shiawasseecounty.net

A message to the those who use the Shiawasee District Library--

The Sunday Independent contains a three page ad from a grassroots citizen's group.

Their goal is to implement restrictive filtering of the public access computers at the Shiawassee District Library.

The Public Internet Access policy that this group wants the Shiawassee District Library Board members to approve can be viewed in it's entirety at this link:

http://stoplibraryporn.com/?page_id=13

Listed below are the 15 points that the citizen's group wants implemented. My comments are in blue.

Public Internet Access/Computer Use Rules

1. All computer users must sign in at the circulation desk each time they use a computer. A separate sign in sheet is available for adults and young adult computers.

2. Children who are 13 years of age or younger must have a parent or guardian with them to use the Internet. Children between 14 and 18 years of age must have a parent or guardian come to the library to fill out an Internet Registration Form. A child's ability to access necessary information for academic assignments would be eliminated if the parent or guardian is not able to accompany the child to the library. An 18 year old is a legal adult and does not need parental permission for many decisions. Adults are allowed to access the internet on public access computers at the library without parental permission.

3. Computer use is limited to two hours per day per person. Computer usage is scheduled for one-hour blocks except during times of high demand; normally between the hours of 3:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. When demand is high, usage will be set for one half hour blocks with one computer designated as an “Express Computer” at 15-minute intervals.

4. Forms are available at the desk if anyone has a concern over a website that is inappropriate or a website that is not accessible. These sites will be reviewed. Upon written request, a computer that can be secured from viewing by minors may have the filter disabled if an adult user demonstrates the need, for research or other lawful purposes. Whose guidelines will be used to determine if a website is inappropriate?

5. A computer or computers for Internet users with young children will be located in the children’s section of the library. The adult is still responsible for the child’s behavior and the Library staff will ask the adult to end their Internet session if the child becomes disruptive or begins to wander outside the confines of the children’s section. The child’s safety is a priority to the Library Board and Staff. The child's safety is the priority of the parent or guardian who brings the child to the library. The job of the library staff is not to provide daycare services.

6. Internet and computer usage is available on a walk-in basis.

7. Computer users will be notified before their session ends so they can finish their tasks. All users will be notified 10 minutes before the library closes for the day.

8. No more than two people are allowed at a computer station at one time.

9. Users may only use computer software installed or provided by the library. The installation of the user’s own software is prohibited as is saving files on the library’s computers.

10. Users must have their own e-mail accounts to send and receive emails.

11. Users are not to subscribe to news groups, listservs, or participate in chats. News groups: Accessing certain forums could be blocked. Listservs: large emailings could be blocked. Will you be able to receive the online newsletters and payment reminders you signed up for? Chats: Does this mean you can't access AIM, yahoo chat, or any other chat sites? What exactly will the proposed filtering censor?

12. Report any problems with the computer to the library staff. Users will be held financially responsible for damage to hardware or software if caused by abuse.

13. There is a per page charge for black and white or color copies. The user is responsible for all copies that are printed. Future computer use will be denied if payment is not made.

14. Individuals using the library’s wireless connection for their laptops, and other wireless devices, are subject to the library’s policy regarding appropriate use. Laptops, cell phones and other devices are the private property of the patron. How does the citizen's group propose that library staff filter and monitor the private property of the patrons?

15. Any questions or concerns regarding the time limits, blocking of websites, or other issues may be directed to the Library Director. If questions or concerns are not resolved, a letter may be directed to the Shiawassee District Library Board.

The three page ad from the citizen's group includes a letter from Director Steve Flayer to the Shiawassee District Library board members.

The spokesperson for the citizen's group has inserted his/her response throughout the letter.

I would like to address some of the spokesperson's responses.

The first response by the spokesperson contains this: "a ten year old girl who was harmed because of the library's lack of a proactive, strong filtering policy" and "the scandal of a child who has been harmed on this administration's watch"

Where was the responsible parent or guardian of this 10 year old child? The child was left unsupervised, on the lower level of the library, while the grandmother was on the upper level. The child then wandered, unsupervised, to the upper level to find her grandmother. If the grandmother had been supervising the child, perhaps this very unfortunate event would not have occurred. A public library is a public building, filled with strangers...much like a local store. Why would one leave a young child unsupervised?

