Original:
Internet Filtering
Several years ago, there was public controversy over a book titled, Why Johnny Can't Read. Now, the controversy has become, "What Johnny is Viewing on his Computer Screen." Many parents believe that their children are protected against exposure to inappropriate content when those children use computers at school and in public libraries, but that is not necessarily true. While Internet filtering and blocking software has been installed on many public and school computers, the effectiveness of that software is constantly being challenged. Congress attempted to address the issue when it passed the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) in December 2000 (Carson 248). Unfortunately, the provisions of this law do not pertain to all libraries, and the content that must be restricted is limited (Bocher 36). The result is that children are not as safe as many parents have been led to believe. Federal regulations governing the use of Internet filtering software need to be modified to include all public and school libraries, with no stipulation as to the source of funding for any particular library.
Although CIPA was passed in 2000, it did not become law until a few years later. Soon after passage, the American Library Association (ALA) filed suit in federal District Court, which ruled in 2002 that the act was unconstitutional (Carson 248). The government appealed the decision, and the Supreme Court struck down the lower court ruling and found CIPA to be constitutional in 2003 (Hansen). All of the provisions outlined in the act are now in effect, but that does not guarantee that all libraries provide filtered Internet access for children.
According to CIPA, filtering is mandated for all computers in libraries receiving two types of federal funds: E-rate and Library Services Technology Act (LSTA). E-rate funds are awarded in the form of discounts for Internet service (Carson 247). LSTA provides funds for Internet access or for the purchase of computers used for that access (Bocher 36). Libraries that do not receive either type of funding are not required to comply with CIPA provisions. Some libraries have actually made the decision to withdraw from federal funding programs in order to remain exempt from CIPA constraints, citing the added financial burden or their reluctance to restrict free information access (Bocher 36). As a result, it is difficult for library patrons to know what can be accessed on the public computers at any particular library. Congress attempted to solve that dilemma by requiring that libraries have a written Internet safety policy, and hold public meetings to review that policy (Boss 1). Written policies should cover exactly what level of filtering will be in place, and the steps necessary to request blocking or unblocking of sites.
Technology consultant Bob Bocher explains that specific content that must be blocked under CIPA is limited to "visual depictions that 1) are obscene, 2) contain child pornography, or 3) are harmful to minors" (36). These terms are defined in CIPA or other federal statutes (Bocher 36). The fact that only images are addressed by the law, and not text, means that children may still be exposed to a great deal of inappropriate content. One crucial aspect of CIPA is the requirement that adult patrons may request that sites be unblocked or filtering turned off without explanation (Bocher 37). Children walking by unfiltered computers may be exposed to very graphic images. Libraries have many different options and technologies available to address the issue, but no method guarantees the complete safety of children.
The technology required for filtering works primarily through the use of either a network firewall or a proxy server. Only a network administrator can change firewall filter settings. Computer users, including children, can adjust proxy filter settings (McCarthy 9). Simple filters may block Web sites that contain predetermined words or phrases (Jost 469). Content filters use rules to screen sites, and are subject to the limitations of the person or group writing the rules (McCarthy 9). Filters are designed to block material deemed offensive or inappropriate, but the inadvertent blocking of legitimate information (over blocking) is a major drawback. After an exhaustive review of large studies and separate tests of commercially available blocking software, the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law issued a public policy report detailing their findings. The revised second edition, published in 2006, concluded "[f]ilters provide a false sense of security, while blocking large amounts of important information in an often irrational or biased way" (Heins ii). Consumer Reports tested filtering software in 2005, and found similar results. They conclude, "while Internet blockers have gotten better at blocking pornography, the best also tend to block many sites they shouldn't" (ConsumerReports.org). Libraries are faced with a complex and difficult decision.
