Bad things on the Internet, Censorship, and Technology.

[James Cayz]

All,

The subject line says it all.  Its a real mixed bag.

Several other people have recently stated things along the same lines as I
will, in that, at least to me, this debate is getting way too much out of
hand.

It started out as a simple problem:
"Block Pornography from reaching children at libraries."

I think that 90+% of the people on both sides of the debate would agree to
the above, given that we use the legal definition of Pornography, etc.,
etc. based upon what magazine stores use.  No?  Maybe?  Hopefully?

But, the problem has gotten too focused on "details" to the point of
ignoring alternatives.  Point in fact.  We don't talk about "blocking
Porn", we talk about "filters", as in a technological (software) means to
provide the blocking.  So, we've moved the debate from the original
premise to a sub-topic, the efficiency and usefulness of filters.

But, has anyone *recently* thought about alternatives to filters to reach
the original goal?

How about "The Library and the Community support and fund staff to
identify users and monitor their activity.  Inappropriate activity will be
terminated.  Repeated terminations will be grounds for access suspension."
No technology needed (other than the computer and GUI browser).  Just the
expense of hiring a HUMAN to do the ID check and monitor the activity.
It can be as easy as walking behind the screens.  Or as complex as having 
the screens daisychained to a single monitor with a timed rollover
display.

I will contend that a HUMAN can make a better value judgement on what is
appropriate for the local community than a piece of software.  Perhaps it
isn't as efficient as software, nor is it as cheap as software, but it
will be better.

And, if this is the case, are both sides of the debate willing to support
this as a solution until another solution that both sides agree "works"
comes along?  And when I say support - taxpayers would have to support the
funds for additional staff at the libraries, and libraries would have to
provide the training to the specific staff to be fair, objective, and
discrete.

And I know there are people who will say "I thinks filters work well
enough."  That's OK with me.  Everyone is entitled to their opinion. BUT,
if you had to leave a plane because 1 of 16 tires was flat, you would
respect the pilot's choice.  Same for wearing safety glasses in a factory.
Someone else, who is in the position of responsibility, has made a
decision, and you have to abide by it.  So, my question is, when did this
stop for librarians?  If a librarian (or, if you want to generalize and
say "The ALA") says that Filters "don't work for them", why can't everyone
understand the position, and look for another solution?

I'm sure my "Human" alternative to filters isn't the only one.  So, can
we, as a group, simply & collectively say, "Look, we agree to disagree,
for now, on filters.  Lets look for another solution to the problem" ?

I only hope I haven't stepped so far back from the problem that I'm on the
edge of a cliff just waiting to be pushed over backwards.

James

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| James Cayz  #  cayz at lib.de.us #  DelAWARE homepage: http://www.lib.de.us |
| Network Processing Administrator #  302-739-4748 x130 # Fax 302-739-6948 |
| Delaware Division of Libraries # 43 S. DuPont Hwy / Dover, DE 19901-7430 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+