To Filter or not to Filter?
Internet Filtering in Public Libraries
Alex Hershey, Kelly Jensen and Janice Kowemy
Public Libraries, 388K.1
October 8, 2007
Overview of Presentation
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Definitions and Legislative History
Arguments For Filtering
Arguments Against Filtering
Ambivalence & Compromise
Available Materials
Questions or Comments?
Sources
What is Internet Filtering?
• “Technology Protection Measure”
• Difference between ‘blocking’ and ‘filtering’
• Blocking - based on URL
• Filtering - based on content of page
How do Filters Work?
Restrict access by:
• comparing to internal database
• comparing to external database
• checking rating assigned by 3rd party
• scanning text based on keywords
• scanning pixels based on tone or color
• looking at source of information
Countless Variables
• Computer v. server level
• Categories of block sites
• could include gambling, ads, smoking, bombmaking, alcohol, etc.
• If and how admins can add or remove sites
• How blocked sites can be overridden
•
•
•
•
admin v. user
If user, through link or w/ password
indefinitely v. time limit
etc.
Timeline of Major Legislation
• CDA - Communications Decency Act (1996)
• COPA* - Child Online Protection Act
(1998)
• CIPA - Children’s Internet Protection Act
(2000)
• ALA challenges CIPA (2001)
• Supreme Court upholds CIPA (2003)
• DOPA - Deleting Online Predators Act
(passed in House, now in Committee)
*not to be confused with COPPA!
CIPA: Up Close
Libraries accepting e-rate discounts must operate:
“…a technology protection measure with
respect to any of its computers with Internet
access that protects against access through
such computers to visual depictions that are
obscene, child pornography, or harmful to
minors”.
-Title XVII, Children’s Internet Protection
However…
• “Whether a school or library blocks and
filters content other than the visual
depictions defined in the law is a local
decision.”
-Boss, R. W. (n.d.). “Meeting CIPA Requirements with Technology.” Internet
Filtering Software. Public Library Association.
Who Falls Where?
(Organizations)
• Anti-Filtering
•
•
•
•
ALA
ACLU
National Coalition Against Censorship
Free Expression Policy Project
• Pro-Filtering
•
•
•
•
SafeLibraries.org
Family Friendly Libraries
Grassroots American Values
Citizens for Community Values
Who Falls Where?
(Individuals)
• Anti-Filtering:
• Nancy Kranich (ALA prez 2000-2001)
• Karen G. Schneider (former dir. of LII, current
Free Range Librarian)
• Vicky Rideout (VP, Kaiser Family Foundation)
• Pro-Filtering:
• Denise Varenhorst (prez of FFL)
• Judy Craft (VP of FFL)
Why Public Libraries Filter?
Overview
•
•
•
•
Political Pressures
Front-line Pressures
Community Influences
Practical Issues
“I used to be against filtering as censorship.
However, the proliferation of obscenity and
violence has changed my opinion. I got tired
of spending my time monitoring screens for
porn and warning users that they were in
violation of library policy. Most adults don’t
want to see it either.”
-Texas Public Librarian
A. Smith, 2006
Why We Filter
• Political Pressures
• Funding sources
• Front-line Pressures
• Employee experience
• Example: Austin Public Library, TX
“As a younger librarian, I was all for freedom of
Internet access to information for all patrons
regardless of age, but after many years (and
many unwanted exposures..), I believe that a
line must be drawn somewhere if our public
libraries are to be a friendly community center
for learning.”
-Texas Public Librarian
A. Smith, 2006
Why We Filter
• Community Influences
• Example: Laguna Public Library, NM
•
•
•
•
•
Family environment
Physical characteristics
Size of library
Layout of the library
Number of employees
Why We Filter
• Practical Pressures
• Willingness of library staff
• Unfocused activities
• Software usability
“I originally was against filtering the
Internet. I thought that people would
not look at pornography in a public
place. I was wrong.”
