|
[Previous entry: "Music recommendations"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "Photo fun"]
"Blog (and general Web) ban likely worsens"
06/28/2003 Entry
Mamamusings and then Invisible Adjunct both comment on the problems with filtering software. It started out with mamamusings noticing that her blog was not accessible from an Internet kiosk. The message she got: "Access to this site has been restricted at the request of this organization". I've commented on both posts but thought would add some additional notes here as well.
I posted a related entry back in December when Ed noticed that he couldn't get to my blog from a location due to "possibly inappropriate content".
One of the biggest problems with these filtering programs is that they have a very large number of false positives. That is, they potentially filter an immense amount of content that has nothing to do with "inappropriate" material. For example, any resume that lists latin honors would have a good chance of being banned. I won't spell it out here because I don't want to get E-BLOG banned any more than it is already but think summa.. magna... Also, as others have noted, geographical locations - of which there are several both in the UK and the US and easily elsewhere - that have "seks" (you know what the ks stands for) in them would get banned as well. Then there are sites dealing with cancer of particular organs, these are some of the more well known examples, not to mention sites that address gay and lesbian issues (huh, I wonder if by merely writing out those two words this blog is getting black-listed).
Perhaps the biggest concern is that we don't know what is being banned because companies that make filtering software claim that its proprietary information and they won't share it. So unlike public libraries, which would have to make public decisions about not wanting to carry certain books based on particular types of content, here no one really knows what is being filtered and why exactly.
Josh Marshall - before his Talking Points Memo fame - wrote a nice related piece on "Will Free Speech Get Tangled In The Net" back in 1998 in the American Prospect in which he explores related concerns in some detail.
Of course, makers of filtering software are not the only ones putting thought into what content underlies sites with certain words. Search engines have been doing it for years as well. Do a search in Google on "seks" (with the appropriate letter) and you'll get sites about "safe seks". Moreover, note that the popular HBO series with the s word in the title has no problem staying high up among the results. In fact, it comes up as #3. I guess it is theoretically possible that these really are the most popular (as in linked to) seks related sites out there, but one wonders.
The discussion on Invisible Adjunct's blog about the topic focuses mainly on adults' ability to request librarians to turn off filtering programs on library terminals while they are using them. Some in the comments section have already noted the problems with this approach (e.g. that some filtering happens at the server level, which is not necessarily that easy to turn off and would likely influence other machines at the library). I wanted to bring up an additional point (and I do over there in the comments.)
This entire discussion about adults having the ability to ask that a filter be turned off *assumes* that adults know what filtering software is in the first place and would know what it means to ask that it be turned off. These assumptions seem problematic. I say this based on research I have done on people's Web use abilities. When I asked people if they knew what filtering software is, 45% (of 100 randomly sampled Internet users in my area) said they had little or no understanding of the term. (I know it's a small sample, it was a complex project that didn't allow for more respondents.) People who access the Web in libraries are likely to know even less about the Web because they don't have the freedom to explore it in detail like those who use it at home (or use it freely at work). Moreover, given the limited amount of time people get to spend at library terminals, it's highly unlikely that they'll spend their allocated 15-30 minutes asking for modifications to the settings.
So yes, there are numerous issues with requiring libraries to use filtering software (assuming they want to hold on to federal funding) and there are concerns regarding their use in private settings as well.
Replies: 1 Comment has been posted, click here to see it and add your own
Good point about many people not knowing enough about filters to even realize they are there, much less ask to have them turned off.
Posted by Invisible Adjunct @ 06/28/2003 11:58 PM CST
| 
