Opinion: Public Library Internet Filtering

I'm trying to pull together some thoughts from different groups on the topic of filtering public library internet. Specifically, should access to internet on Public Library computers be filtered unless you (assuming 18 or older) ask to have unfiltered access?

I've spoken to Librarian's about it and most seem to side with the phrase of "Intellectual Thinking" and filtering should not occur. Others are more practical and see a need to separate Adult internet access from children internet access.

From an Information Technology point of view I almost look at it as an extra security measure to protect the next person using the computer. Granted, as an "IT guy" I would never type my name, password or email into any public computer system but I do understand that many people do. So, in that regard I almost feel it is our duty to protect people's privacy and identities almost as much as it is their responsibility.

I'm conflicted, I strongly believe in the first amendment rights in our country, but I also feel that by filtering out sites that are likely to harbor malware you are providing an extra measure of protection and thus a little more privacy protection.

As it stands now, filtering is acceptable in Public Libraries (In Michigan) but upon request from an adult unfiltered access has to be given.

I'm looking for opinions on this, partially because I work for a municipality which includes a public library but also because I am trying to collect statistical data for a college paper I'm writing about the topic. Any thoughts on the topic are appreciated. Thanks.

Find more posts tagged with

Save $250 on 2025 certification boot camps from Infosec!

Book now with code EOY2025

Button

Comments

erpadmin

Check out ala.org and do a search on internet filtering. You will find an abundance of information that will help you understand this issue both professionally and scholastically.

When I worked for the library (which was autonomous from the municipality...except for certain issues...), we came across this and we ended up doing what you did, but only filtered the PCs in the children area. The rest of the PCs were unfiltered.

As for protecting the person who wishes to conduct business on a public PC, well...it was an issue we didn't personally care about. If a patron wanted to do it, he did it. Would I do it; heck no.

apena7

Megadeth4168 wrote: »

I'm trying to pull together some thoughts from different groups on the topic of filtering public library internet. Specifically, should access to internet on Public Library computers be filtered unless you (assuming 18 or older) ask to have unfiltered access?

I've spoken to Librarian's about it and most seem to side with the phrase of "Intellectual Thinking" and filtering should not occur. Others are more practical and see a need to separate Adult internet access from children internet access.

From an Information Technology point of view I almost look at it as an extra security measure to protect the next person using the computer. Granted, as an "IT guy" I would never type my name, password or email into any public computer system but I do understand that many people do. So, in that regard I almost feel it is our duty to protect people's privacy and identities almost as much as it is their responsibility.

I'm conflicted, I strongly believe in the first amendment rights in our country, but I also feel that by filtering out sites that are likely to harbor malware you are providing an extra measure of protection and thus a little more privacy protection.

As it stands now, filtering is acceptable in Public Libraries (In Michigan) but upon request from an adult unfiltered access has to be given.

I'm looking for opinions on this, partially because I work for a municipality which includes a public library but also because I am trying to collect statistical data for a college paper I'm writing about the topic. Any thoughts on the topic are appreciated. Thanks.

I think the library computers should be filtered no matter what. It has nothing to do with the first amendment because you are joining a club and that club can impose whatever terms they want. So if you want to access their services, you have to abide by their terms. The same way you can't use profanity (or braindump links) on this website without it being filtered. If some people don't like it, then they can go elsewhere. I'm sorry I don't have statistical data for you, but maybe you can incorporate my point-of-view in your report

RobertKaucher

apena7 wrote: »

I think the library computers should be filtered no matter what. It has nothing to do with the first amendment because you are joining a club and that club can impose whatever terms they want. So if you want to access their services, you have to abide by their terms. The same way you can't use profanity (or braindump links) on this website without it being filtered. If some people don't like it, then they can go elsewhere. I'm sorry I don't have statistical data for you, but maybe you can incorporate my point-of-view in your report

It is not a club. It is a public good supported with government money. Especially in inner-city areas public libraries are many people's primary access to the Internet. Making a blanket statement about filtering them without considering the socio-political implications is unwise. Suppose the head librarian decides abortion should be a filtered term? This would be the imposition of a political/religious view onto a service provided by a public good. Should "breast" be filtered? If not how can you be sure content is "safe" yet ensure the users can find info on breast cancer? This is a complex issue, imo.

