PSA Internet Filtering Software Survey (fwd)

[Jim Hurd]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 00:26:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: Don Saklad <dsaklad at gnu.ai.mit.edu>
To: ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom List <alaoif at ala1.ala.org>
Subject: PSA Internet Filtering Software Survey

The Real Sheet newsletter
Boston Public Library Professional Staff Association BPLPSA
Vol.25 No.5,6,8  April 11, May 2, June 13  1997

The Real Sheet newsletter
Vol.25 No.5  May 2, 1997
pages 3,4

Survey Results

In the last issue [[v25n5 April 11 1997] of The Real Sheet we
published the statistics from the [professional staff association] PSA
Internet Filtering Software Survey.  With this issue we want to start
sharing some of the responses elicited by each of the questions.
Below are the responses to questions 1 and 2.

1. "Do you support the use of filtering software in public libraries?"
Yes    4
No    61
Blank  1
Other  1

It is a basic tenant of librarianship that libraries supply
information without prejudice or censorship and we as librarians
should not be deciding what is "research" vs interest alone.

Children's librarians and Internet experts should be polled for
comments and suggestions, because the issue is such a complex one.  A
parental consent form is probably a better solution than the proposed
software which is flawed and could leave us liable for a lawsuit.  It
is GREAT that this issue is on the table at last!

We have never supported such CENSORSHIP with regards to BOOKS.  Why
should we now allow such censorship just because the things to be
censored are ELECTRONIC?

Would like to know more about this issue via a staff workshop.

What next?  Books on the nude?  Sex manuals?  Playboy in microtext?

I don't like the idea of restricting access to information --
especially when we don't have any input into what is restricted.

Censorship can always be made to seem innocent or for the common
good.  But once it begins -- where and how do we stop it?

I can't see spending money to NOT provide access to information.

By filtering software, I assume it is meant to use programs similar to
Cyberpatrol which was demonstrated at a joint meeting of librarians
serving children and adults.

If we support the ALA's Freedom of Information Act, then we have to
support it all the way.

The filtering may also censor non-porn files which are needed.  BPL is
not a day-care center.  Parents should filter what their children use
and monitor the files -- not leave it up to a machine or another
adult.

I support individual choice.  If someone doesn't want to see/read
something they can go to another site.

I'm open to some compromise.

For Children's area I think it is a helpful tool.

It is true that selection does not occur in the case of INTERNET sites
as it does with printed and AV materials.  But I believe that filters
are an inappropriate means of selection.  Parents, not librarians,
need to decide what is appropriate for their children.  To do
otherwise is a violation of the Library Bill of Rights and long valued
intellectual freedom and access.  The BPL in installing filters
would/has set a poor example for other libraries (e.g. Springfield,
though Holyoke has adopted an "honor code").  The vote of the Trustees
shows a naive easy response to a complicated and difficult situation.
This is a great disappointment.

I support heightened education of community members on the Internet
and its vast resources and the role and philosophy of the public
library in American culture as it relates to new and evolving
technologies.

I don't think the technology is sophisticated enough to allow for
only inappropriate sites to be filtered out.




2. "Do you support the use of filtering software system wide
at the BPL?"

Yes   3
No   62
Blank 2

I don't think we should let hysterical parents or any other extreme
minority control our lives.

If I have to live with it I want to be able to turn this off at the
brach, rather that via a call to administration.

We, of all libraries, should stand FIRM against censorship --
especially from outside, under-informed sources.  This is not a
one-horse town!

I think there needs to be more parental involvement --
parents need to be aware of what happens in a library etc.

We are really caught in a bind here: Mr. Margolis [BPL president] is
new; we are trying to get a budget for next year; contract
negotiations are going on.  I am afraid that this censorship matter is
going to be used against us if we refuse to go along with it, and that
could affect Mayor Menino's attitude toward us regarding both the
budget and the negotiations.  Even so, I think we ought to fight this
thing all the way.