The Intellectual Freedom Committee of the ALA published a "Statement on Library Use of Filtering Software" in 1997, which was revised in 2000, attempting to provide some guidance for all libraries, whether they filter voluntarily, or as a result of CIPA regulations. The statement lists eleven problems associated with filtering software, and seven things that libraries can do to address those problems (
ala.org: Statement). The position of the ALA has a great deal of influence over policies enacted by public libraries, and they remain steadfastly against filtering. In their "Core Values of Librarianship" statement they address the topic of access, stating that "[a]ll information resources that are provided directly or indirectly by the library, regardless of technology, format, or methods of delivery, should be readily, equally, and equitably accessible to all library users" (
ala.org: Core Values). They make no distinction regarding the age of the library user, and recommend that libraries apply the lowest level of filtering possible to conform to CIPA guidelines (
ala.org: Toolkit). One of the "Key Messages" in the ALA Internet Toolkit states: "The only lifelong Internet protection for children is to teach them to use the Internet properly and to teach them to be information literate, so they can make informed choices" (
ala.org). That is a lofty goal, but in reality, children are not mature enough to surf the Internet with no boundaries in place. Libraries serving children, and especially school libraries, are under constant to protect children.
Schools answer to their school board members and parents, and frequently come under fire for under blocking, or not preventing access to inappropriate materials, and also for over blocking, or preventing access to sites with genuine research value (Johnson 40). More and more librarians, as well as teachers, have begun to realize that filtering software is not able to block all inappropriate content, and is just as likely to prevent access to material that should not have been blocked at all. Each school community must identify the reasons for their filtering decisions. A survey conducted by Ann Curry and Ken Haycock for
School Library Journal in 2001 concluded that librarians' main reasons for filtering included "the role of the school library, uneasiness about personal liability, frustration with the amount of time they were spending monitoring students' Web searching, and concerns about student safety" (Curry 42). Those are all valid concerns, and rapidly changing technology makes it imperative that libraries continue to review the use and reliability of the software they choose.
The effectiveness of filters is improving, but their use continues to be hotly debated. One of the conclusions reached by the authors of the Brennan Public Policy Report is that "Internet filters are powerful, often irrational, censorship tools" (Heins 73). Many librarians cringe at the mention of censorship, but most agree that children must be protected against exposure to inappropriate materials. Selection policies for libraries determine what items will or will not be included in the library collection. Filtering attempts to do the same thing. According to Mark Smith in his
Internet Policy Handbook for Libraries, "Selection is about deciding what goes into the library, filtering is the process of deciding what stays out of the library" (79). Librarians are generally not making those decisions. Developers of filtering software are marketing to libraries everywhere, and the filters are not able to evaluate sites or information. They can only mechanically search for keywords, phrases, images, or site addresses, and will block everything conforming to the criteria built into the software application. Web pages are created at a phenomenal rate, and no software provider has the time or resources to evaluate every single one. Parents, teachers, and librarians have no way of knowing in advance if a child is going to have a positive experience when using the Internet.
Two steps should be taken to improve the situation. First, legislation should be drafted that will expand CIPA to include all public and school libraries. According to Nancy Kranich, former president of the ALA, the current legislation "force[s] libraries in economically disadvantaged areas to use already scarce resources to install expensive and unreliable filtering technologies or lose vital federal funds they need..."(Jost 481). Funding should not be used to blackmail libraries. Second, filtering requirements should be standardized for public and school libraries in order to reassure parents and teachers that children will be protected when accessing information on public computers. As outspoken as the ALA has been on the subject of freedom of access to information, they admit the need for additional measures to protect children, and their "Internet Toolkit" includes several pages of recommendations to help libraries deal with the issue (
ala.org: Toolkit 6-9).
Consumer Reports testing showed that even the worst filter successfully blocked 88 percent of the access to pornography (
ConsumerReports.org). That seems worth the effort. No filter will be 100 percent effective, and educating users about safety will remain a high priority. The Internet will continue to see increased use in the immediate future, and it is up to responsible adults to ensure that our children have positive experiences in their quests for knowledge.
