Home » ACLU Insider » Archives » A Librarian Gives Compelling Testimony on Mandatory Filters
A Librarian Gives Compelling Testimony on Mandatory Filters
March 16, 2007 01:36 PM
My name is Tamiye Meehan. I am director of the Indian Trails Public Library District in Wheeling and I am currently the president of the Illinois Library Association.
I am here to speak in support of education as the more effective solution to safe use of the Internet. Libraries connect people with the means to secure their future in today’s global marketplace. Let’s not restrict their ability to use the library as a source of lifelong learning.
The Illinois Library Association strongly supports the development and implementation of Internet policy at the local level rather than at a state or federal level. This allows each library to set Internet rules in conformance with local concerns and with the recognition of the limitations of filters. As you heard, the Elmhurst Public Library has implemented filtering. The library that I direct has not. Our library board reviews this decision annually at an open board meeting.
Filter Don't Work
In preparation for this annual review, the Indian Trails Public Library District staff goes to libraries that do filter, and with the consent of these libraries, tests those filters. Those filtering products tested did a reasonable job of filtering some sexually explicit sites, but failed to block all sexually explicit sites tested. The filters failed our tests in a variety of other ways by blocking constitutionally protected sites --- frequently targeting political and medical information. As one of the libraries in the North Suburban Library System has said, we do still find patrons looking at inappropriate sites. The filter is not perfect at blocking every access point and some patrons know the tricks for bringing up such sites. There are sites out there that explain how to hack a filter. All you have to do put in the filter name in a search engine to bring up sites that will show you how to break through a filter.
What is blocked?
Study after study shows that filters consistently block important information on science, health, and political and social issues and regularly allow objectionable material to get through. As was mentioned here this morning, one study showed that filters eliminate 87 percent of sex sites and 60 percent of crime/hate sites. But more importantly for libraries, they also eliminate up to 30 percent of valuable, useful and legal information.
Websites referring the Archdiocese of Chicago are blocked as are the Sheriff of Cook County’s sexual predators website. In our tests, sites related to hate crimes and those about NeoNazis were blocked but hateful sites from NeoNazis were not blocked. Also blocked were:
• more than 13,000 sites referring to Senator Dick Durbin,
• more than 23,000 sites referring to the Virginia General Assembly,
• more than 37,000 sites referring to the John Hancock building. Newspaper sites containing articles about efforts to mandate the application of censoring software on library computers
• and any site containing the word bondage thereby blocking research on “Freedom from slavery and bondage” and “economic bondage”.
The truth is, filters are merely mechanical devices -- and mechanical devices have no judgmental capabilities or decision-making abilities.
Another unusual example --- an example that many don't immediately think about when considering filters --- is that none of the filters tested protected when using non-English search terms. We serve a community that speaks 40 different languages and those various languages are used to surf the Web at our library. This is not unusual these days. Even here in Springfield, the motel at which I stayed last night offered assistance in seven languages.
Filters are Biased
Filter manufacturers consider their blockage to be proprietary information, and therefore, will not reveal what is being blocked or how it is blocked. Private companies and groups with a political agenda design filters to block what they find objectionable, including political candidates, social causes, basic health information, and even industry competitors.
Filters Provide a False Sense of Security
People believe blocking software protects their children - when it does not and cannot. Filter manufacturers know these technologies are not foolproof. Filters are not effective at filtering out pure images. Google images are not blocked and the kids know this. The president of one server-based Internet filtering company said, "kids can always get around it." So, please remember that filters are not totally effective and even if filters were 100 percent effective, software is no substitute for parental guidance. Children need our guidance in learning critical viewing and thinking skills and in making wise choices.
When I asked my 13 year-old granddaughter about searching on the Internet and about MySpace, she began explaining to me the cautions I should take and warning me about posting information. Such critical viewing and thinking skills need to be taught to all students.
The Internet is Changing Rapidly,
more rapidly than laws can be passed. Even as we begin to understand the advantages and dangers of Web 2.0 (and I hope you understand that this bill only addresses Web 1.0, we are now on Web 2.0), the April 2007 issue of Atlantic Monthly points out that Web 3.0 is already being developed. The answer has to be found in the continual education of the populace. There is no filter that can respond as quickly as the educators and librarians can.
