Mentat

July 11, 2007

RFID Tag Compliant with Emerging Data Model?

TAGSYS has announce a new RFID tag, the Folio 370L Tag. It has a password protected electronic article surveillance feature. This sounds good but I'm not sure what that means exactly. What is most interesting to me and most annoying is TAGSYS' claim that it "meets the emerging NISO (US National Information Standards Organization) data model standard for libraries.

If its an emerging standard, it means it ain't there yet. It's a standard-to-be. It's in development and subject to change. The point of a standard is that we all know what it is and comply with it. An emerging standard means we haven't quite worked that out yet but we're trying. So to claim a tag meets the emerging NISO data model standard is more marketing hype than anything else. Don't some of you other vendors have a tag that is equally "compliant" with the emerging standard?

I had the same reaction to reading that as I do when I read that an Internet filter is "CIPA-compliant." CIPA of course is the Children's Internet Protection Act which seeks to prevent kids from seeing Internet material that is "harmful to minors" which is a legal term that is so subjective as to be meaningless across communities. What is harmful to your minor may not be harmful to my minor. At any rate, who knows what a filter that claims to be "CIPA compliant" thinks is harmful to minors.

Similarly, what are the features of an RFID tag that meets an emerging standard? Still, I'll be keeping my eye on it just in case we get that standard someday!

[From Biblio-Tech Review]

Posted by at 7:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

November 22, 2006

ACLU Takes On Library That Refuses to Disable Filter

The Nov. 20, 2006 issue of American Libraries Online reports that the ACLU is suing North Central Regional Library's (Washington State) implementation of Secure Computing's Bess software. Bess is installed on all the public computers and evidently the Library has made no provision for unblocking filters upon request - at least that's the contention.

The Director of the consortium was quoted as saying: "The internet is so huge, and we carefully choose the books for our libraries. Shouldn't we try to be as careful with the internet?" While this is true, installing Bess is hardly the same as "carefully choosing books." I generally assume that filters (the decent ones anyway) get it wrong 15% of the time. Sites the library intends to block won't be and sites the library does not intend to block will be -- 15 out of 100 times. It was just a matter of time before the ACLU challenged a library for overblocking...as Mary Minow and I have warned people numerous times.

In this case, three plaintiffs allege they were prevented from viewing websites on drug and alcohol abuse for a university course, accessing a personal blog on MySpace, and conducting research on art galleries and health issues. Another plaintiff contends that NCRL blocks access to its magazine Women and Guns, which covers such topics as self-defense, recreational shooting, and weapons-related legal issues.

It is important for libraries to develop an Internet Use Policy and then ensure that any filter they use supports that policy but does not block any more than necessary. This means library staff must regularly monitor the block list and tune the filter as needed. Most filters allow administrators to add websites to a so-called white list. When a filter is overblocking, add the site to the white list to protect the library from complaints just like this one. Also, be sure you have a policy for disabling the filter and make sure appropriate staff know that policy and can disable the filter for adults who request it.

Posted by at 3:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

November 5, 2006

Automatically Annotating Images

Two researchers at Penn State have developed a tool for automatically associating keywords with images. In their article "Real-Time Computerized Annotation of Pictures," authors Jia Li (Associate Professor, Department of Statistics) and James Wang (Associate Professor,College of Information Sciences and Technology), say their ALIPR system (Automatic Linguistic Indexing of Pictures-Real Time) analyzes the pixel content of images and compares that against a stored knowledge base of the pixel content of tens of thousands of image examples. The computer then suggests a list of 15 possible annotations or words for the image.

If an Internet content filter isn't using this yet, I bet it will soon. You can try out the ALIPR system and enjoy the beautiful pictures while you're there!

[This story courtesy of LibraryLink of the Day]

Posted by at 8:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

September 11, 2006

DOPA and the Library 2.0 Gang

Forgot to mention that I participated in the DOPA discussion with the Library 2.0 Gang. Quite a nice group to be rubbing virtual elbows with....the one hour discussion is available in mp3 format.

The Library 2.0 Gang is a Talis creation...you know, the guys who wrote Do Libraries Matter? TheRise of Library 2.0.

Posted by at 9:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

August 7, 2006

Seriously, DOPA is bad news

Nancy Willard of the Center for Safe and Responsible Internet Use (csriu.org) wrote a article that was reprinted on blue Skunk Blog
stating clearly that DOPA is nothing more than Republican posturing. She paints this picture of the ad campaign against any Democrat who opposes DOPA:

(Candidate's name) voted against Deleting Online Predators Act -- a law intended to keep children safe from predators online. If (candidate) is not dedicated to protecting your children from Internet predators, how can you expect him or her to effectively address other important concerns?

Willard then goes on to provide some very solid reasons Democrats (or anyone) can use to argue that DOPA should be canned including:

1) DOPA is so vague that it will be deemed unconstitutional
2) DOPA is duplicative of CIPA - if schools consider a specific site 'harmful to minors' they can use their existing filter software and the CIPA legislation to justify blocking the site.
3) "Any place that kids congregate to communicate will attract predators" and it is impossible to block all possible avenues for online communication.
4) "Any moderately intelligent middle school student" can proxy around a school's filter and it is impossible to block all the proxies that might be used.
5) There is already too much reliance on filtering technology for controlling kid's use of the Internet. "What is needed in schools is a stronger focus on educational use of the Internet and more effective monitoring, including technical monitoring."
6) Another piece of legislation, COPA (a criminal law that requires sites with adult materials to have age verification) can only be passed (per a previous Supreme Court ruling) if the DOJ can prove that filtering is ineffective. That puts the government's CIPA and DOPA legislation in a bit of a bind.

There's lots of great info on DOPA and the reasons it should not come to fruition and Willard hits on most of them. Also see the YALSA DOPA Wiki for some good resources on social networking, DOPA, the law and an excellent "MySpace for Parents" article.

And now, here's my new contribution to the argument: Blocking MySpace will provide incentive for kids to learn how to get around filters. Until now, there's been enough alternative sites for kids to use to accomplish their goals (shop, communicate, play games, etc) so they haven't needed to bother with proxies and other new, savvy ways to bypass the Internet filters. But there is no space like MySpace, and if libraries and schools start blocking MySpace with their filters, even the 'good kids' are going to find their way around it.

The technology savvy will use one of the many ways to get around filters described here and the less savvy will just go to the mall, park outside someone's house or go to Starbucks to get online without restriction and without supervision.

DOPA is the best way to motivate our youth to learn better ways to get around filters and to keep their online activities hidden from responsible adults.

Instead of filtering, kids need mentoring, guidance, supervision and encouragement. They are going to explore the cyberworld with or without our help. Why not give them the resources they need to make intelligent decisions about what is fun and what is dangerous and increase the chances that they will navigate safely.

