Technological Censorship? How information technologies both help and hinder access to information

Internet Filtering and Internet Access Policies in Libraries

Introduction

I'd like to start out with a quote from an editorial published in the Baton Rouge Advocate June 15, 1999. "A century ago, the newspapers were full of speculation about the threat to public morals and safety of a new device by which the young could be lured from their homes and threatened by criminals or other bad influences. Over time, however, the telephone became ubiquitous, and the public had successive opportunities to wring its hands over automobiles, radio and television. Now it's the turn of the Internet."

Over the last few years, new technologies have brought a wealth of new information sources to our fingertips. Patrons can search our catalog and the catalogs of libraries across the country and around the world via the Internet. They can find magazine, journal, and newspaper articles from thousands of periodicals we could not afford to subscribe to, let alone store on premises. They can get the tax forms they need from the IRS or another state, search for jobs in other parts of the country, do research for their term papers -- using up-to-the-minute information that was once beyond the reach of a tiny library in an economically disadvantaged community.

On the other hand, technology has also been developed to limit what resources people may use and how they use them. One of the technological tools being used to limit or censor what people view on the Internet is filtering software.

What are Internet filters?

I'm sure many of you have some idea about how Internet filtering works, but I'd like to go over some of the things we learned during The Internet Filter Assessment Project (TIFAP) about what filters are and how they work for those of you who don't know. In A Practical Guide to Internet Filters, Karen Schneider says "Internet filters are mechanical tools wrapped around subjective judgment. They are designed to block Internet content -- usually content the company has identified and categorized. Some filters try to block keywords; some try to block individual sites; some try to block both."

While some have compared Internet filtering to a library materials selection process, Judge Leonie Brinkema determined in the Loudoun County case, that "the Library Board's action is more appropriately characterized as a removal decision." David Burt, testifying on behalf of the defendants in that case acknowledged that "filtering cannot be rightly compared to 'selection', since it involves an active, rather than passive exclusion of certain types of content."

How filters work

There are two main blocking technologies used by filtering software packages: keyword blocking and site blocking. The use of web rating systems is a third blocking technology available but not currently in widespread use.

Keyword blocking is a software solution. The software is programmed to search for and block designated word patterns in your search query or on web sites. Each vendor develops their own list of word patterns to be blocked, but some examples would be: breast, butt, death, sex, xxx, pussy, porno, love, and words starting with the letters p-e-n-i. As you can imagine, with this list of words patrons could be blocked from accessing web sites containing materials they would normally find in the library -- parents seeking guidance on age-appropriate sex education materials, students doing research on the death penalty, adult patrons seeking medical information on penile implants, etc. Some software is programmed to block specified words except when they are combined with other, more neutral, words, so that "breast" would be blocked except when it is adjacent to the word "cancer." However this would not solve the problem of the parent seeking age-appropriate sex education materials for their child because using the search term "sex education" in many search engines will result in a list that includes links to many sexually explicit sites.

Keyword blocking is an inexpensive, but often inaccurate, method of blocking Internet sites. The main expense in keyword blocking technology is the initial development of the software. Once installed, the software should continue to search for and block designated word patterns without additional maintenance.

It is a very objective system for blocking Internet sites: every time the software recognizes a word pattern on its list, access to that page will be blocked. Unfortunately, by blocking every occurrence of the specified word patterns, the filter may block access to many useful web sites. Many libraries that use filters turn off the keyword blocking function, but it is important to note that not all filtering software allows you to turn off the keyword blocking.

Site blocking involves blocking access to pre-identified web addresses or uniform resource locators (URLs). To develop a list of sites to be blocked, the software vendors must hire humans to select and categorize URLs. Because new web sites are being added to the Internet on a daily basis, it is an ongoing process. This makes site blocking more costly than keyword blocking, but also more precise. A reviewer might look at all the sites that come up in a search for "sex education" to evaluate and categorize each one.

Each filtering program has a different set of categories of web sites to be blocked. For instance, SurfWatch has five "core categories":

and 15 additional "productivity categories": CyberPatrol has twelve categories; I-Gear has nine; X-Stop has twenty-five; SmartFilter has twenty-seven; WebSense has thirty. Interestingly in light of earlier presentations on this panel, two filtering products have a blocking category for "Alternative Journals"!

Most filtering vendors' web sites will include a list of their blocking categories. Libraries that use filtering software turn off the blocking for most of these categories. In public libraries we generally don't want to block access to job search sites, general news, sports, etc.