Software is not an answer to this complex situation.  Education
is the road to go.  Forums, discussion panels, demonstrations on
how to use the Internet should be generated by Library Management
and Professional Staff.

I think the Boston Public Library needs to be at the national
forefront in upholding the Library Bill of Rights.




The Real Sheet newsletter
Vol.25 No.5  June 13, 1997
pages 3-6

In Vol.25, No.6 [May 2 1997] of The Real Sheet we began to share some
of the responses elicited by the PSA Internet Filtering Software
Survey.  In that issue we published the responses to questions 1 and
2.  Below are the responses to questions 3 and 4 which completed the
survey.

3) DO YOU SUPPORTED THE "TARGETED" USE OF FILTERING SOFTWARE ON:
A) CHILDREN'S COMPUTERS?
B) YOUNG ADULT COMPUTERS?
C) ADULT COMPUTERS?

Because most branches have only 1 terminal -- usually located in
the children's area targeting would only limit access for adults.

Filtering children's computers should be a last resort and only if the
BPL has the master list or can override.

If I HAVE to have filters I want them ONLY at the children's
level so that there is at least one computer per branch with FULL
access to the INTERNET.

I would like to see more creative solutions.  Turn computers away from
the public viewing (building partitions, etc.)  Cyberpatrol may limit
access to information and should not be used in the Research Library.

Eventually one will get tired of looking at pornography and move onto
something else.

Nothing useful exists.

It is conceivable that all ages may use any of the computers in the
Library.  Limiting access on any computer may limit the privileges
of any users have access to the computer.

I am opposed to filtering children's computers as I am given to
understand that it blocks sites that may actually be appropriate and
useful -- therefore it overtly censors.

If parents authorize Internet access, that is their right and it
is their duty not the Mayor's.

I would reluctantly support filters on PC's in the Children's
rooms ONLY IF another PC in the Library remains unfiltered.

WE are not "in loco parentis" and now that this issue has gotten
extensive media attention there is no excuse for parents to be
ignorant of what is available here.  It si their responsibility
to educate and trust their children.

Who will decide what should be filtered -- the Library or some
company?

I think that because adolescence begins at a different point for each
child (and always before the BPL defined "Young Adult" age of 13)
we need to protect the rights of maturing teens to have access to 
materials on an adult level.




4) DO YOU SUPPORT ALTERNATIVE METHODS TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE?
(EG PARENTAL CONSENT FORM, AS PROPOSED
BY MR. MARGOLIS) [BPL president]

I fear the problem with parental consent forms would be that parents
would not sign the forms.  And the parents would have to actually go
to the library with the form in order to prevent forged signatures.
But it's a much better idea than filtering.

But there is no way we can monitor every young user all the time.
A combination of filters and parental consent would inform parents
of their children's activities.

Somehow I don't think this will work -- but I'm not a parent or a
child.  Do kids and their folks communicate about these issues?
I'm afraid I'm skeptical about it.

This may become extremely messy and cause more paperwork.  Besides who
is going to monitor the children and know which child has access or
nonaccess?

I propose that all schools send home an info sheet for parents
advising them regarding net issues.

I'm not sure if a parental consent form will work, but perhaps
we can just post a general disclaimer on the computer that we are
not responsible for the contents on web pages.

We can put a disclaimer on our web page and publicize our
internet policy.  Parental consent forms should be able to be
noted on the child's record or kept on file.  But ideally
we should say that we recognize the parent's right to monitor their
child's access and that we won't take responsibility if the child
uses a friend's card.  Do we assume no permission without the
slip or do we assume permission unless notified otherwise?

The consent form is the lesser of two evils.  Pressure should be
placed on the purveyors of porn to allow only "adults" into their
sites -- like bars, adult book stores, etc.  The blocking software is
a dangerous tool to control what information people (all people) may
access and does not confine itself to pornography -- nor do they claim
to beyond that.  Unless WE design what to block, we do not know WHAT
is being blocked.  The Internet SCARES the government because no one
can know what's there and no one controls it.  Librarians should not
be scared with the free sharing of information and viewpoints.
The public and the politicians need to be EDUCATED.