The first response by the spokesperson also contains this: "implication of a hidden agenda" This issue has went from an offer of free filtering for one year to proposing policy to the library board.

In the fourth and fifth response by the spokesperson: "an agenda to bring obscenity into the library" and "the agenda of bringing obscenity into the library"
Public access to the internet has been available at the Shiawassee District Library for at least 10? years or longer. There has been no agenda under retired Director Ken Uptigrove, or under current Director Steve Flayer to bring obscenity into the library.

In the closing response by the spokesperson: ""What is Director Flayer's agenda in objecting to the strongest Internet filtering policy allowed under the laws of out land for the sake of our children? Speaking for myself: it's called censorship and that is why I object.

I hate people who say, "It's for the sake of the children!" They're usually the ones who are too freak'n lazy to parent their own kids and want someone else to do it for 'em. (Either that, or whacky religious right crusaders, who are just as bad in their own way.)

If they want censorship, I hear Iran has some open jobs. Maybe they should take a look.

I have a much easier solution that doesn't bring 1984 to the library (in reality not in book form). Implement OpenDNS, free (might be a small fee for business and library use) DNS servers that can be setup to filter unwanted websites. http://www.opendns.com/

If the 10 year old child had been properly supervised by her grandmother this unfortunate event could have been prevented. A 2 story public building filled with strangers coming and going is not a safe place to leave a child unsupervised. The child was left unsupervised on the lower level while the grandmother went to the second level.

Policy proposal #5 from the citizen's group:

5. A computer or computers for Internet users with young children will be located in the children’s section of the library. (the computers have been segregated in this manner for a long time-- children's on the lower level--adults on the upper level) The adult is still responsible for the child’s behavior and the Library staff will ask the adult to end their Internet session if the child becomes disruptive or begins to wander outside the confines of the children’s section. The child’s safety is a priority to the Library Board and Staff.

The child's safety is the priority and responsibility of the parent or guardian. The library staff does not provide day care services and the library board members are not present.

I read the advertisement in the paper, and I was angry that they would attempt to destroy the reputation of someone just to advance their commercial interests in selling their particular software. This is about making profit, not about protecting children. The real problem with children SEEING the screens of the adult (unblocked Internet) computer when someone has pornography displayed is that the library has made no provision for blocking the view from the rear (over the shoulder) when an adult is on line. If children are segregated from physical access to a viewing point that allows them to see the unblocked computer, and are prevented by library policy from using the unblocked computer, then no child will be directly harmed by seeing something they are not psychologically prepared to see.

This attempt to use the argument that "it is for the children" is a transparent ploy to persuade the gullible into obeying the desires of a control freak. That is ultimately what this issue is about - CONTROL; it is not about obscenity or pornography, but simply the ability of people to control others by imposing their values and standards on society, and making a profit while doing so. It isn't necessary to use the Covenant Eyes filtering software in order to block the internet, when simple rearranging of the adult computer layout and using screens to prevent looking over the shoulder will do the same thing as far as minors being exposed to offensive material.

I can remember years ago when helping my children do schoolwork at home, that search engines would frequently turn up pornographic sites when looking for material that had nothing to do with sex. The people that market pornography were always one step ahead of the people trying to block them, just as the hackers kept one step ahead of those selling anti-virus software to protect computers. The blocking software then would allow offensive material through the block, but restrict good material from being displayed. I had to turn off the blocking filters and provide direct supervision while the children went on line, so that they could access what they needed without being exposed to the trash.