While keyword blocking is objective, site blocking is a subjective system for blocking web sites. Filters can impose the software vendor's viewpoint on the community. Criteria for each category of blocked sites are vaguely defined, so a site may be blocked by one reviewer but not another, blocked one day and not blocked the next, placed in one category by one person and in another category by another.

A third blocking technology that could become more prominent is the use of web rating systems. The Platform for Internet Content Selection (PICS) is a rating standard that allows content authors and others to use common rating systems to describe their web pages. Two common rating systems using PICS are RSACi (the Recreational Software Advisory Council) and Safe Surf. These rating systems try to use objective criteria to describe content. Some browsers, such as Microsoft Internet Explorer, support PICS and you can configure your browser to block the level of violence, nudity, sex, and language that you choose. At present, however, most web sites do not have PICS ratings, so the value is limited. There has also been some concern about who is doing the rating and whether it will accurately reflect the content of the site.

Problems with Filtering Software

Publicly supported libraries are governmental institutions subject to the First Amendment which forbids them from restricting information based on viewpoint or content.

As we learned during The Internet Filtering Assessment Project and as many others are continuing to find, filtering software does indeed block access to information based on viewpoint and content. The software is not able to block all the web sites that fit into its various categories and frequently blocks sites that should not be blocked. For example, SurfWatch recently blocked access to an educational e-journal article on adult learning, a National Cancer Institute web page on Hodgkin's Disease, and the Albany (Oregon) Public Library's Adult Services page. In the past, Cyber Patrol has blocked Mother Jones magazine online, Planned Parenthood's web site, Environlink (an online environmental activism network), and continues to block access to The Safer Sex Page, the web page of the organization Stop Prisoner Rape, and e-zine Suck.com. X-Stop claimed to block only obscenity, but was found to block the Quaker web site and the American Association of University Women. None of these pages contains illegal or obscene information; in fact, most libraries contain information similar to what can be found on these web pages.

Libraries, the Internet, and the Law

The only content we could legally block in public libraries would be speech which is not constitutionally protected -- i.e., obscenity, child pornography, and, for minors, materials defined to be harmful to minors by state law. If we look back through the blocking categories the various filter vendors use, none is currently capable of blocking only illegal material.

So how prevalent is the "bad stuff" on the Internet? According to the Internet Advocate, pornographic images comprise approximately 0.5% of all Internet traffic. Talking with librarians here in Louisiana, I've heard of very few cases of patrons viewing illegal or obscene materials. In the one recent case I know of where a man was caught downloading child pornography at a public library in Lafayette, Louisiana, the police were called and the man was arrested not for violating library policy but for violating child pornography laws. As the ALA points out, "Laws prohibiting the production or distribution of child pornography and obscenity apply to the Internet. These laws provide protection for libraries and their users."

On June 17th the House passed the Child Safety and Protection Act (H.R. 1501), which included an amendment requiring that school and public libraries with Internet access install filters to block child pornography and obscenity and, when used by minors, materials harmful to minors. If they do not, they would be required to return all e-rate discount amounts already received under the e-rate program.

The Childrens' Internet Protection Act (S. 97), approved this week by the Senate Commerce Committee, would require schools to select and install a technology "to filter or block material deemed to be harmful to minors." Public libraries with more than one Internet access computer "intended for use by the public (including minors) shall certify . . . that it has installed and uses a technology to filter or block material deemed harmful to minors on one or more of its computers with Internet access" in order to receive e-rate discounts. Public libraries with only one Internet access computer would be eligible to receive e-rate discounts "even if it does not use a technology to filter or block material deemed to be harmful to minors on that computer if it certifies . . . that it employs a reasonably effective alternative means to keep minors from accessing material on the Internet that is deemed to be harmful to minors."

Two states have passed similar legislation this year: Arizona and South Dakota. In both cases, schools would be required to install filters; public libraries could either install filters or "develop and implement a policy that establishes measures to restrict minors from gaining computer access to material that is harmful to minors."