Draft #2:
Children and the Internet
The teacher and librarian were both shocked when they discovered a third-grade student using a computer to play games on Playboy.com. They had mistakenly assumed that the Internet filter would automatically block access to the site. One reason for this assumption may be the current law that governs the use of Internet filtering software on computers used by children in public and school libraries. Congress passed the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) in December of 2000 (Carson 248). Soon after passage, the American Library Association (ALA) filed suit in federal District Court, which ruled in 2002 that the act was unconstitutional (Carson 248). The government appealed the decision, and the Supreme Court struck down the lower court ruling and found CIPA to be constitutional in 2003 (Hansen). All of the provisions outlined in the act are now in effect, but that does not guarantee that all libraries provide filtered Internet access for children. Unfortunately, the provisions of the Act do not pertain to all libraries, and the specific content that must be restricted or blocked is limited (Bocher 36). The result is that children are not as safe as many parents and teachers have been led to believe. To better protect our children, the law should be changed to include all public and school libraries, with minimum standards outlined for identifying content that should be blocked. (Intro) (Main point)
According to CIPA, filtering is only mandated for computers in libraries receiving two types of federal funds: E-rate and Library Services Technology Act (LSTA). E-rate funds are awarded in the form of discounts for Internet service (Carson 247). LSTA provides funds for Internet access or for the purchase of computers used for that access (Bocher 36). Libraries that do not receive either type of funding are not required to comply with CIPA provisions. Some libraries have actually made the decision to withdraw from federal funding programs in order to remain exempt from CIPA constraints, citing the added financial burden or their reluctance to restrict free information access (Bocher 36). As a result, it is difficult for library patrons to know what can be accessed on the public computers at any particular library. Congress attempted to solve that dilemma by requiring that libraries have a written Internet safety policy, and hold public meetings to review that policy (Boss 1). That “solution” only helps people who have the time and inclination to discover what those policies are, and even then, they may be unable to understand the technical aspects of filtering.
Technology consultant Bob Bocher explains that specific content that must be blocked under CIPA is limited to "visual depictions that 1) are obscene, 2) contain child pornography, or 3) are harmful to minors" (36). These terms are defined in CIPA or other federal statutes (Bocher 36). The fact that only images are addressed by the law, and not text, means that children may still be exposed to a great deal of inappropriate content. In addition, one crucial aspect of CIPA is the requirement that adult patrons may request that sites be unblocked or filtering turned off (Bocher 37). As a result, children walking past unfiltered computers may be exposed to very graphic images. Placement of adult computers away from high-traffic areas is one way to reduce this exposure. Libraries also have other options and technologies available to address the issue, but no method guarantees the complete safety of children.
The technology required for filtering works primarily through the use of either a network firewall or a proxy server. Only a network administrator can change firewall filter settings. Computer users, including children, can adjust proxy filter settings (McCarthy 9). Simple filters may block Web sites that contain predetermined words or phrases (Jost 469). Content filters use rules to screen sites, and are subject to the limitations of the person or group writing the rules (McCarthy 9). Filters are designed to block material deemed offensive or inappropriate, but the inadvertent blocking of legitimate information (over blocking) is a major drawback. After an exhaustive review of large studies and separate tests of commercially available blocking software, the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law issued a public policy report detailing their findings. The revised second edition, published in 2006, concluded "Filters provide a false sense of security, while blocking large amounts of important information in an often irrational or biased way" (Heins ii). Consumer Reports tested filtering software in 2005, and found similar results. They conclude, "while Internet blockers have gotten better at blocking pornography, the best also tend to block many sites they shouldn't" (ConsumerReports.org). Libraries are faced with a complex and difficult decision.
The Intellectual Freedom Committee of the ALA published a "Statement on Library Use of Filtering Software" in 1997, which was revised in 2000, attempting to provide some guidance for all libraries, whether they filter voluntarily, or as a result of CIPA regulations. The statement lists eleven problems associated with filtering software, and seven things that libraries can do to address those problems (ala.org: Statement). The position of the ALA has a great deal of influence over policies enacted by public libraries, and they remain steadfastly against filtering. In their "Core Values of Librarianship" statement they address the topic of access, stating that "[a]ll information resources that are provided directly or indirectly by the library, regardless of technology, format, or methods of delivery, should be readily, equally, and equitably accessible to all library users" (ala.org: Core Values). They make no distinction regarding the age of the library user, and recommend that libraries apply the lowest level of filtering possible to conform to CIPA guidelines (ala.org: Toolkit). One of the "Key Messages" in the ALA Internet Toolkit states: "The only lifelong Internet protection for children is to teach them to use the Internet properly and to teach them to be information literate, so they can make informed choices" (ala.org). That is a lofty goal, but in reality, children are not mature enough to surf the Internet with no boundaries in place. Libraries serving children, and especially school libraries, are under constant scrutiny regarding the measures they employ to protect children.