Blocking software has the feature of imposing someone else's values on those that use it. Those values may be different than the values of the user. Many filters attempt to block pages that have reference to violence, but those filters usually are set up to block any reference to firearms, such as dealers web catalogs, manufacturers web pages, enthusiasts groups, firearms safety training groups, hunting groups, etc. People may be looking for information on health and illness, and be blocked from beneficial sites because certain anatomical references are interpreted by the filter software as falling into an obscene or pornographic area. The implementation of the filter and the settings determine what is passed and what is blocked. CENSORSHIP is what it boils down to, and when the people performing the censorship (controlling the filter settings) happen to be doing so with taxpayer funds, it is a violation of the Constitution.

I don't want someone else telling me what I can look at on the internet. I have enough common sense and respect for others to know that allowing children to look over the shoulder of someone viewing pornography is not going to be solved by imposing restrictions on the sites that can be accessed. Filters do not take the place of responsibility for proper configuration of the facility and the hardware that is installed. Filters are not perfect, and they will allow some offensive material through the block, and they will block non-offensive material far more often than they pass offensive material.

Filters are only necessary when children are not supervised by a parent or other responsible adult. That is the true issue that needs to be dealt with. Why should the library be held responsible for performing the duty of the parent or guardian of the child? Why do we want adults to be limited by the same restrictions we place on the children? This is a case of someone trying to force their brand of morality on everyone else. That is reasonable when actual harm to a victim is involved, but not in other cases.

Children know far more about sex at younger ages in our current society, than when I was growing up. They learn it from their peers, and by watching TV and playing games on the computer. They see it every day on the streets and in the classrooms at school. They wear clothing in public that at one time the prostitutes would have been embarrassed to be seen in by their parents. Young girls dress like sluts, and think nothing of it (neither do their parents). The amount of flesh that is exposed by these children is far more likely to lead to sexual activity than inadvertently seeing some pornography on a screen of a library PC when they walk behind an adult at an unblocked computer.

Children need to be prepared to face the realities of life, and shielding them from seeing things on a computer, that they can see and talk about in real life with their friends, is not preparing them to deal with sex. Part of the problem we have with children having sex at early ages is due to parental negligence. Depending on a filter to protect the children, and doing nothing else is negligent. The filter gives a false sense of security, and a false sense of having met the parental obligation to protect the child. It attempts to transfer the parents responsibility to someone else, providing the parent with an excuse for not taking the time to supervise and teach their child.

It looks like this is an attempt to impose a religious standard on the content getting into the libraries. It may not be limited to porn; it will spread to information on reproduction, STDs, sexuality, etc. Not even the Supreme Court of the US can define "porn." What makes this group the expert?

Once they get the Internet, they'll go after the books, probably on the basis that you can't have a different standard for the Internet than you do the books.

Since they want to cut off access to newsgroups and listservs, will they also cut off access to this forum? During the Sheriff controversy, many people referred to this forum as a blog and as a newsgroup. Technical people know the difference, but not normal users. Who will decide who has access to what?

The fact that this is driven by the same people who 1) sell Internet filtering software and 2) provide Internet access to the county government, also makes me question the motives.

Finally, it's just silly to say that someone wants to bring porn / obscenity into the libraries. I mean, really.

Capitalism at it's finest! Buy this car to drive to work, drive to work to pay for this car...

Interesting post, OoM. If I'd been forced to make a prediction, I would have guessed you would have gone the other way on this issue. I agree with your position.



As opposed to socialism, where I drive to work to pay for the car that you get for free?

LOL






Isn't this fun?

It's gas, grass or as... in socialism too... Nobody rides for free!

As in it's rumored that many anti virus companies write the virus they protect you from, I would not doubt that many of the issues of kids going to bad sites were orchestrated as well by the safe surfers selling the software to prevent it.

I must have missed something here! Where do I get a free car?????

Who are these people?

THREE FULL PAGES OF ADVERTISEMENT IN THE SUNDAY INDEPENDENT

TWO FULL PAGES OF ADVERTISEMENT IN THE SUNDAY ARGUS-PRESS

good grief.none of our political candidates could afford advertising like that

Who are they and where do they get all the money for this kind of advertising?

That's my first question. Are we allowing 'somebody' to invade our county?