Posted by at 12:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

June 26, 2006

Connecticut Library Group Protects Patron Records

"Everyone has the responsibility to make sure the government plays by the rules."
George Christian, Executive Director of Library Connection

Last sumer The Library Connection (a consortium of 26 Connecticut libraries) received the infamous "National Security Letter" asking for everything they had on one public access computer (based on the IP address) on one day for a period of 45 minutes (see the The Letter here).

With help from the American Civil Liberties Union, the Library Connection managed to fight the request. First they focused on fighting the gag provision (you can't tell a soul you got one of the NSL letters). Ultimately, the government gave up the fight and dropped the request altogether.

Per Ann Beeson, Associate Legal Director of the ACLU. "While the government's real motives in this case have been questionable from the beginning, their decision to back down is a victory not just for librarians but for all Americans who value their privacy."

More here.

Posted by at 3:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

June 19, 2006

DynaComm i:Filter and i:Scan

Microsoft seems to be getting more involved in the Internet content security world. They recently purchased FutureSoft's DynaComm i:Filter product. Here's is Microsoft's explanation of their upcoming plans in the area of security and filtering.

That leaves FutureSoft with only two products: DynaComm i:Mail and i:Scan. i:Mail scans emails in and out of the network for spam and content - not something libraries need. But i:Scan looks interesting.....

According to FutureSoft, i:Scan is a desktop management and control tool that allows administrators to recognize peer-to-peer and instant messaging threats, and spyware infections. i:Scan can be used to lockdown desktops including defining what files can run and who can run them, and it can be used to control the use of USB devices. It also has an image scanning module that "detects pornographic images".

The FutureSoft i:Scan Adult Image Scanner supposedly goes beyond other image analysis tools that just detect too much skin tone. This product is "able to compare the 'context' of the image." While I have my doubts about how accurate this product really is, if it works at least as well as your basic Internet content filter, it might be worth a try because it is a better CIPA match insofar as it is focused on images, not text. I'm intrigued.

If your library runs Windows 2000 Pro/Server or Windows XP Pro with IIS or Windows 2003 Server with IIS you have what it takes to try this product out. They offer a trial version you can download from here. With the centralized console for managing desktops plus the image analyzer, it does offer some potentially handy features for libraries even though it is clearly marketing to the business market.

If anyone tries it out, I'd love to hear what you think.

Posted by at 8:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

May 26, 2006

DOPA Should Die Quick and Painless Death

I couldn't agree with Mary Minow more when she says that DOPA should die a quick and painless death. As she notes, despite the fact that it is blatantly unconstitutional, that doesn't mean it won't pass. DOPA stands for Deleting Online Predadators Act of 2006 (H.R. 5319). But it doesn't delete online predators at all. It deletes social networking for kids. Yes, as in MySpace, the hottest thing since iPods debuted.

DOPA seeks to add social networking websites to the list of things that must be filtered out if libraries are to receive E-Rate funds.

Mary posted a copy of the letter she's sending to her legislator because he's on the Subcommittee that is currently looking into DOPA. If yours is, feel free to borrow from Mary...I'm confident she wouldn't mind.

Posted by at 4:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

May 17, 2006

New Comprehensive Filter Report Available

The Brennan Center for Justic (NYU) has released Internet Filters: A Public Policy Report, 2nd Edition. It is written by Marjoire Heins, Christina Cho and Ariel Feldman. You may have heard about the original version of this report when it came from the Free Expression Policy Project (FEPP). The FEPP is now part of the Brennan Center.

This new report summarizes studies done on the effectiveness of Internet filters pre-2001 and post 2001. Unfortunately, there isn't much new to report but it is handly to have all the information in one place and it does provide some good recommendations for those of you using filters.

Highlights:

"There are much more effective ways to address concerns about offensive Iinternet content. Filters provide a false sense of security, while blocking large amounts of important information in an often irrational or biased way. Although some may say that the debate is over and that filters are now a fact of life, it is never too late to rethink bad policy choices."

"Ultimately, as the National Research Council observed in a 2002 report, less censorial approaches such as media literacy and sexuality education are the only effective ways to address concerns about young people's access
to controversial or disturbing ideas."

"Filters erect barriers and taboos rather than educating youth about media literacy and sexual values. They replace educational judgments by teachers and librarians with censorship decisions by private companies that usually do not disclose their operating methods or their political biases, and that often make misleading, if not false, marketing claims."

Their list of recommendations match very closely with what I recommended in Filtering and Filter Software but unlike my work which costs $63, this new report is free to download:

Avoid filters manufactured by companies whose blocking categories reflect a particular ideological viewpoint. These may be appropriate for home or church use, but not for public libraries and schools.
Choose filters that easily permit disabling, as well as unblocking of particular wrongly blocked sites.
Only activating the sexually explicit or similar filtering category, since only requires blocking of obscenity, child pornography, and harmful to minors material, all of which must, under the law, contain prurient or lascivious sexual content.
Establish a simple, efficient process for changing incorrect or unnecessary settings.
Promptly and efficiently disable filters on request from adults, or, if permitted by the portion of that applies to them, from minors as well.
Configure the default block page - what the library user sees when a URL is blocked - to educate the user on how the filter works and how to request disabling.
Develop educational approaches to online literacy and safety. Despite the superficial appeal of filters, they are not a solution to concerns about pornography or other questionable content online. Training, sex education, and media literacy are the best ways to protect the next generation.

Download the Report

Posted by at 9:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

January 16, 2006

Filters Work....kinda not

Thought this was an ironic combination...American Libraries Online January 13, 2006 issue reports that L.A. County has decided to spend $300,000 on Internet filters. Meanwhile, Groton, Connecticut reports that their filtered Internet terminals may have been used to download child pornography (police are investigating it now).

I offer these random thoughts:

1) Filters don't do much better than 80-85% at blocking what you want them to block while not blocking anything else. And that's only the good ones. In other words, filters are not exactly precision tools.

2) There is no such thing as a CIPA-compliant filter (which Groton believes they have). That is unless someone has come up with a universal definition of 'obscene' while I was out of town.

3) The investigation in Groton resulted from library staff reporting the guy doing the downloading. In other words, the filter was useless in this case.

4) I sure hope L.A. County doesn't spend $300,000 on software. Filters filter based on categories and/or on-the-fly keyword analysis. To get them to be CIPA-compliant-like, you have to buy a good one and you have to decide what you want it to do and then spend lots of time configuring and tweaking it so that it matches your policies. And then you have to monitor what its actually doing. The price of the software is probably less than half the cost of of filtering -- if it's done right. And that's just the first year.

It's not that I think filters can't be useful, they can help in certain situations. But library trustees, city council members, library staff and the public need to be a bit more realistic about what they can and can't do and respond accordingly.

