Filtering and censoring software is, as you know, not particularly intelligent. It took a lot of knocks in the late nineties, when a number of popular news vendors featured articles in which teenagers easily by-passed such software, or which non-objectionable content was filtered but objectionable content was left intact. I remember, for example, a filtering software package that held a stranglehold on one’s entire operating system – it censored everything from web traffic to what you wrote in Microsoft Word. This was really annoying – you’d get as far as “fuc” and suddenly what you were writing would convert to “f***”. The funny thing, though, was that it left racial slurs untouched.

So, while filtering software will catch a big hunk of objectionable material, a significant portion will still make its way through – institutions with public terminals, such as libraries, rely on social pressure (the fact that it’s a public terminal) to take up the slack. The software knows if a site is on its filtering list or not – you know if the site is dirty. It’s a pretty theory, but in practice it’s messy.

Do remember, as you venture off into this experiment, that the Patriot Act is about to be renewed – don’t test those filters too hard.

Additionaly, there is a difference between the school setting where the librarian is acting “in loco parentis” in place of the parent and the public library where no such legal requirement (but perhaps a societal expectation)exists.

I would be curious to see what your conclusions are following the experiment. As I am sure you are aware there are volumes of research concerning the “filtering issue”

Our filter uses a database, not really anything that resembles ‘smart’ filtering. so I could post naughty on my site – which doesn’t exist in our filter’s database – and hit it ALL NIGHT LONG. It might turn up in the filter sometime. My god it’s crap.

That said, I heartily approve of blocking spyware sites and so on, from a don’t-bugger-the-infrastructure perspective.

Yeah, the chance of theft seems like the only reason to treat it specially at all. But since it is just a magazine, it makes sense to just order some extra copies. – ellie

The best of the blogs by the bloggers who blog them, this week starting with the letter “Q”. Queens and Holy Bitches (deltaofvenus.blogspot.com…) Removal Procedures (alwaysarousedgirl.blogspot.com…) The Seduction (barelace.blogs…

You should check out Peacefire.org, if you haven’t already. Bennett’s been covering the filtering issue since I’ve been online and has documented many of the flaws in the systems, including known filtering of “clean” sites, including non-porn related but “controversial” topics such as Wicca, and exemption of very sexual materials. The technology is bad, has been for years, and the companies are not properly addressing the issue.

Thanks for the link, I have it bookmarked. As for the reasons for Sugarbank being filtered, the second is quite possibly true. But, I ran into filter problems at the library months ago (well before the ICRA listing.) Either way, it proves that the filters don’t work. – ellie

Or maybe that’s just my dream for hot, young librarians everywhere…

I think you are right and that the younger generation is pretty different. Hell, I’m not even saying that the older generation are prudes. It seems that most librarians, though, are caving to certain pressures in their communities about sex. I just don’t know when porn became the biggest menace to libraries! – ellie