NetworkingStudent

Megadeth4168 wrote: »

I'm trying to pull together some thoughts from different groups on the topic of filtering public library internet. Specifically, should access to internet on Public Library computers be filtered unless you (assuming 18 or older) ask to have unfiltered access?

I've spoken to Librarian's about it and most seem to side with the phrase of "Intellectual Thinking" and filtering should not occur. Others are more practical and see a need to separate Adult internet access from children internet access.

From an Information Technology point of view I almost look at it as an extra security measure to protect the next person using the computer. Granted, as an "IT guy" I would never type my name, password or email into any public computer system but I do understand that many people do. So, in that regard I almost feel it is our duty to protect people's privacy and identities almost as much as it is their responsibility.

I'm conflicted, I strongly believe in the first amendment rights in our country, but I also feel that by filtering out sites that are likely to harbor malware you are providing an extra measure of protection and thus a little more privacy protection.

As it stands now, filtering is acceptable in Public Libraries (In Michigan) but upon request from an adult unfiltered access has to be given.

I'm looking for opinions on this, partially because I work for a municipality which includes a public library but also because I am trying to collect statistical data for a college paper I'm writing about the topic. Any thoughts on the topic are appreciated. Thanks.

Well this is one policy from the Anoka County Library in MN on Internet Use
IS this is what you’re looking for?
I went to the library in the past 6 months and you have to have a library card to log on and off the internet they track everything.
Anoka County Library - About the Library

RobertKaucher

Megadeth4168 wrote: »

From an Information Technology point of view I almost look at it as an extra security measure to protect the next person using the computer. Granted, as an "IT guy" I would never type my name, password or email into any public computer system but I do understand that many people do. So, in that regard I almost feel it is our duty to protect people's privacy and identities almost as much as it is their responsibility.

Have you considered something like Steady State and a forst reboot every night?

apena7

RobertKaucher wrote: »

It is not a club. It is a public good supported with government money. Especially in inner-city areas public libraries are many people's primary access to the Internet. Making a blanket statement about filtering them without considering the socio-political implications is unwise. Suppose the head librarian decides abortion should be a filtered term? This would be the imposition of a political/religious view onto a service provided by a public good. Should "breast" be filtered? If not how can you be sure content is "safe" yet ensure the users can find info on breast cancer? This is a complex issue, imo.

I see your point. Ok, I'll clarify: I believe "adult" websites should be filtered. I know of too many incidents at my local library where jokers walk away with an obscene page loaded in the browser. Where there's a chance a child could walk by and see something inappropriate, then yeah, I get a little riled up. And although it is a "public good" there are still rules to obey. My branch has a few that could apply to this discussion:

No illegal activities are permitted.

Any conduct that disrupts the quiet atmosphere of the library or disturbs other patrons is prohibited.

Patrons are expected to use the facilities in a appropriate manner (not stand on furniture, deface materials, misuse equipment, etc)

One could argue that visiting "adult" websites would be an inappropriate use of the facilities. Context matters. As you stated, you can probably find a literal ton of books in the library with images of breasts, but you won't find a single pr0n mag. I don't know how they review which books are acceptable for a library, but I would think the same rules could apply to Internet use. Aside from the "adult" website category, I do agree that it becomes highly subjective as to which websites should be filtered, if any.

Nevertheless, a very good topic to debate.

msteinhilber

I'm a big believer in being an active, honest, and involved parent. I'm also a big believer in keeping as much control in the hands of the people vs. the government - nobody can deny how both sides of our supposed "two party system" are all over bending and changing the law to cater to those with money.

That being said, I don't care for filtering beyond checking for known malware threats. Once you get into more distinct content filtering, you create a slippery slope for other terms to be filtered out. Let the great evils of the Internet be accessible on their computers, should my son years down the road use one and stumble into something bad then I'll trust I've done a fine enough job as a parent that he would recognize what he stumbled across as a bad thing and trust he would be comfortable enough to share the experience with me.

Let the parents do the parenting, not the government.

Daniel333

I would side against the state/governmental controlling information.