Posted by at 3:46 PM | Permalink

July 11, 2005

Consumer Reports: " All filtering programs either overblock or underblock. "

Consumer Reports has come out with a useful evaluation of Internet filters for home use entitled Filtering software: Better but still infallible" (June 2005).

Here are some highlights:

Internet filters are better at detecting porn but not so hot at detecting (and therefore blocking) hate sites and sites promoting illegal drug use and violence, or even sites that teach weapons-making.
The better the product blocks porn, the more likely it is to block sites about health, sex education, civil rights, and politics.
"Most unwarranted blocking occurred with sites featuring sex education or gender-related issues."

In a Good for You! move, Consumer Reports made three good recommendations for parents wishing to learn more about protecting kids online.

ALA's Safety Tips
The FBI's "A Parent's Guide to Internet Safety,"
GetNetWise.org (a site I've always recommended).

[Unfortunately, they also recommended some alarmist website that seems to exist for the sole purpose of pointing users to NetNanny. Not so good for you, CR.]

All in all, though, the article is a good read for parent's needing information on keeping their kids safe online.

Posted by at 2:24 PM | Permalink

May 2, 2005

ACLU Report Indicates Libraries Don't Know What They Are Blocking

I briefly reported on the ACLU Report Reader's Block: Internet Censorship in Rhode Island Public Libraries. Now I've read it more closely and have a bit more to say about it. Today I'll just comment on Section V of the report, Filter Settings.

The report explains that members of Rhode Island's Cooperating Libraries Automated Network (CLAN) were given the oppoportunity to use Websense for their filtering needs. Each participating library was allowed to use the CLAN's default "block" categories or to choose their own categories. The default categories were Sex, Adult Content and Nudity.

In surveys conducted by the ACLU, library directors were asked which categories they had chosen to block. The report states that many of the survey respondents did not list real Websense categories in their responses. Instead, it sounds as if they responded with a description of what they HOPED they were blocking: "porno", "graphic sexual content", "languages and images deemed obscene as defined in Section 1460...." Many of these library directors reported that they felt they were blocking the minimum required for CIPA compliance.

Wrong.

If you really want to block the minimum necessary, you can't include Websense's Nudity as one of your categories which is described (by Websense) as follows:

Sites that offer depictions of nude or semi-nude human forms, singly or in groups, not overtly sexual in intent or effect.

In addition, you must modify the filter's block list to eliminate the sites that are sex-related but not obscene. Websense won't do that for you. See Mary Minow's explanation for a definition of "obscenity", "child pornography" and "harmful to minors."

And finally, you must also monitor what your filter is blocking to correct Websense errors (my personal belief is that you can assume they are wrong 15% of the time) and to make sure your know what your filter is REALLY doing.

Posted by at 2:17 PM | Permalink

April 22, 2005

ACLU Checking Filters in Libraries

American Libraries Online alerts us to the newly released "Readers Block: Internet Censorship in Rhode Island Public Libraries," a report by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

I haven't read the 21 page report yet but the AL Online piece states that the report finds "some libraries block material beyond the minimum needed for CIPA compliance"....SURPRISE!

My personal opinion is that EVERY library using a filter is blocking material beyond the minimum required by CIPA. Possibly underblocking as well.

The only way this filter thing is going to work out is if libraries monitor their filters.

I've now officially added an item to the list of consulting services I provide: Evaluate Internet Filters. Someone's gotta do it!

The other option is to just wait for the ACLU or the Traditional Values Coalition to get around to you.

Posted by at 5:54 PM | Permalink

March 25, 2005

Half Full - Filtering in UK Libraries

I received an email from a library student, Jennifer Meharg, in the U.K. who found that libraries in her part of the world were not filtering according to their Internet Use Policy. She suggested her findings suggested my "half-empty" analysis was probably closer to the truth (see Filter Effectiveness - Who Cares?).

Meharg reported that she visited five libraries with URLs and topics in hand. Her goal was to conduct research on her topics and to try to visit each of the 72 URLs from a public access computer in each library. Despite the fact that her research was not in violation of any of the libraries' Internet Use Policies, she found many of her attempts to access the information blocked by the filters.

She further stated, "I am truly appalled at the speed with which filtering has taken hold here and even more shocked at the lack of debate. Unlike the ALA, our professional organisation CILIP has been very weak and has not taken any kind of leadership position on the issue of filtering. Perhaps even more shocking is the level of complacency I've encountered, never mind the complete abdication of responsibilty to IT departments."

I hope to receive a copy of the Meharg's dissertation and if she doesn't mind, I'll share it. Sounds like she might be doing some good work over yonder. Keep at it, Jennifer!

Posted by at 4:42 PM | Permalink

March 23, 2005

Compare Filters - Compare Features

I've made some improvements to the libraryfiltering.org page that I hope you'll check out. It ain't perfect by any means but I hope you'll find it more useful.

The most important change is that you can now select the filters you want to compare AND the filter features you want to compare, then display it all in one view.

With over 55 features to choose from, I wanted visitors of the site to be able to select the features they cared most about rather than being limited to my preset views. And with over 20 filters now listed (finally Websense is in there!), it also seems important to limit your view to the products you've narrowed in on rather than being restricted to right-scrolling hell.

Sure, most people have filters already. But I figure filters are going to be like Integrated Library Systems. You'll keep them for a long time and finally, in a big, ugly migration, you'll switch over to something you're sure has got to be better than what you've got.

Compare filters and features now!

Posted by at 9:25 AM | Permalink

March 18, 2005

Filter Effectiveness - Who Cares?

Is it just me or does it seem like the whole library world kind of rolled over on the filtering issue? Seems like filtering of children's computers, and sometimes all public access computers, has become just a normal part of operations. How did that happen so fast?

I know some states have passed, or threatened to pass, CIPAesque laws. Kansas and Washington spring immediately to mind. But shouldn't we still be talking about the problems with filters? I mean, they don't work a whole lot better than they did a year ago yet no one is complaining anymore.

The half-full interpretation of this phenomenon is that everyone is finally paying attention to the importance of closely monitoring the work of their filter -- making sure it is blocking only what they mean for it to block and allowing everything else through. It could mean that people are spending time to tweak and tune their filters to conform to their Internet Use Policy and that the public is aware that filtering is in place and understands and accepts the Internet Use Policy.

The half-empty interpretation is that the whole filtering thing was too much trouble to fuss about. Since patrons don't seem to complain about filters (even when they block the wrong sites), why spend a lot of time worrying about it. I hope that's not the case but fear it is.

I guess I should take heart from the fact that the legislators in Kansas are not just demanding filters; they are demanding filters that are 80% effective. I'm intrigued by this idea. I have tested "filter effectiveness" and in fact I offered to do it for the folks in Kansas. I think its a great idea and its a way to ensure that my half-full interpretation of where we are with filters is the right one. But how do you do it?