In conclusion
Libraries across the state are being responsive and responsible by developing appropriate Internet use policies that meet the standards of their communities. We direct parents and kids to appropriate, good quality Web sites. We teach critical viewing and thinking skills that will help parents and children to decipher, assess and judge this ever-evolving world of information online.
In partnership with parents, the educational community, law enforcement officials, elected officials and the media, all of us must work to ensure that people of all ages are able to make wise use of new information technologies and to be accountable for safe and responsible online behavior.
The Illinois Library community supports the goal of protecting children. One of the primary concerns of the library community is the safety of children. We know, however, that the best way to protect children is to teach them to guard their privacy and make wise choices. To this end, you can help us by funding an educational campaign now.
Education, not laws blocking access, is the key to safe use of the Internet.
Thank you for listening to me. Please vote NO to HB1727. Filters don’t work. And, I don’t want to commit perjury.
|
Comments
HB 1727 which is designed to incorrectly and inappropriately force Internet filters on public library staff and patron computers should be soundly rejected.
Public libraries have a long and solid history of working with their local government bodies, including the village or district, as well as their patrons to provide the safest environment possible for both adults and children. Radical individuals have recently decided that "unfettered access to the Internet" translates to "pornography for children." This is 100% FALSE. I have worked in public libraries as a computer technician for the past 18 years and never once did the library staff of any of the various libraries allow, codone, or support viewing of pornographic materials by any minor and always, ALWAYS made sure that anything that was brought to their attention was dealth with. Library staff have worked hard with the parents in their areas to give everyone a balance of freedom of access to information as well as safety.
HB1727 would not only destroy this avenue of trust, but it would utterly damage the ability of public libraries to perform their function for the patrons, that of giving the patrons access to information. By imposing fines, the possibility of perjury, and not at all defining "obscene" it is designed for a library to fail.
First, it is a fact that there is no filtering system that works 100% of the time. In fact ALL filters fail to block slang or pornographic words in foreign languages. Filters do not block pornographic emails that such users can subscribe to. Filters do not stop numerous images in general searches (thumbnails). So by the very fact that filtering is a completely flawed software system there is no way a library staff member cannot perjure themselves from the very beginning.
Second, the fact that the term "obscene" is not at all defined leaves it open to a completely subjective justice" system based on anyone who finds anything "obscene." What of the great artists works such as Picasso,Cezanne, and others? What about biological research that any patron might find "obscene?" How about the fact that people could consider historical information about the Nazis, Communists, Viet-Cong "obscene?" And most definitely images of the Holocaust, Slavery, etc.?
Third, the bill does a huge disservice to the very people who are trying to push it through. They will now believe, wrongly, that their children and those of other parents are "safe." This is a completely and utter falsehood. As I noted there are many extensive ways that filters can be bypassed and should any of the parents who believe their child is safe find their children were able to get to something, the result is perjury for the library employees, fines, and greater distrust on the part of the patrons served.
Last, and most important of all, public libraries serve the greater community of the lower income populace by their very nature of free access to information. Newly arrived immigrants, lower income workers, laid off workers, the struggling single parent, senior citizens...these all depend on public libraries for the ability to have access to the Internet, to the IRS, to learn about their family history (which might end up in some "obscene" areas to some people), to discover information they cannot find easily at home or school (who have parental rights), to study any varied topic, or just to read the latest information. If this bill passes public libraries will have no way to continue to serve this area of the population. They will have to cut them off completely from such access and these people, who cannot afford a home computer, high-speed Internet, laser printers, on-line database access, and all that libraries offer them, will see that their representatives have failed them by passing such a Bill that strikes at their most available access.
So again I implore everyone to vote no to HB1727. It was designed to cause libraries to fail, to give parents a completely false sense of security, to encumber libraries financially, to block free access to legitimate information, and to take away informational access to those people who need it the most.
Thank you for your time.
Posted by: Mike Jackiw | April 23, 2007 07:41 PM