Internet Filters Solve Nothing
Placing software filters on Internet computers in public libraries
(or in any venue) is, generally speaking, a bad idea. At best
it is a waste of time, at worst, it can so seriously constrict
available information as to render the whole concept of the Internet
virtually useless.
Speaking as a software engineer, there are only two ways to
write an Internet filter. The first approach is to attempt to
write a program that can programmatically discern obscene or
objectionable material. This is very difficult, and can lead
to unwarranted (and frequently comical) restrictions. Most filtering
software of this sort does not even attempt to classify graphical
material, it relies on scanning the text of a page. This has
led to such sites as the home page of the Rep. Richard Armey
being blocked as obscene. It has also blocked sites such as "lumbermansexchange.com".
In addition, filtering software written in this fashion will
often let obscene material pass, as it cannot tell from mere
examination of the text that the site is obscene, even though
a human being looking at the graphical images displayed would
have no difficulty making this determination.
The second way to write filtering software is to hire a staff
that watches the Internet constantly, and manually determines
the URL of offensive sites. This approach, while successfully
blocking more obscene material than a scanner, is obviously much
more labor intensive and difficult to implement than a scanning
approach. Attempting to keep up with new Internet pages results
in a huge backlog of unchecked sites. This approach also has
some very serious side effects, not the least of which is a secret
and pernicious assault on our access to information.
This variety of Internet filtering software does not block
only pornographic sites. It also blocks sites that are "objectionable".
This is a subjective determination made by the company producing
the software. There is no open discussion of what is "objectionable",
furthermore, due to the considerable investment in putting these
lists together, there is no publication of blocked sites. The
list of blocked sites is secret, and is protected by some fairly
stringent cryptographic procedures.
The American Family Association was an early supporter of
a particular brand of blocking software, until it discovered
that it’s own homepage had been blocked as a "hate
speech site" due to the organizations stand on homosexuality!
Subsequently, the AFA has endorsed a different program, but their
page still remains blocked by many of the most popular filtering
programs!
You see, someone has to make a determination about what to
block. And those determinations may be made by people who have
a particular agenda, or, more commonly, who attempt to appease
every agenda.
What is a cult? Mormons? Catholics? Baptists? Who knows –
block’em all! What is "hate speech"? Do the Pauline
epistles qualify due to the authors stance on women being "in
obedience" to their husbands? Must be! Is the National Organization
for Women (NOW) a radical gay group or a political action committee?
Who can decide – better block it!
By installing blocking software we are abdicating our right
to make these decisions. We are allowing officials of a software
company, probably in a community far more liberal than our own,
to decide for us.
No one wants children exposed to pornography. But the proper
solution is a people solution, not a technical one. Computers
in libraries (and in the home, for that matter) should be in
a public area, open to viewing by patrons or staff walking past.
The library should have a policy regarding access in place, and
should make certain that patrons using the terminals for Internet
access understand and agree to abide by that policy. Violations
of the access policy should remove computer privileges. Children
should be supervised while using public Internet terminals,
even if that supervision is nothing more than an occasional walk
by.
Smut is not a technical problem, it is a people problem. To
expect technology to solve it for us is to expect the impossible,
and to invite disaster. Nothing is more precious than the freedom
we enjoy to read what we will. Automated content filtering threatens
that freedom in a very basic way.
Dave Haxton
24 Jan 2001
|