Filter effectiveness has to be tested against your Internet Policy. To test, you have to identify sites that SHOULD be blocked and sites that SHOULD NOT be blocked based on your policy. This may sound easy but it isn't. Ideally you find sites that are obvious but its also important to find sites that can easily confuse filters. So you have to understand how they work. And it isn't as simple as turning on the "BLOCK CIPA SITES" category since there is no such thing. Filter configuration is work, its trial and error.

How effective is your Internet filter? And more importantly, do you care?

Posted by at 11:01 AM | Permalink

June 29, 2004

COPA Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court has struck down the Child Online Protection Act . Says Kennedy "For now, the law, known as the Child Online Protection Act, would sweep with too broad a brush."

Yippeee!

Via WEB4LIB, courtesy of Don Wood, ALA Intellectual Freedom Committee.

Posted by at 8:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

June 22, 2004

Lotso State Filtering Laws

If you haven't seen this yet, you should check it out to see if your state has laws IN ADDITION to CIPA that you have to pay attention to.....

The National Conference of State Legislatures has put up a site called Children and the Internet: Laws Relating to Filtering, Blocking and Usage Policies in Schools and Libraries.

Per this site, there are laws on the books in 13 states that apply to libraries including: Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Utah, Virginia and Texas.

Most of the rules seem to reinforce the CIPA rules insofar as they require installing something to prevent children from viewing obscene images. But some of the states use broader language such as "sexually explicit material" or "pornography" in place of "obscenity". This means blocking a lot more content than you are required to block for CIPA.

So be sure to check out what your state has on the books when you configure your filter. It would be a shame to go to all the trouble of figuring out how to minimally comply with CIPA -- which isn't easy -- and then get in trouble with a state law.

[Found this site on WebJunction in their CIPA and Filtering area under Additional Resources]

Posted by at 8:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

June 15, 2004

ILS Companies Starting to Bring On Filters

Of course, I've got to say I told you so because I did....

"The release of filter modules by the integrated library systems (ILS) is another likely development in the filter market..." [from Chapter 5: What's Next For Library Filtering?, Library Technology Reports, March-April 2004 by moi].

So Dynix has "chosen ContentWatch as filtering provider" per the listing in New Product News, Public Libraries March/April 2004.

Never heard of ContentWatch? Well go to my summary of this product at libraryfiltering.org to learn more about it.

If you decide you'd rather learn about it from their website, be advised that they refer you to two filter reviews that ranked their filter as #1. Turns out the "filter reviews" are nothing more than filter resellers who evidently also sell CyberSitter and NetNanny which, coincidently, also rank very high in their "reviews."

Posted by at 11:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

April 30, 2004

You found WHAT on our public access computer??!!!

I was recently told the story of a library that uses a highly-regarded Internet filter (even I think highly of it) and yet were stunned to find child pornography stashed on one of their public access computers.

"How could this happen???" the library staff cried.

Well, the thing is...Internet filters ONLY filter the stuff that comes in over the Internet via Web browsing. That's one thing. And the other thing is....patron's files should NEVER be saved on a public access computer!

Think of the browser as the door to your library. Your library also has some big windows that can be used to bringing in lots of nasty stuff. Examples of "windows" include:

floppy drive
CD drive
DVD drive
email
FTP
IM

Floppy, CD and DVD drives can be used to bring in files to your system. Once that file comes in, you have to control where it gets saved and for how long. As far as things you can't control....if email and IM are made available to patrons, users can attach files from their CD or floppy and send them off to their friends (or enemies).

Here are some things you CAN and SHOULD do with your Public Access Computers:

1. Always delete all user files, cookies, history and cache files between each user's session. This is the best way to protect yourself and your patrons. Any nasties that are saved or downloaded get blown away at the end of the session and the next user arrives to a pristine environment. Check out Public Web Browser for help with this.

2. Use a program that ends the session after a certain amount of time or after a period of inactivity to ensure that sessions do end. This way n'er do wells can't come in, load an alarming page into the browser, walk away and enjoy the reaction. Setting the timer to restart the session after some number of minutes of inactivity will spoil their fun. (Be sure to warn patrons this feature is enabled so they don't leave work on the screen and expect it to be there in 10 minutes after they return from the stacks!) Check out Public Web Browser for help with this, too.

3. Only allow programs to run that you've predefined. In other words, you know the programs you've installed for your patrons: Word, Excel, Paint, Waldo....using a product like WinSelect, you can define which .exe files can be run on your computer. Once implemented, no other executable files will be allowed to run. This means that even if someone copies an executable file to the hard drive, gets one via an attachment or tries to run an executable from their floppy...it ain't gonna work. It takes some work upfront to do this, but it's worth it.

4. Ensure your virus scanner is up-to-date and active all the time AND that it scans any exernal drives such as floppies, CDs and DVDs as soon as they are accessed.

5. Using your firewall, router or Internet filter (not all Internet filters have this ability), make sure you have control over who can use protocols such as telnet, FTP and IRC. Chances are there are only a few PCs that need to use one or more of these protocols so you should be able to close these windows. You should certainly be able to close them off to patrons.

And hey, be careful out there.

Posted by at 2:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

April 15, 2004

Sharing Library-Appropriate Filtering Services

Excellent article in the April 2004 issue of Computers in Libraries about the Kanguard filtering system available to Kansas public libraries that choose to opt in to the free, state library provided service.

I learned about it when I was researching my filtering paper for Library Technology Reports and was delighted to hear about at least one region working together to make something that works for libraries.

The article "Building and Running a Collaborative Internet Filter is Akin to a Kansas Barn Raising" (by Thomas M. Reddick) steps you through the process of installing Squid and Squidguard and identifies the other programs and settings necessary for actually making the whole thing work for multiple libraries. For example, the author describes how he configured the server so that each participating library gets its own public IP address to ensure that their database vendors will continue to recognize their authenticated users. It is also a wonderful example of some Best Practices put into use....

Filter Maintenance Committee
I also very much apppreciated the process Kansas implemented for determing what sites go on the "always block" and "never block" lists and how they keep patrons involved. They use a committee of "professional librarians who [are] well versed in CIPA and filtering issues" to ensure they have what they want on the block lists. Excellent.

Patron Involvement
And they provide a block page that links to a form the patrons can fill out if they disagree with the blocking (or not) of a particular site. Here's the text of the block page but note that it isn't linked in this sample to the actual form - darnit. Note the friendly tone and useful information. Hooray!

Easy For Staff to Disable Filter
One of the complaints I've had with Squidhard as implemented in some libraries is that it requires resetting the proxy server settings to disable it. This is not practical nor adequate (see Mary Minow's muy fabuloso article on the criticality of being able to easily disable filters). Well, the Kansas folks remedied that issue with a simple little script that librarians can run by clicking on an icon. I'm not sure how the filter gets re-enabled but I'm hoping that they've concocted something equally simple or better yet, made it reenable itself after some period of time.

