Free Range Librarian

Filters are to the Internet what they are to cigarettes. My old man smoked two packs a day of filtered Kents and died at 49 from it. When he had the big one there was a smoke burning between his fingers. Perhaps without the filters he’d have died young, eh?

Karen, thanks for standing up for what you believe and being unwilling to prostitute your knowledge for $$$$. Sometimes absolutism is a good thing!

Excellent expression of our collective dilemma as regards comparing/recommending/studying/reporting on something that is just plain wrongheaded to begin with. However, I have to wonder what ~isn’t~ absolutist about this statement?

*Filters are bad news.*

If that’s so, how can we implement this?

*If you’re four years old, I don’t care if your speech is blocked (and if your parents don’t want to make that decision, I’ll be only to happy to make it for them in a manner that is friendliest to adult library access).*

And what does this mean in practical terms?

*If you’re fourteen, I care, but I understand that adolescence is a legal and cultural battleground.*

Gratefully,

Melora

Karen, I am glad you are not an “absolutist.” Neither am I.

I too have been a vocal opponent to the use of filters in schools, but CIPA has made them a necessary evil for most schools that rely on e-rate funds.

Now it is not a matter of whether to have them or not, but how to use them in the wisest possible manner and teach people not to rely on them. It is still important that you continue to consult and advise.

My comments on the issue can be found at: http://www.doug-johnson.com/dougwri/freedom.html

Thanks for all the great work you do for our profession.

Doug Johnson

It couldn’t be said it any better! For those of us forced to implement filters, we must remember why we’re doing it, and not sign on to the endemic intellectual poverty so-called technology solutions (and their supportive legislators) are selling and which we keep helping them build and refine!

Sigh … there’s a long road ahead!

Amen.

I can’t understand why people think this is a good idea. It’s an expensive solution which does not work for its intended purpose AND which interferes with other valid uses. Furthermore, the law disallows any other possible solutions other than filters.

In light of the situation, I think refusing to recommend filters is a good idea.

Kudos, on a great article!
The current obsession over filtering, like most right-wing censorship campaigns, is comepletely focused on “Boob-control”.

It is increasingly obvious to many of us that the “boobs” that are corrupting our children’s futures are the ones in Washington pushing an agenda of ignorance and deception.

For the libraries which can afford it refusing E-Rate funds and standing firm against filtering may be a useful option.

However, in many ways the pronouncement “Filters are bad news.” leaves librarians in libraries which cannot afford to forgo E-Rate funds or whose Boards think filtering is just a dandy idea, adrift.

The purist position denies those libraries the significant experience and knowledge Karen has as they struggle to make sense of a remarkably badly drafted law and a dog’s breakfast of agendized vendors.

“But what I’m not going to do is put myself in the position–even implied–of endorsing the concept that filtering is a good thing.”

Which no one is asking you to do. But what a lot of librarians could use is some advice as to what to look for from the vendors. Is the block list available? Can the filter be turned off? What are the costs over and above the purchase of a filter and annual subscription (if any)?

You can certainly say “All filters suck.”; but what would be more helpful would be to say “All filters suck, filters which can do “a”, “b” and “c” suck less.”

As I have written elsewhere, having lost in Court, the ALA and its technically more savvy members should take control of the filtering issue by setting standards for filters in libraries. Those standards should be based up an absolute commitment to intellectual freedom and a determination to minimize the damage done by CIPA. The vendors will have little choice but to conform to those standards if they want a shot at the library market.

Abdicating behind the announcement that “Filters are bad news.” abandons the implementation of filtering to the vendors.

When a critic as perceptive and challenging as Karen drops out of the debate librarians and library patrons lose. Again.

I’m thankful there are librarians out there who are taking a stand against filters which absolutely block consitutionally protected speech. In fact, I take the position that approximately 15% of the blocks are erroneous…even if you’re using what I consider to be one of the better filter products.

That said, I also recognize there are librarians out there who cannot afford not to comply with CIPA. I hope that the summary of web pages I’m making available to everyone at filtering.galecia.com will help people find a product that suits their needs…if that’s what they decide to do.

And further, I encourage those who use filters to take their responsibility seriously and learn how to use it as effectively as it can be used.

Lori

Seth,

“The few open-blacklist products are oddities with a minuscule market impact”

I agree. And people like you and Karen are not helping this situation. So long as you dump all of the filtering products into one barrel, people who are responding to the legitimate concern about tranparency are left with a trivial marketshare. So who has the big piece of the market? Well, the people who sue you if you try to crack their encrypted blacklist.

There has to be leadership from people who are technically aware and Karen’s postion is an abject abdication of that leadership.

“Can the filter be turned off?”

On IF2K the library patron can be given a choice to “click through” without any librarian intervention. Librarians asked for this, IF2K delivered. In our view that is what the SCOTUS decision requires.

Cost

This is key. There is no reason at all that a library should not work its costs of CIPA compliance to its advantage. That means one shot pricing, a system configured to require a minimum of staff time and no annual subcription. Check out Lori’s site for price comparisons.

“Lice vs fleas”

Odious isn’t it. But if lice go away on command, tell you what they are eating and cost a fifth of fleas the issues really are pretty simple.

The problem is that so long as you insist upon calling all of them vermin the critical distinctions are missed.

The biggest reason to get involved is to bring your technical expertise and long standing reputation to bear on finding the least worst compliance alternative to a remarkably dumb law.

If you and Karen remain silent the mass market, agendized “solutions” win.

To quote Burke, “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.”