Acceptable Use Policies

Are there alternatives to installing filters? In 1998, more than 8 out of 10 public libraries offering Internet access had acceptable use policies in place. Every library offering Internet access should have one. But sometimes, even these can be problematic. Loudoun County's policy, which was struck down, said in part,

"Internet services provided: The Internet will be accessible except as follows:

  1. E-mail, chat rooms, and pornography will not be provided;
  2. Site-blocking software (software that blocks by specific site, rather than by suspect-word category) will be installed on all computers. To the extent technically feasible, such software will:
    1. block child pornography and obscene material (hard core pornography);
    2. block material deemed harmful to Juveniles under applicable Virginia statutes and legal precedents (soft core pornography). Public access to such material could create an unlawful, sexually-hostile environment, and might incite dangerous criminal misconduct.
  3. Internet computers will be installed in close proximity to, and in full view of, library staff in order to:
    1. discourage efforts to override the blocking software; and,
    2. provide patrons a secure environment against sexual harassment when using the Internet.
  4. Patrons will not be permitted to use the Internet to access pornography. Persons using the Internet to access material in paragraph 2, will be told they are violating the Policy on Internet Sexual Harassment. If they continue, they will be told to leave the library. If they refuse, they will be considered in trespass, and police may be called to remove them. Children's parents will also be notified unless the child obeys the first request to stop."
Their new Internet Use Policy contains the basic elements of a good policy and looks like most of the other ones I've reviewed recently. It states the mission of the library and how Internet access fits into that mission, describes the Internet and notes "Some materials on the Internet are obscene and/or are harmful to minors. The library system is unable to control or monitor the content of materials on the Internet." It goes on to describe what Internet access the library provides and doesn't provide, guidelines for Internet use, and conditions governing Internet use. Filtering software is still available but it is not installed on every computer. Adult patrons can decide for themselves whether they want filtered or unfiltered access to the Internet; a minor's parent or guardian must sign the Library's Minor Internet Use Agreement and elect whether that use will be filtered or unfiltered.

The St. Tammany Parish Library Board here in Louisiana recently revised its Internet Use Policy in response to parents' concern about children being exposed to pornography. Children under 11 may only use the Internet with a parent present. Youths from 11 through 17 will be required to use a filtered terminal unless their parents sign a waiver allowing them to have unfiltered access to the Internet.

Is this censorship? Filters will certainly restrict access to some sites that do not fit within the legal definitions of "obscenity," "child pornography," or "harmful to minors." Are filters capable of blocking only illegal material? Not at this point. Will libraries continue to be pressured to install filters? Undoubtedly. Congress may soon require most schools and public libraries to use filters. The debate on this topic is most definitely not over. Stay tuned.

Bibliography

Print Resources
Nesting, Vicki. "Internet Filters: Software and Issues." LLA Bulletin, Winter 1999, p. 150-155.

Schneider, Karen G. A Practical Guide to Internet Filters. New York: Neal-Schuman, 1997.

Web Resources
"Adult attention for the Internet." Baton Rouge Advocate Online, June 15, 1999 http://www.theadvocate.com/opinion/story.asp?StoryID=1190

American Library Association Statement on Internet Filtering http://www.ala.org/alaorg/oif/filt_stm.html

American Library Association. "The 1998 National Survey of U.S. Public Library Outlet Internet Connectivity: Summary Results." http://www.ala.org/ oitp/survey98.pdf

"Child-porn user booked on same count again." Baton Rouge Advocate Online, June 12, 1999 http://www.theadvocate.com/news/story.asp?storyid=6956

Filtering Facts Legislative Initiatives http://www.filteringfacts.org/legis.htm

House Bill H.R. 1501 "Child Safety and Protection Act" http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c106:H.R.1501:

The Internet Advocate http://www.monroe.lib.in.us/~lchampel/netadv1.html

Loudoun County Public Library "Policy on Internet Sexual Harassment" adopted October 20, 1997 http://www.censorware.org/legal/loudoun/971020_internetpol_lcpl.htm

Loudoun County Public Library "Internet Use Policy" adopted December 1, 1998 http://www.censorware.org/legal/loudoun/981201_internetpol_lcpl.htm

Memorandum Opinion - Mainstream Loudoun v. Board of Trustees of the Loudoun County Library http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/loudon/81123op.htm

Senate Bill S. 97 "Childrens' Internet Protection Act" http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c106:s.97:

Presentation given by Vicki Nesting as part of a RUSA/MARS panel "Technological Censorship? How information technologies can both help and hinder access to information" on June 27, 1999 at American Library Association Annual Conference in New Orleans, Louisiana. Ms. Nesting is currently Circulation Librarian with the Jefferson Parish Public Library System in Louisiana and was a participant in The Internet Filter Assessment Project from April through September 1997.

Copyright 1999 Vicki Nesting