If you don't have a subscription to Computers in Libraries, pick up the April 2004 issue at your local library.

Posted by at 11:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

April 9, 2004

Mary Minow on Disabling Filters

As promised, here's the link to Mary Minow's First Monday article Lawfully Surfing the Net: Disabling Public Library Internet Filters to Avoid More Lawsuits in the United States.

The title says it all but if that isn't clear enough for you, here's an excerpt from the conclusion:

Disabling procedures should be either readily administered at the branch level (without undue delay) or self?service upon certification by patrons that they are 17 or over (for disabling) or any age (for unblocking). Self?service could take the form of automated disabling (for adults), "soft?blocking" (warning?instead?of?blocking for adults) or click?a?librarian remotely for either disabling or unblocking (for adults or children). Unless the librarian has reason to believe the site has images of child pornography, obscenity or "harmful to minors" material, the request should be met as quickly as possible.

Someone once described Mary Minow as a "state treasure." I couldn't agree more. Thanks for a great article, Mary, on a difficult topic.

Posted by at 10:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

March 22, 2004

Self Selecting "Filter Disabled" and Using "Warn" Instead of "Block"

I'm delighted to report that Mary Minow is publishing an article on the whole issue of disabling filters and CIPA compliance. It will appear in First Monday very soon.

In Filtering and Filter Software, I couldn't adequately cover the myriad issues associated with disabling the filters for patrons because not enough legal analysis had yet been done on the issue -- the Supreme Court decision was a bit too new. Also, I'm not a lawyer so I needed to steer a bit clear of the issue.

I did advise people to select a filter that

could be easily turned off entirely
enabled staff to easily allow access to a single blocked page
enabled staff to easily allow certain blocked categories.

In addition to being easy, I recommended looking for filters that enable staff to set a override duration for each of the above so you wouldn't have to worry about turning the filter back on.

Adults Self Select "Filter Disabled"

But Mary (and presumably others) are coming to the consensus that libraries are relatively safe allowing adult patrons to turn off filters for themselves and leave the staff out of it!

Mary's First Monday article evaluates all the law that brings her to this conclusion so please get a copy right away and send it to your legal counsel. If you haven't set up your public access computers such that adults can choose for themselves whether they want to be filtered, please do so soon. Save yourself the headaches.

One caveat, depending on your library, you may need to validate adult users somehow before giving them the option to browse unfiltered. This is easy if your Internet terminals are tied to your circulation system since the age of the patron can be determined automatically when they swipe their card for access. If you don't have a handy tie-in to your circulation, you may have to set up a page that asks the user to state their birthdate (or something like that) and then gives them the option to browse unfiltered as appropriate for their age.

Warn Instead of Block

This also opens up the possibility of allowing "warn" instead of "block" for adult patrons. Instead of automatically blocking content in a certain category, you can set your filter to "warn" the user about the category the content falls into and allow the end user to judge for themselves whether to go to a different page or view the current page anyway.

This approach is ideal because it relieves the library of the problem of blocking protected speech which they will do by selecting a category of content to block such as those that are typically available (pornography, sexually explicit, gambling, hate). While these categories may sound undesireable, they are all constitutionally protected so even blocking pornography can get you in trouble. Blocking "child pornography" and "obscene images" would be safe (Constitution-wise) but I haven't seen a filter yet that had those categories.

But with warn, patrons could browse as they normally would and if they bumped into something possibly unseemly, it would be their choice to skip it or view it -- and they could make that decision based on the information provided by the filter such as:

Warning www.iwannaknow.org has been categorized as "pornography" to access this page, press F5

To go back, press Enter

That's just an example of how it could work. But the great thing is that it leaves more responsibility in the hands of the patron. I'd rather they had more choice in how to interpret the filter's work than leaving all the responsibility in the hands of the librarian. Afterall, definitions of what is offensive and even what is obscene are ulimately a subjective decision so someone else can't really make that decision for you -- assuming you're 17 or older that is.

Posted by at 11:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

March 17, 2004

Why I Hate Keyword Blocking

Here's a good example of what is wrong with keyword blocking. Flesh Public Library in Ohio blocked their own domain because they had keyword blocking turned on. Here's the story. They use Net Nanny which does allow for keyword blocking to be disabled and it should be....always. Keyword blocking never works. Maaaaaybe it would be acceptable with a very very very short list of words to block but even then, I don't recommend it.

The truly sad thing about this story is that the library chose to change the URL to their website instead of turning off keyword blocking! What about taking the word "flesh" out of the keyword list! Deargod, is this what libraries are doing out there?????

By the way, I picked this story up from the Travelin' Librarian's weblog.

Posted by at 8:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (5)

March 16, 2004

My debut as published author

Filtering and Filter Software - the dynamically titled manuscript I authored for ALA's Library Technology Reports is now out and available. Turns out it was a labor of love more than anything else. Here's why...(from the intro):

I do not take the position that filters should not be used in libraries. Nor do I take the position that filters should be used in libraries. Management of Internet access, including the use of filters or not, is a decision most appropriately made by each library based on the needs of the local community.

I come to this issue recognizing the importance of the U.S. Constitution and the protections provided, particularly by the Bill of Rights. These protections are under attack and all citizens, not just librarians, are obligated to challenge policies that legitimize censorship or lead to loss of privacy.

Fear pervades our culture and drives our policies today?fear of international terrorism, fear of online predators, fear of people and values different from our own. Laws such as the Children?s International Protection Act (CIPA) and the USA PATRIOT Act have emerged in response to these fears. Some people are of the mistaken belief that technology can solve problems that are better addressed with education, training, celebration of diversity, and policies that encourage cooperation and understanding rather than mistrust and isolation.

I also come to this issue as a technologist who is painfully aware of the limits of technology. I see software companies market their filtering products as CIPAcompliant and as filter solutions when they are, at best, imperfect responses to a complex, highly subjective problem.

The values represented by our libraries and the services being provided in our
libraries are critical to our society. Literacy, access to information, tolerance,
love of learning, community?these values are all represented in library programs. Thankfully, as fear pervades other institutions, libraries continue to focus on the positive.

Librarians face many decisions regarding filtering. They can eschew E-rate
discounts or they can comply. They can attempt to follow the letter of the law
or they can use filters to block obscenity, child pornography, and more.
How any given library responds to these choices must be made locally. This
report clarifies the issues associated with filtering in libraries and provides the
information each library needs to decide whether to filter, and if applicable
how to do it in a way that conforms to library values.

Posted by at 2:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

February 13, 2004

Facts about Filters

Sometimes when people talk about the problems with using filters in libraries they get some of the facts wrong or don't quite tell the whole story. I think it is because they want to make filters sound as perfectly awful as possible.

