library is something other than: COLLECT
> > EVERY BIT OF INFORMATION ANYONE EVER THOUGHT TO
> > SPEW OUT, WITHOUT REGARD TO ACCURACY, RELIABILITY
> > OR ANY CRITERIA EXCEPT - NOTHING THAT I CONSIDER
> > PORNOGRAPHIC then censoring is probably not the precise tool
> > to employ.
>