Megadeth4168

Wow, there are a lot more replies here than I thought there would be this quickly. Just to be clear, I'm not asking how to set up the systems where I work, I'm trying to get some statistics for a college paper and in the process hear what IT professionals think (in general). I already know what most Librarians think.

erpadmin: Thanks for the suggestion. I actually have checked out their website. In fact the specific case I am writing about is the ALA vs. The United States. The case is specific to CIPA (Children's Internet Protection Act).

RobertKaucher: Exactly right, there is legitimate information that tends to be filtered. We already have a federal ruling on CIPA which states it is not unconstitutional to filter internet access (with conditions). However, each state also has their own ruling. Here in Michigan there is a requirement to have separate computer terminals for children and adults for the purpose of browsing the internet.

To your other post, we do have a program called deep freeze, it sounds like a simialr concept to what your talking about.

NetworkingStudent: We are actually looking into a simialr system of linking internet access to library cards (which would determine rights based on age).

msteinhilber: Good point about letting parents do the parenting. I think the real issue comes into play if adult sites are being pulled up (by adults) in the presence of children. For this reason we do have a separate childrens section and adult section. I thought you made an excellent point about blocking sites that are known to harbor malware. At a minimum this should be enforced.

Daniel333: I tend to agree with you. Although I do believe that if the computers are in an open area (with children around) then allowing adults sites is similar to public indecency. I do think that with public funds the public should be allowed to browse unfiltered where public internet exists so long as there are appropriate measures in place to "protect" others from having to see illicit material.

Thank you all for your replies so far! I promise I won't be using names for my statistical data. I just wanted to see if there was a fundamental difference of how IT people feel about the topic versus librarians.

Forsaken_GA

RobertKaucher wrote: »

It is not a club. It is a public good supported with government money. Especially in inner-city areas public libraries are many people's primary access to the Internet. Making a blanket statement about filtering them without considering the socio-political implications is unwise. Suppose the head librarian decides abortion should be a filtered term? This would be the imposition of a political/religious view onto a service provided by a public good. Should "breast" be filtered? If not how can you be sure content is "safe" yet ensure the users can find info on breast cancer? This is a complex issue, imo.

By the same token, the local trains and buses are also public goods supported with government money. Doesn't mean I get to tell the bus driver where to go, or that I get to drive the train.

I agree that it's a slippery slope, but I don't really have a problem with putting safeguards in place to protect the concept of common public decency (whatever that means to your municipality) on a freely provided public service.

I don't really believe in censorship, but you have the right to purchase your own connection and view whatever content you'd like. As a tax payer who's funds help support local libraries and their networks, I would be *very* upset at funding the ability for kids to go look at ****. I have to pay Comcast 80 bucks a month for that privilege.

eMeS

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

By the same token, the local trains and buses are also public goods supported with government money. Doesn't mean I get to tell the bus driver where to go, or that I get to drive the train.

No, because neither of those are examples of public goods. It's debatable whether a library is a public good because there is a finite capacity and there is a way to exclude people from using them.

Public goods are goods that meet two criteria. First, if it is consumed the availability of the good does not diminish, and second, there is not an effective way to exclude people from the good.

IMO it's really irrelevant whether or not a library is a public good to answer whether or not information in the library should be censored.

MS

Forsaken_GA

eMeS wrote: »

No, because neither of those are examples of public goods. It's debatable whether a library is a public good because there is a finite capacity and there is a way to exclude people from using them.

Public goods are goods that meet two criteria. First, if it is consumed the availability of the good does not diminish, and second, there is not an effective way to exclude people from the good.

Ok, semantics aside, my point is that just because something is publicly funded, does not mean the public gets to use that as an excuse to do whatever they want. I guess a better comparison to the public library would be the public park. I can run through the public park all I want. If I start digging it up, or run through it naked, there are going to be some not-so-polite gentlemen with badges and guns who want to have a few words with me down at their place.

eMeS

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

Ok, semantics aside, my point is that just because something is publicly funded, does not mean the public gets to use that as an excuse to do whatever they want. I guess a better comparison to the public library would be the public park. I can run through the public park all I want. If I start digging it up, or run through it naked, there are going to be some not-so-polite gentlemen with badges and guns who want to have a few words with me down at their place.