The fact is, there are very good reasons against the idea that libraries must filter. It's not necessary to exaggerate the negative aspects of filters to make the point that there are significant problems implementing them in a library setting.

That said, there are some scenarios where filters can be put to good use. The real trick is to understand how they work and use them appropriately -- not as the way to protect children from all the dangers they might encounter on the Internet (which CIPA implies can be done), but possibly as one tool.

The real problem with CIPA is that it mandates libraries use filters instead of allowing libraries to address the issues in the way that makes sense for their communities. And the fact that ALL computers must be filtered -- how is filtering a staff computer going to protect children from obscenity again?

Anyway, here are some facts to consider:

There is no CIPA-compliant filter--by choosing any category to block, the library is blocking more content than would be legally defined as obscenity, child pornography or "harmful to minors."
Many filter companies allow the administrator to see the URLs in each category -- its only the most well-known ones that don't.
No filter is going to be 100% effective at preventing access to sexually explicit content, especially when the end user is trying hard to find it and/or is a even a little bit Internet savvy.
Filters can prevent children from using online email, peer-to-peer file sharing, and downloading -- all of which are ways that pornography is distributed -- but the filters can't distinguish between when the file being shared is a homework assignment or a collection of obscene pictures.
Some filters can block the visual depictions (images) on a page, and only do so for certain selected categories of content. So, for example, if the filter had a content category called "CIPA" one could choose to block images only in the CIPA category. The problem is that no filters have a CIPA category.
Filtering staff computers isn't going to help protect children from accessing inappropriate content. And it just makes it more difficult for staff to monitor the accuracy of their filter and it costs the library more in "per-seat" licenses. This is criminal!
There's no pracical difference between the requirement that an authorized representative can disable a filter for an adult versus that same adult disabling the filter for themselves. Therefore, what's wrong with mandating that each library offer some percentage of filtered computers to their patrons to ensure that adults always have the choice to browse filtered or unfiltered. Children should be able to browse unfiltered too -- if their parents have authorized them to do so. Giving patrons options eliminates the requirement that librarians get involved in turning off filters. First Amendment freedoms would be alive and well at the unfiltered Internet computers.
No library has to buy an Internet filter that doesn't allow them to view the URLs being blocked. They can use open source filters such as Squidguard and Dan's Guardian -- which are free -- and maintain their own block list. Such lists can be created from lists publically available such as URLblacklist.com or other libraries using these same products.
Maintaining your own block list of sites your patrons have accessed which you (or a designated representive) think are illegal is no more troublesome than installing an expensive Windows server with an expensive filter on it and worrying about maintaining the server, dealing with the issues associated with disabling the filter on request and correcting the overblocks. By taking responsibility for your own block list, you can virtually eliminate the need to unblock erroneously blocked pages, and ensure that any illegal sites being accessed by your patrons are blocked within a day a two by regularly analyzing the server's logs. Both approaches demand work if they are to be implemented responsibly. It's just a matter of deciding where to put your time and effort.

Posted by at 11:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (10)

January 29, 2004

Key Filter Features

When shopping for a filter, there are a few key features to keep an eye out for, IMHO. Here they are:

Customizable Block Page
The page that comes up when a patron encounters a blocked page is their first exposure to the filter so it is important to make the experience as positive as possible. Lots of filters allow for a good deal of flexibility on the block page. I recommend -- at the very least -- that you include the URL of the site that is blocked as well as the category that caused the block. In addition, be sure to tell the blocked patron what their options are: how they get the page unblocked, how do they turn off the filter, where do they go for help, why is there a block at all???!! -- use the block page to provide this type of useful information.
Flexibile Override Features
It is important to decide whether you want to be able to override a single blocked page by walking up to the patron's workstation or if you'd rather allow patrons to submit a request anonymously. Different products provide very different ways to override blocked sites. Look for the product that allows you to do it the way you want to do AND which offers some key flexibility such as being able to set the amount of time the override will be in effect and the extent of the override - does it apply to the individual page, the entire domain, the entire category that caused the block, the entire filter.
Accurate Block List
Make sure the list of sites your library is blocking is really what you say it is. If you are using a product that doesn't allow you to see the URLs in the categories you are blocking, then it is important to monitor the block list to make sure you aren't blocking more sites than you think you are. Using your own block list, with sites you are sure you mean to block, is the best way to ensure you are not blocking content beyond what your IUP states.
Feedback from Patrons
Some filters make it easier to gather feedback from the patrons about how the filter is working for them. Perhaps you can use the block page to give patrons the option to ask you to review how a site was categorized or blocked to see about changing it....or if not through the filter, design a Filter Feedback Form that allows patrons to comment on how the filter is working. Give them the chance to anonymously tell you about sites that were blocked that they wished hadn't been, and visa versa.
Ability to Manage Categories
If you are using a product that gives you a list of categories to choose for blocking, you need to have a way to manage those lists. Inevitably, some sites are going to be blocked that shouldn't be because the filter made a mistake. Some sites are going to blocked that you don't think should have been because you disagree with the filter company's assessment of the page. Look for products that allow you to view URLs in each category, add your own categories, move URLs from one category to another and rename the categories.
Ability to "Disable" the Filter
Make sure you have a way to turn off the content filter so that when an adult requests free access, you can oblige in a way that is consistent with your Internet Use Policy. This might mean that you don't actually disable the filter entirely but you unblock the categories are are benig blocked based on content. In other words, you might want to keep the filter running so that other activities are not allowed such as chatting or Internet game-playing (if you don't allow such activities on your library computers) but you'll need a way to unblock any constitutionally protected speech for adults who ask you to. A good, flexible override feature can do this for you -- this is a better approach to the "request to turn off filtering" then simply disabling the filter entirely and then worrying about how to get it turned back on later.
Good Reporting Tools
A filter that allows you to easily generate key reports is going to make the job of monitoring your filter a whole lot easier. At the very least, look for filters that can generate a list of all the sites that have been blocked with the categories that caused the block. This is the best way to see how well your filter is working. And if you are maintaining your own block list, you'll need to also scan the accessed sites too, to see if there are any pages being accessed that belong on your block list. Good reporting tools can be a life-saver, but be sure to regularly purge logs and only maintain reports that summarize the data. Be very careful about protecting patron privacy by purging any data that can be tracked back to any individual patron.

Posted by at 8:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

January 23, 2004

States Bringing New -- and Worse -- Filter Legislation

Here's something very scarey -- the state of Washington is cooking up even more substantial filtering laws. House Bill 2747 wants to block not just obscenity and child pornography but anything erotic on all library computers including university libraries.

The bill also calls for the Secretary of State to test three filters to determine if they can block erotic and pornographic material but not educational material. What do you suppose they'll find out?

