Software producer responsible for library censorship

[Domitan]

A few of you may remember that I complained a few weeks ago about sites like MichaelMoore.com and buzzflash.com being banned as "hate sites" in the library. The Huffington blog was temporarily banned last month (accessible now). Josh Marshall's TPM Cafe is now banned. Last year, the DU Forum was banned for a bit (long accessible now). Antiwar.com's blog is banned.

I contacted my local library system asking why those sites were banned, especially if their right-wing counterparts (e.g., Rush, Savage, FreeRepublic) were left untouched. It's one thing to be heavyhanded in censorship, but another to ban one side and permit the other side. I asked who was responsible for deciding which site would be banned.

Here's the letter I received:

Hello XXX

Thank you for your good words about the many services at London Public Library that you enjoy.

You are correct - the Library uses commercial Internet filtering software to block access to "inappropriate" sites. This is in use on computers that are located in the Children's Library at the Central Library and also computers that are in immediate proximity to children's areas in our Branch Library locations. As it is a commercial product, we ourselves do not determine which sites are blocked and which are not - that is the work of the software producer.
One of the drawbacks in the use of Internet filtering software can be "over" blocking and I suspect that this is what is happening with the sites to which you refer.
Of course, these sites would be accessible on any of the non-filtered computers in the Library.

I am sorry that you have met with frustration in using Library computers. We have been pleased with the overall performance of the software we use and have had few to no queries over the last couple few years.

Now we must find out who that software producer is...as libraries, workplaces, and others are unwitting accomplices to this insidious program.

[wli]

1. now watch it get installed by ISP's after they consolidate

"Woops, there went the liberal blogosphere."

[Jim Sagle]

2. Soon we'll all be saying, "Hey, where's DU?"

[sakabatou]

3. Can't you ask what program they use?

[Domitan]

6. I intend to ask them

Oh yes!

[sakabatou]

11. I sense that you are grinning...

with intent to complain...

[benburch]

4. Ask them.

A public library can legally have no secrets.

[Domitan]

7. I'll keep you all posted

And we need to work together to raise this issue.

[Not Me]

5. There are a number of these on the market

Your library could be using any one of them. And they are far from perfect. Your suggestion that they may be RW fundie influenced makes me wonder.

I work at a library, and we use filtering, mostly as a courtesy to those around the patron in the computer area who is surfing porn sites.

We will review/unblock on request...and this policy is posted.
We also offer unfiltered wireless access, for those with laptops.

[treading_water]

8. Internet filtering software generally

filters sites in a couple of ways: via keyword or via domain name.

Most providers have a URL checker on their site so you can check to see if a particular site is being blocked.

I checked two of the larger providers - Smartfilter and Surfcontrol and neither of the sites you mentioned are currently blocked.

This does not mean they weren't blocked by these vendors at some point. Just that their current list doesn't contain them now.

Block lists updates can be automatically downloaded to the computer or the proxy server, but it usually has to be configured to do this otherwise it is a manual update process.

[treading_water]

9. Oh, and I forgot to mention...

That all of the internet filtering software I've worked with have had some sort of override process for individual websites to be unblocked on request.

[Domitan]

10. I'll find out the name of this program

and get back to you. Be interesting to see how far this really goes.

[waldnorm]

12. From a Librarian

I have to say that the response is don't look at us, blame the software provider is lame. I'm disappointed in that particular Library's response. I would've at least said that we, the Library would further investigate this matter and bring it up to the software provider. It doesn't matter or not whether the Library have received a few complaints. I'm disappointed, because it says to me, the Library is not defending intellectual freedom and instead apologizing for one of their vendor's censorship, which is what such institutions are supposed to be all about.


In other words--if the filtering software is practicing censorship, then that is violating intellectual freedom for all. The Library should drop the filtering software and go with another. Chances are, someone who was not a librarian and someone who did not did their homework made the decision to get this program to begin with, and yes it costed the City or County money, but if it's not filtering what it is supposed to, then as far as I am concerned, the product is defective. There are filtering programs out there that allow someone to get in and change the settings. Ask your Library to change filtering programs (write to the Library Director).

Norman

[Domitan]

14. Good point

I'll have a talk with my local library. If Netsweeper, Inc (www.netsweeper.com) is found to be imbalanced in their filtering, that's even more damning.

[Domitan]

13. Here's the update: Netsweeper, Inc is the censoring company!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4299147&mesg_id=4299147

www.netsweeper.com

Investigate

[waldnorm]

15. From a Librarian

I have to say that the response is don't look at us, blame the software provider is lame. I'm disappointed in that particular Library's response. I would've at least said that we, the Library would further investigate this matter and bring it up to the software provider. It doesn't matter or not whether the Library have received a few complaints. I'm disappointed, because it says to me, the Library is not defending intellectual freedom and instead apologizing for one of their vendor's censorship, which I find inexcusable. If one of my colleagues was making this case at my institution, I'd give that person a VERY hard time and point out to him or her what that means if we excuse such action. Not only would I contact the vendor and give them a hard time directly, but I'd also warn other libraries through our listserv about this vendor.

In other words--if the filtering software is practicing censorship, then that is violating intellectual freedom for all. The Library should drop the filtering software and go with another. Chances are, someone who was not a librarian and someone who did not did their homework made the decision to get this program to begin with, and yes it costed the City or County money, but if it's not filtering what it is supposed to, then as far as I am concerned, the product is defective. There are filtering programs out there that allow someone to get in and change the settings. Ask your Library to change filtering programs (write to the Library Director). I'm one that finds the whole idea of filtering preposterous, anyway, but that warrants a separate post. I do know about a library in Louisiana that has a rather arcane law that asks librarians that if they see any adult viewing porn on a computer, they must call the police immediately. Absolutely preposterous!

Norman

[Justice]

16. Info on President

The FibreWired Network - News and Information
NetSweeper-an Intelligent Agent that sweeps the Internet clean...
May 8, 2003

The privately held, Canadian-based Internet management solutions provider relies heavily on scalable, light-speed broadband access. That's where FibreWired Guelph comes in, with its 300 kilometres of fibre optic network and host of telecommunications services.

AIA now scans and classifies more than two million URLs daily. This identification system is the backbone for the NetSweeper Intelligent Content Filtering System.

"Compared to 1999, when we began using our original hybrid system to scan and classify 50,000 to 60,000 sites a day, AIA is artificial intelligence

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:yLeQpBczYAsJ:www.fibrewired.com/news/MSE1712_13.shtml+%22perry+roach%22&hl=en

[lockdown]

17. Some at least try to keep their blacklists secret

Symantec and CyberPatrol for two have sued or threatened to sue Peacefire for publishing their lists. Maybe a library would be using bespoke or specialized software though.

Straying OT, best web filtering software I've ever come across is Squid and DansGuardian running on Linux/Unix. Open source, complete control, and very effective, unlike all the consumer level Window's equivalents.