It may not look like it form my post above, but I'm agreeing with you.

Go try to take a crap in the middle of a library. You don't get free speech, you get a library that smells like crap.

Libraries are already censored, just not in such an obvious way.....

MS

Paul Boz

Libraries have been censoring what you can read since the start of libraries. To MS point, is it even relevant to consider the censored nature of library Internet access when the fundamental concept of a library is exaggerated by society anyway?

RobertKaucher

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

By the same token, the local trains and buses are also public goods supported with government money. Doesn't mean I get to tell the bus driver where to go, or that I get to drive the train.

No, but in both cases consideration needs to go into choices that are made, right? What happens to a community if buses or trains don't run to poor and/or immigrant communities? Just because a section of a city might have high crime does not mean service should be shutdown to it and just because the Internet harbors malware does not mean a filter fit for a business should be applied. Many things that do not applly to a private company's workers probably should be allowed at a library.

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

I agree that it's a slippery slope, but I don't really have a problem with putting safeguards in place to protect the concept of common public decency (whatever that means to your municipality) on a freely provided public service.

I don't really believe in censorship, but you have the right to purchase your own connection and view whatever content you'd like. As a tax payer who's funds help support local libraries and their networks, I would be *very* upset at funding the ability for kids to go look at ****. I have to pay Comcast 80 bucks a month for that privilege.

I'm not saying don't filter. I'm saying don't make broad and sweeping comments that do not take the nuances and complications of a situation into account. Just saying "Filter, baby, filter!" without considering what that means and it's implications on the surrounding community does little good.

Forsaken_GA

RobertKaucher wrote: »

No, but in both cases consideration needs to go into choices that are made, right? What happens to a community if buses or trains don't run to poor and/or immigrant communities? Just because a section of a city might have high crime does not mean service should be shutdown to it and just because the Internet harbors malware does not mean a filter fit for a business should be applied. Many things that do not applly to a private company's workers probably should be allowed at a library.

You're seriously telling me that if buses were to get shot up rolling through a bad section of town, or people were being assaulted at bus stops or train stations (which is a particularly bad problem with MARTA down here) isn't grounds to consider shutting down the transit? If an area becomes and stays a high crime area, and neither the citizenry nor law enforcement are willing or able to do anything about it, I don't think others are obligated to continue to let them do it. You're damn right I'd shut down transit to high crime areas.

If I had my way, I'd block everything coming from Russia and China as well.

I'm not saying don't filter. I'm saying don't make broad and sweeping comments that do not take the nuances and complications of a situation into account. Just saying "Filter, baby, filter!" without considering what that means and it's implications on the surrounding community does little good.

Again, I'm not a big fan of censorship, but I can't help but feel a little cynical about statements like this. If the underprivileged/minority/whatever socio-economic group that's using the library today can't look at smut, or videos of people getting kicked in the nuts on youtube, I'm thinking that's not going to have a negative effect on the surrounding community.

Whether we agree with them or not, there are such things as societal norms, and I think those should be respected within the confines of a public building. If I want to do my own thing, I'm perfectly capable of doing so, but it'll be on my own time and my own dime.

RobertKaucher

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

You're seriously telling me that if buses were to get shot up rolling through a bad section of town, or people were being assaulted at bus stops or train stations (which is a particularly bad problem with MARTA down here) isn't grounds to consider shutting down the transit? If an area becomes and stays a high crime area, and neither the citizenry nor law enforcement are willing or able to do anything about it, I don't think others are obligated to continue to let them do it. You're damn right I'd shut down transit to high crime areas.

If I had my way, I'd block everything coming from Russia and China as well.

Again, I'm not a big fan of censorship, but I can't help but feel a little cynical about statements like this. If the underprivileged/minority/whatever socio-economic group that's using the library today can't look at smut, or videos of people getting kicked in the nuts on youtube, I'm thinking that's not going to have a negative effect on the surrounding community.

Whether we agree with them or not, there are such things as societal norms, and I think those should be respected within the confines of a public building. If I want to do my own thing, I'm perfectly capable of doing so, but it'll be on my own time and my own dime.