Thanks to Tamara Georgick, Systems Librarian at the Washington State Library, for bringing this bad news to my attention.

HOUSE BILL 2747

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:

NEW SECTION. Sec.
A new section is added to chapter 43.07 RCW to read as follows:
A computer that:
(1) Is located in a lending library supported by public funds, public school library or media arts center, or in the library of a public institution of higher education;
(2) Can access the internet; and
(3) Is available for use by the public or students, or both;
must have its use policies determined by the facility's governing board. The governing board must adopt policies intended to reduce the ability of the user to access web sites displaying erotic or sexually explicit information or material as defined in chapter 9.68 RCW.

1. NEW SECTION. Sec. A new section is added to chapter 43.07 RCW to read as follows:
2. (1)(a) A pilot program is established to assess the feasibility of installing internet filtering software in libraries or institutions subject to this act, if funding is available.
3. (b) The secretary of state must implement this program and select appropriate filtering software. A minimum of three filtering software programs must be tested.
4. (2) The secretary of state must request institutions to voluntarily participate in the pilot program. Pilot areas shall be located in the north, south, east, and west areas of the state. The secretary of state must make every effort to ensure that one public school and one public library in each area are selected. Participating institutions must have filtering software in place or install recommended filtering software purchased by the state that incorporates web
-filtering technology designed to eliminate or reduce the ability of the computer to access web sites displaying erotic or sexually explicit pictures or any other obscene material as defined by law. Selected software must be able to distinguish between pornographic and obscene web sites and medical research web sites.
1. (3) The secretary of state will evaluate this program. The evaluation must be based on the program's ability to:

(a) Limit or restrict access to sources of information or images that are obscene including hard-core pornography and child pornography;
(b) Limit or restrict access to sources of pornographic information or images that could be harmful to minors; and
(c) Successfully access and not filter legitimate research sites.
(4) Any person blocked from an internet site he or she believes does not contain material that meets the criteria listed in subsection (3)(a) or (b) of this section, and desires to access the internet site, may request that the institution unblock the site. If the institution determines the site does not contain material listed in subsection (3)(a) or (b) of this section, the institution must unblock the site. An adult patron may request unfiltered access to the internet for serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific purposes, and the institution may temporarily disable the blocking software for those purposes.
(5) Medical schools are exempt from the pilot program.
(6) The secretary of state must prepare a report and recommendations and present them to the legislature by December 31, 2004.

Posted by at 8:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

January 20, 2004

KanGuard

Kansas has provided a model for all libraries to follow. Using open source products, Linux and Squidgauard, they are providing free filtering to all public libraries for a narrowly defined collection of websites that a group of librarians believes must be blocked in order to comply with CIPA.

Here's the link: http://skyways.lib.ks.us/KSL/libtech/kanguard

This was a result of some creative software engineers and the support of the State Library.

Hooray for Kansas for getting it right!

Posted by at 7:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (6)

January 16, 2004

Breaking the Law to Comply With CIPA

I woke up realizing that there is no way to strictly comply with CIPA without breaking the law.

I've been pondering the problem that all commercial filters provide categories for blocking pornography, sexually explicit content and other stuff they deem "nasty." But no filter company offers a "CIPA" category which should contain many fewer pages of blocked content than the categories they do offer. There is a lot of constitutionally protected content in a category called "pornography" or "sexually explicity." But a category that contained only "child pornography", "obscenity" and "harmful to minors" should only contain constitutionally protected content to the extent that the "harmful to minors" requirement is met.

Anyway, so I woke up this morning thinking I should just get off my butt and start creating a sharable CIPA list that libraries could contribute to rather than relying on the overbroad categories made available in the filter products currently on the market. All users of Squidgard could use the list, and maybe even some other filters (Web Marshall for example) that allow you to import your own block lists.

Then the voice of Mary Minow entered my brain saying "it is illegal to view -- even for research purposes -- child pornography, in any form."

Sooooo, if I were to compile a list of obscene pages, pages with child pornography, pages that are "harmful to minors" -- as best I could without credentials to legally define any of these things -- I could be promptly arrested for doing so!

It could be argued that there is an inherent flaw in the mandate by CIPA because it puts libraries and schools in the position of looking for illegal material and compiling lists of this illegal material -- an activity which in itself is illegal -- so that they can block access to the illegal material. Catch-22.

Alternatively, they are obligated to use a commercial product that blocks illegal material, but more importantly, undoubtedly also blocks constitutionally protected speech -- which puts the library at risk for being sued on First Amendment grounds. Catch-22, too.

We really have no option to create a true CIPA block list. We are forbidden by law from compiling it. Isn't there a big problem there? Can it possibly be reasonable that libraries be required to use expensive filter products with 60 or 70 categories, each of which blocks way more content than is mandated by CIPA???

In fact, any commercial product that truly seeks out CIPA content by way of responding to their library customers would be in the same boat -- they could be arrested for accessing or viewing child pornography. Therefore, as libraries trying to comply with CIPA, we may never see a filter that really suits our needs.

Therefore, it is impossible to strictly comply with CIPA without breaking the law. Wouldn't that be the definition of bad law?

Posted by at 8:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (13)

January 8, 2004

Content Advisor Plus

I've been asked for some low cost ideas for small libraries who can't afford to lose their E-Rate discounts and so are struggling with a reasonable way to filter the few computers at their library.

Bob Bocher suggested using Content Advisor as a way to filter staff computers though he didn't think this approach would pass muster for patron computers but I'm thinking it might....with a little help.

The deal with content advisor is that is relies on the content providers of the websites to rate themselves according to some rating service such as ICRA . Very few have signed on to the theory which means very few sites are rated.

This means that one important setting in Content Advisor is the one that says "allow all unrated sites" because otherwise, nothing is going to get through. But the good thing is that the sites that do get through, really shouldn't. And the content providers agree. FYI, I recommend ONLY blocking sexual content, Level 4, for CIPA.

And to beef it up a bit, use the other part of the Content Advisor, the Approved List to supplement the meager blocks you'll get with self-rated sites. But I recommend using the Approved List in the negative -- that is as a Block List. Classic Microsoft move to name it Approved List despite the fact that it can also be used as a Disapprove List.

Anyway, add some sites to the Disapprove List to give your Content Advisor a bit more bite. If the kids in the library find some sites you think should be blocked, those are the ones to put on the list. You don't have to have every horrible site known to man in there, you just need to prevent the problems in your library to keep everyone happy.

It's not the simplest solution nor is it the most thorough but it is cheap and you won't be overblocking. That's more than many folks can say.

Posted by at 10:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

December 30, 2003

Project One from Linda Main's Class

I put together a resource page on filtering as Project 1 in Linda Main's class. There's lots of useful information here and I hope to integrate it into my "real" filtering resources page at filtering.galecia.com. Right now, I just have the comparison grid of filter products. Eventually there will be resources like you'll find at the link below AND product information.