Schools answer to their school board members and parents, and frequently come under fire for under blocking, or not preventing access to inappropriate materials, and also for over blocking, or preventing access to sites with genuine research value (Johnson 40). More and more librarians, as well as teachers, have begun to realize that filtering software is not able to block all inappropriate content, and is just as likely to prevent access to material that should not have been blocked at all. Each school community must identify the reasons behind their filtering decisions. A survey conducted by Ann Curry and Ken Haycock for School Library Journal in 2001 concluded that librarians' main reasons for filtering included "the role of the school library, uneasiness about personal liability, frustration with the amount of time they were spending monitoring students' Web searching, and concerns about student safety" (Curry 42). Those are all valid concerns, and rapidly changing technology makes it imperative that libraries continue to review the use and reliability of the software they choose.
The effectiveness of filters is improving, but their use continues to be hotly debated. One of the conclusions reached by the authors of the Brennan Public Policy Report is that "Internet filters are powerful, often irrational, censorship tools" (Heins 73). Many librarians cringe at the mention of censorship, but most agree that children must be protected against exposure to inappropriate materials. Selection policies for libraries determine what items will or will not be included in the library collection. Filtering attempts to do the same thing. According to Mark Smith in his Internet Policy Handbook for Libraries, "Selection is about deciding what goes into the library, filtering is the process of deciding what stays out of the library" (79). Librarians are generally not making those decisions. Developers of filtering software are marketing to libraries everywhere, and the filters are not able to evaluate sites or information. They can only mechanically search for keywords, phrases, images, or site addresses, and will block everything conforming to the criteria built into the software application. Web pages are created at a phenomenal rate, and no software provider has the time or resources to evaluate every single one. Parents, teachers, and librarians have no way of knowing in advance if a child is going to have a positive experience when using the Internet.
Two steps should be taken to improve the situation. First, legislation should be drafted that will expand CIPA to include all public and school libraries. According to Nancy Kranich, former president of the ALA, the current legislation "force[s] libraries in economically disadvantaged areas to use already scarce resources to install expensive and unreliable filtering technologies or lose vital federal funds they need[...]"(Jost 481). Funding should not be used to blackmail libraries. Second, filtering requirements should be standardized for public and school libraries in order to reassure parents and teachers that children will be protected when accessing information on public computers. As outspoken as the ALA has been on the subject of freedom of access to information, they admit the need for additional measures to protect children, and their "Internet Toolkit" includes several pages of recommendations to help libraries deal with the issue (ala.org: Toolkit 6-9). Consumer Reports testing showed that even the worst filter successfully blocked eighty-eight percent of the access to pornography (ConsumerReports.org). That seems worth the effort.
Rapid advances in technology and information access via the World Wide Web almost guarantee that filtering will continue to be a controversial topic. Parents and teachers need to feel confident that children will be exposed to a minimal amount of inappropriate material when using the Internet for research or pleasure. The current laws must be changed to address that need. One way to ensure children’s safety is to effectively filter or block the “bad” sites, and to do it uniformly on all publicly accessible computers. Admittedly, no filter will be one hundred percent effective. Teaching children to use safe techniques for all aspects of Internet activity, including social networking, doing research, or just “surfing the Web” for pleasure, must remain a high priority in schools and libraries. Most librarians are careful about the print resources they make available for children, and should be just as concerned about electronic resources. As adults, our goal should be to do whatever we can to make access to information safe for children. Technology may change the situation, but for right now, effective filtering, applied uniformly, is one way to achieve that goal. (Conclusion) (Main point)