Yeah, this is called a Fallacy of Extension - you are exaggerating my point of view and extending it to the absurd. SARCASM Because you know I think buses should be forced into war zones and every pedo on the street should be allowed to look at pr0n on library PCs. /SARCASM Libraries have the right and obligation to filter and should do it and it should be within societal norms - but what is filtered needs to be considered and what is good for the company where you work is not good for a library. All I am saying is that the considerations are different and that needs to be acknowledged and thought about by the people who are doing the filtering.

I don’t understand why on TE saying that actions we take in the IT field have broader consequences and that we need to consider those is so controversial. Again, in no place am I disagreeing that filtering should be done. I did not even express an opinion as to when it should be done. I simply stated that when it is done it should be given more thought in the case of a public library than in the case of a place of employment as the needs of the users are distinct.

eMeS

RobertKaucher wrote: »

Yeah, this is called a Fallacy of Extension...

Yep...name your favorite fallacy and you'll see it here multiple times per day.

My favorite is the fallacy of composition that everyone makes when they think that searching for the name of a certification on their favorite job site in some way indicates the value of that credential in the market. Another example of this that we see here often is of the form, "I don't work with technology x in my job, and I don't know anyone else who does, therefore technology x is not valued in the market."

Logical Fallacies Handlist

RobertKaucher wrote: »

I don’t understand why on TE saying that actions we take in the IT field have broader consequences and that we need to consider those is so controversial. Again, in no place am I disagreeing that filtering should be done. I did not even express an opinion as to when it should be done. I simply stated that when it is done it should be given more thought in the case of a public library than in the case of a place of employment as the needs of the users are distinct.

I can't give RK rep, or I would, and here's what the message would say. "What I like best about you is that you value accuracy....eMeS"

The point of the matter being that RK's initial post in this topic clearly recognizes that filtering exists in libraries, and that it's dangerous to strike with a broad brush.

MS

rsutton

Megadeth4168 wrote: »

I'm trying to pull together some thoughts from different groups on the topic of filtering public library internet. Specifically, should access to internet on Public Library computers be filtered unless you (assuming 18 or older) ask to have unfiltered access?

We all know that filtering out sites will reduce the amount of malware one has the ability to install on a computer, so I don't think you are asking about the technical perspective of whether this is beneficial.

The effects of filtering content are very far reaching and either way is going to have both positive and negative repercussions. I don't see how this decision would need to be made by an IT professional, unless it was being made on a technical premise, in which case my first paragraph states how I would respond.

Forsaken_GA

RobertKaucher wrote: »

Yeah, this is called a Fallacy of Extension - you are exaggerating my point of view and extending it to the absurd. SARCASM Because you know I think buses should be forced into war zones and every pedo on the street should be allowed to look at pr0n on library PCs. /SARCASM Libraries have the right and obligation to filter and should do it and it should be within societal norms - but what is filtered needs to be considered and what is good for the company where you work is not good for a library. All I am saying is that the considerations are different and that needs to be acknowledged and thought about by the people who are doing the filtering.

Thanks for the English lesson

Look, I'm not trying to be antagonistic. When you make statements like not stopping public transit to a high crime area just because it's a high crime area, I disagree strongly with that. That would be, imho, one of the BEST reasons to stop public transit to that area. For whatever reasons, you may disagree, and that's cool.

I also disagree that considerations are different when it comes to filtering on public network access. As far as I'm concerned, the public library should follow the same standards of what is and isn't allowed at the public schools. Simply put, kids are going to be using those boxes too, and while it may not be fair for adults, it all comes down to the lowest common denominator.

Again, you may not agree with me, and that's cool. But telling me I need to acknowledge your *OPINION* as valid is another sticking point with me. I acknowledge your right to believe what you want. I happen to think you're wrong, and I'm going to express that. I'll attempt to do so without further rhetoric, but no promises!

I don’t understand why on TE saying that actions we take in the IT field have broader consequences and that we need to consider those is so controversial. Again, in no place am I disagreeing that filtering should be done. I did not even express an opinion as to when it should be done. I simply stated that when it is done it should be given more thought in the case of a public library than in the case of a place of employment as the needs of the users are distinct.