But for now, enjoy the resources and enjoy a sample from Linda's very excellent class (LIBR240 at SJSU):

http://galecia.com/pictures/main240/proj1/proj1_index.html

Posted by at 9:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

December 17, 2003

Filter Must Work - No Complaints!

I'm working on my article for Library Technology Reports on library filtering. In researching the article, I'm speaking with library personnel to hear more about their experience with filters.

I'm finding a disturbing trend. The belief that just because patrons don't complain about a blocked site, the filter must be working properly.

Don't count on the teenager looking for information on birth control to ask you to unblock a page.
Don't count on the woman looking for information on getting restraining orders to unblock a page.
Don't count on the new immigrant trying to find government forms to ask you to unblock a page.
Don't count on the gay teenager looking for peer support groups to ask you to unblock a page.

The truth is that the only way to figure out if a filter is blocking what you think it is blocking is to periodically evaluate the logs that show the pages that were blocked and why they were blocked. This is something that should be done on a regular basis.

If you are the library director, I hope you are asking for a report to be delivered to you every two weeks that shows the names of all the new sites that have been blocked...or at least a summary of sites that your filter administrator thinks should be reviewed.

Someone on the library staff needs to review the sites being blocked by your library filter by checking those logs and spot checking the blocked sites from an unfiltered terminal.

If you are configuring your filters correctly, there shouldn't be that many blocked sites unless

a) you have something going on with some of your patrons
(in which case you might want to address the problem more directly), or

b) you have too many categories selected for blocking, or

c) the filter you are using is not right filter for your library, or

d) all of the above.

In addition to encouraging library users of filters to take more responsibility for checking the vendor's work, I'm also going to work with vendors on this issue. I'd like to see a report that gets kicked out each week that summarizes this information with an easy way for the administrator to verify the blocks.

Posted by at 2:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

December 9, 2003

Share Your Filter Experience

I'm working on collecting information about Internet filters that might be viable choices for libraries to use. Step one is to collect information from the vendors about the products. Step Two is to collect information from libraries using those products. I want to get the library point of view on these products. Also, for those of you using open source options suchs as Squidgard, I have to rely on you to help me tease out a feature list. With no vendor pushing the open source products, they are getting short shrift.

Please contact me if you are willing to talk about the Internet filter you are using and how you are using it. Your contribution will be anonymous.

Lori Ayre
(707) 763-6869
LBAyre@galecia.com

Posted by at 12:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

November 14, 2003

Filtering Technology Presentation to Pennsylvania Librarians

I just got back from a Pennsylvania where I spoke to four groups of librarians there on the topic of filtering technology. Bob Bocher was there too. He spoke on CIPA and clarified (to the extent possible) how the rules work.

The text of each of our presentations can be found below:

Posted by at 12:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

November 12, 2003

CIPA Loophole

Did you know that you don't have to comply with CIPA filtering requirements unless you are getting E-Rate discounts on your Internet access, using LSTA money to pay for Internet access, or you are using LSTA money to buy computers that will have Internet access. If you knew that...so far so good. Now, here's the loophole.

If your Internet provider is registered as a common carrier with the FCC, you can get E-Rate discounts on that too, without having to filter. Reason is, FCC considers any data provided by the common carrier as "telecommunications."

Now, can anyone help me figure out who the common carriers are here in California and whether any of them offer Internet access?????

Posted by at 2:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

August 19, 2003

CIPA

Section 1703(a) of CIPA requests that the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) initiate a notice and comment proceeding to determine whether currently available blocking and filtering technologies adequately address the needs of educational institutions. Well, the Report is out and it states that the currently available technology measures do indeed have the capacity to meet most if not all of the needs of educational institutions. Hooray! That's a relief.

[....hopefully you hear the irony in my voice...]

Do you wonder how they came up with that? Well, they relied upon the comments received in response to their notice in the Federal Register. They seemed particularly convinced by the comments of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ). The ACLJ states the following:

"...a vast amount of information has been produced both supporting and criticizing internet filtering devices. In light of this background, the ACLJ recommends that, rather than looking at single advocacy studies conducted by such groups as the ACLU, a better approach is to look at independent lab tests conducted over the past several years by entities that are not interested in either promoting or discouraging filtering software use and that do not conduct research with any specific advocacy goal in mind (except benefitting the consumer)."

The ACLJ then provides Exhibit A (pdf) as an example of a more objective report. Exhibit A, aka "The Facts on Filtering" is written by David Burt of N2H2, one of the biggest filtering companies on the market. In his report, he describes the results of 26 reports done by PC Magazine, PC Week, Consumer Reports, PC World, and others. The results of Mr. Burt's unbiased report seem to have convinced NTIA that filters meet the needs of our schools.

Silly me, I expected NTIA to actually make an effort to evaluate filtering products and offer up some useful feedback....

Posted by at 11:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

July 17, 2003

CIPA Ramifications

Mary Minow did a great presentation today on CIPA and its ramifications. It is available as an archive from Infopeople. One of the very interesting points she made was that the CIPA regs only apply to visual depictions of the various forbidden categories of things. So I emailed Surfcontrol, WebSense, Smartfilter, iPrism, CyberPatrol and Symantec to find out if their filter product could be set up to turn the "blocked" site into a text-only site. Seems possible to me and wouldn't that be a much better solution! Stay tuned.

Posted by at 3:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

July 8, 2003

Filtering and the CIPA

With all the hoopla about the Supreme Court decision to allow CIPA to stand, it is incumbent on all current and potential filter users to learn how Internet content filtering products work. I see post after post on the discussion lists that make it clear to me that people don't know how they work, what options they have for controlling how they work and think one product works the same as another. In some cases, the lack of understanding has to do with the fact that the products are maintained by administrators "upstream" (the county for example).

At any rate, I'd love people to take a peek at the the report I wrote for Infopeople two years ago that describes how many of the commonly used products work and what features to look for and/or be aware of when selecting or administering your filter product.

Start at Filtering: Managing Internet Access to learn what the issues are and how the various products do the job of filtering/censoring/blocking.

Another important concept to understand is that the filter companies each have their own "content categories" and in order to get them to work for you with the least amount of unwanted blocking, you have to take time understanding your product's content categories. I've pulled out the content categories for each of the nine products I reviewed and in some cases the company goes so far as to describe what they mean to include in their categories and provide examples of pages that get blocked when you select that category.

Once you understand the various filtering issues and the features available in different products, check out the Filtering Comparison Chart to see which products have the features that are important to you...such as "can disable keyword blocking," "can selectively enable categories", "can customize block message", "user notified of blocked page", "user provided URL of blocked page", and "override of block page available" just to name a few of my personal favorites. Remember, this info is dated so check the filter companies website for the most current info.

Posted by at 11:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)