Simple Censorware Built For Libraries
from the an-idea-too-goo-not-to-go-with dept
Back when the Supreme Court ruled that the government could force libraries to use filters in order to qualify for federal funds, someone here posted a comment asking why libraries didn't just build their own filters that blocked a bare minimum of sites. It appears that others had the same idea, and now someone has written just such a piece of "censorware". In its default configuration, it apparently just blocks the domain microsoft.com, but is completely configurable by whoever installs the filter. So, now the question comes up again. Is there any indication in the ruling that a library needs to use a specific "approved" filter? Or can they get away with this filter?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Possible Censorware Evolution
This will soon devolve into a battle over what constitutes adequate protection measures. Is a blacklist sufficient, and if so, who determines who's on the blacklist? Do we need to scan for certain terms, and if so, who determines what terms are considered inappropriate?
After all, if the Pennsylvania Attorney General can order ISPs to block certain Web sites from being viewed by Pennsylvania residents, it's not that far of a leap to infer that governments will feel they have the ability to control the nature of the filtering, not just that filtering exists.
I'm not a librarian (nor do I play one on TV), but it would seem what's needed is a setup akin to spam filtering:
-- Open source filtering proxy that is easy for librarians to configure
-- Ability to "subscribe" to any number of site or term blacklists, created by firms or volunteer organizations, much like the spam blacklists that exist today, with simple lists available "out of the box" for simple installation (just like one subscribes to anti-virus signature updates)
-- Ability to have local overrides to the subscribed-to lists, to either specifically allow or specifically deny certain sites or terms, to help tailor for local issues
-- Configurable record-keeping (log nothing, log with X days retention, log everything)
The key is the subcribe-able blacklists. That's what the various commercial filtering firms really provide. By having open standards on how one subscribes to and receives blacklist updates, it becomes fairly easy for different groups to decide to provide their own take on the blacklists. Libraries (or anyone else using this) could "dial in" their filtering based on blacklist provider reputation (e.g., blacklists provided by a tradtional religious group might differ from a blacklist from the ACLU).
My question is: does anyone really have interest in this? As a technologist, I can envision really cool solutions, but I have no sense of whether this problem really exists.
(BTW, this is being cross-posted to my personal blog)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in thread ]