-Texas Public Librarian
A. Smith, 2006
In Summary
• Public Libraries choose to filter due to:
•
•
•
•
•
Funding pressures
Staff needs
Maintaining a family environment
Physical constraints of the facility
Practical issues
The Case Against Filtering
Overview
- First Amendment Rights
- American Library Association
Stance
- Filter Faults
First Amendment
• “Congress Shall Make No Law Respecting an
Establishment of Religion, or Prohibiting the
Free Exercise Thereof; or Abridging the
Freedom of Speech, or of the Press; or the
Right of the People Peaceably to Assemble,
and To Petition the Government for a Redress
of Grievances” - Bill of Rights, ratified
December 15, 1791
How Does the Internet
Relate?
• Reno v. ACLU, 1997
Limitations
• Miller v. California, 1973
• “Average Person Applying Contemporary
Standards” (ALA First Amendment Court Cases 2007)
• New York v. Ferber, 1982
• Expands Upon Miller v. California, 1973
What About Children?
• Tinker v. Des Moines, 1969
ALA’s Stance
• Supportive of Constitution
• Intellectual Freedom & Library Bill of Rights
• Rights of Children
7 Core Values of the Library
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Equity of Access
Privacy
Democracy
Diversity
Education
Intellectual Freedom
Security
Categories Courtesy of Kranich 2005
Why Filters Won’t Work
•
•
•
•
•
•
Under/Over Blocking
Keeping Up
How They Work
Age
Disabling
Maintenance cost
Categories Courtesy of Kranich, 2004
Under/Over Blocking
• “NO internet filter is 100% effective.
Occasionally an unwanted site may appear to
the user if they make a concerted effort to
find one that does not trigger the filtering
mechanism, and sometimes even if they are
not. […] There are many times when people's
interpretations vary from one another, and for
this reason internet filters frequently err on
the side of caution - if a site may offend
somebody then it is made inaccessible.” www.internet-filtering.net
Under/Over Blocking
• Filters Catch Legitimate Material
• According to FEPR (2004), Keyword Filtering
Blocks “magna cum laude” and “Middlesex”
• Category Blocking is Broad: “Politics”
“Intolerance” and “Alternative Lifestyle” Have
Impacted Research on U. Kansas’s Archie R.
Dyke Library and a Site for Aspiring Dentists
as ‘Adult/Sexually Explicit’, According to
FEPR
Under/Over Blocking
• The government’s own report
suggested 6-15% of blocked sites
shouldn’t have been blocked
Kranich, 2005
Keeping Up With the Internet
• Filters Aren’t Perfect
• Sheer Size of the Internet and Amount of
Material Makes This Impossible
• English and Foreign Languages
How Filters (Don’t) Work
• Non-adaptive to Range of Users
• Understanding
How Filters (Don’t) Work
• Libraries an Emerging Market
• 75 million dollar profit increase over 3 years
(ACLU 2002)
• Not Enough Librarian Control; Key Word
Filters Overly Restrictive; Subjectivity
• Not Enough Research to Make Decisions
Imperfections
• Because Filters are Imperfect, Savvy
Internet Users Can Bypass Them.
• Search “Internet Filtering” on YouTube
and Discover Many Ways to Break
Through the Filters.
Role of Libraries (Age)
• Librarians Do Not Serve In Loco
Parentis
• However, the Supreme Court Decisions
Have Suggested a Role of Librarians
Has Become “Unblocker” (Ratzan 2004)
Age
• “Swimming pools pose some threat to the safety and
wellbeing of children. But swimming pools provide
benefits to their owners - and children - in many
different ways. Technology - in the form of fences
around pools, pool alarms, and locks - can help
protect children from drowning in swimming pools.
However, teaching a child to swim - and when to
avoid pools - is a far safer approach than relying on
locks, fences, and alarms to prevent him or her from
drowning.” -- (NRC, 2001 cited in Kranich, 2004).
Age & Disabling Filters
• False Security
• Parenting
• Problems in Accessing Necessary Information
• Information Literacy
Maintenance Cost
• CIPA & Funding
• Cost of Software, Time Spent
Unblocking, Training, Changing Internet,
Updating Software = ? ? ?