Well, any opinion that relates to religion, politics, and personal preference is going to be controversial. You're of the opinion that a deft touch should be employed and that filtering too heavily would have a negative effect on the community.

I'm more of a HULK SMASH kind of guy. I actually frequent my public library quite often when I'm studying for an exam (far, far too many distractions at home), and most of the time when I walk into the library, what's on people's screens are some variety of hotmail, facebook, or youtube. I actually think cutting off access to crap which essentially encourages wasted productivity would actually benefit the community more, but that's a whole other issue.

Forsaken_GA

eMeS wrote: »

I can't give RK rep, or I would, and here's what the message would say. "What I like best about you is that you value accuracy....eMeS"

The point of the matter being that RK's initial post in this topic clearly recognizes that filtering exists in libraries, and that it's dangerous to strike with a broad brush.

Hell, I'll proxy it in for you. I regard RK as an intelligent speaker, and an asset to our little corner of the internet. I just happen to not agree with him on this particular subject

SteveLord

Do whatever with them. "Public" doesn't mean a free computer to do whatever you feel like with. Computers cost less than what some people pay for a new cell phone every 6 months. The last time I set foot in a library was to do a craigslist sale. Not sure when I would need to visit one again.

tdean

Dont CIPA laws supersede any others? if a kid and an adult have access to the same system, too bad for the adult, correct?

Megadeth4168

Wow! thank you everyone for providing feedback! There are a lot of good comments coming out of this thread.

Balantine

tdean wrote: »

Dont CIPA laws supersede any others? if a kid and an adult have access to the same system, too bad for the adult, correct?

Yeah, there are definitely child protection laws about this.

Another place of leverage is - Who pays for the connection?

If the connection is supported and paid for by someone else - usually a state network - then there are definitely rules that go along with that. eRate funding has to show due diligence I believe. Schools and Libraries Program - USAC

The Homeland Security Act resulted in controversy over Libraries who did not want to give their patron data to the FBI too. I believe the libraries won but don't quote me on that...

it_consultant

Regardless of what you may or may think about censoring, one of our jobs as IT professionals is to protect the businesses we work for from legal troubles surrounding the use of IT equipment. For example, I don't really care if you look at ****, and there is nothing illegal about it. However, it only takes one lawsuit from a disgruntled employee who was offended by what they saw on someone else's computer screen before they look at you and say "Why were they allowed to get there in the first place?"

Imagine you are the manager of IT for a library and you had to field complaints from parents whose kids saw **** on the library computer. The city gets sued, it gets on the news...etc. Your job is not to answer 1st amendment questions, its to protect your employer.

eMeS

it_consultant wrote: »

Imagine you are the manager of IT for a library and you had to field complaints from parents whose kids saw **** on the library computer. The city gets sued, it gets on the news...etc. Your job is not to answer 1st amendment questions, its to protect your employer.

You can also be sued for violating someone's 1st amendment rights.

MS

SteveLord

eMeS wrote: »

You can also be sued for violating someone's 1st amendment rights.

MS

If the computer includes a usage agreement, they aren't violating anything.

RobertKaucher

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

I'm more of a HULK SMASH kind of guy. I actually frequent my public library quite often when I'm studying for an exam (far, far too many distractions at home), and most of the time when I walk into the library, what's on people's screens are some variety of hotmail, facebook, or youtube. I actually think cutting off access to crap which essentially encourages wasted productivity would actually benefit the community more, but that's a whole other issue.

Your projection of hulk smash aside, I think from what I know of you there is no way in hell you would create a situation that did not satisfy your users' needs - I don't mean wants - I mean needs. They might want a slice of pie with their Intertubes... but tough.

If you decide to filert x, y, z because it does not meet certain standards and feel it would actually assist the community you ARE thinking about it. But if a net admin has put a solution into place and has to constantly change it, he/she did not do his/her job properly in the first place. In a library for every person who comes up ans says "Hey, I can't get to the NRA's web site," there are probably 50 people who needed access to that resource or a similar one who did not mention it. And that is what I think would be wrong - the unintentional censorship of valid resources. But each community needs to decide what constitutes valid - not some gung ho network guy.

apena7

RK: If you had the keys to the kingdom, how would you approach this issue? I'm curious to know what you would actually do.