I think consent forms, stickers, etc. and just educating the public
about the services and mission of an urban public library are important
steps to consider.

Any blocking or documented restricting (not parental/child
relationships, of course) is the tip of the iceberg!

I believe it is the parent's responsibility -- not the Library's
-- to monitor a child's use of the Internet.  Perhaps parent's
consent could be entered in borrowers' record.

I understand people's concerns but
a) parents should take responsibility for their kids; we should not.
b) the maintenance and policing required seem unwieldy.

If we want computers and Internet, then we should
be prepared to take all that comes with it.  We are not their parents.
First amendment freedom of speech has no subdivisions!

Parental consent forms are an option.  Also, there are physical
screens which can be installed as I understand it, so that only the
person sitting directly in front of the screen can see the content.  I
personally feel that media attention has alerted the public that it is
available.  Ironically, this sometimes has the effect of taking away
the excitement of "forbidden fruit".  There will always be people who
are interested in things outside the mainstream.  The excitement of
the Internet will go waves, along with the controversial sites.  I
feel it is our job to provide access to information, rather than to
decide what the public should have access to and how the access is
appropriate.  The discussion of appropriate access is one that needs
to happen in a home and/or school setting.

Alternative methods (i.e. sticker on library card) is an interesting
idea.

The use of the internet by children and YAs need to be discussed in 
and open forum (Mayor, President of Library, etc.)  We have too
much of a cavalier attitude about this issue.  Our elected
officials are listening to their constituents -- why aren't we?

Consent forms for young children up to age 7 would be okay.
Young Adult level should definitely NOT need parental consent
for any information in any library.

The public library is here to serve ALL people -- people who have
different levels of standards on objectionable and questionable
material due to different cultural and religious backgrounds or
personal beliefs, etc.  Parents unfortunately do not fully realize
that the public library is not like similar educational institutions
(i.e. schools) with "in loco parentis".  Therefore it is the Library's
responsibility if it wants to head off further or future controversy
to have a well thought-out, thorough information campaign informing
parents that THEY not the library have to monitor what the child is
exposed to when he or she visits our institutions.

I think that innocent bystanders should not be subjected to sexually
explicit images without their consent.  Therefore the library should
build cubicles that face the wall so that pornography viewers can do
in privacy and nobody's grandmother will be offended.

It is not the place of the library to censor.

All of the proposed methods seem impractical;  also ALA's
position is very much against any type of censorship of library
materials -- of which electronic documents form part.

I support consent forms for children and YAs.

Since this is being argued in Congress right now we should wait until
resolved at that level.  We should keep federal and constitutional
rights in the forefront.

The Web/Internet is growing every moment.  The decision to place
filtering software on any computers in the BPL will be rendered
obsolete soon.  So what next?  I think taking this step will
cause new and interesting problems for us in the future.

The alternative methods I support would be the provision of
educational programs for parents and children regarding use
of the Internet.  There could be time allotted, especially
in parent's programs, for discussion of concerns about material
on the Internet.  These programs could be offered in an ongoing
manner (eg monthly, during evening as well as daytime hours).
By allowing parents to restrict their child's access to the Internet
we involve parents in their child's use of the Library, as we should.
Children do not develop the skills to discriminate
reliable resources from inaccurate, trivial ideas from life
affirming ones, art from pornography, by reading in a vacuum.
Libraries must insure access while parents instill values.

[Contact a college or branch public library near you to read
The Real Sheet Newsletter via Boston Library Consortium periodicals
interlibrary loan.]

[Boston Public Library branches and research departments have copies
of The Real Sheet newsletter.  Or ask Cambridge Public Library to get
it.]

Subscriptions are available for $8.00 per year, payable to

Boston Public Library Professional Staff Association newsletter
Attention: Henry F. Scannell and editors
666 Boylston St., BPL microtext department
Boston MA 02116

tel. 617-536-5400
email: microtext at mbln.bpl.org