In Summary
• Filtering Violates First Amendment
Rights
• ALA Upholds First Amendment and
Core Value of Intellectual Freedom
• Filters Simply Do Not Work
• Not Developed or Understood Well
• Costs of Filters in Time, Money and
Potential Litigation Not Worth Funding
Ambivalence & Compromise
• “Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.”
• 67.7% of Texas public librarians believe that
the Internet should be filtered for at least
some patrons.
• Around 43% of public libraries filtered to
some extent in 2005.
Checklist for
Internet Use Policy
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ensure that policies speak to access for all.
Involve your library staff, board and Friends group in the policy writing.
Avoid jargon.
Make policies readily available and visible to the public.
Provide an up-to-date code of conduct or etiquette guide for using the
Internet at your library. Also list prohibited behavior and the
consequences of such behavior.
Include a statement addressing patron privacy.
Communicate clearly that users are responsible for what they access
online; parents are responsible for their children's Internet use.
Update your policy regularly, making sure it reflects CIPA.
-Checklist for Creating an Internet Use Policy
Libraries & the Internet Toolkit, Office of Intellectual Freedom, ALA.
Filtering Software 2.0
• e.g., OpenChoice
•
•
•
•
•
Open source
Free
Non-proprietary
Completely transparent
Developed and maintained by volunteer
librarians
Material
• Text of CIPA - www.ifeanet/cipa.pdf
• ALA’s stance - Resolution on the Use of Filtering
Software in Libraries
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/statementspols/statements
policies.htm#internet
• Internet Filtering: Public Policy Report - http://www.
fepproject.org/policyreports/filters2intro.html
Material
(continued)
• PLA: Meeting CIPA Requirements with Technology www.pla.org/ala/pla/plapubs/technotes/interfiltering.cfm
• ALA’s Guidelines and Considerations for Developing a Public
Library Internet Use Policy http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/statementspols/statementspolicies.htm
#internet
• Library Software Filters. Lori Bowen Ayre www.libraryfiltering.org
• Karen G. Schneider’s Practical Guide To Internet Filters, 1997.
Questions or Comments?
References
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). (2002). Censorship in a box: why blocking software is wrong for public libraries. Retrieved September 26,
2007 from: http://www.aclu.org/privacy/speech/14915pub20020916.html.
American Library Association, Intellectual Freedom Committee. (1996). Library Bill of Rights. Retrieved September 27, 2007, from
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/statementspols/statementsif/librarybillrights.htm.
American Library Association, Office for Intellectual Freedom. (2007). First Amendment of the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution.
Retrieved September 26, 2007, from http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/firstamendment/firstamendment.htm.
American Library Association, Office for Intellectual Freedom. (2007). First Amendment court cases. Retrieved September 26, 2007, from
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/firstamendment/courtcases/courtcases.htm#wsu.
Ennis, Bruce. (2001). ALA intellectual freedom policies and the First Amendment. Retrieved September 28, 2007, from
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/basics/alaintellectual.htm.
Free Expression Policy Report (FERP) of the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law. (2004). Internet filters: a public
policy report. Retrieved September 27, 2007, from: http://www.fepproject.org/policyreports/filters2.pdf.
.
References (cont.)
Kranich, N. (2004). Why filters won’t protect children or adults. Library Administration and Management, 18 (1), 14-18.
Kranich, N. (2005). Filtering materials on the internet contradicts the value of open access to material. Public Libraries, 44
(1), 198-200.
Lininger, D. (2001). Internet filters: useful tools. Teacher Librarian, 29 (1), 28-9.
McCook, K. (2004). Introduction to Public Librarianship. New York: Neal-Schuman.
Ratzan, J. (2004). CIPA and the roles of public librarians. Public Libraries, 43 (5), 285-290.
Efron, M., Smith, A. and Roy, L. (2005, Fall). OpenChoice: an internet filter for public libraries. Texas Library Journal.
Smith, A. (2006, Winter). Internet filtering policy and attitudes in Texas libraries. Texas Library Journal. 82 (4), 148-151.
Willems, H. (1998). Filtering in libraries: the case (mostly) against. Computers in Libraries, 18 (3), 55-58.